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.

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?


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
13 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

With all due respect it is doubtful that either of us will change the other's mind on this matter. 

Hi Pastor, I think we both agree that the natural man means non-believers.  And we both agree that these natural men are not spiritual people.  We just have a different understanding of which non-believers.  May God be glorified.  Thanks for the discussion.  I wish you the best.  This has gotten way off topic.  🙂  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

"the things of the Spirit of God" from verse 14. 

I also disagree with your limiting of this phrase "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14. 

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 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.

It is plainly very general and not at all limited by verse 13 and preceding, for it says:  "the things."  Natural people who reject all spiritual things do not receive the things of God's Spirit generally, not just the things you limit it to mean.  That's what it says and means.  Scripture can narrowly use the word "things" in one verse and use it generally in the next.  I think you need to reconsider your ideas of contextualization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
19 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

So are you saying all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God, the things that are freely given to believers?  They can and do receive these things as they seek God, hear about these things, and then become believers.

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
 

Those verses do not mean all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God.  Of course some non-believers become believers and receive the wisdom of God.  In fact, the gospel is the wisdom of God in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I think you need to reconsider your ideas of contextualization.

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

I believe that with the above comment we find the foundational reason for our disagreement.  It appears that we each have a significantly different viewpoint concerning the importance of context in Bible study.

_________________________________________

4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I also disagree with your limiting of this phrase "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14. 

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 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.

It is plainly very general and not at all limited by verse 13 and preceding, for it says:  "the things."  Natural people who reject all spiritual things do not receive the things of God's Spirit generally, not just the things you limit it to mean.  That's what it says and means.  Scripture can narrowly use the word "things" in one verse and use it generally in the next.  

Again for the sake of the audience, concerning the usage of "things" throughout the context of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, we find the following phrases --

1.  In verse 9, "The things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
2.  In verse 10, "For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."
3.  In verse 11a, "The things of a man."
4.  In verse 11b, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."
5.  In verse 12, "That we may know the things that are freely given to us of God."
6.  In verse 13a, "Which things also we speak."
7.  In verse 13c, "Comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
8.  In verse 14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."
9.  In verse 15, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things."

Now, what has been proposed is that we should separate "the thing of the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references to "the things of God" throughout the preceding context.  Yet in verse 14 "the things" is modified by the phrase "of the Spirit of God."  So then we may ask -- Is the Spirit of God at all referenced in the preceding context?  Answer -- Yes, the Spirit of God IS so referenced starting in verse 10.  

1.  Verse 10, "But God hath revealed them [that is -- "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9] unto us [believers] by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."
2.  Verse 11b, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."  
3.  Verse 12, "Now we [believers] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; [Why?] that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
4.  Verse 13, "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."
5.  Verse 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 [of the Spirit] discerned."
6.  Verse 15, "But he that is spiritual [of the Spirit] judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

Even so, the above proposal not only requires us to separate "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references to "the things of God" throughout the preceding context, but also requires us to separate the reference to "the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references throughout the preceding context.  Furthermore, it requires us to separate the two "spiritually/spiritual" references of verses 14 & 15 from the references to the Holy Spirit throughout the preceding context. 

So, what do we learn about the "work" of the Holy Spirit from this context?  We learn from verse 10 that the things which God has prepared for us believers, He has specifically revealed to us by his spirit.  Even so, those who do not yet have the Spirit of God would not yet have these things revealed to them.  We also learn from verse 10 that it is the Spirit of God who searches out "the deep things of God;" and we further learn from verse 11 that no man can search out these "things of God," but the Spirit of God only.  Even so, we understand that apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it would be impossible for any of us to know "the things of God."  However, we learn from verse 12 that we believers have indeed received "the spirit which is of God," and that we have received Him to dwell within us specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Even so, we may understand that until an individual has received the indwelling Holy Spirit, that individual would NOT be able to know "the things of God."  In fact, that is precisely what verse 14 teaches -- The "natural man" is the one who has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Because he has not yet received the Spirit, he does not receive "the things of the Spirit of God."  Rather, he finds those things to be foolishness.  In fact, he cannot even know those things because those things require spiritual discernment; and having not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit, the "natural man" does not possess the spiritual discernment that the indwelling Holy Spirit would provide.  On the other hand, "he that is spiritual" (v. 15) is one who has received the indwelling Holy Spirit.  As such, he is able to judge all things, specifically because the Holy Spirit that dwells within him searches all things, even "the deep things of God."

Indeed, as we consider these things throughout the context, let us also take note of the three references to knowledge within the context.  In the closing portion of verse 11, we are told, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."  Then in verse 12 we are told, "Now we [believers] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; [Why?] that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Finally, in verse 14 we are told, "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."  Indeed, NO one has this knowledge on his or her own, but the Spirit of God ONLY.  Yet we believers have received the Spirit of God specifically so that we can have this knowledge.  However, the "natural man" [the unbeliever] cannot have this knowledge, specifically because he or she has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit.

______________________________________

However, the accusation will remain from the other side that I am too concerned about the context in my Bible study.  As for me -- Context, Context, Context (that is -- grammatical context, immediate context, Biblical context).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Now, what has been proposed is that we should separate "the thing of the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references to "the things of God" throughout the preceding context. 

That is not what I have stated.  I have already said the context of verse 10 and 11 show the generality of "things."  Of course context matters.  But in this case, it is not a constraining context as you claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

That is not what I have stated.  I have already said the context of verse 10 and 11 show the generality of "things."  Of course context matters.  But in this case, it is not a constraining context as you claim.

Hmmm. The following is what you said --

6 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I also disagree with your limiting of this phrase "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14. 

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 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.

It is plainly very general and not at all limited by verse 13 and preceding, for it says:  "the things."  Natural people who reject all spiritual things do not receive the things of God's Spirit generally, not just the things you limit it to mean.  That's what it says and means.  Scripture can narrowly use the word "things" in one verse and use it generally in the next.  I think you need to reconsider your ideas of contextualization. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So, if you you actually believe that the references to "the things" in verse 14 is contextually connected to "the things" in verses 10-11, let us consider how "the things" are presented in verses 10-11.  

1.  In the opening portion of verse 10, we learn that God has revealed them ("the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9) unto us believers specifically by His Spirit.  (Note: This grammatical construction indicates that we should not contextually separate the statement of verse 10 from the statement of verse 9.)

2.  In the closing portion of verse 10, we learn the reason why God has revealed these things unto us believers by His Spirit.  He has done so because it is the Spirit who specifically searches "all things, yea the deep things of God."

3.  In the closing portion of verse 11, the reason from the closing portion of verse 10 is substantiated more firmly.  Indeed, we learn that NO man knows "the things of God," but the Spirit of God only.  Thus (as I presented in my previous posting) we learn that it is impossible for any of us to know "the things of God" apart from the Holy Spirit's guidance.

4.  So, does that which follows in verse 12 help us to understand who actually possesses the Spirit of God?  Indeed, it does; for in the opening portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have indeed "received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."  Furthermore, in the closing portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have received the Spirit of God, specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God."  (Note: By this doctrinal progression in the context, we further recognize that the statement of verse 12 should not be contextually separated from the statements of verses 9-11.)

But that leaves open the doctrinal question -- What about those individuals (unbelievers) who have not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit of God?  1 Corinthians 2:14 contextually answers the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Hmmm. The following is what you said --

So, if you you actually believe that the references to "the things" in verse 14 is contextually connected to "the things" in verses 10-11, let us consider how "the things" are presented in verses 10-11.  

1.  In the opening portion of verse 10, we learn that God has revealed them ("the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9) unto us believers specifically by His Spirit.  (Note: This grammatical construction indicates that we should not contextually separate the statement of verse 10 from the statement of verse 9.)

2.  In the closing portion of verse 10, we learn the reason why God has revealed these things unto us believers by His Spirit.  He has done so because it is the Spirit who specifically searches "all things, yea the deep things of God."

3.  In the closing portion of verse 11, the reason from the closing portion of verse 10 is substantiated more firmly.  Indeed, we learn that NO man knows "the things of God," but the Spirit of God only.  Thus (as I presented in my previous posting) we learn that it is impossible for any of us to know "the things of God" apart from the Holy Spirit's guidance.

4.  So, does that which follows in verse 12 help us to understand who actually possesses the Spirit of God?  Indeed, it does; for in the opening portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have indeed "received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."  Furthermore, in the closing portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have received the Spirit of God, specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God."  (Note: By this doctrinal progression in the context, we further recognize that the statement of verse 12 should not be contextually separated from the statements of verses 9-11.)

But that leaves open the doctrinal question -- What about those individuals (unbelievers) who have not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit of God?  1 Corinthians 2:14 contextually answers the question.

Thank you for your time Pastor.  I think I have already made my interpretation clear.  There's no need to keep saying the same thing.  May God be glorified.  Have a blessed day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
6 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Those verses do not mean all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God.  Of course some non-believers become believers and receive the wisdom of God.  In fact, the gospel is the wisdom of God in Christ.

It is simply amazing that someone with a screen name of BibleBeliever would see nothing contradictory in engaging members on a message forum and asserting that the Bible does not say what it clearly does say.

I posted the verses above to show beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in opposition to your assertion that unbelievers "can and do receive these things as they seek God", that there simply are no unbelievers that seek after God. God's Holy Spirt, the author of all Scripture, makes this fact clear to all by reaffirming that what was written in Romans 3:11 is further reinforced by Romans 3:12. Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Using just a bit of logic it would of necessity follow, that if there are no unbelievers that seek after God, as Scripture affirms, then there cannot possibly be any unbelievers that receive the wisdom of God.

You further try to bolster your argument by asserting that they, (unbelievers) "hear about these things, and then become believers." So then, it is only at the point of becoming believers that the former unbeliever can receive the wisdom of God. (he is no longer an unbeliever)

It all seems perfectly clear to me and anyone that believes, that the Bible means what it says and says what it means.

It is also clear that no revision is needed simply because believers have the capacity, in the form of the Holy Spirit, to understand what is written. And in direct opposition to the preceding sentence, unbelievers do not and cannot understand spiritual things.

1Co 2:14 KJV 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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, SureWord said:

"Besom of destruction" (Isaiah 14:23)

My take on this "archaic" word. According to etymonline .com the word broom was in use 300 years before the KJV translators chose the word "besom". As I see it the word "besom" (a type of broom) fits the passage better since a "besom" is traditional associated with the occult and witchcraft (even to this day among Wiccans) and the context of the passage has to do with Satan himself as well as probably the future beast of Revelation.

Brother "SureWord,"

That is a valuable point to consider why the original translators chose the word "besom" in that context, rather than the word "broom."  Whatever their reasoning may have been (if we are able to discern it) is worthy of consideration whether the word "besom" is more significant for the context than the word "broom."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
56 minutes ago, SureWord said:

I always enjoy looking up words I've never heard before. 

I appreciate your comments and I think they show the right spirit in which most faithful King James Bible users approach the scriptures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

It is simply amazing that someone with a screen name of BibleBeliever would see nothing contradictory in engaging members on a message forum and asserting that the Bible does not say what it clearly does say.

I posted the verses above to show beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in opposition to your assertion that unbelievers "can and do receive these things as they seek God", that there simply are no unbelievers that seek after God. God's Holy Spirt, the author of all Scripture, makes this fact clear to all by reaffirming that what was written in Romans 3:11 is further reinforced by Romans 3:12. Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Using just a bit of logic it would of necessity follow, that if there are no unbelievers that seek after God, as Scripture affirms, then there cannot possibly be any unbelievers that receive the wisdom of God.

You further try to bolster your argument by asserting that they, (unbelievers) "hear about these things, and then become believers." So then, it is only at the point of becoming believers that the former unbeliever can receive the wisdom of God. (he is no longer an unbeliever)

It all seems perfectly clear to me and anyone that believes, that the Bible means what it says and says what it means.

It is also clear that no revision is needed simply because believers have the capacity, in the form of the Holy Spirit, to understand what is written. And in direct opposition to the preceding sentence, unbelievers do not and cannot understand spiritual things.

1Co 2:14 KJV 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.

I think you are misunderstanding Scripture and not using good logic.  Have a blessed week!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The natural man is the unregenernated man. Scripture is pretty clear on this. 

The word of God was given to believers not unbelievers (just as the law was given to Jews not Gentiles). The gospel goes out to the lost but first the message was given to the church. This is all that God has to personally say to the lost, i.e. "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him". Anything that unregenernated sinners may read and understand, usually through the writings of Christians and not the bible itself, is solely because of the revelations of God given to his church. Even the angels had to be revealed some truth from God via his church (Eph. 3:10)

There is nothing complicated about this unless you want it to be because you cannot admit you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, SureWord said:

The natural man is the unregenernated man. Scripture is pretty clear on this. 

The word of God was given to believers not unbelievers (just as the law was given to Jews not Gentiles). The gospel goes out to the lost but first the message was given to the church. This is all that God has to personally say to the lost, i.e. "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him". Anything that unregenernated sinners may read and understand, usually through the writings of Christians and not the bible itself, is solely because of the revelations of God given to his church. Even the angels had to be revealed some truth from God via his church (Eph. 3:10)

There is nothing complicated about this unless you want it to be because you cannot admit you are wrong.

Please think more carefully about the words used in 1 Cor. 2:14-15.  I think you are missing the nuances of "natural man" and "he that is spiritual" in light of the whole verses.  I don't think we need to argue.  We actually have lots of common ground.  I have already expressed my belief that the natural man in 1 Cor. 2:14 means certain non-believers, the natural ones, as it says.  I wish you the best, and let's not argue out of our love in Christ.  🙂  ❤️ 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Thank you for your time Pastor.  I think I have already made my interpretation clear.  There's no need to keep saying the same thing.  May God be glorified.  Have a blessed day! (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Yes, I believe that you have made your interpretation clear; however, I do NOT believe that you have made your grammatical and contextual explanation for that interpretation clear.

35 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Please think more carefully about the words used in 1 Cor. 2:14-15.  I think you are missing the nuances of "natural man" and "he that is spiritual" in light of the whole verses.  I don't think we need to argue.  We actually have lots of common ground.  I have already expressed my belief that the natural man in 1 Cor. 2:14 means certain non-believers, the natural ones, as it says.  I wish you the best, and let's not argue out of our love in Christ.  🙂  ❤️  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On 1/31/2021 at 11:32 AM, BibleBeliever5 said:

Verse 14 is talking about natural men as non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual.  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Therefore, I would request that you present a more thorough explanation from the grammar and context as to how you derive the above definition for "the natural man" of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

In a previous posting I myself have presented my definition for "the natural man" as "the individual who has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit (as such -- all unbelievers)."  Furthermore, I have presented from the context the necessity for an individual to have received the Holy Spirit specifically that he or she might know "the wisdom of God."  On the other hand, you have defined "the natural man" as "non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual."  Yet you have not provided any grammatical or contextual support for your usage of this definition.  I am now asking you to provide that grammatical or contextual support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Yes, I believe that you have made your interpretation clear; however, I do NOT believe that you have made your grammatical and contextual explanation for that interpretation clear.

Therefore, I would request that you present a more thorough explanation from the grammar and context as to how you derive the above definition for "the natural man" of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

In a previous posting I myself have presented my definition for "the natural man" as "the individual who has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit (as such -- all unbelievers)."  Furthermore, I have presented from the context the necessity for an individual to have received the Holy Spirit specifically that he or she might know "the wisdom of God."  On the other hand, you have defined "the natural man" as "non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual."  Yet you have not provided any grammatical or contextual support for your usage of this definition.  I am now asking you to provide that grammatical or contextual support.

Hi Pastor, I think I have already indicated that I am ready to finish this conversation with you that is somewhat off topic from the original post.  I am busy.  Even if I explain more than I already have, I think it is very unlikely that you would accept it.  I know God can reveal to you the correct meaning in time to come.  Are you able to let this go?  Stay safe and healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I haven't read the thread, but based on the original post, here is my two cents

1. God has promised to preserve His Word for every generation. God has done so in English through the KJV. In Spanish, it's another version. There is a German equivalent, French equivalent, etc.

2. The KJV is not double inspired - Ruckmanite false theology. 

3. The likely hood of a modern English translation being accepted is slim to none. Those who have the ability to translate from the original languages see no reason to leave the KJV. Those who want a Modern translation, don't have the skillset to translate

4. Those who hold to an KJV only would never consider it and those with only KJV for the most part understand the KJV well enough that we are comfortable with it and 

 

So the question is, what would be the reason to create a modern translation? We live in a day where the majority of Americans don't understand the Kings English. Therefore, the KJV is not in the language of today. If a missionary were to go to an area where the Bible was not translated, we would have no issue translating it in that language. I would love to see a modern version, but as stated above, do not believe an accurate 21st century translation will ever happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Hi Pastor, I think I have already indicated that I am ready to finish this conversation with you that is somewhat off topic from the original post.  I am busy.  Even if I explain more than I already have, I think it is very unlikely that you would accept it.  I know God can reveal to you the correct meaning in time to come.  Are you able to let this go?  Stay safe and healthy.

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

(Note: I intend the following with grace, but also with clarity.)

Sure, I can let it go.  However, this discussion between us most definitely HAS affected my view of your original topic for this thread discussion.  Your original topic concerned the matter of updating/altering the present language of the King James translation to something that you view as more simple/modern.  Since you are the one who initiated this thread discussion, you serve as the central representative of that idea within the context of this thread discussion.  Even so, since (from my perspective) I have not found you able to understand the contextual and doctrinal flow of thought in a fairly basic portion of Scripture, I myself have come to not at all trust you as a representative of the pursuit to update/alter the language of the King James translation.  Understanding the flow of thought in a context is a matter of language comprehension.  Even so, if I (from my perspective) cannot trust you in the language comprehension of a fairly basic passage, then I (from my perspective) certainly cannot trust you in the language comprehension necessary to change/alter the entire Scriptures.

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 Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?
       
      I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.
       
      I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).
       
      on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.
       
      What is your position and why do you hold to it?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

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