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.

The Widow's Mites


Standing Firm In Christ

Recommended Posts

  • Members

are you familiar with B.H. Carroll?  He was a late 19th-early 20th century Baptist minister.  When asked to address the topic of tithes, he said:  "Oh, men, forsake this new heresy not taught in the Bible, not accepted in any Statement of Faith, not taught by any reputable scholar or commentary."

It appears that modern Baptists have added Fundamentals" to the Baptist Statements of Faith that were never "Fundamentals" to begin with.  Early Baptists saw monetary tithing as "heresy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, Alan said:

SFIC, why don't you just stick to your own blog (and your own book on tithing), and promote your own interpretation of the words of the Lord Jesus, and the other scriptures on your own blog, to those who are likeminded instead of forcing your teachings on us. Your teaching is repugnant.

Alan

Alan,  I can't believe you said this to "standing firm"... I have seen others post things which contradict the bible and are clearly not IFB teaching. We even have mods who believe in post-trib and other non-IFB stances here!!! I've seen Calvinist, replacement theology, and preterism on this site as commonplace discussion (sadly). 

BUT this topic of tithing is not one of those places where I believe it's "off-limits" to discuss.  "Standing firm" has given OT verses to support his stance.  It's obvious there are many of us here divided over this very subject of tithing. I believe many have brought forth their own study findings supported with verses and reasons which are contrary to yours, and I believe many have brought forth verses and reasons which agree with yours. I think both sides have made valid points (from their own interpretation and understanding of scripture).  And I don't think it was kind or Christian-like to tell "Standing Firm" that his teaching is "repugnant".  Others may feel the same about your stance, yet we all have come here to discuss bible topics such as these.  There ARE Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors who do actually preach against tithing. One of them is Dr. David Peacock from Jacksonville, Florida.  I've heard many of his sermons on sermonaudio.com and he also brings forth the same verses "Standing Firm" has.  He's not the only IFB pastor who has been teaching this. My uncle was also an IFB pastor all of his adult life (from age of mid-20's to late 70's when he went on to be with the Lord). He also taught against tithing, tithing was (he said and showed scripturally) a Levitical law, he (my uncle) also stated that we are not under Levitical law, nor are we under Mosaic law, but we are under grace... and his church never suffered because of it either... people gave willingly of a cheerful heart. They built new buildings (for a school), ran buses for children, sent money to missionaries, and paid for kids to go to bible camp in the summer (if they were needy and desired to go), they also had Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners which were taken to elderly and shut-ins.  ALL of this was done without requiring an unbiblical tithe.

There are MANY other topics being discussed/ have been discussed which also actually DO need to be called repugnant... but discussing tithing (either pro or against) should not be considered repugnant. I'm sorry we have parted ways in this one matter, however, I felt compelled to speak up in defense of "Standing Firm" because I (for one) do NOT find his stance repugnant. He has as much right as you and I (or anyone else) to defend his position, and he did so with scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

SFIC...You conveniently leave out the part of this Scripture that I quoted, and that is because it doesn't fit your vendetta against any sort of giving to the work of The Lord.

I'm not trying to stir up anything Jim, and unless I misunderstand what you're saying...but that's not a true statement regarding SFIC. He does believe in giving to the work of the Lord...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother Robey,

First, please understand that I have not engaged and do not intend to engage the matter of tithing in this discussion.  I have only engaged and do only intend to engage in this discussion concerning the correct understanding of Mark 12:38-44.
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

There was no commendation in the text of Mark 12:41ff. The immediate preceding text reveals that widows were being robbed. The immediate text after shows Jesus' anger at the unjust oppression of the widows...

Except that in the passage there is no use whatsoever of the word "anger" or any of its cognates or any of its synonyms.  Nor is there any usage of such in the parallel passage of Luke 20:45 - 21:6.  So then, should we accept what God the Holy Spirit inspired in these passages as they stand; or should we accept such with Brother Robey's assumptions, additions, and adaptations included?
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

He states that the Temple will be destroyed. Why make the statement that the Temple would be destroyed at all, if not because of the unjust actions of its leaders?

I believe that the answer to this question can be discerned through the following passages:

1.  Luke 19:41-44.
2.  Mark 12:1-12 in parallel with Matthew 21:33-46 & Luke 20:9-19.
3.  Mark 12:38-40 in parallel with Matthew 23:1-38 & Luke 22:45-47.
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The prophecy of the Temple's destruction is made due to the actions Christ and His Apostles had just witnessed inside,... a widow being robbed. Context shows no commendation whatsoever.

Actually, the prophecy of the temple's destruction is made due to the things revealed in the passages that I have presented above, with special consideration being given to Luke 19:41-44.
 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 8:06 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Mark 12:40a "Which devour widows houses,..."

 

devour - Greek 'katesthio'

Outline of Biblical Usage: to consume by eating, to eat up, devour - of birds, of a dragon, of a man eating up the little book.  metaph. - to devour i.e. squander, waste: substance;
to devour i.e. forcibly appropriate: widows' property; to strip one of his goods; to ruin (by the infliction of injuries); by fire, to devour i.e. to utterly consume, destroy, of the consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions

 

the whole purpose of Jesus sitting against the wall was to demonstrate to His followers how the widow's living was being "forcibly appropriated." She was forced to give all her living by the scribes of the Law, just as we are forced to pay taxes by the scribes of our laws.

Except through inspiration God the Holy Spirit revealed that the purpose of the Lord in this case was to behold "how the people cast money into the treasury." (see Mark 12:41)  So then, whereas God the Holy Spirit indicated that the Lord's purpose was to behold "how the people" were giving, Brother Robey indicates that the Lord's purpose was to behold how the people were being robbed.  So then, should we accept that which God the Holy Spirit revealed as the Lord's purpose; or should we accept Brother Robey's assumptions, additions, and adaptations?

Furthermore, we should recognize that the verb phrases "being robbed" or "being compelled" are in the passive voice, indicating that the action of these verbs is being performed upon the subject of the verb by a force that is outside the subject of the verb.  On the other hand, the verbs "cast" and "threw" are in the active voice, indicating that the action of these verbs is being performed by the personal engagement of the subject of the verb.  Throughout Mark 12:41-44 we do not find even a single verb concerning the giving of money that is in the passive voice.  Indeed, in this passage every single verb that concerns the matter of giving money is in the active voice.  Therefore, according to the Holy Spirit inspired grammar of this passage, the focus is upon the personal, active giving of the givers.  The focus in NOT upon the robbing or compelling of the givers by a force outside of themselves.
 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 8:06 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus was not commending the widow on her giving at all.  

Actually, the question as to the matter of commendation or not is rooted to the usage of the word "more."  The adverb "more" is a word of comparison, indicating that some action is being performed in a greater manner.  If the particular action is a spiritually positive action (such as giving a gift unto the offerings of God), then indicating that an individual is performing this action more than others is by definition a commendation of that individual.  However, if the particular action is a spiritually negative action (such as robbing others by compelling them to give that which the Lord God has not required), then indicating that an individual or group is performing this action more than others is by definition a condemnation of that individual. 

So then, in Mark 12:41-44 who is described by our Lord Jesus Christ as doing "more"?  The widow.  And with whom is she compared by our Lord Jesus Christ?  With the many that were rich.  And about what action of the widow and the rich does our Lord Jesus Christ indicate that the widow was doing "more"?  The action of casting money into the treasury of the temple.  Even so, the comparison is as follows:

1.  The rich gave to the treasury.
2.  The widow gave MORE to the treasury.

Throughout Mark 12:41-44 the scribes are not at all mentioned in relation to this giving, and the matter of compulsion to give is not at all referenced.
 

7 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The Scripture shows no commendation in that passage.  But it does show condemnation.

The Lord had just warned of the scribes robbing widiw's houses, condemning the ones doing the robbing.  Keeping the passage in context, the Lord was demonstrating how the widows were being robbed... By having to give money to the Temple that was not required by God.  By having to give what she needed to sustain her life.

Brother Robey, as I am certain that you may have discerned, it is my position that the givers of Mark 12:41-44, including both the rich people and the poor widow, were giving gifts unto the offerings of God.  Furthermore, it is my understanding that you would disagree with the position, and that you would rather hold to the position that the givers were giving a type of temple tax that they were being compelled to give by the false authority of the scribes.  Am I correct in my assessment of your position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm pretty sure that if you saw a widow being robbed of all she had to live on, you'd be angry.  (Then again, maybe not. Given your arguments here) vI would be angry.  And I have a gut feeling that Jesus was angry.  My Bible tells me that God is angry with the wicked everyday.  

 

Maybe you don't think it is, but robbing poor widows is wicked.

 

Hmmm, one of the woes in Matthew 23 is due to the scribes and Pharisees laying heavy burdens on people.  I would say taking a poor widow's money, leaving her none to sustain herself with, would be an unjust burden.

 

the context of the widow's plight does not start at verse41,... it starts at verse 38.  

 

She was being robbed, expected to support a crooked religious system and its deceitful leaders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

So, you will listen to John MacArthur, and denounce all real Baptists on this forum? John is not a Baptist, he is a Community Church man. Believes in Lordship Salvation Too. He may be popular, but then again, most false preachers are popular.

I never said that tithing was a Baptist fundamental. I said that you are at odds with our fundamental (Baptist) teachings. It was a reference to your wrong interpretation concerning the widows mites.

And.....you are in error as also shown by other brethren in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

So, you will listen to John MacArthur, and denounce all real Baptists on this forum? John is not a Baptist, he is a Community Church man. Believes in Lordship Salvation Too. He may be popular, but then again, most false preachers are popular.

I never said that tithing was a Baptist fundamental. I said that you are at odds with our fundamental (Baptist) teachings. It was a reference to your wrong interpretation concerning the widows mites.

And.....you are in error as also shown by other brethren in this thread.

Did you not read what I prefaced my post with?  I do NOT listen to John MacArthur.  This was the very first time I ever listened to him.

no, I don't denounce all real Baptist's on this forum.  There are real Baptist's on this forum who also see that the widow was being robbed.  They also don't bow to the monetary tithe requirement lie. I haven't denounced them. 

The monetary tithe requirement doctrine may be popular, but then again, most false doctrines are popular.

Again, reference the word "Independent".  Just because I reject your doctrine that Jesus was commending that widow does not mean I am not IFB.

No, I am not in error.  It is you who is in error.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Ronda said:

Alan,  I can't believe you said this to "standing firm"... I have seen others post things which contradict the bible and are clearly not IFB teaching. We even have mods who believe in post-trib and other non-IFB stances here!!! I've seen Calvinist, replacement theology, and preterism on this site as commonplace discussion (sadly). 

BUT this topic of tithing is not one of those places where I believe it's "off-limits" to discuss.  "Standing firm" has given OT verses to support his stance.  It's obvious there are many of us here divided over this very subject of tithing. I believe many have brought forth their own study findings supported with verses and reasons which are contrary to yours, and I believe many have brought forth verses and reasons which agree with yours. I think both sides have made valid points (from their own interpretation and understanding of scripture).  And I don't think it was kind or Christian-like to tell "Standing Firm" that his teaching is "repugnant".  Others may feel the same about your stance, yet we all have come here to discuss bible topics such as these.  There ARE Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors who do actually preach against tithing. One of them is Dr. David Peacock from Jacksonville, Florida.  I've heard many of his sermons on sermonaudio.com and he also brings forth the same verses "Standing Firm" has.  He's not the only IFB pastor who has been teaching this. My uncle was also an IFB pastor all of his adult life (from age of mid-20's to late 70's when he went on to be with the Lord). He also taught against tithing, tithing was (he said and showed scripturally) a Levitical law, he (my uncle) also stated that we are not under Levitical law, nor are we under Mosaic law, but we are under grace... and his church never suffered because of it either... people gave willingly of a cheerful heart. They built new buildings (for a school), ran buses for children, sent money to missionaries, and paid for kids to go to bible camp in the summer (if they were needy and desired to go), they also had Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners which were taken to elderly and shut-ins.  ALL of this was done without requiring an unbiblical tithe.

There are MANY other topics being discussed/ have been discussed which also actually DO need to be called repugnant... but discussing tithing (either pro or against) should not be considered repugnant. I'm sorry we have parted ways in this one matter, however, I felt compelled to speak up in defense of "Standing Firm" because I (for one) do NOT find his stance repugnant. He has as much right as you and I (or anyone else) to defend his position, and he did so with scripture.

Ronda,

If you look at my post I am not arguing about the tithe. I am questioning SFIC's interpretation on Mark 12 and the Scribes and the Widow.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
20 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The monetary tithe requirement doctrine may be popular, but then again, most false doctrines are popular.

Again, reference the word "Independent".  Just because I reject your doctrine that Jesus was commending that widow does not mean I am not IFB.

No, I am not in error.  It is you who is in error.

 

 

SFIC, this thread is about the widow's mites, yet you continue to insert tithing into the thread.

This is not "my doctrine", your argument is with God's Holy Spirit and His inspiration of His word concerning the widow's mites.

I did read where you said you do not listen to John MacArthur, but I also see where you conveniently run to him because he agrees with you about the widow.

I find it very telling that you will accept the teaching of a non-Baptist over those of your own Independent Baptists.

Incidentally, the word "independent" in IFB does not mean independent from God or His Holy Spirit. It means independent from associations, conventions, or any man made influence outside of the local church. It does not give us license to interpret Scripture any way we choose.

 2Thess. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 
 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

I'm pretty sure that if you saw a widow being robbed of all she had to live on, you'd be angry.  (Then again, maybe not. Given your arguments here) vI would be angry.  And I have a gut feeling that Jesus was angry.  My Bible tells me that God is angry with the wicked everyday.   (emboldening and italics by Pastor Scott Markle)

Brother Robey,

Do you recognize that you have now engaged in circular reasoning?  Earlier you used your viewpoint that Jesus was angry as evidence that the widow was being robbed.  Now you are using your viewpoint that the widow was being robbed as evidence (in accord with your "gut feeling") that Jesus was angry.

So then, was the widow being robbed through the compulsion of some form of temple tax that the scribes had placed upon her?  In Luke 21:1-4 (the parallel passage to Mark 12:41-44) God the Holy Spirit inspired the following:

"And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: for all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."

Certainly, in Mark 12:38-40 (as well as the parallel passage of Luke 20:45-47) there is a condemnation concerning the activity of "devouring."  However, in Luke 21:1-4 (as well as the parallel passage of Mark 12:41-44) there is message and context concerning the giving of gifts "unto the offerings of God" and concerning a poor widow who gave more of a gift "unto the offerings of God" than the rich givers because she gave a higher percentage than they all did, that is -- 100%. 

Gift (Greek "doron") -- meaning "something given to show friendship, affection, support, etc." 

So then:

1.  The rich gave gifts unto the offerings of God.
2.  According to Jesus' assessment, the widow gave MORE of a gift unto the offerings of God.

Even so, I have a "gut feeling" that our Lord Jesus Christ was not at all angry with the giving of gifts "unto the offerings of God," and that our Lord Jesus Christ was indeed commending the poor widow for giving more of a gift "unto the offerings of God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

My argument is not with God's Holy Spirit at all.  It was His Holy Spirit that opened my eyes to the fact that nowhere in the text is there a commendation given to the widow.  It was the Holy Spirit that caused me to know that Jesus would not be praising the actions of one funding a corrupt religious system.

 

I did not run to MacArthur because he agrees with me.  I simply listened to a sermon I googled this afternoon.  You falsely accuse me once again.

 

I find it very telling that you ignore what Independent stands for.  You quote what it means, and yet cannot even seem to grasp that it means independence from man-made influence. (including your own)  ironically, you are attempting to make me believe contrary to what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me, and instead believe the man-made influence of a commendatioon that is not in the text at all.

 

So, if the traditions of other IFB's are contrary to what God, through His Holy Spirit, reveals to me, I am to reject what God reveals and instead embrace traditions of men?

 

oooooookkkkkkaaaaaaaayyyyy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Gift, something given to show affection, support, etc..

 

what she gave was supporting a corrupt religious system.

 

i can't understand how you can believe that the Lord was proud of that.  smh

First, if indeed it was a gift as God the Holy Spirit indicated in Luke 21:1-4 (and I myself have no intention whatsoever of questioning God the Holy Spirit on the matter), then your claim to the motivation of compulsion is not accurate.  It was a gift given, not a tax compelled.

Second, in Luke 21:1-4 God the Holy Spirit not only revealed that it was a gift given, but also that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported unto His disciples that it was a gift given "unto the offerings of God."  So then, are we to accept our Lord Jesus Christ's assessment that it was a gift given "unto the offerings of God" or Brother Robey's assessment that it was a gift given unto "a corrupt religious system"?  I myself will choose to side with our Lord Jesus Christ's actual statement -- a gift given "unto the offerings of God" (which is the reason that I can believe that our Lord would commend her giving for being more than the others).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

People put into the offerings of God all the time every Sunday.  Yet, it has been proven time and again that many do so out of manipulation and coercion.  Given the fact that this account is in the context of widows being robbed, I have no doubt that this widow was manipulated into giving into the offerings of God.  

 

Again, the account makes no sense in the place the author placed it if she wasn't being robbed.

 

Makes no sense that Jesus would be commending the widow for bringing an offering into the place He had just said was now a "den of thieves".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mark 11:17 (KJV) 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

 

Jesus had just said that the Temple had become a den of thieves.  The next day, He returns to the Temple, warning others of the thieves.  Along comes a widow, giving under the assumption that she was giving to God.

She was not.  Rather, she was giving to thieves.

Why would Jesus be commending her for putting her living into a den of thieves?  Obviously, He would not.

 

God wants us to be faithful stewards with our money.  Or, does that not apply if you are a widow and thievesxare on the receiving end of your giving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

People put into the offerings of God all the time every Sunday.  Yet, it has been proven time and again that many do so out of manipulation and coercion.  Given the fact that this account is in the context of widows being robbed, I have no doubt that this widow was manipulated into giving into the offerings of God.  

 

Again, the account makes no sense in the place the author placed it if she wasn't being robbed.

 

Makes no sense that Jesus would be commending the widow for bringing an offering into the place He had just said was now a "den of thieves".

Yet the Holy Spirit reported that she was giving a gift, not that she was being robbed or compelled.  Holy Spirit, or Brother Robey?  Choices, choices.  I choose - the Holy Spirit.

Yet our Lord Jesus Christ reported that she was giving a gift unto the offerings of God, but did not say anything about her doing something wrong in supporting "a corrupt religious system" or "a den of thieves."  Jesus Christ, or Brother Robey?  Choices, choices.  I choose -- the Lord Jesus Christ.
 

Just now, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Mark 11:17 (KJV) 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

 

Jesus had just said that the Temple had become a den of thieves.  The next day, He returns to the Temple, warning others of the thieves.  Along comes a widow, giving under the assumption that she was giving to God.  (emboldening and italics added by Pastor Scott Markle)

  Ohhhh. So now she is not being compelled to pay some type of temple tax, but is giving a freewill gift unto (as she thinks, although wrongly) the Lord God and His work.

6 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Mark 11:17 (KJV) 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

By the way, are you prepared to say that because they had "made it a den of thieves" instead of a "house of prayer," the temple was thereby no longer God's house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

NEWS FLASH!!  Gifts can be given under compulsion.  It's done all the time.  

Parents make a child carry a gift to a party, telling them they cannot go if they don't carry a gift.

churches have parties in which gifts are exchanged.  Many times putting a bare minimum that must be spent on a gift.  

Since the thieves of the Temple were robbing widows houses, I see no reason to doubt that it was through mandated giving of 'gifts'.

Jesus said The Temple was made a den of thieves.  I have no reason to doubt Him.

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.
  • Recent Achievements

  • 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...