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.

Saved in 3 tenses?


Roselove
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What are you confused about? Is it the "three tenses"?

Examples:

[Past Tense]

(Titus 3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Present Tense]

(1 Corinthians 1:18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[Future Tense]

(1 Corinthians 3:15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Past, present, and future. Our salvation encompasses all three. I was saved many years ago in the "past", I'm "presently" saved today, and I'll be saved in the "future". It's not three different salvations; it's three aspects of one salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

What are you confused about? Is it the "three tenses"?

Examples:

[Past Tense]

(Titus 3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Present Tense]

(1 Corinthians 1:18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

[Future Tense]

(1 Corinthians 3:15) If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Past, present, and future. Our salvation encompasses all three. I was saved many years ago in the "past", I'm "presently" saved today, and I'll be saved in the "future". It's not three different salvations; it's three aspects of one salvation.

What you're saying makes sense. The thing this person (and others that go along this belief system) was saying is that, in the greek for instance, 1 corinthians 1:18 the verbage is saying "being saved". Like, it depends on us continuing to trust and obey Him, continuing faith, your final salvation will come. 

I didn't know what to think, really. I know that some say we will continue, but then they make it seem as though our final salvation is conditonal upon our continued faithfulness. It seems to be one of the things that has a fine line, between beliefs i guess. :/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 minutes ago, Roselove said:

What you're saying makes sense. The thing this person (and others that go along this belief system) was saying is that, in the greek for instance, 1 corinthians 1:18 the verbage is saying "being saved". Like, it depends on us continuing to trust and obey Him, continuing faith, your final salvation will come. 

I didn't know what to think, really. I know that some say we will continue, but then they make it seem as though our final salvation is conditonal upon our continued faithfulness. It seems to be one of the things that has a fine line, between beliefs i guess. :/ 

Well, I didn't want to say anything at first, but the person (and article) to whom you are referring to is using a different Bible and Greek text than the King James Version and the Greek text it was translated from. I quickly looked up the word in Greek, and the word is a different Greek word than what that gentleman quoted. He even admits that other translations translate the word differently. You have to be very careful of whom you read Roselove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Well, I didn't want to say anything at first, but the person (and article) to whom you are referring to is using a different Bible and Greek text than the King James Version and the Greek text it was translated from. I quickly looked up the word in Greek, and the word is a different Greek word than what that gentleman quoted. He even admits that other translations translate the word differently. You have to be very careful of whom you read Roselove.

http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Strongs/46001018/G4982 

i looked on here, and it's the same word, though? I took screenshots of the word he said and the one in the textus receptus, and they are the same. I could be missing something, I'm not sure. :/

σωζομενοις <--pasted from textus receptus 

σωζομενοις<--pasted from person's webpage 

im a bit confused :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, all that I can go by is what I use. I'm no Greek scholar. Here's the word in my Bible program...as you can see, it's the same "number", but look at the Greek word in comparison to what you've posted...

G4982 σώζω sozo (sō'-zō) v.
to save, i.e. deliver or protect.
{literally or figuratively}
[from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saos, “safe”)]
KJV: heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 15:2 - σωζεσθε

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις

The Greek word from the Textus Receptus link that you provided of 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The screenshot's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The Greek word in my program from both 1 Corinthians 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σώζω (#4982)

All that I can say is...

The author has two different Greek words from the same single Greek word and "number"; which is 4982. The author, the screenshot, and the link provided show different Greek words than what mine shows. As I said, I'm no Greek scholar, and I just reference Greek occasionally. I'm wondering why the author has two different Greek words for the same Greek word...well, I think I know why, but I'll stop there.

I can't explain it to you any more than what I've shown Roselove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

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

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

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

Thanks Bro. Markle...I was kind of hoping you might chime in on this. :)

I was suspicious that it may have been the case as you described; however, since I haven't studied Greek, I wasn't about to try to "explain" something that I knew nothing about. LOL!

When I "type" a Greek word, I don't actually type it out. I just highlight it with my mouse cursor in my Bible program, then I copy and paste it here (or in my examples above...copy and paste the word from those websites).

I hope you're doing well friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
28 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother McWhorter,

Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb.  The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles).

σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω

 σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω

Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word.

(By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters?  I would like to know that for future posting.)

I'm a bit confused 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Just now, No Nicolaitans said:

When I "type" a Greek word, I don't actually type it out. I just highlight it with my mouse cursor in my Bible program, then I copy and paste it here (or in my examples above...copy and paste the word from those websites).

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

1 minute ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I hope you're doing well friend.

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Just now, Roselove said:

I'm a bit confused 

Sister Rose,

About what in particular are you confused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Excellent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Just now, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Understood.  The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. 

Doing quite well.  Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting.  However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye."

(In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter.  As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.)

Sister Rose,

About what in particular are you confused?

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Just now, Roselove said:

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

I'm still a little ignorant to the greek and everything, so my comprehension of everyone's answers is still a bit hard to grasp, but I'm sure when we get further, it'll make more sense. And yes, I will be patient! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 minutes ago, Roselove said:

Well, No Nicolations said that it's 2 different words, but you said it's the same word, i think? I think he was saying it that way, to further disprove the man who wrote the article? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, No nicolations), I wasn't sure really where both of your trains of thought lined up, I guess. I'm just trying to figure out how you all's view is different from the article writer's.

 

7 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Rose,

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article.  However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.).

Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help).  However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle.  As such, I would request patience, if I may.

My apparent "combativeness" wasn't necessarily against the man himself, the article itself, or the ideas of the article; rather, it was against the Bible that he uses, and therefore; its underlying Greek text. As far as the general message underlying the article...I had no problem with that. I agree with being saved in "three tenses". I apologize for letting my rancor show in regards to a Bible version other than the King James. :99_muscle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

My apparent "combativeness" wasn't necessarily against the man himself, the article itself, or the ideas of the article; rather, it was against the Bible that he uses, and therefore; its underlying Greek text. As far as the general message underlying the article...I had no problem with that. I agree with being saved in "three tenses". I apologize for letting my rancor show in regards to a Bible version other than the King James. :99_muscle:

Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter.  Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation.  However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated).

Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong.  On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such. 

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

By the way -- May I say that I do NOT AT ALL like the the "question" forum for such thread discussions, since postings can be moved through rating; and thereby the line of comment and response can become distorted.  (I wonder if this thread discussion could be moved to a different forum structure by one of the moderators.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter.  Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation.  However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated).

Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong.  On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such. 

Since the words the writer uses are the same as kjv, how is it that he's wrong about our security being conditional? That's where i was a bit confused. :4_6_2v:

I mean, in the way that he's trying to disprove it, that is.

(Sorry if this counts as impatience) :7_sweat_smile:

Edited by Roselove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Well, all that I can go by is what I use. I'm no Greek scholar. Here's the word in my Bible program...as you can see, it's the same "number", but look at the Greek word in comparison to what you've posted...

G4982 σώζω sozo (sō'-zō) v.
to save, i.e. deliver or protect.
{literally or figuratively}
[from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saos, “safe”)]
KJV: heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 15:2 - σωζεσθε

The author's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις

The Greek word from the Textus Receptus link that you provided of 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The screenshot's Greek word from 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σωζομενοις (#4982)

The Greek word in my program from both 1 Corinthians 15:2 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 - σώζω (#4982)

All that I can say is...

The author has two different Greek words from the same single Greek word and "number"; which is 4982. The author, the screenshot, and the link provided show different Greek words than what mine shows. As I said, I'm no Greek scholar, and I just reference Greek occasionally. I'm wondering why the author has two different Greek words for the same Greek word...well, I think I know why, but I'll stop there.

I can't explain it to you any more than what I've shown Roselove.

Okay, I just installed the TR in my Bible program...

1 Corinthians 15:2, the word for saved is σωζεσθε

1 Corinthians 1:18, the word for saved is σωζομενοις

First, thanks to Bro. Markle for pointing out the situation with Strong's. I wasn't aware of that.

Second, I've learned a lesson from this, and though I originally tried to tread carefully, I realize that I need to tread even more carefully from this point forward. I will bow out of this conversation from here on out. Thank you Bro. Markle for addressing Roselove's concerns.

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

  • Similar Content

    • By Roselove
      No matter how much of the Bible I read, how many sermons I listen to, or how much I pray, I cannot repent. 
      I cannot truly have hatred of sin. My motivation is to not go to hell and when I feel at all secure that I’m going to Heaven, I immediately don’t care about if I’m sinning or not. 
      I cannot feel bad that sin hurts God. I only care about myself. I’ve felt convicted for years that I’m unsaved for this reason. 
      I don’t know what to do. I’m scared and running out of hope. I’m worried I’m to hard spiritually to repent. 
      HOW do I settle this?? 
    • By Roselove
      I have an illness that won’t go away, I would appreciate prayers for healing ❤️ 
      I would be happy to pray for others, as well ❤️
    • By Roselove
      I sometimes can’t quite grasp the difference between these two. 
      Jesus says to come unto Him for salvation, but He also says that if someone comes after Him, they must forsake all and pick up their cross. 
      I know it’s not a physical seperation of the world or a promise to not sin, but I feel convicted that in order to fully put yourself on Him for salvation, you must see Him as such, to where you could happily run away from everyone/everything in your life. 
      People see God in a cruel task-master sort of way and that’s why they don’t trust God enough to fully fling themselves onto Him and off their crutches of their family/friends/whatever keeps them feeling “secure”. They don’t want to forsake all and follow Christ, completely. 
      So many say that you only admit you’re a sinner/know only Jesus’s sacrifice can save you, and be willing for Christ to change you, but it appears you have to go into salvation already with the heart of a disciple. That is most definitely what I see God saying when Jesus talks about hating our life/family/etc. 
      Fully trusting Him, would mean no doubt when you come to Him for salvation. 
      I’m a bit nervous because I still see God as too scary to judt be alone with because I know my heart isn’t totally trusting Him. I feel convicted that I haven’t totally trusted Him, alone and I don’t have total faith that everyone/everything is but loss, compared to Christ. 
      People keep saying I’m wrong, but why do I hear God saying this to me?? Why do I feel like God’s saying I’m not saved because I wasn’t in this mind-set when I came to Him for salvation?? 
      Please pray and help me understand if I’m misinterpreting something. 
      I’m scared and feel helpless. I don’t want to value anything more than, God. But, my wicked heart can’t let go of all and see Him as truly a loving, so much better than anyone/anything God because I’m scared and the Bible says that people with that heart are evil and unsaved. 
      Please be honest with me and please pray for discernment on what I need to know. 
    • By Roselove
      I sometimes can’t quite grasp the difference between these two. 
      Jesus says to come unto Him for salvation, but He also says that if someone comes after Him, they must forsake all and pick up their cross. 
      I know it’s not a physical seperation of the world or a promise to not sin, but I feel convicted that in order to fully put yourself on Him for salvation, you must see Him as such, to where you could happily run away from everyone/everything in your life. 
      People see God in a cruel task-master sort of way and that’s why they don’t trust God enough to fully fling themselves onto Him and off their crutches of their family/friends/whatever keeps them feeling “secure”. They don’t want to forsake all and follow Christ, completely. 
      So many say that you only admit you’re a sinner/know only Jesus’s sacrifice can save you, and be willing for Christ to change you, but it appears you have to go into salvation already with the heart of a disciple. That is most definitely what I see God saying when Jesus talks about hating our life/family/etc. 
      Fully trusting Him, would mean no doubt when you come to Him for salvation. 
      I’m a bit nervous because I still see God as too scary to judt be alone with because I know my heart isn’t totally trusting Him. I feel convicted that I haven’t totally trusted Him, alone and I don’t have total faith that everyone/everything is but loss, compared to Christ. 
      People keep saying I’m wrong, but why do I hear God saying this to me?? Why do I feel like God’s saying I’m not saved because I wasn’t in this mind-set when I came to Him for salvation?? 
      Please pray and help me understand if I’m misinterpreting something. 
      I’m scared and feel helpless. I don’t want to value anything more than, God. But, my wicked heart can’t let go of all and see Him as truly a loving, so much better than anyone/anything God because I’m scared and the Bible says that people with that heart are evil and unsaved. 
      Please be honest with me and please pray for discernment on what I need to know. 
    • By Roselove
      What is a good fundraiser that is Christ-based? 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...