Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      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.

Preservation and the KJV


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I wonder if you would mind answering a question for me - and I would prefer a simple, straightforward answer because I am a relatively simple bloke.

Have you ever been a member of this site under a different name?

Actually another question, if I may - what name would that be, if you have indeed previously been a member here under a different name.

Just wondering, because your way of answering sounds familiar but I am not sure where from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved.

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

 

Do you therefore believe that the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God? 

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for...unless you believe that not all are God's preserved word. In which case, I would therefore ask, "Do you believe that any of the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God?"

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Do you therefore believe that the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God? 

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for.

If your question is not actually a simple question, it would not call for a simple answer.  Your question would seem to be actually complex and perhaps misleading or invalid.  Questions can be properly answered by questions.  I will properly explain why I consider your question to be complex or misleading.

I think that both a "no" answer and a "yes" answer could be misunderstood or suggest the wrong thing.   If "no" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would in effect be saying that the majority of the New Testament text of the Uncial Codices that would be the exactly the same as that in the varying Textus Receptus editions would not be the preserved word of God.  Would you give the answer "no" to your own question and in effect assert that the majority of the New Testament text in the Textus Receptus is not the preserved word of God since both would be the same in the majority of their NT text?  If "yes" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would be claiming that all the copying errors in the Uncial Codices are the preserved word of God.   I have not suggested that the Uncial Codices should be the standard, and I have not suggested that any textual corruptions should be accepted.

I do not believe that any copying errors introduced by imperfect men are the preserved word of God.  Would you claim that the actual copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus were the preserved word of God?

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, Tyndale said:

While you did not answer my questions . . .

Brother Tyndale,

I do apologize.  I intended my first posting above as  a form of answer to your questions --

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:54 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As for myself:

1.  I believe that the Biblical doctrine of preservation teaches a perfect, generational, precise ("jot and tittle") preservation of the words and wordings which the Lord our God originally gave through the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

2.  I believe that the King James translation is, by our Lord God's wondrous providence, a perfectly accurate translation of that which He has preserved from generation to generation in a perfectly precise ("jot and tittle") manner.

3.  As such, I believe that the King James translation carries the absolute authority of divine inspiration for the English reading peoples of our present day.

However, it appears that this response was not sufficient.  Therefore allow me to be more precise with your individual questions --

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

I believe that God's Word teaches "word preservation."  Indeed, I believe that God's Word teaches "jot and tittle" preservation, that is -- preservation unto the very letters and spellings.  Furthermore, I believe that God's Word teaches generation preservation, such that God has promised to preserve His Scriptures from the time of their original giving for each and every generation of His people.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Would the scriptural teaching that no words of men were to be added and no words of God were to be omitted or changed relate to the doctrine of preservation and would they suggest that preservation directly concerned the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? 

By precise definition, "jot and tittle" preservation (as I hold) cannot precisely be applied unto anything other than "the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles."

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

In translating the Scriptures, do translators sometimes have to add words in order for their translation to be understandable in the different language, suggesting that preservation may not directly apply to translations that add some words of men?  Would any words added by translators for which there were no original language words of Scripture be preserving actual words that proceeded out of the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles?  

I do not believe that the doctrine of "translation" is equivalent to the doctrine of preservation; for the very moment that you change (translate) from one language to another, you are compelled to change the "jots and tittles."  Rather, I believe that the doctrine of translation (which is more implied in God's Word, than precisely declared) should be primarily concerned with ACCURACY in a formal equivalence manner.  As such, the doctrine of translation MUST also be concerned with the authenticity of the texts from which the translation is being taken (which is the reason that I asked my question concerning the texts or textual families unto which you held as "authentic").

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

 What exactly or precisely is meant by the assertion that the KJV is the preserved word of God? 

I myself often wonder at this as well; however, I myself do NOT make such a claim.  Rather, I hold that the King James TRANSLATION is a perfectly ACCURATE translation of that which the Lord our God preserved in the Hebrew and Greek.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Does it mean that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? 

See my answer above.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

On the other hand, is it possibly intended to suggest that the KJV always has a literal, word-for-word translation of each original language word of Scripture so that it is claimed to preserve exactly the same number of words [without any addition or omission] as the number of words that God gave to the prophets and apostles along with preserving the same meaning of each word? 

If someone does intend this, then they are being foolish.  Furthermore, even if this description were a reality, it still would not fulfill the precise definition of "jot and tittle" preservation.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

If preservation is directly applied to different words in a different language, would that possibly suggest that meaning or thought preservation is in effect being claimed instead of exact, specific word preservation? 

Yes.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures themselves clearly and directly teach a preservation of different words than the exact, specific ones given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

No.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

How does the KJV directly preserve each and every specific word given by God to the prophets and apostles if there are at least a few times where the KJV translators themselves suggested in their marginal notes that they did not provide an English rendering for an original language word in their underlying text?

Are there different number of words in different editions of the KJV or do all editions of the KJV have the exact same number of words and have the exact same words?  Which of the varying editions of the KJV is the specific one that is claimed to have every preserved word of God?

These question are not really relevant to my position concerning the precise definition of "jot and tittle" preservation.

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

While you did not answer my questions, I will consider yours.  I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

Amen, and AMEN!!!!!!!

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved. 

The KJV translators made use of textually-varying Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic text editions and textually-varying Greek New Testament text editions along with some other textual sources in their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions, and they did not follow any one edition 100% and did not identify or name any one as being their sole perfect standard.  If it is satisfactory and proper for the KJV translators to use more than one edition, would not the same be true for other translators? 

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators maintained that "it has pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation."  In their preface, the KJV translators asserted:  "For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt those things that are evident, so to determine such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

You assume correctly.  I am indeed aware of these facts.  However, these facts do not actually reveal your personal position in relation to the question that I asked --

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 7:28 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

I am desiring to know if you hold to the same Masoretic and "Received" textual authority as stands behind the King James translation, or if you hold to the textual authority which was lifted up by Westcott and Hort and which has continued to be lifted by present day textual criticism. 

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I would think that the scriptural truths concerning making righteous judgments, proving all things, using just measures, and not using unjust divers measures could provide some sound guidance concerning what consistent, sound, just criteria textual authorities should use to deal with textual variations.

Indeed.

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

Well, then it would appear that Brother D. A. Waite and I do not agree on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

 

The translators of the KJV had a dedication to God which is unsurpassed even shunned by translators and editors of today’s modern English versions (MEVs).

You are entitled to your opinion.  Can you provide sound evidence for your opinion?  Have you studied the actual Church of England doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?  Are you unaware of their acceptance of the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration?  Have you read and studied their lives and their writings?

Did you know that a good number of the KJV translators were active members of the state Church of England's Court of High Commission that persecuted professed believers for their faith?  Two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

I am desiring to know if you hold to the same Masoretic and "Received" textual authority as stands behind the King James translation, or if you hold to the textual authority which was lifted up by Westcott and Hort and which has continued to be lifted by present day textual criticism. 

 

I would hold to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.  That would also take into account the marginal notes in the Masoretic Text that the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated and used instead of the actual reading in the Masoretic Text.

I would hold to the traditional Greek New Testament text.  There were actual twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions available before 1611 so there may be a few textual variations to be settled between them.   The traditional received Greek NT text may differ slightly from the TR editions because of a few places where conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza [readings found in no known preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and readings not known to have been received in every generation]. 

I do not hold to the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort.  I do not hold to the Critical Text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I would hold to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.  That would also take into account the marginal notes in the Masoretic Text that the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated and used instead of the actual reading in the Masoretic Text.

I would hold to the traditional Greek New Testament text.  There were actual twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions available before 1611 so there may be a few textual variations to be settled between them.   The traditional received Greek NT text may differ slightly from the TR editions because of a few places where conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza [readings found in no known preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and readings not known to have been received in every generation]. 

I do not hold to the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort.  I do not hold to the Critical Text.

Brother Tyndale,

It appears then that you and I would stand in basic unity with one another on theses matters.  Having followed various of your postings on the subject, I am compelled to admit that you appear to be more studied on factual details than I am; however, our positioning on the texts and concerning the doctrine of preservation appears quite similar (if not, the same).

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Tyndale said:

If your question is not actually a simple question, it would not call for a simple answer.  Your question would seem to be actually complex and perhaps misleading or invalid.  Questions can be properly answered by questions.  I will properly explain why I consider your question to be complex or misleading.

I think that both a "no" answer and a "yes" answer could be misunderstood or suggest the wrong thing.   If "no" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would in effect be saying that the majority of the New Testament text of the Uncial Codices that would be the exactly the same as that in the varying Textus Receptus editions would not be the preserved word of God.  Would you give the answer "no" to your own question and in effect assert that the majority of the New Testament text in the Textus Receptus is not the preserved word of God since both would be the same in the majority of their NT text?  If "yes" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would be claiming that all the copying errors in the Uncial Codices are the preserved word of God.   I have not suggested that the Uncial Codices should be the standard, and I have not suggested that any textual corruptions should be accepted.

I do not believe that any copying errors introduced by imperfect men are the preserved word of God.  Would you claim that the actual copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus were the preserved word of God?

Okay...fair enough. 

As such, I would also agree that any copying errors are not the preserved word of God. 

However, Erasmus had a "majority" advantage over those who use other textual streams. Of which, Erasmus had the ability to compare the manuscripts.

Let me ask this...

Outside of the King James version, do you believe that there is a modern version of the Bible that you accept as being God's word?

Certainly, that is a "yes" or "no" answer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

You are entitled to your opinion.  Can you provide sound evidence for your opinion?  Have you studied the actual Church of England doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?  Are you unaware of their acceptance of the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration?  Have you read and studied their lives and their writings?

Did you know that a good number of the KJV translators were active members of the state Church of England's Court of High Commission that persecuted professed believers for their faith?  Two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Sound evidence? Sound enough for me...reading any forward from MEVs in comparison with the preface of the 1611. I have not read them all but enough to be disgusted.
Doctrinal views...not in any detail whatsoever, glances at some of the authors sins is as deep as I've gone.
Baptismal regeneration...Yes, and I reject it, somehow God insured that I could see it was incorrect by reading my KJV.
Studied their lives...some very limited study and I understand the translators accepted some views I don't hold.
Prosecuted professed believers...didn't think about the timing but, yes I can see this now.

I agree the lives of the translators were not perfect, outright sinners, me too. I believe God can use deficient men and sinners to preserve His word for English speaking people. Why, do I believe this? He used that murderer Moses to preserve His word. Some of your answers seem to be harsh. I understand these issues are important to you and I can see God using you to keep the rest of us in proper perspective. That is good. Please don't forget to be humble...I'm your brother in the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

That I am aware of, God has yet to use anyone perfect to write, translate, preserve or preach His perfect word (save for Jesus Himself). Praise God, He has maintained it through His power and authority, and not through our imperfect ability.

I have done some certain study on the subject but not nearly what has been done by many here. I have no qualm with Brother Tyndale's sstudy on the matter, nor his pointing out the problems with the KJV translators. Even those few who were not Church of England, but were of the Puritan persuasian, were themselves reformed. But again, bless God, He kept them all at least honest enough to keep out their issues of baptismal regeneration and reformed doctrines. I have even heard the rumors/accusations that King James was homosexual, and therefore the Bible he authorized was not reliable, yet if he was, he was honest enough to demand nothing allowing any kind of that behavior to be added in, either.

I think, for all their flaws, they at least, (or for the most part) truly believed they were doing holy work and God's true word, not as the critics believe, who treat it as any book, to be changed or 'fixed' as they see fit. I don't think anyone holds up the translators as somehow more spiritual or godly than many others, though certainly their abilities in the ancient languages were masterful, they were, however, believers, and God used them well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
25 minutes ago, Alan said:

It is my hope that all of us will love the pages of the Perfect Holy Writ from a loving Father above.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17

Brethren,

In the Poetry thread, I quoted James 1:17, to help explain my love for the scriptures.

In order to keep this posting simple and uncomplicated, after an extensive study of the manuscript issue, a study of the 'Introduction' of the King James 1611, the 'Introduction'  of the 'New International Version'  an intensive  study of the NASV, RV, RSV, the 'Good News for Modern Man' (right after I was saved in the U.S. Air Force, while I was overseas, I picked up a copy of the Good News for Modern Man from the Base Chapel),  and the works of Ruckman, Waite, Burgeon, Grady, Stauffer, and Vance, I came to the conclusion that  the King James Version is the preserved word of God in the English language. (I will forbear mentioning a certain Professor in Greek from one of the three Bible Colleges that I attended, who had his own translation of the 'original Greek,.' and the works of Wuest).

Is the King James Version of 1611 (or any of the 1611 revisions for spelling or grammar),  a 'good gift,' a, 'perfect gift,' 'from above,' and, 'cometh down from the Father of lights,' the preserved word of God? To me, this is the heart of the preservation of the manuscript issue. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Proverbs 4:23 

Or, am I in error?

Or, any of the versions of the scriptures from 1881, the Revised Version of 1881, the 'preserved word of God?' Yes or No.

Is the Greek professor (whom I will forbear mentioning), correct? Do we need another Greek translation? Yes or No.

Do we need another English translation from another Greek translation?  Yes or No.

If so, please let me know which Bible is the preserved word of God.

A simple yes or no will suffice. No long explanations, or even short, explanations, are necessary. I am familiar with the detailed works of Waite (as he was previously mentioned I will only use him as an example), the manuscripts involved, the translators, etc...   So, I do not need to be refreshed by any of the brethren in any of the issues involved.

All I want is an yes or no answer (by anybody, or everybody), to the above question concerning James 1:17

Alan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The problem with the mindset of the today's "modern scholar" is they are so concerned with things "about the text" that it seems they all but over look the very text they are learning about. The perfected text of the KJV speaks for itself to be an accurate representation of God's word, just as imperfect and corrupted texts of any language speak for themselves, irrespective of their translators. It is indeed a true gift from God of his preserved words for the English speaking people, irrespective of the feelings or any ineptness of its translators.

Isaiah 40:6-8 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Was all of the word of God preserved? And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. God is speaking words they can hear Him. If God preserved His word what were those words?

Maybe only the written word is preserved. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. Where is that written word by the Word? Do we know what was written? No. Was it preserved? No. Was it the written word? Yes

This doctrine has caused me to ask really stupid questions on here. Its one the things I'm having to unlearn because in my early salvation I received bad teaching. 

The Word sitting at God's right hand is preserved. Jesus is preserved, Jesus is alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

   I have no qualm with Brother Tyndale's sstudy on the matter, nor his pointing out the problems with the KJV translators. Even those few who were not Church of England, but were of the Puritan persuasian, were themselves reformed.

Actually the Puritan party was still part of the Church of England.  There were two groups in England that sometimes are confused:  the Puritans and the Separatists [Pilgrims].  They may have had similar doctrinal views, but one group [the Puritans] had remained in the Church of England while the other had left it.  From within, the Puritans sought to purify the Church of England of some Roman Catholic doctrines and practices that remained in it while the Separatists had left the Church of England because of those teachings and practices.  Sometimes Puritans would leave the Church of England and become Separatists.

All of the KJV translators were members of the Church of England.  A few had been part of the Puritan party, but they had been forced to conform [at least outwardly] by canons [church rules] made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and approved by King James I in 1604.  These church rules were mostly against any Puritan dissent in the Church of England.  Archbishop Bancroft used his canons and the Church of England's High Commission Court to silence or persecute the Puritans and to try to force them into conformity with official Church of England positions. 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
23 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

However, Erasmus had a "majority" advantage over those who use other textual streams.

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he include some minority readings in his Greek text edition and why did he introduce some readings or conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts?

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he fail to correct some of the actual errors found in the few Greek manuscripts he used to compile and edit his text?

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he include at least a couple readings in his text that you would likely consider to be part of the corrupt textual stream?

The first two editions of the Greek text edited by Erasmus did not have four whole verses that are found in the KJV.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Tyndale said:

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he include some minority readings in his Greek text edition and why did he introduce some readings or conjectures found in no known Greek NT manuscripts?

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he fail to correct some of the actual errors found in the few Greek manuscripts he used to compile and edit his text?

Since Erasmus had a "majority" advantage, why did he include at least a couple readings in his text that you would likely consider to be part of the corrupt textual stream?

The first two editions of the Greek text edited by Erasmus did not have four whole verses that are found in the KJV.

 

You'll have to ask Erasmus.

Why didn't you answer my question? 

Don't worry...I won't ask you any more questions. I kind of feel like I'm talking to Wikipedia...

Have a good evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

On 2017/4/24 at 10:27 PM, Tyndale said:

 

Did you know that a good number of the KJV translators were active members of the state Church of England's Court of High Commission that persecuted professed believers for their faith?  Two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Brother Tyndale,

Would you mind giving us the reference book for your above statement concerning the translators on the church of England's Court of High Commission. And, the reference to where these specific men were either for, or against, any persecution, or they excused themselves, or any other specific information.

Also, in an effort to confirm your sources, we need the names of the two men on the translation committee, the date of the trial, whether or not the two men agreed to the execution, the names of the two men who were burned at the stake, the site of the execution, and the date of the execution.

On 2017/4/25 at 8:51 AM, Alan said:

Is the King James Version of 1611 (or any of the 1611 revisions for spelling or grammar),  a 'good gift,' a, 'perfect gift,' 'from above,' and, 'cometh down from the Father of lights,' the preserved word of God? To me, this is the heart of the preservation of the manuscript issue. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Proverbs 4:23 

Are any of the versions of the scriptures from 1881, the Revised Version of 1881, the 'preserved word of God?' Yes or No.

Do we need another Greek translation? Yes or No.

Do we need another English translation from another Greek translation?  Yes or No.

If so, please let me know which Bible is the preserved word of God.

 

James 1:17 is very clear, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

Would you please answer my questions that I had previously posted (I did slightly shorten, and re-did the grammar). No explanations are needed. If any of the above questions are answered yes than please provide me with the name of the preserved Bible.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Alan said:

 

Would you mind giving us the reference book for your above statement concerning the translators on the church of England's Court of High Commission. And, the reference to where these specific men were either for, or against, any persecution, or they excused themselves, or any other specific information.

Also, in an effort to confirm your sources, we need the names of the two men on the translation committee, the date of the trial, whether or not the two men agreed to the execution, the names of the two men who were burned at the stake, the site of the execution, and the date of the execution.

KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes, George Abbot, and Thomas Ravis along with KJV co-editor Bishop Thomas Bilson and Archbishop Richard Bancroft, the overseer of the translating, were members of the High Commission Court. Other KJV translators were also members of these commissions.  Roland Usher's list of the commissions in the province of Canterbury included KJV translators John Bois, Arthur Lake, John Layfield, Nicolas Love, James Montague, John Overall, Sir Henry Savile, Miles Smith, and Giles Thompson (The Rise and Fall of the High Commission, pp. 345-359).  

Alexander McClure noted that Richard Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217).  Thomas Fuller described Bancroft as "the soul of the high commission" (Worthies of England, p. 301).  Christopher Hill maintained that Bancroft used the High Commission Court "as a coercive instrument to enforce uniformity" (Society and Puritanism, p. 349).  Williston Walker pointed out that the High Commission Court "could examine and imprison anywhere in England and had become the right arm of episcopal authority" (History of the Christian Church, pp. 406-407).  Durham Dunlop maintained that the Court of High Commission “became a terrible instrument of tyranny and persecution in the hands of Church and State.  It fined or imprisoned its victims, confiscated their property, tortured or murdered them at will, without being amenable to appeal, or subject to any controlling authority save the Crown, whose creation it was, and whose sanguinary instrument it always proved” (Church, p. 157).  John Southerdan Burn maintained that “the whole course of the High Commission from its first arrest or summons, to the ultimate ruin, or death of its unfortunate victim, was a series of unconstitutional and illegal cruelties,--refusing a copy of the charges, insisting on the oath ex-offico, suspending, deriving, degrading, and ruining the poor wretch,--occasionally sending to prison even the lawyer who dared to defend the accused, or to question the power or legality of the Court” (The High Commission, p. vi).

KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142).  George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (p. 93).  The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11).  This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (p. 18).  S. H. Ford wrote that "almost canonized head of the Episcopal Church [King James] thus, in the name of Christ, authorized poor Wightman's death" (Origin of the Baptist, p. 21).  Phil Stringer observed that Wightman was burned at the stake "for declaring that baptism of infants was an abominable custom" or "for being a Baptist" (Faithful Baptist Witness, p. 7).  William Cutter wrote:  “Edward Wightman, ancestor of the American family, was condemned to death and burned at the stake, April 11, 1611, because of his Baptist faith” (New England Families, Vol. 1, p. 36). 

Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi).  William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127).  While he worked on the KJV, Thomas Ravis "was highly active as a hated scourge," harassing and persecuting those who would not fully submit to the Church of England (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 93).  Alexander McClure also noted that the prelate Thomas Ravis was "a fierce persecutor of the Puritans" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 150).  Geddes MacGregor observed that Ravis “swore to oust those whose Puritan leanings made them reluctant to conform” (Literary History of the Bible, p. 200). Thomas Bilson, who helped edit and revise the final draft of the KJV, also "carried on the holy warfare" against the Puritans and insisted that they wear the surplice and hood (Men Behind the KJV, p. 96).  Thomas Smith also confirmed that Bilson "treated the Puritans with uncommon severity" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, Labours, and Sufferings of those Pious and Learned English and Scottish Divines, p. 322).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 8:51 PM, Alan said:

 

Is the King James Version of 1611 (or any of the 1611 revisions for spelling or grammar),  a 'good gift,' a, 'perfect gift,' 'from above,' and, 'cometh down from the Father of lights,' the preserved word of God? To me, this is the heart of the preservation of the manuscript issue.

Do we need another English translation from another Greek translation?  Yes or No.

If so, please let me know which Bible is the preserved word of God.

A simple yes or no will suffice. No long explanations, or even short, explanations, are necessary.

 

Explanations are needed and necessary because I would disagree somewhat with some of the premises that would seem to lie behind your questions.  As I have already indicated earlier in this thread, I understand the heart of the Scripture's doctrine of preservation to apply directly to the exact, specific words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  In my understanding, exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to concern preservation of the original language words of Scripture.   In my opinion, you in effect would have to change the definition or meaning of preservation to attempt to use it concerning Bible translations.   What is your definition of preservation?  Exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to be changed to meaning preservation, thought preservation, or dynamic equivalent preservation in order to apply it to Bible translations.   What type of preservation are you claiming for the KJV?  The KJV does not give a literal rendering of each original language word that the KJV translators had in their underlying original language texts.  Excluding the 1611 reprint editions, present editions of the KJV would not provide a "jot and tittle" preservation of the 1611 edition of the KJV.   Exact "jot and tittle" preservation would not allow even the spelling of words to be changed.   All the actual revisions and changes made to the 1611 edition of the KJV did not involve only spelling or grammar.

The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be the perfect gift directly from God above.  To claim that the KJV was a perfect gift directly from God above would seem to me to be a claim for a second inspiration and regiving of the Scriptures and would in effect make God responsible for the actual errors that were found in the 1611 edition.  The 1611 edition of the KJV was not perfect.

The suggestion that there have been too many English translations would not lead to the conclusion that there should have been only one English translation.  If there should have been only one English translation, there would have been no need for the 1611 KJV.  English-speaking believers already had available before 1611 good English translations of the Scriptures such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible.  Would God, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17) and who is "without partiality" (James 3:17), show partiality and respect of persons to one group of English Bible translators?

The traditional Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament text and the traditional Greek New Testament text would be the preserved word of God.  Bible translations are translations of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Since God is without partiality and does not show respect of persons, I believe that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or way that the pre-1611 English Bibles (of which the KJV is a revision) are the word of God translated into English.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 3 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...