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.

Clarence Larkin - Revelation


Alan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In relationship with the prophetic history of Israel, already fulfilled, Daniel 11:1-34 is a complete history of the four kings mentioned in Daniel 11:1 & 2

The four kings are:

1. Ahasuerus: Ezra 4:6 and Esther 1:1

2. Artaxerxes: Ezra 4:6-24

3. Darius Hystaspis: Ezra 4:6-24 King of Persia

4. The mighty king in Daniel 11:3 is Alexander the Great who destroyed the Persian Kingdom in 332 B.C.

Please note: in Daniel 11:4 we have the prophecy that after the fourth king was destroyed his kingdom would be broken up into four other kingdoms. Clarence Larkin, in his explanation of Daniel 8, goes into detail how this was historically fulfilled on page 112-115 of his book. Again, I would suggest that you, and anyone else interested in a serious study of prophecy, obtain Clarence Larkin's book on Revelation and study it along with your Bible.

Daniel 11:1-34 was completed prophecy and is considered history as we speak.

If you read Eric Stahls' post he clearly, and correctly, delineated Daniel 11:35-43a from Daniel 11:1-34. Eric knows his biblical history and what was fulfilled and what will be fulfilled in the future as recorded in the book of Revelation.

If you read Daniel 11:35 very, very closely it is obvious that the prophet Daniel is clearly referring to another king.  "... even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed." The "...time of the end ..." has not been reached as we speak. From verse 35 and following the prophet Daniel ceases to talk about the kings of Persians, Greeks, and any other Kings in history (such as Antiochus Epiphanes B.C. 175-165). Daniel 11:35-43 and he is clearly referring to the end times as recorded in Revelation.

It is historically, and prophetically, incorrect to say that any portion of Daniel 11 was completed after the ministry of the Lord Jesus in 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem  and it is an incorrect interpretation of the teaching of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the Olivet discourse.

Eric Stahl was correct and I was correct when I agreed with him.  

Alan

Edited by Alan
spelling grammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In relationship with the prophetic history of Israel, already fulfilled, Daniel 11:1-34 is a complete history of the four kings mentioned in Daniel 11:1 & 2

The four kings are:

1. Ahasuerus: Ezra 4:6 and Esther 1:1

2. Artaxerxes: Ezra 4:6-24

3. Darius Hystaspis: Ezra 4:6-24 King of Persia

4. The mighty king in Daniel 11:3 is Alexander the Great who destroyed the Persian Kingdom in 332 B.C.

Please note: in Daniel 11:4 we have the prophecy that after the fourth king was destroyed his kingdom would be broken up into four other kingdoms. Clarence Larkin, in his explanation of Daniel 8, goes into detail how this was historically fulfilled on page 112-115 of his book. Again, I would suggest that you, and anyone else interested in a serious study of prophecy, obtain Clarence Larkin's book on Revelation and study it along with your Bible.

Daniel 11:1-34 was completed prophecy and is considered history as we speak.

If you read Eric Stahls' post he clearly, and correctly, delineated Daniel 11:35-43a from Daniel 11:1-34. Eric knows his biblical history and what was fulfilled and what will be fulfilled in the future as recorded in the book of Revelation.

If you read Daniel 11:35 very, very closely it is obvious that the prophet Daniel is clearly referring to another king.  "... even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed." The "...time of the end ..." has not been reached as we speak. From verse 35 and following the prophet Daniel ceases to talk about the kings of Persians, Greeks, and any other Kings in history (such as Antiochus Epiphanes B.C. 175-165). Daniel 11:35-43 and he is clearly referring to the end times as recorded in Revelation.

It is historically, and prophetically, incorrect to say that any portion of Daniel 11 was completed after the ministry of the Lord Jesus in 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem  and it is an incorrect interpretation of the teaching of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the Olivet discourse.

Eric Stahl was correct and I was correct when I agreed with him.  

Alan

No Eric was not correct. There is no gap after verse 34, it carries straight on through Roman times.

The four kings were:  first their Bible name and then the name which has come down to us from History. Cyrus being the king reigning at the time. Dan 10:1 

1. Ahasuerus: Ezra 4:6  Cambyses, son of Cyrus. not the same Ahasuerus as Esther 1:1 Who was same as No 3

2. ArtaxerxesEzra 4:6-24 The Psuedo Smerdis, also known as the Magi, reigned for only 8 months (Herodotus) or 1 year (Josephus)  The difference no doubt being the way the Jews calculated the reign of kings.

3. Darius Ezra 4:6-24 King of Persia  Darius Hystaspis Who was probably the same as Artaxerxes of Nehemiah

4 Xerxes the king who stirred up all nations against Grecia.  He invaded Greece with an army of millions.from all nations including India.

THEN the mighty king , Alexander, would stand up, the first willful king in the chapter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No Eric was not correct. There is no gap after verse 34, it carries straight on through Roman times.

THEN the mighty king , Alexander, would stand up, the first willful king in the chapter.

 

 

Invicta,

Eric was indeed correct as he simply believed the scriptures as it is written in Daniel 11:35  as quoted and carefully explined in my above post. Your interpretation that verse 34 is carried to Romans times is both scriptually and historically incorrect.

By the way, if you know your history concerning Alexander the Great you would see that Daniel 11:37 (nor a careful reading of the rest of Daniel 11), cannot apply to Alexander the Great  The history of Alexander the Great is very interesting reading, but, he was not the "willful king" as prophesied by Daniel.   

As this thread is concerning a review of Larkin's book on Revelation I will forego any more time and effort in trying to convince you otherwise.

Brethren,

I will be continuing the review of Larkin's book soon. I will be reviewing the section entitled, "The Interval Between the Sixth and Seventh Seal, " page 65 and following. This section starts with Revelation 7 looking forward to your hearing your thoughts, comments, and questions.

May God bless you all.

Alan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

2 Thess 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you notice carefully what I said, you will see that I said Alexander was the first willful king I didn't give the verse and perhaps I did not word it well.  Alexander was the willful  king in verse three whose kingdom was split into four after his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Beameup,

Thank you very much for bringing to our attention 2 Thessalonians 2:3 & 4 and its relationship with Daniel 11:36  

Invicta,

You are right. Alexander the Great was the first willful king in Daniel 11. "And a mighty King shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will." Daniel 11:3

And, may I add a side note, throughout history many, many other kings, rulers, and Presidents, have ruled, "... according to his will." The "will of God," and the "will of the people," in the mind of these rulers are inconsequential. "There is nothing new under the sun."

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

2 Thess 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Exactly.  And notice the sequence,   "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first" That day, our meeting with the Lord.  shall not come except there be a falling away first.  There was a great falling away from  AD 300 onwards that allowed the papacy to develop,.and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; The Pope and the papacy: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.  He opposes God by calling himself god on earth. and all that is called God.  All that is called God in the RCC is the consecrated wafer which is held aloft and worshipped as God.  In his coronation, the pope sits on the the high altar above the host, all that is called God exalting himself above it.  Chinquy  calls the consecrated host "le bon dieu", the good god.

All fulfilled, firstly falling away, 2ndly the man of sin, revealed, lastly or gathering to meet the Lord.

 

 

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The 6th seal is the Ezekiel 38 & 39 war, which is also described in Daniel 11:43b-45, Jeremiah 25:14-38, Isaiah 25:4-7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Exactly.  And notice the sequence,   "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first" That day, our meeting with the Lord.  shall not come except there be a falling away first.  There was a great falling away from  AD 300 onwards that allowed the papacy to develop,.and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; The Pope and the papacy: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.  He opposes God by calling himself god on earth. and all that is called God.  All that is called God in the RCC is the consecrated wafer which is held aloft and worshipped as God.  In his coronation, the pope sits on the the high altar above the host, all that is called God exalting himself above it.  Chinquy  calls the consecrated host "le bon dieu", the good god.

All fulfilled, firstly falling away, 2ndly the man of sin, revealed, lastly or gathering to meet the Lord.

Very good comment Invicta! You obviously read the scriptures accurately, and can 'see' into the meanings well, as a man lead by God.

It is great to see clarity, is it not?

Beameup,

Thank you very much for bringing to our attention 2 Thessalonians 2:3 & 4 and its relationship with Daniel 11:36  

Invicta,

You are right. Alexander the Great was the first willful king in Daniel 11. "And a mighty King shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will." Daniel 11:3

And, may I add a side note, throughout history many, many other kings, rulers, and Presidents, have ruled, "... according to his will." The "will of God," and the "will of the people," in the mind of these rulers are inconsequential. "There is nothing new under the sun."

Alan

Glad to see you investing in history, Alan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

2 Thess 2:8-9  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,   2 Thess 2:4b  so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.   2 Thess 2:11b God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

beameup,

Thank you for your post. I do appreciate your verses as they are keeping in line with the study of Larkin's Revelation study and will help us keep on track.

Brethren,

In doing the next lesson I found that I needed to include much more than I originally intended due to the Seals, Trumpets, Vials and other aspects of Revelation being so closely tied together that I decided to extend the next lesson to include the remaining, "Review" in a long lesson. So, in order to keep everybody occupied while I finish up the lesson I decided to give you a song in common with the study.

May God bless the song, "Hallelulah, He's Coming Again," sung by the Truth Missionary Baptist Church choir in Greenville, S.C., be a blessing to your hearts.

Alan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Interesting comments from Larkin I found on http://www.historicist.com/daniel/clarence-larkin-s-charts

Clarence Larkin’s Charts : The theology of Ribera, by Larkin’s own admission.

 

By Robert Caringola

 

After thirty years of work, the late Clarence Larkin (1850 – 1924, an American Baptist Pastor) published a work which many in the Futurist School of eschatology refer to as “the dispensationalists’ second bible” and “a standard authority on dispensationalism.” The book is entitled Dispensational  Truth. It is touted by some as the greatest book on bible prophecy in the world! It contains over 115 charts, maps and woodcuts. These are referenced today by a myriad of prophecy teachers. But, I wonder how many of these so-called teachers have read Larkin’s admission of cartooning Francisco Ribera’s catholic counter-reformation prophetic interpretation.

This article is not an explanation of the errors of dispensationalism. Space does not allow for a proper refutation of the Futurist School or a defense of the Protestant Historical School (Historicism). It will simply be, for the most part, the words of Larkin himself. These are found on page 5 of his book, Forty-Sixth Printing. Some of the other printings have it on page 4.

“The glory of a good thing is that it flows to others” Martin Luther. Conversely, the horror of a bad thing is that it not only flows but, at times, floods and drowns. How many, today, are drowning in the tide of dispensational teachings? The book Dispensational Truth furthered the rushing current of futuristic eschatology - Rome’s poisonous waters!

Now, let us read Larkin’s affirmation of the Jesuit origins of Preterism and Futurism. He also identifies the “secret of the martyr heroism,” known as Historicism.

I have added bold emphasis where I felt appropriate.

 

    The “Preterist School” originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the Apocalypse, published in A.D.1614. It limits the scope of the apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the “Antichrist.” The purpose of the scheme was transparent, it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the “Harlot Church” and the Pope from being called the Antichrist…”

    The “Historical School”. . . interprets the Apocalypse as a series of prophecies predicting the events that were to happen in the world and in the Church from John’s day to the end of time. The advocates of the School interpret the symbols of the Book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are happening in the world. They claim that “Antichrist” is a “System” rather than a “Person,” and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. They interpret the “Time Element” in the Book on the “Year Day Scale.” This school has had some very able and ingenious advocates. This view, like the preceding was unknown to the early church. It appeared about the middle of the Twelfth Century, and was systematized in the beginning of the Third Century by the Abbot Joachim. Subsequently it was adopted and applied to the Pope by the forerunners and leaders of the Reformation, and may be said to have reached its zenith in Mr. Elliott’s “Horae Apocalypticae.” It is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards Popery as exhausting all that has been predicted of the Antichristian power. It was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation, and the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to “love not their lives unto the death.” It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century.

    The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such and hold that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” . . . In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and among Protestants. . . ., The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.

Clarence Larkin

Well, there you have it. Larkin is ecstatic because the rejected prophetic counter-scheme manipulations of the Jesuit Ribera have been “wonderfully revived.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Good information there Invicta. I had asked some of these questions myself to others without satisfactory answers from this exact section.

My copy of this section has a bit more eye opening of a statement in the red below -

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

Remember fellas, this is from the book itself. If it dates from recent times, how is it the 'old paths' that we are supposed to follow?

Jeremiah 6 -

16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

 

 

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Good information there Invicta. I had asked some of these questions myself to others without satisfactory answers from this exact section.

My copy of this section has a bit more eye opening of a statement in the red below -

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

Remember fellas, this is from the book itself. If it dates from recent times, how is it the 'old paths' that we are supposed to follow?

Jeremiah 6 -

16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

 

 

Elliott in his carefully researched  History of Apocalyptic Interpretation finds only one primitive writer who separates the seventieth week from its fellows.

 Hippolytus stands alone, as I said, [135] in the exprest view of the 69 hebdomads reaching to Christ’s first coming, and the 70th beginning separately, at some vast chronological gap, just before his second coming. [136]

 I did read elsewhere that Hyppolytus also said that the 70 weeks would end in AD 500 which year would be, he says, the second coming, which would destroy Antichrist, the rerrurection from the dead and the glorification of the saints.

 

Edited by Invicta
Spelling,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Genevanpreacher and Invicta,

If you want to be gracious, and have a Christ like spirit, you need to start your own thread to review the above information.

Alan

Review of Clarence Larkin’s Commentary

Broad Overview of Revelation 7:1 to 14:7

Review by Alan

Review Notes:

1. As this is not a study on Revelation but a broad overview of Larkin’s work I will not be covering every aspect of Revelation 7:1 to 14:7

2. I will also not be bringing into account all of the fulfilled prophecy of the Old Testament prophets nor of the Olivet Discourse. Larkin does a better job than I and I recommend that you study his book.

3. As Larkin does not dwell much on how current events correlate with the events depicted in Revelation 7:1-14:7 neither will I. Larkin does not involve his work with the sensationalism, and commercialism, that we see in this current age.

4. When symbolism is used in the book of Revelation Larkin correctly interprets the symbolism according to the scriptures. See his notes in Revelation 12:1 and 2 for an example.

The Interval between the Sixth and the Seventh Seal

7:1-16 and 14:1-7, “The Lamb on Mount Zion.”

Larkin brings out the following two very important facts, from pages 65 to 67, concerning the 144,000 Jews. And, in 14:1-7, “The Lamb on Mount Zion,” page 130-132

They are literal virgins, from the 12 tribes of Israel, with the visible seal of God on their forehead that was administered by the angels, for their protection.

The evangelization of the world continues with the 144,000 Jews as the church age saints have previously been taken out in Revelation 4:1. The 144,000 Jews are sealed at the beginning of the Tribulation Period and continue to the end of the Tribulation Period for the express reason of evangelizing the world. This is absolute proof that the Church is not now in the Tribulation period nor does the Church go through any part of the 7 Year Tribulation Period.

The ministry of the 144,000 Jewish evangelists is the evangelization of the whole world in accordance with the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the the kingdom shall be preached in the entire world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” The end of the 7 Year Tribulation Period is after the conclusion of the ministry of the 144,000 Jewish evangelists.

The multitude of souls saved, redeemed, spoken of in Revelation 7:9-14 are Tribulation saints.

Larkin states concerning the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the salvation of souls, “While the Holy Spirit went back with the Church to escort the “Bride to be” home, it does not follow that He remained there. For in the Old Testament times, and during the earthly ministry of Jesus, He was active in the conversion of men, and so it will be after the Church is caught out. Those who are converted during the Tribulation period will be converted by the Holy Spirit.”[1]

The Seventh Seal

Revelation 8:1-5

Larkin begins this chapter with this important note that we must remember. “We must not forget that the “SEVENTH SEAL” includes all that happens during the sounding of the “TRUMPETS,” and the pouring out of the “VIALS,” and so extends down to the ushering in of the Millennium.”[2]

 

Included in this section is a reference to the trumpets listed in the Old Testament which the reader may find useful. I would like to add a note here also that may help all of us understand the book of Revelation. In order to know the book of Revelation the student of scripture must have a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament Law, Ordinances, Statutes, the Covenants given to the Patriarch’s and the prophesies of the prophets.

The Seven Trumpets

Revelation 8:1 to 10:11

This section covers page 70-82 in Larkin’s book. At this point Larkin reminds the student of scripture that all of the events, nations, people, angels, trumpets, are not “spiritualized.” The events, nations, angels are all literal and not symbolic. When the scripture is symbolic the context is obviously symbolic and the scripture will explain itself.

Larkin brings out that the tragedies involved during the Tribulation Period are worldwide in scope and the devastation in the sounding of the trumpets in tremendous and are without parallel in the history of the world.

Third Trumpet “Wormwood”

Revelation 8:10-11

Larkin brings the reader to the attention that one of the primary reasons of the Tribulation period is to punish Israel for its sins and to bring back Israel to “restore” their proper relationship to God.

 

Larkin states, “This time is foretold by the Prophet Jeremiah. “Therefore thus saith the LORD of Hosts, because they have forsaken my law, Behold, I will feed them, even this people (Israel), with WORMWOOD, and give them WATER OF GALL to drink.” Jer. 9:13-15.”[3]

Fourth Trumpet

Revelation 8:12

“The Olivet Discourse.”

This events depicted in the forth trumpet is in fulfillment of the prophecy of the Lord Jesus as recorded in Luke 21:25-28

The Bottomless Pit

Revelation 9:2

Larkin goes into some background detail concerning the bottomless pit. At this point I must admit that I do not agree with Larkin on this point. Larkin believes that among the various groups of entities in the bottomless pit are, “disembodied spirits,” from a, “Pre-Adamite Earth.” The more common name for this is, “The Gap Theory.” I do not agree with this belief.

The Two Witnesses

Revelation 11:1-14

Larkin brings out that there will be Temple built either just before the Tribulation period, or during the Tribulation Period, in order for the anti-Christ to sit in the Holy of Holies in order to fulfill Daniel 9:27

As the Temple of Herod was destroyed in 70 A.D., and the anti-Christ did not sit in the Holy of Holies in Herod’s Temple, and that the Temple described is not the Millennial Temple as described by Ezekiel, it must be a Tribulation Temple.

Larkin also convincingly believes that the two witnesses with be Moses and Elijah; see page 86.

The Seven Personages

Revelation 12:1 to 13:18

This section is from page 89-130 and includes a tremendous amount of information concerning the seven different characters and the events surrounding their actions and events.

The Seven Personages are:

1. The Sun Clothed Woman. Revelation 12:1 & 2

Larkin correctly, gives a through discourse of Old Testament passages, and proves that the Sun Clothed Woman is the nation of Israel.

Please study Genesis 37:9; Isaiah 54:1; 47:7-9; 50:1; Jeremiah 3:1-25 and Hosea 2:1-23

2. The Dragon. Revelation 12:3 & 4

The Dragon is identified in 12:9 as Satan.

3. The Man-Child. Revelation 12:5 & 6

The Man-Child is Christ. Psalm 2

4. The archangel (and/or prince) Michael. Revelation 12:7-12

Daniel 10:14

Jude 9

5. The Jewish Remnant. Revelation 12:17

Romans 11

Romans 11:1 and 5, “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin… Even so then at the present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” God has not cast off Israel, the physical, elect descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. During the Tribulation Period God will accomplish special miracles for the preservation of Israel.

6. The Beast of of the Sea. Revelation 13:1-10

The “Antichrist.” Larkin goes through discussion of the Beast of the Sea and the various other titles of the Antichrist, see pages 104-124.

Old & New Testament Designations for the Antichrist

Larkin Old & New Test. Desig of antichrict page 104.jpg

The above information is found on page 104

This discussion of the antichrist includes the appropriate scriptural descriptions and historical information that is needed to understand Daniel and the times of the Gentiles.

Chart, “Antichrist and the “Times of the Gentiles.”

 

Larkin Antichrist & the Times of the Gentiles page 106.png

The above chart is found on page 106

7. The Beast out of the earth. The “False Prophet.” Revelation 13:11-18

Revelation 16:13; 19:20 and 20:10

See pages 125-129 for a study on the false prophet.

The First Angel

The Everlasting Gospel

Revelation 14:6 & 7

Larkin brings out a very unusual aspect of the evangelization of the world that is unique in the history of the earth in the 7 Year Tribulation Period.

“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.” Revelation 14:6 This is the only time in the history of mankind that an angel is to preach, while flying in the air, the gospel for men of every nation to be saved.

Larkin states, “Here is the first and only place in the Bible where an angel is commissioned to preach the gospel.”[4]

Due to the church not being on the earth, God has sealed the 144,000 Jews for evangelistic work and this angel flying in the midst of the clouds to preach the gospel. This is absolute proof that the church is not now in the Tribulation period.

 

[1] Larkin, Clarence The Book of Revelation. 1919. Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, n.d., Page 67

[2] Larkin, Clarence The Book of Revelation. 1919. Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, n.d., Page 68

[3] Larkin, Clarence The Book of Revelation. 1919. Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, n.d., Page 72

[4] Larkin, Clarence The Book of Revelation. 1919. Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, n.d., Page 132

Edited by Alan
add bold relief Oct. 22, 2016 re-upload one chart. Oct. 23, 2016 re-upload the second chart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am sorry Alan, but in fairness to those reading this, there needs to be contrast shown. So that people do not think all Baptists believe this teaching.

Genevanpreacher and Invicta,

If you want to be gracious, *and have a Christ like spirit, you need to start your own thread to review the above information.

Alan

 

*So, the Lord never defended the scriptural view he held that was contrary to the Jewish leaders of his day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I am sorry Alan, but in fairness to those reading this, there needs to be contrast shown. So that people do not think all Baptists believe this teaching.

*So, the Lord never defended the scriptural view he held that was contrary to the Jewish leaders of his day?

He wasn't saying don't refute it, he said start a different thread to do so in.

You can even tie them together by calling the thread, "Objections to Scofield's notes on Revelation". (unless another mod feels that's objectionable)

Edited by OLD fashioned preacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • 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...