Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Question About Preterism


Ukulelemike

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

 

Uh, has anyone considered that in the Mark 12:1-11 parable, "the lord of the vineyard" and his one wellbeloved son are not the same person?  Grammatically, in Mark 12:9 the one who comes and destroys the husbandmen and then gives the vineyard unto others is not the wellbeloved son (who was the one killed and cast out by the husbandmen), but is "the lord of the vineyard" himself.  Thus Mark 12:6 speaks concerning God the Son's first coming; Mark 12:7 speaks concerning God the Son's crucifixion; and Mark 12:8 speaks concerning God the Father's coming in judgment upon "the husbandmen."

Precision in Bible study is important.

Yes, I pointed that out to Covenanter a year or so ago.

God came in judgment when he brought Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, and also when he judged Babylon. God Neb called His servant.  Cyrus, He also called  "My shepherd " and "My anointed" and held his right hand.and no doubt Titus was also God's servant when he brought him against Jerusalem.  Having said that, I don't think that "coming with the clouds is different from the coming when we meet him in the air on the last day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

Uh, has anyone considered that in the Mark 12:1-11 parable, "the lord of the vineyard" and his one wellbeloved son are not the same person?  Grammatically, in Mark 12:9 the one who comes and destroys the husbandmen and then gives the vineyard unto others is not the wellbeloved son (who was the one killed and cast out by the husbandmen), but is "the lord of the vineyard" himself.  Thus Mark 12:6 speaks concerning God the Son's first coming; Mark 12:7 speaks concerning God the Son's crucifixion; and Mark 12:8 speaks concerning God the Father's coming in judgment upon "the husbandmen."

Precision in Bible study is important.

And yet, Jesus, as suffering Lamb and Servant is resurrected as the Lord of the vineyard, being also God Almighty. So in this, the same Jesus, before death, and post-resurrection, could be the well-beloved son AND the Lord of the vineyard.  In Zechariah 14, who is it that will come and stand upon the mount of Olives to fight in battle? Zechariah refers to Him as, (in the kjv), "LORD", which we know to be the name of God. But if this is the same incident as we read in rev 19, then this is, indeed, Jesus Chrst, who IS the LORD God.  So that Jesus, pre-death, could be the Son, and post-resurrection, could be Lord of the vineyard, is no great stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

And yet, Jesus, as suffering Lamb and Servant is resurrected as the Lord of the vineyard, being also God Almighty. So in this, the same Jesus, before death, and post-resurrection, could be the well-beloved son AND the Lord of the vineyard.  In Zechariah 14, who is it that will come and stand upon the mount of Olives to fight in battle? Zechariah refers to Him as, (in the kjv), "LORD", which we know to be the name of God. But if this is the same incident as we read in rev 19, then this is, indeed, Jesus Chrst, who IS the LORD God.  So that Jesus, pre-death, could be the Son, and post-resurrection, could be Lord of the vineyard, is no great stretch.

Hm, possibly, but I'm not sure.

We have a visiting preacher who is doing a series of studies on angels.  He said the Angel of the LORD in the OT is not the same as the Angel of the Lord in the NT, because of the LORD on the OT is not used in the NT.  After doing a study. I wrote to say I didn't agree. I said that Peter said Ac 2:21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. and when peter quoted David Acts 2:25  For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26  Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27  Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. David Used LORD Peter used Lord.

Even the JWs recognize that in their bible, if not their doctrine for it uses Jehovah in Acts.  Strange really when Peter says David was speaking about Jesus.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And yet, Jesus, as suffering Lamb and Servant is resurrected as the Lord of the vineyard, being also God Almighty. So in this, the same Jesus, before death, and post-resurrection, could be the well-beloved son AND the Lord of the vineyard.  In Zechariah 14, who is it that will come and stand upon the mount of Olives to fight in battle? Zechariah refers to Him as, (in the kjv), "LORD", which we know to be the name of God. But if this is the same incident as we read in rev 19, then this is, indeed, Jesus Chrst, who IS the LORD God.  So that Jesus, pre-death, could be the Son, and post-resurrection, could be Lord of the vineyard, is no great stretch.

Certainly, God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is perfect and eternal Deity, being wholly one with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in the perfect essence of the Eternal Godhead.  However, God's Word also reveals that each of the three Persons of the Eternal Godhead have distinct roles and functions within the relationship of the Godhead and in their relationship toward mankind (as well as the rest of the creation).  Therefore, when a passage of Scripture distinguishes between the precise distinctions of the Persons in the Eternal Godhead and of their different roles and activities, we should recognize that Biblical precision in our Biblical understanding.  Even so, in the parable of Mark 12:1-11, the two "players" of (1) "the lord of the vineyard" and of (2) the one, wellbeloved son of that lord are distinctly presented as different individuals.

On the other hand, if you wish to claim that "the lord of the vineyard" and the wellbeloved son are the same, then you need to be consistent throughout the entire parable.  As such, in Mark 12:1 God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, planted the vineyard, entrusted it to "the husbandmen," and went into a far country.  As such, in Mark 12:2-5 God the Son,the Lord Jesus Christ, sent various of His servants (the Old Testament prophets) unto "the husbandmen."  As such, in Mark 12:6 God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, sent Himself to "the husbandmen," and in so doing referred to Himself as His own Son (seems a little awkward there).  Finally as such, in Mark 12:9 God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, came and destroyed "the husbandmen," and then gave the vineyard "unto others."

Yet there is more; for in Mark 12:10-11 our Lord Jesus Christ concluded the parable by applying a quote from Psalm 118:22-23 (See also Matthew 21:42-44; Luke 20:17-18; Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:6-8).  In the picture of this quotation, "the stone" is equivalent to the wellbeloved son in the parable; "the builders" are equivalent to "the husbandmen" in the parable; and the Lord is equivalent to "the lord of the vineyard" in the parable.  Even so, according to 1 Peter 2:4-8 God the Father is the One who chose God the Son to be the "Chief Corner Stone."  In fact, by considering Mark 12:10-11; Acts 4:11; and 1 Peter 2:4-8 together in unity, we must understand that the parable of Mark 12:1-11 was already in the process of fulfillment at the beginning of "the church age."

Again I say -- Precision in Bible study is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I suppose my primary point was that Jesus didn't come in the clouds in 70AD. I made some suppositions that I really didn't hold to, just throwing some stuff around. My point being, if Jesus came in 70AD, and effectivel, as I assume preterism teaches, oversaw the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, or that it is attributed to Him and associated with Him coming in the clouds, then it is specifically opposite of what the Bible says othewise about His coming in the clouds, and when Jesus comes back to earth to SAVE Jerusalem. Destroying jerusalem is the opposite of saving Jerusalem. I think I got off into a tagent, more than I meant to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I suppose my primary point was that Jesus didn't come in the clouds in 70AD. I made some suppositions that I really didn't hold to, just throwing some stuff around. My point being, if Jesus came in 70AD, and effectivel, as I assume preterism teaches, oversaw the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, or that it is attributed to Him and associated with Him coming in the clouds, then it is specifically opposite of what the Bible says othewise about His coming in the clouds, and when Jesus comes back to earth to SAVE Jerusalem. Destroying jerusalem is the opposite of saving Jerusalem. I think I got off into a tagent, more than I meant to.

Brother Mike,

As far as the "tangent," my original "corrective" posting was not actually directed against you, but against Brother Day's use of Mark 12:9.

As far as the coming of Christ to "SAVE" Jerusalem, it is my understanding that the preterist position (as well as the partial-preterist position, from what I can observe) denies that Christ is coming to "SAVE" Jerusalem at all.  Therefore, they would reject the contradiction that you have presented because they would reject the premise upon which it is founded.  As such, the starting point for you would be to provide Biblical evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ is actually coming again for the purpose in some way of "saving" Jerusalem (and the children of Israel, I presume).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Brother Mike,

As far as the "tangent," my original "corrective" posting was not actually directed against you, but against Brother Day's use of Mark 12:9.

As far as the coming of Christ to "SAVE" Jerusalem, it is my understanding that the preterist position (as well as the partial-preterist position, from what I can observe) denies that Christ is coming to "SAVE" Jerusalem at all.  Therefore, they would reject the contradiction that you have presented because they would reject the premise upon which it is founded.

Agreed. Its just weird, how does SAVE Jerusalem, in Zechariah 14, become DESTROY Jerusalem? What else can Zechariah 14 be about? Seems pretty plain

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Agreed. Its just weird, how does SAVE Jerusalem, in Zechariah 14, become DESTROY Jerusalem? What else can Zechariah 14 be about? Seems pretty plain

Oh, it does not make Biblical sense because it is not Biblical truth.  Indeed, it is quite plain; however, it is at points such as this that our "opponents" must begin their pattern of imprecision in Bible study, claiming things for the text that it does not precisely say and uniting passages together that do not precisely speak about the same things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I suppose my primary point was that Jesus didn't come in the clouds in 70AD. I made some suppositions that I really didn't hold to, just throwing some stuff around. My point being, if Jesus came in 70AD, and effectivel, as I assume preterism teaches, oversaw the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, or that it is attributed to Him and associated with Him coming in the clouds, then it is specifically opposite of what the Bible says othewise about His coming in the clouds, and when Jesus comes back to earth to SAVE Jerusalem. Destroying jerusalem is the opposite of saving Jerusalem. I think I got off into a tagent, more than I meant to.

 Mark 13:1 ¶  And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2  And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Matt 23:34 ¶  Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 

Are you saying that God did not bring Titus to destroy Jerusalem for the cruel murder of His Only Begotten Son by the Jews?  During the Jewish war, Titus was the only one who wanted to save the temple, appealing to the Jews to return to legitimate Roman rule, but there was a madness that seized the rebellious, there were three factions fighting in  Jerusalem and the temple, dead bodies were in the streets  with a terrible stench, and the seditious were trampling on them. 

Are you saying that God did not bring Titus, the prince who was to come to destroy the city?  And the people of the prince, his soldiers, who set fire to the temple against his orders, were not the people of the prince?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 Mark 13:1 ¶  And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2  And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Matt 23:34 ¶  Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 

Are you saying that God did not bring Titus to destroy Jerusalem for the cruel murder of His Only Begotten Son by the Jews?  During the Jewish war, Titus was the only one who wanted to save the temple, appealing to the Jews to return to legitimate Roman rule, but there was a madness that seized the rebellious, there were three factions fighting in  Jerusalem and the temple, dead bodies were in the streets  with a terrible stench, and the seditious were trampling on them.

Are you saying that God did not bring Titus, the prince who was to come to destroy the city?  And the people of the prince, his soldiers, who set fire to the temple against his orders, were not the people of the prince?

 

 

That's not what I'm saying-I am well aware of the historical fact of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. What I don't agree with, however, is this this is fulfillment of either the coming of Christ in the air to resurrect the dead in Christ, and then those who are alive and remain. Nor do I believe this is fulfilment of Zechariah 14 or Revelation 19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

That's not what I'm saying-I am well aware of the historical fact of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. What I don't agree with, however, is this this is fulfillment of either the coming of Christ in the air to resurrect the dead in Christ, and then those who are alive and remain. Nor do I believe this is fulfilment of Zechariah 14 or Revelation 19.

Well I agree.  I don't think any believes that .  I think you have misunderstood Covenanter.  He seems to separate the coming in nthe clouds from the coming when we will meet him in the air.  Don't misquote scripture.  I disagree with Cov on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well I agree.  I don't think any believes that .  I think you have misunderstood Covenanter.  He seems to separate the coming in nthe clouds from the coming when we will meet him in the air.  Don't misquote scripture.  I disagree with Cov on this.

"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." 1The 4:13-18

I dunno, these seem to be pretty much the same thing. Or is it Rev 14:14-16 you're talking about?

"And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped." 

This looks more like, I don't know, the removal of the church to me, not destruction. Destruction takes place with the angel after this. Here Jesus reaps from the earth His wheat, which is what believers are likened to in Matthew. The angel then reaps the vine of the earth, grapes, which then go into the winepress of the wrath of God, which is the beginning of the final falling of God's wrath on the unsaved in yet the future.

Both the events in 1Thes and Rev 19 comprise of the same elements: Jesus in the cloud, gathering to Himself that which is His; an angel's loud voice, even the last trump, the seventh trumpet had sounded shortly before this occursd. They are the same event.

 

By the way, ome DO agree with it-in looking at a site specifically about preterism, a preterists page, they claimed that everything in scripture has already been accomplished, even the coming of the new heaven and new earth, the rapture and resurrection, everything, there is nothing to go anymore. Which is weird, if this is as good as it gets. I guess that's full preterism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

No what I am saying is that scripture says \Christ is descending and we will meet Him in the air.  It does not say he is coming to the air, that is a Brethren invention and not what scripture says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

So He is coming to outpour His wrath, as in Rev 19, or something else? What is Rev 14:14-17?

 

John 17: 9  I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10  And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
    11 ¶  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12  While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13  And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14  I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15  I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

May I be so bold as to interrupt this train of thought and go back to an earlier post of Alan's?  (BTW, Alan, excellent scriptural references! Truly "meat" for study!)

I don't see any specific answers to all the scripture Alan listed in his post?
(the verses referenced such as in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, and more) which clearly show prophecies/promises specifically to the nation of Israel that have NOT YET been fulfilled

I would like to know how they (preterist) think these things could have already been fulfilled either in 70AD or in the present age of grace??? I have not yet seen an answer to those questions??? Do they (preterists) just "throw out" those scriptures to make the case for preterism "fit" with their views?  

It may seem I am being contentious, and I admit I am a bit contentious on this, but only because I truly want to know what  those verses mean to a preterist? Does anyone who holds to the preterist view have any answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

A good question, Ronda. I can only speak for myself, as everyone "knows" what Preterists believe and can choose what to argue against. 

I prefer to think in terms of Covenant Theology - see my sermon in the everlasting covenants thread. Those prophesies and promises will all be gloriously fulfilled in the NH&NE. 

Jesus' saving work, shedding his blood of the New Covenant, secured all the covenant promises to Israel. He confirmed the covenant with Israel during his earthly ministry and by the Apostolic Gospel. See Peter's sermon in Acts 3. Many thousands of Jews believed and became true children of Abraham and of God, by faith in Christ. 

Down the ages countless folk of Abraham's descent have trusted Christ, but have been disowned by their communities. 

In glory, in the NH&NE, Abraham's seed including all nations on earth, will enjoy the covenant promises for all eternity. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I prefer to think in terms of Covenant Theology . . . .  Those prophesies and promises will all be gloriously fulfilled in the NH&NE. 

Brother Day,

Earlier in this thread, Brother Mike (the originator of this thread), made specific reference to the prophetic utterances of Zechariah 14.  So then, do you believe that those prophetic utterances in Zechariah 14 shall all be fulfilled in the "time period" of the New Heaven & New Earth?  Or, do you believe that those prophetic utterances in Zechariah 14 have already been fulfilled in some past event; and if so, what event or time period would that have been?  Or, do you believe that those prophetic utterance in Zechariah 14 shall yet be fulfilled in some future event or time period that is not the "time period" of the New Heaven & New Earth and that will occur sometime before the creation of the New Heaven & New Earth?  Or, do you believe that those prophetic utterances in Zechariah 14 have somehow become nullified completely, such that they shall not be fulfilled at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Brother Day,

Earlier in this thread, Brother Mike (the originator of this thread), made specific reference to the prophetic utterances of Zechariah 14.  So then, do you believe that those prophetic utterances in Zechariah 14 shall all be fulfilled in the "time period" of the New Heaven & New Earth?  Or, do you believe that those prophetic utterances in Zechariah 14 have already been fulfilled in some past event; and if so, what event or time period would that have been?  Or, do you believe that those prophetic utterance in Zechariah 14 shall yet be fulfilled in some future event or time period that is not the "time period" of the New Heaven & New Earth and that will occur sometime before the creation of the New Heaven & New Earth?  Or, do you believe that those prophetic utterances in Zechariah 14 have somehow become nullified completely, such that they shall not be fulfilled at all?

You are an expert at asking questions, seemingly all intended to question one's faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the one in & through & by whom all God's declared purposes are centred. 

Instead, your focus is on national Israel, whether or nor they are obedient to the law & covenants, & the literal fulfilment in some future dispensation. 

Your question about Zec. 14 is clearly intended to embarrass me, as you do not believe it has been fulfilled, & will be fulfilled in the tribulation you teach that will occur after the supposed rapture.

Asking about the last chapter of 14 is unreasonable. The prophecy of Zechariah (with Haggai) concerns the rebuilding of the temple & Jerusalem, as prophesied  by Daniel & recorded in Ezra. Many of the specific prophecies directly relate to Jesus & particularly to the final week of his ministry. And some of these are cryptic, & without the inspired references & precedents we would hesitate to interpret them. 

Guided by NT interpretation, prophecies relating to the high priest, Joshua,clearly relate to his namesake, Jesus. Less obviously, prophecies relating to the governor, Zerubbabel, who was next in the kingly line from David, relate to King Jesus. Prophecies concerning Jerusalem as towns without walls relate to the heavenly Jerusalem inhabited by the believing people of God. 

Regarding the rebuilding prophecies, we see Zerubbabel building the temple in the power of the "my spirit" by grace, grace. That is a prophecy of the spread of the church, the living temple, by the grace Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. 

We see the baptismal fountain opened, the people looking at the one they pierced and a third of the people coming through the AD 70 destruction, calling on Jesus' name & owning him as "my God." 

When we come to Zec. 14,we see Jerusalem besieged by all nations. While earthly Jerusalem was besieged & destroyed , the Jerusalem of prophecy is a spiritual, heavenly city & its earthly citizens are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. That city has been expanding since Pentecost as "towns without walls" but always suffering persecution. The vile persecutions depicted in the opening verses are similar to the reports of the activities is ISIS against the church in the Middle East. We see God, there, with his suffering people, supporting them by his indwelling Holy Spirit, and strengthening them to be faithful unto death, & vindicating them. We could also understand the account as the persecution suffered in Europe at the hands of the RC Inquisition. Persecution goes on. 

Happily also, some nations did recognise the Gospel & official recognised the Christian faith, allowing its citizens to worship freely. 

When the present millennium draws to a close we may expect all hell to break loose when Satan is freed for his little season. Could it be beginning now?

Jesus' injunction stands until he returns in glory for resurrection & judgement, & to bring about the NH&NE:

Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

May I be so bold as to interrupt this train of thought and go back to an earlier post of Alan's?  (BTW, Alan, excellent scriptural references! Truly "meat" for study!)

I don't see any specific answers to all the scripture Alan listed in his post?
(the verses referenced such as in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, and more) which clearly show prophecies/promises specifically to the nation of Israel that have NOT YET been fulfilled

I would like to know how they (preterist) think these things could have already been fulfilled either in 70AD or in the present age of grace??? I have not yet seen an answer to those questions??? Do they (preterists) just "throw out" those scriptures to make the case for preterism "fit" with their views?  

It may seem I am being contentious, and I admit I am a bit contentious on this, but only because I truly want to know what  those verses mean to a preterist? Does anyone who holds to the preterist view have any answers?

Ronda,

I am very happy that I was able to help you with your understanding of the scriptures. :thumb:

Do not be too surprised if a person who holds to the Preterist method of theology never answers my questions on prophecy in my August 29th post. Most Preterists will give evasive answers (see how Covenanter answers Pastor Markles question concerning Zechariah 14) to honest questions. To a Preterist all of the prophecies given by God by either a Covenant, or a promise, to the sons of Jacob is fulfilled either spiritually to the church, in 70 AD, or is symbolic in some fashion. I asked about Zechariah 14 in my Revelation chapter 19-22 Study awhile ago and then again in my August 29th post and haven't gotten a scriptural answer yet from a Preterist (or any answer as they evade the question or ignore it). By the way, neither will Pastor Markle.

As I am still waiting I guess I better catch up on some sleep. :thofftobed7lpsl4:

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...