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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

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

Deuteronomy 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Deuteronomy 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:

Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

If one lived a great distance away from where "the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name" (Deuteronomy 14:24b), that person could then turn that (tithe) food into money. In order to prevent the tithe from spoiling on the long journey, to the place where God chose, the tither was permitted to sell the tithe for money.  The money was to be used to purchase " whatsoever thy soul lusteth after..."  One could not just bring money (as a tithe) to the temple.  The tithe was to be eaten...it was always food, never money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
23 hours ago, LindaR said:

Deuteronomy 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Deuteronomy 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:

Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

If one lived a great distance away from where "the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name" (Deuteronomy 14:24b), that person could then turn that (tithe) food into money. In order to prevent the tithe from spoiling on the long journey, to the place where God chose, the tither was permitted to sell the tithe for money.  The money was to be used to purchase " whatsoever thy soul lusteth after..."  One could not just bring money (as a tithe) to the temple.  The tithe was to be eaten...it was always food, never money.

The money is still going to the temple. The pilgrimage wasn't just to go there and stuff your face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

The money is still going to the temple. The pilgrimage wasn't just to go there and stuff your face.

That pilgrimage had nothing to do with the temple.  That particular tithe was a FEAST tithe. The second tithe was eaten before the Lord by the offerers.

Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:
Deuteronomy 12:18 But thou must eat them before the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates: and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God in all that thou puttest thine hands unto.

Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Deuteronomy 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Deuteronomy 14:27 And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
Deuteronomy 14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
Deuteronomy 14:29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/17/2015 at 1:01 PM, Ronda said:

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,
 

In Regard to Mr. Ruckman, you are 100% correct, I was simply providing a warning, not knowing you.

Regarding your statement that my characterization of Mr. Peacock is not being truthful, I take offense.  A broken clock is right at least twice a day, so we'll even agree with Creflo Dollar at some point.  However, I have studied these two men and their doctrines for years and watched my friends being drawn to their Bible Believer's universal, invisible, local churches and then watched their standards of modesty, dress, associations, music, separation, etc. collapse to where there's little differentiating them from the Protestants.  The mythical universal, invisible church is indeed a protestant doctrine, for this is where they get their authority to exist apart from the mother church from.  

One element of their Hyper-Dispensationalism is their heresy of many plans of salvation, excepting for the church age.  Another problem of poorly dividing the word of truth is The Deeps or their belief in the Gap Theory.

From your response, I gather that you have listened to The Deeps, what did you make of it?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

On 17/12/2015 at 6:01 PM, Ronda said:

In regard to dispensationalism: It truly is an IFB teaching.
The prominent Protestant view is "covenenant theology" (replacement theology)
 

Absolutely not.  For the first sixty or seventy years it was a Calvinist teaching, and not only Calvinist but an extreme for of Calvinist.  If you were not in hat sect, even as a family member you couldn't meet with the family.  One of our deacons had a grandmother who was in hat sect.  As a child he used o go every Wednesday to his grandmother after school. When he reached the age of 13 he was told that as he was now of age, as they considered it, he could not go there as he was  not a part of their assembly.  

Towards the end of the end of the 19h century in England, the teaching was widely considered to be a heresy.  At about that time it reached the USA and was spread through various groups including Presbytarians and Assemblies of God adopted it, although the AOG dropped it later.  It passed through various groups until it eventually reached the baptists. But it didn't make much progress until Scofield introduce HIS bible which was distributed Free to all Bible Schools in America.  Then the advance of the teaching was rapid.  

Those who began the teaching were the Exclusive Brethren under J N Darby, but it was also picked up by the Open Brethren,.  The exclusives are still exclusive but the open  are often now called Evangelical Churches or Christian Fellowships, and many have adopted  various forms of charismaticism but still keep the PTR doctrine, and no doubt it has infiltrated some of the more liberal baptist Churches here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Invicta,

I don't know why anyone would think any different.

Dispensationalism is a dangerous false teaching. Period.

Just watch the responses to this and you will notice how unbrotherly-like it gets here.

I know I get attacked over this, it makes me go willy! Just imagine what dispy's go through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
22 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Just watch the responses to this and you will notice how unbrotherly-like it gets here.

You're probably right...

...especially when you post a message publicly (that could have been sent privately) and worded in a way to goad the majority of people on this forum. That kind of sounds unbrotherly-like to me...but that's me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Transliteration: oikonomia
Pronunciation: oi-ko-no-mē'-ä speaker18x12blue.png
Part of Speech: feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology): from G3623
Outline of Biblical Usage:
  1. the management of a household or of household affairs

    1. specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property

    2. the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship

    3. administration, dispensation

KJV Translation Count:
7 Total dispensation 4, stewardship 3
Strong's Definitions: οἰκονομία oikonomía, oy-kon-om-ee'-ah; from G3623; administration (of a household or estate); specially, a (religious) "economy":—dispensation, stewardship.
 
so, there are dispensations (economy's) in the Bible after all,...
 
Dispensation of Grace
Dispensation of Judgment (Jacob's Trouble)
Dispensation of the Gospel, etc..
 
hmmmmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/20/2015 at 7:04 PM, Invicta said:

 

Absolutely not.  For the first sixty or seventy years it was a Calvinist teaching, and not only Calvinist but an extreme for of Calvinist.  If you were not in hat sect, even as a family member you couldn't meet with the family.  One of our deacons had a grandmother who was in hat sect.  As a child he used o go every Wednesday to his grandmother after school. When he reached the age of 13 he was told that as he was now of age, as they considered it, he could not go there as he was  not a part of their assembly.  

Towards the end of the end of the 19h century in England, the teaching was widely considered to be a heresy.  At about that time it reached the USA and was spread through various groups including Presbytarians and Assemblies of God adopted it, although the AOG dropped it later.  It passed through various groups until it eventually reached the baptists. But it didn't make much progress until Scofield introduce HIS bible which was distributed Free to all Bible Schools in America.  Then the advance of the teaching was rapid.  

Those who began the teaching were the Exclusive Brethren under J N Darby, but it was also picked up by the Open Brethren,.  The exclusives are still exclusive but the open  are often now called Evangelical Churches or Christian Fellowships, and many have adopted  various forms of charismaticism but still keep the PTR doctrine, and no doubt it has infiltrated some of the more liberal baptist Churches here.

Baptist pastor Spurgeon, preaching during this time period, had much to say on this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/20/2015 at 8:04 PM, Invicta said:

Absolutely not.  For the first sixty or seventy years it was a Calvinist teaching, and not only Calvinist but an extreme for of Calvinist.  If you were not in hat sect, even as a family member you couldn't meet with the family.  One of our deacons had a grandmother who was in hat sect.  As a child he used o go every Wednesday to his grandmother after school. When he reached the age of 13 he was told that as he was now of age, as they considered it, he could not go there as he was  not a part of their assembly.  

Towards the end of the end of the 19h century in England, the teaching was widely considered to be a heresy.  At about that time it reached the USA and was spread through various groups including Presbytarians and Assemblies of God adopted it, although the AOG dropped it later.  It passed through various groups until it eventually reached the baptists. But it didn't make much progress until Scofield introduce HIS bible which was distributed Free to all Bible Schools in America.  Then the advance of the teaching was rapid.  

Those who began the teaching were the Exclusive Brethren under J N Darby, but it was also picked up by the Open Brethren,.  The exclusives are still exclusive but the open  are often now called Evangelical Churches or Christian Fellowships, and many have adopted  various forms of charismaticism but still keep the PTR doctrine, and no doubt it has infiltrated some of the more liberal baptist Churches here.

Where do you get this nonsense. Certainly not from the Word. I suppose you believe everything you hear on the news and read in newspapers too?

If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, wretched said:

Where do you get this nonsense. Certainly not from the Word. I suppose you believe everything you hear on the news and read in newspapers too?

If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to.

Bro. Wretched? Of course he didn't get it "from the word". This is stuff men have written from their own experiences down through the years. Just because it's not holy writ doesn't mean it isn't true. Many historical comments from both sides can be used as 'proof', yet sometimes one is mentioned much more often in older writings than the other. But comments from older sources are better than suppositions, and should be treated as such.

And as for this comment - "If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to."

That can be said for the other side as well.

Russ

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

5 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You're probably right...

...especially when you post a message publicly (that could have been sent privately) and worded in a way to goad the majority of people on this forum. That kind of sounds unbrotherly-like to me...but that's me.

Yeah...I know. :D

I am not "goading", just speaking what everyone already knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Bro. Wretched? Of course he didn't get it "from the word". This is stuff men have written from their own experiences down through the years. Just because it's not holy writ doesn't mean it isn't true. Many historical comments from both sides can be used as 'proof', yet sometimes one is mentioned much more often in older writings than the other. But comments from older sources are better than suppositions, and should be treated as such.

And as for this comment - "If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to."

That can be said for the other side as well.

Russ

 

 

Nonsense Russ, you and this Invicta fella constantly quote external sources written by some "whocares" dudes who write about how some other "whocares" dudes are wrong about this or that. Invicta nor you have never once proven anything accept how much you misinterpret Scriptures based on man made up suppositions.

Sorry bro, you are simply wrong on dividing Scripture and dispensations and you are wrong because some "whomever" taught you to be wrong and you refuse to let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
22 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Invicta,

I don't know why anyone would think any different.

Dispensationalism is a dangerous false teaching. Period.

Just watch the responses to this and you will notice how unbrotherly-like it gets here.

I know I get attacked over this, it makes me go willy! Just imagine what dispy's go through.

STOOGES.thumb.png.c819df106aaf71cf082afa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, wretched said:

Where do you get this nonsense. Certainly not from the Word. I suppose you believe everything you hear on the news and read in newspapers too?

If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to.

I don't get it from the internet or from books.  I was brought up in the Brethren who invented this teaching,  I was taught it for the first 20 years of my life. The dispensational teaching came from earlier  futurist teaching from the Irvingites which they got from the futurist teaching of a Jesuit.  

You will not find any teaching resembling modern pretribulationist  teaching before 1830 when the Brethren were just starting.  J N Darby as well as most other early Brethren were ex Anglicans.  Darby took over the emerging  Brethren movement and soon formulated the pretribulation and dispensationalist   theory.  Darby was an extreme Calvinist excommunicating other early Brethren leaders who didn't  agree with him like Benjamin Wills Newton.  Until the end of the 1800's in the UK, the teaching was mainly confined to the Brethren and was widely considered to be a heresy. In the meantime Darby and other Brethren visited the USA and took the teaching there.  Scofield, a Presbyterian Calvinist accepted the Darbyist teaching and produced HIS bible. The Scofield bible was given free to US bible schools who took up the teaching which, as they would say today, it went viral.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.  You won't look at scripture to check unlike the Bereans so I ask you to look at history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
44 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

dispensation, i.e.; economy/administration.

 

only the willfully blind can't see it in the KJV text.

Hmm.

Have you ever noticed that he separation of the saints and the unsaved is after the tribulation? Matt 24:29ff.

So all those before Darby were willfully blind? That is centuries of Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, wretched said:

Nonsense Russ, you and this Invicta fella constantly quote external sources written by some "whocares" dudes who write about how some other "whocares" dudes are wrong about this or that. Invicta nor you have never once proven anything accept how much you misinterpret Scriptures based on man made up suppositions.

Sorry bro, you are simply wrong on dividing Scripture and dispensations and you are wrong because some "whomever" taught you to be wrong and you refuse to let it go.

I am sorry you think that, but you are allowed to believe what you want.

By the way, I went to college to learn anImatIon - which has nothing to do with the teachings of the bible - and was never taught from anyone what I believe. Nobody in my life believed the way I believe about PTR or the return of Israel to their land or much of anything.

I was saved in a KJVO Independent Baptist Church in SE Indiana. Was taught PTR 1000 year reign of Christ and ALL the corruptions of the MV's.

So you can't blame anyone for my supposed errors Bro. I did not read books on doctrine nor listened to preachers on the type of preaching that I do. I just happened to find this path on my own, (through my own personal studying of God's word), by my own God given convictions.

I doubt many here can say the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I am sorry you think that, but you are allowed to believe what you want.

By the way, I went to college to learn anImatIon - which has nothing to do with the teachings of the bible - and was never taught from anyone what I believe. Nobody in my life believed the way I believe about PTR or the return of Israel to their land or much of anything.

I was saved in a KJVO Independent Baptist Church in SE Indiana. Was taught PTR 1000 year reign of Christ and ALL the corruptions of the MV's.

So you can't blame anyone for my supposed errors Bro. I did not read books on doctrine nor listened to preachers on the type of preaching that I do. I just happened to find this path on my own, (through my own personal studying of God's word), by my own God given convictions.

I doubt many here can say the same.

Well, you really don't have any way of knowing where people have received their training. Personally, I think it may be a mistake if ALL you know you got yourself. Not that we aren't to study-of course we are, but you're telling me then that you have either sought out pastors who only teach what you believe, or you reject ALL pastors as wrong, because they haven't received what you have? 

As for myself, while I certainly have set under many pastors, since I became a pastor myself I have learned a lot of things through my own study, in preparation for preaching, and have come to conclusions different from what I was taught-and I would suspect many pastors here have done the same. It is easy to just receive what is given to you when you are just a hearer, as it were, but when you have the burden of teaching, you tend to study harder to ensure that what you are teaching IS the truth. This is how I came to the rapture position I have taken. But it has never changed my thoughts on the millennial reign of Christ as a literal thing, and many other things I was taught before I have held to because in study, they still stand.  

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   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
  • 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...