Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?


BibleBeliever5
 Share

Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I think some words could still be kept in English (for example in literature), even if they were updated in the KJV.  Words would not automatically disappear from English just because the KJV updated them.  Some words are now classified as "literary."  The problem with having those kinds of words in Scripture, is that Scripture is often used orally.  So while certain words may be in usage in literature, having them used orally can sound very odd, formal, and antiquated when they aren't meant to sound that way.  And I think many of those words are not well known and would not be well understood orally, even if they are "literary" words.  Why make everyone look up many words in the dictionary when modern equivalents could be used instead?  Do we really need to be whipping out smartphones to use dictionaries during church to understand God's Word?  I know that even after I do look up and understand an archaic word, I can easily forget it because the KJV may be the only place I ever see it.  And it may be more than a year before I see it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
12 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I think some words could still be kept in English (for example in literature), even if they were updated in the KJV.  Words would not automatically disappear from English just because the KJV updated them.  Some words are now classified as "literary."  The problem with having those kinds of words in Scripture, is that Scripture is often used orally.  So while certain words may be in usage in literature, having them used orally can sound very odd, formal, and antiquated when they aren't meant to sound that way.  And I think many of those words are not well known and would not be well understood orally, even if they are "literary" words.  Why make everyone look up many words in the dictionary when modern equivalents could be used instead?  Do we really need to be whipping out smartphones to use dictionaries during church to understand God's Word?  I know that even after I do look up and understand an archaic word, I can easily forget it because the KJV may be the only place I ever see it.  And it may be more than a year before I see it again.

I'm sorry, but that's just not a good enough reason to mess with a Bible translation. And your reasoning is just so... modern. If a word seems odd to you because you don't hear it used regularly, then start using it regularly, and it'll soon stop sounding odd.  And if you want to remember words better, then you could write the definition in the margin for next time (it's probably not a great argument to suggest you're reading your Bible through so irregularly - not that I can judge!). All the objections above are easily remedied by people simply expanding their vocabulary - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect adults (and children) to do. 

32 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Would anyone have a problem updating a word like bruit?

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 minutes ago, Salyan said:

I'm sorry, but that's just not a good enough reason to mess with a Bible translation. And your reasoning is just so... modern. If a word seems odd to you because you don't hear it used regularly, then start using it regularly, and it'll soon stop sounding odd.  And if you want to remember words better, then you could write the definition in the margin for next time (it's probably not a great argument to suggest you're reading your Bible through so irregularly - not that I can judge!). All the objections above are easily remedied by people simply expanding their vocabulary - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect adults (and children) to do. 

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

Who can tell us what bruit means in Nahum 3:19?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I agree it is so valuable to go witnessing, but does that mean there is nothing else worthy of our time?  Shouldn't a discussion take place about so many of God's people using a Bible with antiquated language throughout the entire Scriptures?  Isn't it good and worthwhile for God's people to spend time discussing having the Holy Scriptures in language that people in their day actually use (for the believer and the non-believer)?  Do you think the archaic language of the KJV has no disadvantage?  And is it true that the best Bible we can have today is one that generally uses archaic language?

Nothing 'archaic" for me I've read and memorized it much of my life. I had to LEARN and STUDY (caps for emphasis) but other than that it's fine. So, I don't imagine you go quoting the NLT when you witness either. So, what good does any change do for youor  for the individual you witness to?

The first time I needed clarification I had to actually ask someone about it, imagine that; setting aside pride long enough to admit ignorance. It was Matthew 24:7 "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." As a pre-teen I had nothing to worry about because my home was an enormous distance from a sea or an ocean. Have you allowed yourself to confront someone over your own lack of understanding?

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I have studied it.  I don't think there was much updating of the grammar and vocabulary.  The 1769 is still very close to the 1611 other than spelling changes.  

Did you use the microwave oven method of study? Add a few more seconds next time.

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

www.truth.sg/Which%20KJV,%201611%20Or%201769,%20Do%20You%20Use.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/28/2021 at 1:57 PM, Salyan said:

This. Soooooo much this. There are plenty of words still reasonably commonly used in the English language that any one given person may not know... but that doesn't mean it is archaic!  Cue rant on the dumbing down of modern society...

I think "rant" should be removed from present use and substituted with "wild vehement action." Of course someone will come along and ruin it by making their own language changes. Then I'll have to declaim them violently. Couldn't resist 🤣.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

www.truth.sg/Which%20KJV,%201611%20Or%201769,%20Do%20You%20Use.pdf

And these are more of the FACTS that should be considered in the discussion; for whenever we disregard or distort the facts of truth, we always end up going astray in some manner or fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
5 hours ago, Salyan said:

 

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)

I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 

JMO. 

There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, HappyChristian said:

I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)

I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 

JMO. 

There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

I don't think so, either - although that is where things head when one decides to "make it more understandable.' If it ain't broke (and it ain't) don't "fix" it. 🙅‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Nothing 'archaic" for me I've read and memorized it much of my life. I had to LEARN and STUDY (caps for emphasis) but other than that it's fine. So, I don't imagine you go quoting the NLT when you witness either. So, what good does any change do for youor  for the individual you witness to?

You may feel comfortable with the antiquated language of the KJV, but that does mean it isn't archaic for the general population.  The definition of archaic fits exactly what you describe:  "no longer in ordinary use though retained by individuals" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself, just your explanation.  That's a problem.

16 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

I agree, it's mostly spelling changes.  It was not a general update of the grammar and vocabulary.  The grammar and vocabulary of the 1769 is still basically the same as the 1611.  So let's be clear-eyed about this.  We are still using a version basically 400 years old.  It is obviously and factually antiquated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, bruit is archaic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
29 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, John Young said:

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

I'm actually amazed you think that.  You don't know God uses the Bible to speak to non-believers and convert sinners?  You don't use the Bible when you go witnessing?  Of course we should want non-believers to be able to understand the Bible.  Wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
35 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

You don't know God uses the Bible to speak to non-believers and convert sinners? 

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
29 minutes ago, John Young said:

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In verse 14, it does not say the "non-believer."  The Scripture specifically says the "natural man."  These are the secularists who reject everything spiritual.  But there are some non-believers who are spiritual and believe in spiritual things.  If you interpret the natural man to mean all non-believers, then how would a non-believer ever receive the gospel and convert?  Non-believers do receive the things of the Spirit of God when they hear the good news and believe.  No, the "natural man" in that text does not mean all non-believers.

The Bible was written for non-believers.  God speaks to non-believers and believers through it.  We should want them to have it in a language they can understand without putting in all the effort to learn archaic English.  And non-believers can certainly read and understand parts of the Bible on their own.  Some things are very obvious in the Bible.  Many non-believers do in fact read the Bible and understand some things on their own.  I heard of a non-believer who studied the Bible 10 years and then became a believer.  First you said it was not written for non-believers.  Now you say it was not written for non-believers to read and understand on their own.  So you're saying a non-believer can only read and understand it when someone explains it to them?  Only then they can receive the things of God?  But where do you get that?  How is that different than when they read it on their own.  I think your position is lost and very unhelpful for the lost.  Of course we should want non-believers to be able to understand the text of Scripture.  God can speak directly to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, John Young said:

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Here is one verse that was written for and to the non-believer.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That is archaic English and would sound very strange for a non-believer not familiar with KJV English.  Do we need to give non-believers that kind of hurdle to understand God's word?

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

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...