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 Gap theory GARBAGE


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In the world of make believe evolutionary science, each year the earth ages 21 million years to satisfy the fickle minds of the evolutionists.

Anyone can fossilize an object in a 5 gallon bucket within a matter of months.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It's interesting, over the last month, I think, I have read three articles on items found encased in amber. A fact about amber-no one has any idea how long it take for sap to become amber, yet they are always assumed to be millions of years old.  So we have first, lizards found in amber, http://www.livescience.com/53948-lizards-trapped-in-ancient-amber.html ; then a bird's wing, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/bird-wings-dating-back-age-dinosaurs-found-frozen-amber-180959599/?no-ist , then a spider, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/new-spider-species-cretaceous-burmese-amber-extreme-projection-horned-fangs/ .

If you read the articles, you'll find some interesting 'facts': like, ALL of them are dated at 99 million years. Not 100 million, but 99, each one. None of the articles give any indication as to how they came to this conclusion-how does one date amber? And since no one knows how long it takes to become amber, are they really particularly old at all? While much is said about, say the bird feathers and the bird they BELIEVE they came from, they don't know-it's all weasel words, "Might have", and "It is believed" or 'It is thought". But they don't know. And there is nothing about these critters that says they are anything different than a bird, or spider or lizard around today. So they could be ten years old, 50, 100. But always "99 mmmmmiiiiiiillion years old".  Also, they are referred to as fossils or mummified, neither of which is possible in something encased in amber-'preserved' would be the proper term, but these science journals and websites seem to have a hard time even with the basic terminology.

Evolutionary science is so severely flawed it is scary. Scary that anyone accepts it. I am temped to find a tree with some good sap, put a bug in it, and keep it to see how long it takes to become amber, maybe sell it and get into the science magazines. I am already trying to see if I can fossilize a goat-had a goats die about ten years ago-right after it did, I dug a nice deep hole, filled it with water, put in the goat and covered him with mud, then dirt. We have a lot of minerals in our soil, so in a few years I may dig him up and see if we have manages to fossils anything on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, swathdiver said:

In the world of make believe evolutionary science, each year the earth ages 21 million years to satisfy the fickle minds of the evolutionists.

Anyone can fossilize an object in a 5 gallon bucket within a matter of months.  

I'm always looking for little science projects to do with my grandson; can you tell me how to do that?

1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

It's interesting, over the last month, I think, I have read three articles on items found encased in amber. A fact about amber-no one has any idea how long it take for sap to become amber, yet they are always assumed to be millions of years old.  So we have first, lizards found in amber, http://www.livescience.com/53948-lizards-trapped-in-ancient-amber.html ; then a bird's wing, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/bird-wings-dating-back-age-dinosaurs-found-frozen-amber-180959599/?no-ist , then a spider, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/new-spider-species-cretaceous-burmese-amber-extreme-projection-horned-fangs/ .

If you read the articles, you'll find some interesting 'facts': like, ALL of them are dated at 99 million years. Not 100 million, but 99, each one. None of the articles give any indication as to how they came to this conclusion-how does one date amber? And since no one knows how long it takes to become amber, are they really particularly old at all? While much is said about, say the bird feathers and the bird they BELIEVE they came from, they don't know-it's all weasel words, "Might have", and "It is believed" or 'It is thought". But they don't know. And there is nothing about these critters that says they are anything different than a bird, or spider or lizard around today. So they could be ten years old, 50, 100. But always "99 mmmmmiiiiiiillion years old".  Also, they are referred to as fossils or mummified, neither of which is possible in something encased in amber-'preserved' would be the proper term, but these science journals and websites seem to have a hard time even with the basic terminology.

Evolutionary science is so severely flawed it is scary. Scary that anyone accepts it. I am temped to find a tree with some good sap, put a bug in it, and keep it to see how long it takes to become amber, maybe sell it and get into the science magazines. I am already trying to see if I can fossilize a goat-had a goats die about ten years ago-right after it did, I dug a nice deep hole, filled it with water, put in the goat and covered him with mud, then dirt. We have a lot of minerals in our soil, so in a few years I may dig him up and see if we have manages to fossils anything on him.

Poor goat :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I'm always looking for little science projects to do with my grandson; can you tell me how to do that?

Poor goat :(

You know, in your business, as well as me, that it happens sometimes, just an unfortunate side-effect of keeping livestock.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

You know, in your business, as well as me, that it happens sometimes, just an unfortunate side-effect of keeping livestock.

 

Yeah, I was just goofing off.  Carry on, bury them deep. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not going to say much on this topic.  Scofield and Larkin (both baptists) taught the gap as well.  
Here is the thing.  OK, so somebody teaches the Gap.  I guess I am not seeing it as a "problem" if you are for or against it.  I don't see how it affects the doctrine on anything else.  I don't see how it affects the OT Law, or how it affects the NT church.  It is one of those things that is debatable (to some at least!).  If you don't agree with it, fine.  To me, it is something worth discussing and debating, but it is certainly not something worth dividing over.  It has little to no effect on our core doctrines.

That's all I will say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Steve Schwenke said:

Not going to say much on this topic.  Scofield and Larkin (both baptists) taught the gap as well.  
Here is the thing.  OK, so somebody teaches the Gap.  I guess I am not seeing it as a "problem" if you are for or against it.  I don't see how it affects the doctrine on anything else.  I don't see how it affects the OT Law, or how it affects the NT church.  It is one of those things that is debatable (to some at least!).  If you don't agree with it, fine.  To me, it is something worth discussing and debating, but it is certainly not something worth dividing over.  It has little to no effect on our core doctrines.

That's all I will say.

I don't know that I can agree with you here-I think it DOES effect a lot of doctrine. For instance, how could God look at His entire creation, all He had created and made, and declare it all very good, if part of that creation had already fallen into sin, rebellion and destruction? Remember, part of the gap theory is that Day 1 is before the gap, the rest is after it, so all that God has made before and during that gap period HAD to be included in the context of ALL that God had created and made. So then God is saying that Satan, now Lucifer, is good, the fallen angels, good, all the death underneath the renewed earth, all good. I cannot buy that.

It also completely skews the idea of the clearly literal six-day creation, if in the middle of it, there were millions of years of days. Throughout the Bible, God declares that He created the earth and heavens in 6 days-that means all the heavens He created on day 1 as well, that the Gap folks say was just obscured and revealed on day 4.

Not to mention that it includes death before Adam, despite the fact the Bible says clearly that man brought sin, and death by sin-the clear reference is toward Adam's sin, not Lucifer's sin. Lucifer convinced man to sin, but death didn't come until Adam had sinned. So all that death during the gap could not have occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mike, I am not going to debate you on the gap.  The point I was trying to make was this.  All of your objections have been noted.  But do the people who are teaching the gap teaching the things you are objecting to?  If they are not teaching the things you are objecting to, then the doctrine has NOT been affected.
I do not know any IFB's who believe the Gap to teach anything about evolution, or deny the 6 literal days of creation as listed in Genesis 1.  They simply move it as a re-creation.  the time element before the Gap is completely irrelevant to the pro-gappers.  
In short, your objections are based on things that are NOT being taught by the pro-gappers - at least not by the IFB version of it.  
They still believe in the distinction between Israel, the church, the OT, the NT, the sufficiency of the Cross, the Blood of Christ, Heaven, Hell, New Heaven, New Earth, etc. etc. etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Holding fast to the errors of the Gap Theory piles on other errors as well.  Such is the way of most protestant churches these days.  in a great many cases, when they hold to the Gap, they then get the Lord's Supper and Baptism wrong, they then believe in the universal, invisible church, divorced pastors and the list of heresies goes on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Do you know any pastor who has every single doctrine and preference 100% correct?
I don't.  

NOBODY has EVERYTHING correct.  We are all still sinners, and we are all prone to error.  
Oliver Greene taught the gap. 
John R. Rice endorsed the NASB.  
John R. Rice's reference Bible was not a pure KJV.  
This is not to disparage either of those men, because they both did great good in their ministries!  But they were wrong on THOSE points.
So let's call a person out on their errors, and be edified by them where they are right.  
There are many people who teach the gap who have tremendous insight into Scripture on many points, and we can all be edified by them.  Why toss them out over the gap?  To me that is total nonsense.  

Now if it is the case as Mike made, then sure.  Or if they get off into "weirdology" fine.  But if the core of their teaching and preaching is in the main sound, good, and edifying, then I believe it is a bit reactionary to toss ALL pro-gappers out.  

So I think there is a distinction to be made between essential doctrine, and non-essential doctrine.  That is, doctrine that we cannot budge on at all, then other doctrines where we can respect each other where we don't agree.  

IMO, since the Gap does not affect major doctrine, I would classify it as non-essential.  

Do as you please!  I see no reason to divide over the issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Steve Schwenke said:

Do you know any pastor who has every single doctrine and preference 100% correct?
I don't.  

NOBODY has EVERYTHING correct.  We are all still sinners, and we are all prone to error.  
Oliver Greene taught the gap. 
John R. Rice endorsed the NASB.  
John R. Rice's reference Bible was not a pure KJV.  
This is not to disparage either of those men, because they both did great good in their ministries!  But they were wrong on THOSE points.
So let's call a person out on their errors, and be edified by them where they are right.  
There are many people who teach the gap who have tremendous insight into Scripture on many points, and we can all be edified by them.  Why toss them out over the gap?  To me that is total nonsense.  

Now if it is the case as Mike made, then sure.  Or if they get off into "weirdology" fine.  But if the core of their teaching and preaching is in the main sound, good, and edifying, then I believe it is a bit reactionary to toss ALL pro-gappers out.  

So I think there is a distinction to be made between essential doctrine, and non-essential doctrine.  That is, doctrine that we cannot budge on at all, then other doctrines where we can respect each other where we don't agree.  

IMO, since the Gap does not affect major doctrine, I would classify it as non-essential.  

Do as you please!  I see no reason to divide over the issue.

 

If someone through a particular point of view denies the accuracy of the literal reading of the Word of God, are they not opening up the possibility for other parts of the bible to be questioned?

Is there not a danger in that should be considered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Steve Schwenke said:

Mike, I am not going to debate you on the gap.  The point I was trying to make was this.  All of your objections have been noted.  But do the people who are teaching the gap teaching the things you are objecting to?  If they are not teaching the things you are objecting to, then the doctrine has NOT been affected.
I do not know any IFB's who believe the Gap to teach anything about evolution, or deny the 6 literal days of creation as listed in Genesis 1.  They simply move it as a re-creation.  the time element before the Gap is completely irrelevant to the pro-gappers.  
In short, your objections are based on things that are NOT being taught by the pro-gappers - at least not by the IFB version of it.  
They still believe in the distinction between Israel, the church, the OT, the NT, the sufficiency of the Cross, the Blood of Christ, Heaven, Hell, New Heaven, New Earth, etc. etc. etc.

 

Mind you, Steve, I am not seeking to be hostile toward you-I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that to hold to a gap, unless they are doing it seriously ignorantly, they MUST deny the very words of God.

. Ex 20:11-"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it"

Ex 31:17- "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed"

By these two verses it is clear that everything, including the heaven (before the gap, including all there was within them, both heaven, AND the earth) in six days. This cannot allow for anything else but those six days since days one and two have to be split by millions of years. The very foundation of time and how it is kept is based on six literal days. It also strives against the very concept of the origins of sin and death. Those are extremely serious things and they cannot be ignored by anyone who holds to a gap. That's all I'm saying-I believe it is very dangerous.

   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mike and Dave
i understand your objections.  However, those who hold to the gap - at least in the IFB world - do not deny a literal 6-day re-creation as listed in Genesis 3.  This comes down to a matter of interpretation.  They believe every word literally.   To say otherwise is disingenuous.  What you are saying is that if they don't agree with you, then they are not Biblical literalists.  This is not true.  If it were true, then we would be able to find major doctrinal problems across the board in their teachings.  If they were not Biblical literalists, then they not only take liberties in Genesis 1, they would also take liberties throughout the Bible.  They don't. 

There is no slippery slope here, so far as I can see.

Blessings!
 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 hours ago, swathdiver said:

divorced pastors

Hey, I believe ALL pastors should be divorced  -----------  divorced from self-will, divorced from popular opinion, and the list goes on and on and on....

 

Like I tell my kids sometimes -- I won't say that I couldn't help posting it, I could have but choose not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Interesting.

I don't believe Lucifer was ever the name of the Devil. But the 'story' of Lucifer can only be proven through the so-called gap theory.

That is false teaching. And without it I know of no way someone can teach the Lucifer 'story', which happens to lift the Devil much higher than he should ever have been lifted, without believing in a gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
5 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Interesting.

I don't believe Lucifer was ever the name of the Devil. But the 'story' of Lucifer can only be proven through the so-called gap theory.

That is false teaching. And without it I know of no way someone can teach the Lucifer 'story', which happens to lift the Devil much higher than he should ever have been lifted, without believing in a gap.

No Gap here GP:

 Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 

 Lu 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

If we take God at his word it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same. Nor does it require any Gap theory to clearly understand the plain teaching of Scripture.

The only difference we see is that his name was changed from Lucifer when his abode was heaven, to Satan when he was cast down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jim, you are correct on the names.

Lucifer means "light bearer"

Satan means "adversary", and is called the prince of darkness, even though he is transformed into an angel of light.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually Lucifer was the name of Venus back then. No connection to Satan at all.

Reading the context of those verses really brings about much more than the tradition commonly taught in Baptist circles. The power that someone got in making up 'prophecies' about the devil...Wow!

Don't know why preachers teach it as fact, that the devil was a 'good guy' before he was a bad angel, is way beyond me.

The Lord Jesus said he was a liar from the very beginning. How does that affect the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The Lord Jesus said he was a liar from the very beginning. How does that affect the story?

Well, actually...the Lord Jesus Christ said that he was a murderer from the beginning.

Do you believe that God created Satan as the evil, lying, murdering devil that we know?

Or..

Did God created him holy and perfect, yet he had free-will; therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ was correct in saying...

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
 

The devil was a murderer from the beginning...once he became the devil. He wasn't before he made the choice to sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...