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.

"the spirits in prison"


heartstrings
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1 Peter 3:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

It specifies only the "disobedient" spirits  which were BEFORE the flood.  I was going to mention this in another thread but it was closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/2/2017 at 0:34 AM, heartstrings said:

1 Peter 3:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

It specifies only the "disobedient" spirits  which were BEFORE the flood.  I was going to mention this in another thread but it was closed.

I assume that the "abyss" mentioned in Luke 8:31 is the same place as the spirit prison? In Luke's account they seemed to fear being sent there during Jesus' lifetime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

From my understanding the wicked dead and the believers went to two places, separated from each other by a "great gulf".

Are you saying that only the wicked dead before the flood went to the spirit prison, or just they are the only ones Christ went and preached to?

Please know I'm not being critical or trying to stump you. I'm just trying to understand what exactly the context is of your first post.

Edited by Disciple.Luke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/9/2017 at 10:09 AM, Orval said:

What is the context of your posting these verses?  

It was a response to the last post in the "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?" thread. The Bible does not say that Jesus preached to anyone in the "prison" except  the disobedient ones who lived before the flood. I believe He was reprimanding those "sons of God", of Genesis chapters 5 and 6 who, though believers, disobeyed God, conformed to the world, and were participating in the "eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage".

6 minutes ago, Disciple.Luke said:

Are you saying that only the wicked dead before the flood went to the spirit prison, or just they are the only ones Christ went and preached to?

Please know I'm not being critical or trying to stump you. I'm just trying to understand what exactly the context is of your first post.

No, all of the wicked dead went to the other place: they went to Hell.  (Luke 16:23-26)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

It was a response to the last post in the "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?" thread. The Bible does not say that Jesus preached to anyone in the "prison" except  the disobedient ones who lived before the flood. I believe He was reprimanding those "sons of God", of Genesis chapters 5 and 6 who, though believers, disobeyed God, conformed to the world, and were participating in the "eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage".

No, all of the wicked dead went to the other place: they went to Hell.  (Luke 16:23-26)

I see. I didn't know your post was in reply to another thread topic. Thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

I hold the view that the spirits in prison ( 1 Peter 3:19 ) are sons of God of Genesis 6 which are the (fallen) angels that sinned of 2 Peter 2:4 " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; " as well as Jude 1:6

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 7:59 AM, heartstrings said:

It was a response to the last post in the "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?" thread.

I haven't read that post but id say they weren't "born again" before Pentecost because that was when they were sealed with the Spirit. Which Jesus said in John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So being born of the Spirit is the same as being born again - being born with the Spirit of adoption. There was no adoption in the OT. Plus there weren't even any Jews in Genesis 6 (which Israel as a nation is a son - Exodus 4:22 - but individual Jews are not sons of God) Adam was a direct creation so was a son (Luke 3:38) and angels as well are direct creations and are the sons of God in the OT. even they have freewill and chose to sin but are not eligible for salvation

Im not sure if I went off topic but im not sure was this thread was directly about. Wheres the thread that talks about this? Is there one? I'm new

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, InSeasonOut said:

I hold the view that the spirits in prison ( 1 Peter 3:19 ) are sons of God of Genesis 6 which are the (fallen) angels that sinned of 2 Peter 2:4 " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; " as well as Jude 1:6

I haven't read that post but id say they weren't "born again" before Pentecost because that was when they were sealed with the Spirit. Which Jesus said in John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

So being born of the Spirit is the same as being born again - being born with the Spirit of adoption. There was no adoption in the OT. Plus there weren't even any Jews in Genesis 6 (which Israel as a nation is a son - Exodus 4:22 - but individual Jews are not sons of God) Adam was a direct creation so was a son (Luke 3:38) and angels as well are direct creations and are the sons of God in the OT. even they have freewill and chose to sin but are not eligible for salvation

Im not sure if I went off topic but im not sure was this thread was directly about. Wheres the thread that talks about this? Is there one? I'm new

I hold the view that all of the named individuals in Genesis 5, all direct ancestors in the line of Christ, including Adam, Enoch, and Noah are included in the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 and that they became so back in Genesis 4 when "men began to call upon the name of the Lord".(Genesis 4:26) I believe these "sons of God" "took them wives"(plural) from unbelievers and in doing so were disobedient The only exception to this,among them, was Enoch who was "translated" because he "walked with God"(definitely a believer by that account) and Noah who was "perfect in his generations" and "walked with God". The term "Sons of God" is a term which the Word of God directly defines. It only refers to "believers". (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:2)  An "angel", however, is a different being entirely and things that are different are not the same. As pertaining to Adam's being a "direct creation of God"; that criteria is never used to define a "son of God" in the King James Bible.  A "son" is an individual which was "begotten" by a father and "angels" do not and cannot meet that criteria. (Hebrews 1:5)

Another thing to consider about Adam; being that Adam was the "son of God",  he would have been also included in "the sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 because it was happening when men "began" to multiply...........I'll stop right there. :)

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

About the "angels" ,named so in the Book of Jude, their sin was that they "despised dominion"; Not "going after strange flesh" or "defiling the flesh". The Sodomites did that.

Three groups of sinners are named in Jude 5-8, with their principle sins.

Israelites- "believed not" and spoke evil of dignities(chiefly Moses)

Sodomites- fornication and defiled the flesh

Angels (which kept not their first estate) - despised dominion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I hold the view that all of the named individuals in Genesis 5, all direct ancestors in the line of Christ, including Adam, Enoch, and Noah are included in the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 and that they became so back in Genesis 4 when "men began to call upon the name of the Lord".(Genesis 4:26) I believe these "sons of God" "took them wives"(plural) from unbelievers and in doing so were disobedient

I respectfully disagree. I know brethren that don't take the angelic view which is fine, and its nothing important to debate about ( Hebrews 13:9 ) but it always catches my interest. - The problem is if the qualification for being a son of God is being obedient/calling upon the Lord then by the time Gen. 6:4 comes they are no longer sons of God. And how a regular man with a woman would begat a giant is beyond me. I read that literally a giant - is a giant - not just a "mighty warrior" or whatever else. I'm sure you've heard this before, so ill keep going...

15 hours ago, heartstrings said:

The term "Sons of God" is a term which the Word of God directly defines. It only refers to "believers". (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:2

Brother, its important to point out those are all NT verses. So yes in the NT it only refers to believers. But not the OT. John 1:12 for example does not line up with Genesis 4:26 because John 1:12 is the name of JESUS. Those in Gen 4:26 were not calling upon the name of Jesus, and were not sons of God. The other examples would be that there was no adoption in the OT. They were not sealed with the Spirit in the OT, very few even had the Spirit, it was mainly prophets and it would come and go.

15 hours ago, heartstrings said:

As pertaining to Adam's being a "direct creation of God"; that criteria is never used to define a "son of God" in the King James Bible.  A "son" is an individual which was "begotten" by a father and "angels" do not and cannot meet that criteria. (Hebrews 1:5)

While I like that you base that off the bible, that's not what I see. Adam was a son of God - Luke 3:38 says so and Adam was not begotten - he was created. (Jesus was begotten but not created - big difference). So Adam was created and is a son of God - angels are created and are sons of God ( Job 38:6-7 ) God is Adam's Father as well angels (sons). As for Hebrews 1:5 no, no angels were begotten, I agree, they were created. That's why Jesus is the only begotten Son ( John 3:16 ) if regular men in the OT were begotten sons of God then that would contradict John 3:16 wouldn't it? Only begotten? God had a created son Adam (not begotten) God had angels had created sons of God (not begotten)

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

About the "angels" ,named so in the Book of Jude, their sin was that they "despised dominion"; Not "going after strange flesh" or "defiling the flesh". The Sodomites did that.

Of course I looked at Jude and read this in v 5-8

" I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

The text is comparing angels with sodomites. They both " likewise " defile the flesh and despise dominion etc. etc. Of course the angels in Gen 19 were not fallen, but Sodomites wanted to "know" the angels (whom look identical to man). Which didn't happen at that time. But it did happen with the angels which kept not their first estate in the pre-flood world and even after that when with the daughters of men producing giants. Divers and strange doctrine yes indeed ( Hebrews 13:9 ) but its what the Bible says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
35 minutes ago, InSeasonOut said:

I respectfully disagree. I know brethren that don't take the angelic view which is fine, and its nothing important to debate about ( Hebrews 13:9 ) but it always catches my interest. - The problem is if the qualification for being a son of God is being obedient/calling upon the Lord then by the time Gen. 6:4 comes they are no longer sons of God. And how a regular man with a woman would begat a giant is beyond me. I read that literally a giant - is a giant - not just a "mighty warrior" or whatever else. I'm sure you've heard this before, so ill keep going...

Brother, its important to point out those are all NT verses. So yes in the NT it only refers to believers. But not the OT. John 1:12 for example does not line up with Genesis 4:26 because John 1:12 is the name of JESUS. Those in Gen 4:26 were not calling upon the name of Jesus, and were not sons of God. The other examples would be that there was no adoption in the OT. They were not sealed with the Spirit in the OT, very few even had the Spirit, it was mainly prophets and it would come and go.

While I like that you base that off the bible, that's not what I see. Adam was a son of God - Luke 3:38 says so and Adam was not begotten - he was created. (Jesus was begotten but not created - big difference). So Adam was created and is a son of God - angels are created and are sons of God ( Job 38:6-7 ) God is Adam's Father as well angels (sons). As for Hebrews 1:5 no, no angels were begotten, I agree, they were created. That's why Jesus is the only begotten Son ( John 3:16 ) if regular men in the OT were begotten sons of God then that would contradict John 3:16 wouldn't it? Only begotten? God had a created son Adam (not begotten) God had angels had created sons of God (not begotten)

Of course I looked at Jude and read this in v 5-8

" I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

The text is comparing angels with sodomites. They both " likewise " defile the flesh and despise dominion etc. etc. Of course the angels in Gen 19 were not fallen, but Sodomites wanted to "know" the angels (whom look identical to man). Which didn't happen at that time. But it did happen with the angels which kept not their first estate in the pre-flood world and even after that when with the daughters of men producing giants. Divers and strange doctrine yes indeed ( Hebrews 13:9 ) but its what the Bible says

I don't have a lot of time, right now, but I will address these two

. #1 Yes, they would have still been "sons of God" by Genesis 6:4. Their disobedience included marrying the daughters of men but this would not have revoked their sonship. It would have affected their fellowship. If it matters, you can check the ages and the timeline; only two of these men would have been alive when Noah began building the ark and only one(Methuselah) was alive in the year the flood came.. But Methuselah did not board the ark. He ,most likely, had been disobedient.

#2. If you will read that scripture more closely you will see that the "sons of God" did not beget the "giants". Those are two separate but related statements. It merely states that "there were giants", then goes on to tell about the sons of God, daughters of men, children etc. I believe the reason it mentions the "giants" is because the "sons of God" were conforming to the world as a reaction to their presence. The "sons of God" married "wives", lived hundreds of years(Genesis 5) and lived to see their families multiply into astronomical populations or  "superpowers"(mighty men of renoun) which were great and powerful nations in a time in which the earth was "filled with violence". That was their disobedience. And the giants were merely very large, tall men as "Goliath of Gath" was. They were not angel human hybrids.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ok, I will answer one more.

#3. The word "likewise", which you presented in bold text, means that the "filthy dreamers'' AKA ''certain men crept in unawares'',  were doing all three sins; the sins of the angels, Sodomites, and Israelites. That is the context of the passage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, heartstrings said:

. #1 Yes, they would have still been "sons of God" by Genesis 6:4. Their disobedience included marrying the daughters of men but this would not have revoked their sonship. It would have affected their fellowship

So to be clear, you believe the sons of Seth are sons of God - and sons of Cain are not?

- But If disobedience of sons of Seth did not effect sonship, only fellowship then that would be the same case for sons of Cain because you said disobedience does not effect sonship.

I don't mean to be overwhelming but yes Genesis 6 clearly says the giants resulted from the sons of God.

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

There is only men that are mentioned in verse 1. - Daughters were born unto them; the men. (They are to be in distinction from "sons of God")

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Now it mentions the sons of God, that they saw the daughters they were born unto the men. The sons of God took the daughters of these men and made them wives. Where are either Seth or Cain mentioned? To place them in chapter 6 is assumption.

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There were giants when the sons of God (sons of Seth???) came in unto the daughters of MEN, and they (daughters of the men) bare children unto them (sons of God). The giants were the children, that's when they were in the earth, resulting from the sons of God.

- So daughters are being born unto the men in verse 1 - then in verse 4 giants are being born unto the sons of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, InSeasonOut said:

S

There were giants when the sons of God (sons of Seth???) came in unto the daughters of MEN, and they (daughters of the men) bare children unto them (sons of God). The giants were the children, that's when they were in the earth, resulting from the sons of God.

- So daughters are being born unto the men in verse 1 - then in verse 4 giants are being born unto the sons of God.

The scripture doesn't say that.  

It says there were giants on the earth in those days and after that the sons born to the them became mighty men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 minutes ago, Invicta said:

It says

Quote it.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There were giants before and after the flood. The giants are "the same" mighty men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, InSeasonOut said:

Quote it.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There were giants before and after the flood. The giants are "the same" mighty men

It doesn't say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, InSeasonOut said:

And how a regular man with a woman would begat a giant is beyond me. I read that literally a giant - is a giant - not just a "mighty warrior" or whatever else.

Sorry gotta pull you up on this one.

The Bible says:

Gen 6:4
(4)  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Notice that there were giants in the earth in those days; and ALSO AFTER THAT, when.....

The Giants were not the offspring of "the sons of God" and the "daughters of men", but were pre-existing that event. Those offspring became "Mighty men", "Men of renown", but there is no mention of them being giants.

 

 

As to Giants:

1Sa 17:4
(4)  And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
 

In 1 Sam, 2 Sam, 1 Chron. Goliath and his brothers are referred to as sons of the giant.

A Giant is certainly referred to in the Bible as a large man, but not as anything more than a large man. Six cubits and a span is roughly ten feel tall, which is far taller than the average man today, but it is not far off what has been seen in modern times.

Robert Waldo was just shy of nine feet tall. (around 1940)

Look at Yao Ming, the Chinese basketballer standing next to Shaquille O'niell and tell me taht he is only 7'6" as stated - Shaq is 7'2" (I think) and is waaaaaay shorted than Yao Ming,

Giant in the Bible never means "Jack and the beanstalk" giant.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Timeline.....

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There were giants in the earth in those days;

 

WHEN did men "begin to multiply"? Read Genesis chapters 4 and 5; Genesis 4, 5 and 6 go together. Now, notice that giants, in Genesis 6:4. are "in those days"? "Those days" are "when men began to multiply" in Genesis 4, 5 AND in the 120 years before God sent the flood.  Now notice the term "and also after that". Did the giants cease to exist prior to the "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bare children........."? No. They were still there. So, what does "after that" mean? It means "subsequent to" or "as a consequence of" or "in imitation of" or "as a result of"  like........

Genesis 1:11 ...."after his kind"

Genesis 1:26..."after our likeness"

 

The word "after" is also used in the word of God to express "later in time" but it cannot be so in this passage because the whole story encompasses "those days". The verse, Genesis 6:4, actually gives more description to Genesis chapter 5 and explains that "There were powerful, fierce, dangerous warriors in those days(giants) and as a consequence of or imitation or result of that,(after that) the "sons of God" (believers named in Genesis 5) begat sons and daughters for hundreds of years (Genesis 5)) and became very powerful politically (giving in marriage Matthew 24:38)), powerful in numbers (begatting sons and daughters) and became powerful militarily(mighty men). I believe it was the "sons of God" AND the offspring which became "mighty men of renown"; to me, the verse does not specify otherwise. That's all it is bro. 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 18 Guests (See full list)

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