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

I suppose if I ignored the surrounding verses and ripped the one verse out of context, added a motive and commendation to the text, I could arrive at thr same false teaching that you do.

 

However, I cannot.  I read the verse in the context of the whole account, thereby allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.  I take into account the fact that God is against the abuse of the poor.  I take into account that the needs of the poor of Israel were to be met.  

 

So many today could care less that a poor widow was made destitute.  So long as their religious organization has the amenities they want, they could care less that another hasn't funds to survive.  Judas Iscariat's bag had to have money in it,... their's do also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

I suppose if I ignored the surrounding verses and ripped the one verse out of context, added a motive and commendation to the text, I could arrive at thr same false teaching that you do.

 

However, I cannot.  I read the verse in the context of the whole account, thereby allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.  I take into account the fact that God is against the abuse of the poor.  I take into account that the needs of the poor of Israel were to be met.  

Brother Robey,

You speak as if all of my contributions to this discussion have ignored the context of Scripture and the comparison of Scripture with Scripture.  I believe that any reader of my postings will be able to observe how much I have engaged in a Scriptural discussion and have provided Scriptural evidences for my position.
 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

So many today could care less that a poor widow was made destitute.  So long as their religious organization has the amenities they want, they could care less that another hasn't funds to survive.  Judas Iscariat's bag had to have money in it,... their's do also.

Concerning this, I have no desire (and have not put forth any effort) in this discussion to speak about "the them."  On the other hand, if it is your intention to include me personally in your comments concerning "the them," then I would request that you gather more information about me personally before you so speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

i see no "evidence" for your position whatsoever.

 

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  Even the Greek word for 'threw in' in The Mark 12 text and the Greek for 'cast' the Luke 21 text, "ballo", carries with it the picture of a violent or intense action.  It is as if the woman is thinking, "They don't care that this is all that I have to live on," then violently throwing the money into the receptacle,... "Ballo" seems to give more credence to the thought that the woman was being forced to give her money to the thieves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed.  And the very same Author also indicated that the temple was "the temple of God" and was God's house.

Matthew 21:12-13 -- "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
 

Indeed, it is possible that the widow and the other givers were deceived into thinking that they were giving gifts "unto the offerings of God," when in truth they were giving "into the hands of thieves."  However, is it equally possible that the Lord Jesus Christ was so deceived?  For the Lord Jesus Christ is the very One who reported that they were giving "unto the offerings of God."  Furthermore, He did not report anything whatsoever at all unto His disciples about the givers being deceived; nor did He rebuke any of the givers for giving gifts "into the hands of thieves." 

__________________________________________

Now, earlier in this discussion you made reference unto our Lord Jesus Christ's rebuke against the scribes and Pharisees for binding "heavy burdens and grievous to be bourne" upon the people.  This rebuke is found in Matthew 23:4 -- "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."  So then, could you explain the instruction that our Lord Jesus Christ delivered unto the multitude and unto His disciples in Matthew 23:2-3 -- "Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."?

_________________________________________

In Matthew 8:1-3 God's Word gives report concerning our Lord Jesus Christ's healing of a leper -- "When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.  And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.  And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean.  And immediately his leprosy was cleansed."  Then in Matthew 8:4 we find that our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed this healed leper to offer his gift unto the priest at the temple -- "And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them."  If it was a bad thing to give gifts unto that wicked "den of thieves," why did our Lord Jesus Christ give this instruction unto this healed leper?

__________________________________________

Finally, let us consider our Lord Jesus Christ's "den of thieves" rebuke.  Is there any indication in the context of that rebuke concerning the specific activities whereby the thievery was occurring?  In Mark 11:15-17 God's Word give the report -- "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.  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."  It appears from the immediate context that the thievery of this "den of thieves" was occurring by the means of the selling and buying of goods and by the means of the exchanging of moneys, not by the means of freewill gifts being given "unto the offering of God."

Excellent!

Amen and amen!

I was wondering when Matthew 21:12 & 13 and Mark 11:14-17 would be discussed as the context for 'the den of thieves' phrase from the Lord Jesus.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

rother Wretched,

Please understand that I have not presented a single word of defense for "the doctrine of tithing" throughout this discussion.  On the other hand, I have engaged significantly concerning the correct understanding of the widows giving.  Is it true that our Lord Jesus Christ "was in full rebuke" against "all formalized religious practices" that were fueled by sinful greediness?  ABSOLUTELY.  Yet it is also true that Scripture often presents a contrast between the rejection of the religious leaders against Christ and the reception by the common people for Christ.  As examples, this can be seen in the contrast between Matthew 21:8-11 (see also Luke 19:37-38) and Matthew 21:15-16 (see also Luke 19:39-40) and in the contrast between Mark 12:1-37a and Mark 12:37b.  Even so, the principle of contrasts is NOT foreign to the context.  Furthermore, our Lord engaging in a spirit of "full on rebuke" against the false religious leaders is observed with either possibility, whether He was revealing an example OF their greediness, or whether He was revealing a contrast TO their greediness.  As such, the truth that our Lord was in a spirit of "full on rebuke" against the false religious leaders is NOT an evidence for one of these positions and against the other, since it actually is valid for both of these positions.

I am not directing at anyone brother, just venting in general again
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

i see no "evidence" for your position whatsoever.

 

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  Even the Greek word for 'threw in' in The Mark 12 text and the Greek for 'cast' the Luke 21 text, "ballo", carries with it the picture of a violent or intense action.  It is as if the woman is thinking, "They don't care that this is all that I have to live on," then violently throwing the money into the receptacle,... "Ballo" seems to give more credence to the thought that the woman was being forced to give her money to the thieves.

Wait!!!  So, after multiple times of arguing against the opposing position by claiming that there is nothing in the text that reveals what the widow was thinking or what was her motive, you suddenly now know what she was thinking and what was her motive.???
 

Just now, wretched said:

I am not directing at anyone brother, just venting in general again
 

I can accept that.  Then just take my response as responding "in general" as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Prior to an hour ago, I had not looked into the meaning of "threw in".  So, yes, after looking into the meaning, I do believe she threw the money in because of compulsion,... Compulsion which she resented.

"ballo" indicates a violent action.  Why would she violently throw the money in, if not due to being forced to give? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Luke 20:45 (KJV) 45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,

In the audience of all the people, i.e.; in the hearing of all the people, Jesus spoke.  All who were there could hear His words, both the rich who cast in their gifts, and the widow who cast her entire living into the treasury receptacle were within range of His voice.

Luke 20:46 (KJV) 46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

Luke 20:47 (KJV) 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

The people in attendance heard the warning Jesus had just delivered to the disciples.  They were made aware that the scribes were thieves, preying on widows.  They were made aware that the scribes were a condemned lot.

Luke 21:1 (KJV) 1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

There is no great time frame indicated between the delivery of His warning and His looking up and seeing the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.  He spoke, He sat down, (Mark 12:41) He looked up.

Luke 21:2 (KJV) 2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

Here was a widow who had just heard Jesus' warning that scribes were robbing widows house.  And yet, she chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  She rejected the words of the One who would soon put an end to all sacrifice for sin.  She instead gave her last two coins into the very treasury of the men that Jesus was warning of just moments earlier.

Sounds cultic, to some degree.  Cult followers will ignore any warnings from outsiders who are trying to rescue them from danger. This widow chose to continue to give to the corrupt system despite the fact that she heard that widows were being robbed by that system.

Luke 21:3 (KJV) 3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

Luke 21:4 (KJV) 4 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.

According to Mark 12:43, Jesus spoke this to His disciples.  Did the rest of those in the Temple hear these words as they had the warning?  We are not told.  The text in Mark states that Jesus called the disciples unto Himself, so it is possible that these words were spoken privately, i.e.; only the disciples hearing.

There is no commendation of the widow in the text at all.  It cannot be possible that Jesus Christ would first expose the corrupt religious system and its thieving staff, and then turn around and praise a widow who chose to reject Him and instead foolishly put all her living into the coffers of that corrupt system.

Seeing the seeming cultic behavior of the widow, (ignoring the warnings from outsiders)  I am once again reminded of a woe levied upon the scribes and Pharisees,...

Matthew 23:15 (KJV) 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

The widow had been made a proselyte of the religious leaders.  She chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  The corrupt religious system had her fully brainwashed into believing she was giving into the offerings of God, when in reality, they were robbing her of all her living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
9 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The widow had been made a proselyte of the religious leaders.  She chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  The corrupt religious system had her fully brainwashed into believing she was giving into the offerings of God, when in reality, they were robbing her of all her living.

Ok, now because of the "example" that Jesus gave regarding the zeal of the Scribes and Pharisees in making converts and using the word "proselyte" you automatically assume, with no proof, that this widow was a proselyte to what you call a "cult". But if casting her mites into the treasury made her a proselyte then it must follow that all the others that cast their money into the treasury were also proselytes. Why single out the widow when all were doing the same thing, only to different degrees?

There is no room in your interpretation for the possibility that this widow was giving out of a heart of love for God and being commended by our Lord for her sacrifice. That the religious leaders were robbing widows is not in doubt, Jesus said they were. But does this mean every widow in all of isreal, without exception? Were there no widows that gave offerings out of a sense of love and devotion to God?

You made a big deal out of the word "cast" in relation to the widow. You said " "ballo" indicates a violent action." And yet the rich men are described as doing exactly the same thing, so then it must follow that all were proselytes, all were being forced to give, all were deceived and all were being robbed.

I believe that you paint this Scripture with a brush that is much too broad to be an accurate interpretation of what Jesus was teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Her Salvation was standing in her presence.  He warned of the thieving scribes.  Yet, she put the mites in their treasury, showing her devotion to their teachings.

 

yes, she was showing signs of being a proselyte.

You assume a lot that is not in evidence, it is simply your assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jim, 

You accuse me of painting the picture with a broad brush.  I submit that were you not reading with a tunnel-vision bias toward a commendation of a widow supporting a corrupt institution, you might see the big picture.

 

you are taking one piece of a puzzle and forming s picture that looks nothing like the complete story.

5 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

You assume a lot that is not in evidence, it is simply your assumption.

I have presented the evidence that supports my view.  No assumption on my part at all.  I do, however, notice you assuming that Jesus was praising the widow's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jesus pronounced 8 "woes" (exclamations of grief) or grievances against the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23.  In the two accounts of the widow's mites (Mark 12:38-44 and Luke 20:45-47 - Luke 21:1-4), Jesus warned the disciples to "beware of the scribes...." and repeated some of those grievances from Matthew 23 as to why. 

The entire context of those two accounts of the widow's mites were WARNINGS about the scribes and Pharisees, NOT a COMMENDATION of praise to the widow for giving out of her poverty.  Why was the widow poor in the first place?  Could it be because the corrupt religious system demanded not only her house, but her money?

Mark 12:38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
Mark 12:39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
Mark 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

Luke 20:45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,
Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Luke 20:47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 8:53 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus knew the intents of the heart, no doubt.  However, the text does not indicate the intent of the widow's heart.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 8:33 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:07 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

She was manipulated into giving to thieves, just as many church members are manipulated into giving ten percent of their monetary income to thieves..  Both the widow and the church goers are deceived into believing God requires it.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:22 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

That was not my question.  My question was whether or not she thought in her mind and believed in her heart that she was giving a gift unto God.

 

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:30 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The text does not say what she thought in her mind.  It only reveals that thieves were robbing her and that she was putting money into the treasury of a den of thieves.
(emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

15 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  Even the Greek word for 'threw in' in The Mark 12 text and the Greek for 'cast' the Luke 21 text, "ballo", carries with it the picture of a violent or intense action.  It is as if the woman is thinking, "They don't care that this is all that I have to live on," then violently throwing the money into the receptacle,... "Ballo" seems to give more credence to the thought that the woman was being forced to give her money to the thieves.

So does the text NOT reveal what the widow was thinking and believing, or DOES it?  And if the text DOES reveal what the widow was thinking and believing, does it reveal that she believed and thought positively that she was giving unto God; OR does it reveal that she believed and thought negatively that the scribes were taking her necessary welfare?

In some postings you indicate that the text does not reveal what was the intent or belief of the widow's heart or what was the thinking of her mind.  Yet in other postings you indicate that the widow was giving with an assumption (of heart and mind, presumably) "that she was giving to God," having been "deceived into believing" that God required it.  Yet in still other postings you indicate that the widow was giving with the thought of disgust against the scribes because they did not care about her welfare.

 

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

The forced taxation did little to hurt the rich, yet it oppressed the poor greatly, taking away from that which they needed to survive.

By the way, I have done some historical research in order to discern what I am able about a "forced taxation" unto the temple at the time.  What I have been able to learn thus far is that there was indeed such a temple tax, but that it was only administered against the adult Jewish men, never against the women, the children, the Samaritans, or the "heathen" (Gentiles).

______________________________________________

Brother Robey,

At the present I do not have the time to formulate the entire posting (pastoral responsibilities take priority); however, in the future I intend to provide a posting concerning the Biblical evidence that the Greek verb "ballo" does not inherently or necessarily include the idea of disgust and/or violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The fact that the widow heard Jesus warning is obvious.  And yet, she ignored it.

 

This shows a mind that is devoted to the corrupt scribes despite the fact that they were robbing her.

 

further, she threw the money in rather than dropping it in.  The Greek suggests a violent action.

 

questions would have to be addressed, such as,  Why throw the money in as opposed to just dropping it in?  Why ignore the warning?  

 

Here is a woman who has lost her home, forcibly appropriated by the corrupt leaders in Israel, bringing all she had to live on to the organization governed by her oppressers.

 

Ignoring Jesus's words, she throws the money into the treasury with purpose.  They'd taken her home from her, they may as well have the rest.  The fact that she threw the money in as opposed to merely dropping it in implies anger and/or disgust.

 

and yes, the rich threw their money in as well.  They were made to give into the system just as the widow was.  The difference between the two?  The rich love their money.  The poor need their money.  But the widow's money was more precious,... it was all her living.

 

This year, in Florida, an elderly cancer patient was put out of his apartment by the church that owned the apartment,... even though the patient was up-to-date on his rent..  The church subsequently sent the cancer patient a bill for alleged owed funds.  A perfect picture of what had happened to this poor widow.  She'd lost her home as this man did.  To top it off, the corrupt system robbed the man afterwards through alledged dues just as this widow was being robbed further.

 

interesting that so many show no regard to the plight of the poor.  If they don't give to the institution, the poor are accused of being in the wrong and looked down on.  And so, out of manipulation and/or fear, they give.

 

Sorry Scott, but your view of the account just does not make sense.  As I said previously, you will never convince me of the alleged commendation you teach.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/15/2015 at 6:28 AM, swathdiver said:

A Ruckmanite, Hyper-Dispensationalist.  His doctrines are protestant and not baptistic.  Ever listened to his sermon on "The Deeps"?

As for the widows mites, these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical.  Another example of why knowledge of english and grammar rules are so important.  

To "Swathdiver": In regard to Peter Ruckman:  I have not, (nor will I) listen to or read a "sermon" or teaching by that man, as he was not qualified to even be a pastor, having been divorced twice and married 3 times, and it is a disqualification of him being a pastor according to the word of God. 

In regard to pastor Peacock: I do not agree with his teaching on "the deeps".
I did not say I agree with everything the man teaches. Nor do I agree with EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouth of any one IFB preacher.  However, I do agree with the majority of IFB tenets and principles of teaching. There are IFB pastors who do teach against tithing, which is I brought his name up as an example of one (of several) IFB pastors who teach against tithing.

In regard to dispensationalism: It truly is an IFB teaching.
The prominent Protestant view is "covenenant theology" (replacement theology)
So to say that pastor Peacock's doctrines are "protestant and not baptistic" is not truthful, since most Baptists do understand and teach dispensationalism (rightly dividing as 2 Tim. 2:15 tells us), whereas most other protestant churches do not teach dispensationalism.

As far as whether or not pastor Peacock himself is a "hyper-dispensationalist"... that depends on your definition of "hyper-dispensationalists", as those opinions vary. As I stated previously, I agree with some, but not ALL off this pastors teaching. I (myself) believe in following 2 Tim. 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  So for me (myself) I believe we are to study like a workman (it takes time and prayerful devotion to study like a workman, and not just a quick once-over, but in depth, in context study, which also require line-upon-line and precept upon precept comparison and contrast from other relevant subject matter located throughout the bible), and I (myself) also believe in rightly dividing... noting where a dispensation has an obvious difference to another dispensation, noting the "rules" God used toward mankind in each dispensation which differ from the past dispensation, etc. So I don't know if you consider this to be "hyper-dispensationalism", there are differing opinions on what the term even means. 

In regard to the widow's mites you stated: "these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical"
An issue arose over whether or not the word "widow" in Mark 12:40 was in fact relevant to the "widow" noted in Mark 12:42-44.
When taken IN CONTEXT (since the verses are 2 verses apart), I believe it is no coincidence Jesus uses the word "widow" in all the verses in context.
Had the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred someplace else in the bible, I might have come to the conclusion that it could be a commendation. However, since the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred in context with the verses of the widow's houses being devoured... I conclude there IS a contextual connection.

In regard to grammar and rules being important: Yes, they certainly are.  
Verse 40 notes the widow's houses being devoured, then verse 41, 42, and 43 start each verse/sentence with the word "And"
I believe the "AND" here in each verse is conjuctive denoting "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly."
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, Ronda said:

In regard to the widow's mites you stated: "these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical"
An issue arose over whether or not the word "widow" in Mark 12:40 was in fact relevant to the "widow" noted in Mark 12:42-44.
When taken IN CONTEXT (since the verses are 2 verses apart), I believe it is no coincidence Jesus uses the word "widow" in all the verses in context.
Had the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred someplace else in the bible, I might have come to the conclusion that it could be a commendation. However, since the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred in context with the verses of the widow's houses being devoured... I conclude there IS a contextual connection.

In regard to grammar and rules being important: Yes, they certainly are.  
Verse 40 notes the widow's houses being devoured, then verse 41, 42, and 43 start each verse/sentence with the word "And"
I believe the "AND" here in each verse is conjuctive denoting "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly."

Sister Ronda,

I recognize that your posting was directly specifically toward Brother "Swathdiver;" however, I wish to present a response unto your closing comments as quoted above.

Throughout my postings on the matter of Mark 12:38-44, I have not presented any denial of a contextual connection between Mark 12:38-40 & Mark 12:41-44.  In fact, I fully acknowledge that there is indeed a contextual connection between them.  However, I have expressed contention concerning the character of that contextual connection --

1.  Is it a contextual connection wherein Mark 12:41-44 provides an example of the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses"? (As Brother Robey holds)

Or,

2.  Is it a contextual connection wherein Mark 12:41-44 provides a contrast to the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses"? (As I myself hold)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Now, there is a verse in Neh. 10, that states that part of the tithe would be taken into the treasure house. "And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house."  I am wondering why, if the tithe was ALWAYS foodstuffs, they would go into the treasure house, which I would assume was the same things as the treasury. Unless part was sometimes brought as money by those who perhaps didn't have the farm to bring the tithes from their fields, their 'tillage', so instead brought money for support.

And that brings my question, What was the treasury for? This is something mentioned in the OT, as well. I suspect it was much like what we do today in churches, money taken to maintain the temple, perhaps separate from the tithe, like our offerings given to support the ministries and building needs, bills, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Treasury - 214 'owtsar o-tsaw' from 686; a depository:--armory, cellar, garner, store(-house), treasure(-house) (-y). see HEBREW for 0686

 

The treasury in this verse was a storehouse where many things were stored.  

That it was a garner shows it held grain.  That it was an armory shows it held weapons.  And yes, it as a treasury as well in that it held the holy things of the Temple.  (See Nehemiah 13)

 

Tithe money instead of food?  No, the commanded tithe was food.  However, if one wanted to buy back the tithe with money, he could do so buy paying the assessed value of that which he wanted to buy back,... plus twenty percent more than the assessed value.

 

this money was redemption money.  Redemption money was not taken into the treasury.  It was given to Moses, and he distributed it as needed.

Sorry for the large text in the last post.  The copy of the Hebrew changed the format, and it would not let me decrease the size of the font when I tried.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Treasury - 214 'owtsar o-tsaw' from 686; a depository:--armory, cellar, garner, store(-house), treasure(-house) (-y). see HEBREW for 0686

 

The treasury in this verse was a storehouse where many things were stored.  

That it was a garner shows it held grain.  That it was an armory shows it held weapons.  And yes, it as a treasury as well in that it held the holy things of the Temple.  (See Nehemiah 13)

 

Tithe money instead of food?  No, the commanded tithe was food.  However, if one wanted to buy back the tithe with money, he could do so buy paying the assessed value of that which he wanted to buy back,... plus twenty percent more than the assessed value.

 

this money was redemption money.  Redemption money was not taken into the treasury.  It was given to Moses, and he distributed it as needed.

Sorry for the large text in the last post.  The copy of the Hebrew changed the format, and it would not let me decrease the size of the font when I tried.

 

If you also lived a great distant from the temple you could give money instead of food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests (See full list)

  • 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...