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.

Jesus' coming Kingdom on land.


Recommended Posts

If Christ visited the earth in all his Glory to take His Bride, then His Kingdom would be on earth for as long as He was, and all unrighteousness would be melted away, if he then left the earth would be brand new and pure if He has chosen to sustain it for his eternal purposes .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply
36 minutes ago, Ronda said:

O

"Old-Pilgrim", yes, that is my understanding.  I believe that a future period of 7 years tribulation will occur. The bible refers to it as the "time of Jacob's trouble". During that time (which Daniel, Revelation, and others refer to) there will be many events transpire upon the entire world (not just the Jewish people). But there are specific things which will happen to Israel during that time... I believe 2/3rds of the Jewish people will die during that time, but 1/3 will survive through it and turn to Christ, and yes, at the end ALL (remaining remnant of Jews) will be saved.

Why do I believe that? Because that's what the bible (God's word says):

Jeremiah 30:7 "Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it."

Zechariah 13:
8 "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein."

9 "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God."

Joel 2:18 "Then will the Lord be jealous for his land, and pity his people."

Joel 2:32 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call."

Romans 11:26 "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"
 

 

Rondah there might be some truth in the position you hold to, however;

Acts 2:21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:17  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

Romans 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

These verses quote from Joel in the context of the verses having been or being fulfilled. Also Have you ever meditated or pondered on how they (the state and the state church) used to use green wood when burning Christians or send out armies over large areas with free lenience to kill Christians, or cut the flesh from their lower Jaws before burning them,  a long slow torture was considered to be mercy, and kindness, giving the Christians more time to recant. Now I may be wrong, but to me that was 'GREAT TRIBULATION', and I have also heard that it was the Jesuits who formulated the doctrine of the seven year tribulation in order to 'hide' or 'cover' the truth of church history (the word 'hell' means 'to cover/hide' Revelation 6:8  And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.). the term GREAT TRIBULATION is referring to earth, how great could Tribulation get for an individual or for an estimated 120 000 000 individuals at the hands of Rome? not to mention the rest since then!

notice hell follows death. The Death cult murders, then they cover it up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Those verses quoted in Joel have NOT been fulfilled (yet).  Neither has this one:

Zechariah 14:4 "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."
 

The time of Jacob's trouble/the tribulation is described in detail throughout the bible.  It is also referred to as a time so terrible there are no other times which can compare in the past nor will there be in the future a time so horrible.

Matthew 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Jeremiah 30:7 "Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it."
 

God is very specific about the degree of tribulation being worse than we've ever seen. YES, we've seen past horrible tribulations upon Jewish and Christians both. However, as horrible as they were, the time described in Revelation (and elsewhere) is unique in that it will be the worst tribulation ever. It's ironic you brought out the verse you chose as an example... Revelation 6:8 describes a future event which will be the opening of the 4th seal.  Just a few verses later it described the 6th seal. 

Revelation 6:12 "And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;"
13 "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind."
14 "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."
 

So your theory of Revelation 6:8 being a past event doesn't make sense, if Rev. 6:8 has (supposedly) already happened, then the reasoning would follow that Revelation 6:14 has already (supposedly) happened. So let me ask you... When was that period of time when EVERY mountain and island were moved out of their places??? It is a future event. So horrible we cannot truly grasp. And the seal judgments are near the beginning! There will then be trumpet and vial/bowl judgments to come after that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Alan said:

Brethren,

Pastor Markle brought out an extremely acute observation, and question to Invicta, that needs to be answered. I think Pastor Markle is awaiting the answer (so am I).

Also, if you check out the words of the Lord Jesus as spoken in John 18:36 the word, "now," is taken out of some of the new versions of the Bible. Methiks Pastor Markle has, "hit the mark," on this issue.  :goodpost:

Alan 

 

Just a heads up here fellas...Bro. David is 5 hours ahead of us here in the U.S.

I am sure he will get to it when he can.

And no, Alan, Pastor Markle has not hit the mark. Just show a fellow brother a little patience, please.

Yes, like 3 mods do take it out, where others use a different phrasing of the same meaning, and all the rest do use it.

Not much to support any conspiratorial MV issue.

The important thing is 'what does Markle think it means?', which implies something of major importance.

Evidently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

The Death cult murders, then they cover it up.

?????????????????? What are you talking about??????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 hours ago, Alan said:

Brethren,

Pastor Markle brought out an extremely acute observation, and question to Invicta, that needs to be answered. I think Pastor Markle is awaiting the answer (so am I).

Also, if you check out the words of the Lord Jesus as spoken in John 18:36 the word, "now," is taken out of some of the new versions of the Bible. Methiks Pastor Markle has, "hit the mark," on this issue.  :goodpost:

Alan 

 

Don't panic.  I don't rush to answer fatuous questions I will reply in due course.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Just a heads up here fellas...Bro. David is 5 hours ahead of us here in the U.S.

I am sure he will get to it when he can.

And no, Alan, Pastor Markle has not hit the mark. Just show a fellow brother a little patience, please.

Yes, like 3 mods do take it out, where others use a different phrasing of the same meaning, and all the rest do use it.

Not much to support any conspiratorial MV issue.

The important thing is 'what does Markle think it means?', which implies something of major importance.

Evidently.

Brethren,

For a person to say that taking out the the word "now,' from the very lips of the Lord Jesus by these modern translations is, "a different phrasing of the same meaning, and all the rest do use it," is incorrect. And, to say, "Not much to support any conspiratorial MV issue" is also incorrect. It is not a "conspiratorial" issue, it is a violation of the very words of the scripture.

Pastor Markle has indeed "hit the mark" in his acute observation.

The deliberate taking out of the word, "now" by these modern translations is in complete unbelief of the doctrine of the coming, literal Kingdom of the Lord Jesus as prophesied by the prophets and revealed in Revelation 20:4-6

Furthermore, it is in deliberate violation of the warning given by the Holy Spirit in Revelation 22:18 and 19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the prophecy of this book of thisprophecy, God shall take away his part of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

These translators who take away the very words of the Lord Jesus, "now," in John 18;36 are in clear violation of this warning. These translators despise the very words of the Lord Jesus, the scriptures and the doctrine of the coming, visible kingdom of the Lord Jesus.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"But now is my Kingdom not from hence."

 

'But my Kingdom is not from hence."

 

There is most assuredly a difference.  The word "now" indicates a specific time frame.  The present time in which Christ Jesus was speaking.  This leaves toom for a coming Kingdom,... a Kingdom that the Word of God declares is to come.

 

Why would Jesus even teach His Disciples to pray, "Thy Kingdom come" if His Kingdom would not be established on Earth at a future time?

 

Hence, the necessity of the word "now" in John 18:36. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Invicta said:

Don't panic.  I don't rush to answer fatuous questions I will reply in due course.  

I don't consider the very word of God "fatuous".  What one might have eaten for supper or the latest score of a sports game... those would be silly or inconsequential questions, but questions about the word of God are certainly not "fatuous".  I revere the word of God.  God certainly doesn't consider His word to be "fatuous":

In reading Matthew 5, Jesus spoke to His disciples in verses 13-16 about being the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Do you not find it interesting (I do) that directly after those verses (13-16) comes verses 17 & 18:
17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
18  "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

It strikes me as I read this that in order to be the salt and the light, Jesus includes the importance of accuracy. I have studied on "jots and tittles", what I found was not what I expected... the jot (yodh) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The "tittle" is a decorative mark drawn on the upper right edge of the "jot" (yodh).
You can see clearly why Jesus wouldn't want the letter (jot) to be taken out, but even more amazingly, He didn't want the "tittle" to be taken out either. Not even the smallest letter or even its decorative spur will ever disappear from the "God Breathed" Word until all is fulfilled. 

How important is it that God's word remain accurate? 
Here's how important the Word of God is: 

God has magnified His Word above His name!!! What a profound statement! (Psalm 138:2)
The Word of God (in Jesus) was made flesh and dwelt among men! (John 1:14)
How long has the Word been with God? Since the beginning! (John 1:1)

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:14 "14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Psalm 138:2 "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

So, according to God's own Holy Word... Jesus placed a very high emphasis on not only the jot but the tittle as well (the decorative tiny mark)... it leads me to feel confident, Jesus would not want entire words left out either. 

To be honest, the lack of reverence to the word of God (being called a fatuous question!) is a direct affront on the word of God and on God Himself.  I have been called many names in my lifetime, and have managed to overcome the hurt and/or anger (with God's help and grace). I have learned to turn the other cheek often times (not always, but again, I bring it to the Lord).  But one thing I cannot stand is someone mocking the word of God.The anger I feel in such circumstances (I believe) is a righteous anger.  It's not because of the offense towards myself, nor towards another brother or sister, that concerns me the most (although there is some concern about that as well). It's the direct affront on the holiness of God's word. If you chose that particular word to outrage those who believe the word of God says what  it means and means what it says... you have gotten your intended reaction. But I would be much more concerned with offending God than offending mankind. And it makes me wonder.... I could say much more... but then I would be feeding fleshy desires. And so I will finish this statement by saying I will pray for you, and most certainly not a fatuous prayer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
30 minutes ago, Ronda said:

I don't consider the very word of God "fatuous". 

You didn't read his comment right here.

No where did Invicta state that the word of God was 'fatuous'. He was in reference to Scotts question. Which sometimes seem to be fatuous, especially when the need to disqualify a coming answer arises.

The obvious has, once again, been supplanted by disagreement, before an answer to the question has even been replied to.

It is a wonder why people even come here for information anymore.

Reading is important to discussion on this forum, and if you're gonna respond in 'attitude', at least make sure to read the post you are gonna 'critique'.

30 minutes ago, Ronda said:

In reading Matthew 5, Jesus spoke to His disciples in verses 13-16 about being the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Do you not find it interesting (I do) that directly after those verses (13-16) comes verses 17 & 18:
17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
18  "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."*

It strikes me as I read this that in order to be the salt and the light, Jesus includes the importance of accuracy. I have studied on "jots and tittles", what I found was not what I expected... the jot (yodh) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The "tittle" is a decorative mark drawn on the upper right edge of the "jot" (yodh).
You can see clearly why Jesus wouldn't want the letter (jot) to be taken out, but even more amazingly, He didn't want the "tittle" to be taken out either. Not even the smallest letter or even its decorative spur will ever disappear from the "God Breathed" Word until all is fulfilled. 

Your verses here are the usual 'hype' from 'unstudied' content, just rattled off from previous teachers 'of the word', that teach a bunch of mumbo jumbo and tell the sheeple what to believe instead of just accepting the pure word of God from HIS writings.

*Please read the bold type that I highlighted...please?

The text is speaking about Jesus Christ fulfilling the sacrifices of the Law to take care of our sin issue.

That has nothing to do with whether a text of a Bible is missing some words.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 11/11/2015, 9:51:02, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Concerning this verse I wish to ask you a question -- What is the meaning of the word "now" in the closing line of John 18:36?

The response from "Invicta" was: " Don't panic.  I don't rush to answer fatuous questions I will reply in due course.  "

 

Who is not reading the comment right? 

I then reply with scripture from the inerrant word of God.

You reply: "Your verses here are the usual 'hype' from 'unstudied' content, just rattled off from previous teachers 'of the word', that teach a bunch of mumbo jumbo and tell the sheeple what to believe instead of just accepting the pure word of God from HIS writings."

The Word of God is neither mumbo jumbo, nor is it inaccurate.  I didn't base my answer on what any previous teacher taught, other than the Lord Jesus being the teacher. I'm sorry if the Word of God offends you. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Ronda said:

The response from "Invicta" was: " Don't panic.  I don't rush to answer fatuous questions I will reply in due course.  "

Who is not reading the comment right? 

I then reply with scripture from the inerrant word of God.

You reply: "Your verses here are the usual 'hype' from 'unstudied' content, just rattled off from previous teachers 'of the word', that teach a bunch of mumbo jumbo and tell the sheeple what to believe instead of just accepting the pure word of God from HIS writings."

The Word of God is neither mumbo jumbo, nor is it inaccurate.  I didn't base my answer on what any previous teacher taught, other than the Lord Jesus being the teacher. I'm sorry if the Word of God offends you. 

Yes, you did reply with scripture. Scripture that does not say what you mean. And that is the norm with people that were taught a certain way about these verses.

I know! I taught them for years that way, and I was following what men of God taught me!

So don't go saying you were taught by Jesus, he said what he meant, and what you, and men I have known, teach, is not what Jesus said in these verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Very interesting.  God's word doesn't mean what it says? It only means what YOU say it says? Read the verses I quoted. WHY would Matthew 15: 5:13-16 not have anything to do with Matthew 5:17-18?   If they are supposedly irrelevant to each other, WHY would Jesus have spoken them right afterwards? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ronda,

Amen and amen.

Alan

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

"But now is my Kingdom not from hence."

 

'But my Kingdom is not from hence."

 

There is most assuredly a difference.  The word "now" indicates a specific time frame.  The present time in which Christ Jesus was speaking.  This leaves toom for a coming Kingdom,... a Kingdom that the Word of God declares is to come.

 

Why would Jesus even teach His Disciples to pray, "Thy Kingdom come" if His Kingdom would not be established on Earth at a future time?

 

Hence, the necessity of the word "now" in John 18:36

Standing Firm in Christ,

Amen and amen. Keep up the good work. Your interpretation is entirely correct and appropriate.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

*Please read the bold type that I highlighted...please?

The text is speaking about Jesus Christ fulfilling the sacrifices of the Law to take care of our sin issue.

That has nothing to do with whether a text of a Bible is missing some words.

 

 

Your interpretation of the question of Pilate and the answer of the Lord Jesus is not accurate. The context is kingship in a coming kingdom; not salvation. 

Again, when you said, "That has nothing to do with a text of a Bible is missing some words." Whatever the subject matter, whether for salvation or the coming kingdom, that is the issue: the taking out of a word, a very important word, from the mouth of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the scriptures. This is the reason why Ronda responded the way she did and I commend her for it.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 11/11/2015, 10:35:26, Invicta said:

So how was Abraham saved?  By the law, by circumcision or by faith?

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Genesis 15:2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

Genesis 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

Genesis 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
----------
Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

God counted Abram’s belief in the LORD for RIGHTEOUSNESS. It really never says that Abraham was saved…but counted as “righteous”.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is the Term Israel

Used in the New Testament?

Covenant and reformed theologians believe that New Testament believers, including saved Gentiles, are the true Israel of God. Is it really Biblical to refer to Gentile believers as Israelites? Has God created a “new Israel” that is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles of this present age?

Let us search the Scriptures to see if these things be so. We will examine the 73 times in the New Testament where the term “Israel” is used. How does the New Testament use this term? Is it ever used of the church in general or saved Gentiles in particular?

The following article is taken from the book Israelology–the Missing Link in Systematic Theology, by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum. It is used with his permission.

CONCLUSION

For Dispensational Israelology, the conclusion is that the Church is never called, and is not, a “spiritual Israel” or a “new Israel.” The term “Israel” is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within. It is never used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in particular.

The Israel of God of Galatians 6:16

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Very good study, Linda! Those who attempt to steal the blessings of Israel (yet strangely deny any of the curses) have to twist, spiritualize, and even omit massive amounts of scripture to do so. They pluck out a verse or two, entirely out of context, and apply it to themselves (when the contextual scripture proves their theory wrong). I am amazed by the people who refuse to believe that God said what He meant, and meant what He said.

Romans 11 speaks clearly to the fact that  God has not permanently cast off Israel. He has future plans for them. Not only do the replacement theologists throw out huge chunks of OT scripture, they also have to throw out Romans 11 (and others) as well.  I revere the word of God. What's more, I fear God, and wouldn't knowingly twist scripture to mean something other than what it clearly states. 

Again, Excellent study, Linda!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 minutes ago, Alan said:

Your interpretation of the question of Pilate and the answer of the Lord Jesus is not accurate. The context is kingship in a coming kingdom; not salvation. 

Again, when you said, "That has nothing to do with a text of a Bible is missing some words." Whatever the subject matter, whether for salvation or the coming kingdom, that is the issue: the taking out of a word, a very important word, from the mouth of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the scriptures. This is the reason why Ronda responded the way she did and I commend her for it.

Alan

One unfounded opinion, Alan. Sorry to hear this of you.

Just because you want something to be in a text, doesn't mean it is.

 

36 minutes ago, Ronda said:

Very interesting.  God's word doesn't mean what it says? It only means what YOU say it says? Read the verses I quoted. WHY would Matthew 15: 13-16 not have anything to do with Matthew 5:17-18?   If they are supposedly irrelevant to each other, WHY would Jesus have spoken them right afterwards? 

Huh? When did I say that?

But I do find it humorous that you think they do. Once again...read your own reference below please.

Matthew 15 - 

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

 

1 minute ago, Ronda said:

Very good study, Linda! Those who attempt to steal the blessings of Israel (yet strangely deny any of the curses) have to twist, spiritualize, and even omit massive amounts of scripture to do so. They pluck out a verse or two, entirely out of context, and apply it to themselves (when the contextual scripture proves their theory wrong). I am amazed by the people who refuse to believe that God said what He meant, and meant what He said.

Romans 11 speaks clearly to the fact that  God has not permanently cast off Israel. He has future plans for them. Not only do the replacement theologists throw out huge chunks of OT scripture, they also have to throw out Romans 11 (and others) as well.  I revere the word of God. What's more, I fear God, and wouldn't knowingly twist scripture to mean something other than what it clearly states. 

Again, Excellent study, Linda!

You have plenty to learn in making statements like this in a public forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
34 minutes ago, Alan said:

Your interpretation of the question of Pilate and the answer of the Lord Jesus is not accurate. The context is kingship in a coming kingdom; not salvation. 

Again, when you said, "That has nothing to do with a text of a Bible is missing some words." Whatever the subject matter, whether for salvation or the coming kingdom, that is the issue: the taking out of a word, a very important word, from the mouth of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the scriptures. This is the reason why Ronda responded the way she did and I commend her for it.

Alan

Ok, we are back to the word "now".

You are mixing things up here Alan. I never said Pilate's convo with Christ Jesus had to do with salvation.

Please tell me where I did, I looked over my posts and cannot find such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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

  • 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...