Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rapture in the Bible


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Yes, I do have that belief; but coupled with it is the fact that in 1Thess. when He comes for us, He in fact "comes". That, to me, is a part of His "coming".

I see. Thank you for your response.

In revelation we see John called up in spirit. Revelation chapter 4 Verse 1-2. With this, what do you say? 
Also, isn’t the second coming specific to the idea of him setting up his kingdom? 
In your view, your leave no room for a 7 year tribulation. And that puzzles me, for that is a requirement in the prophecy to Daniel.
 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/19/2021 at 8:33 AM, PastorMatt said:

Thank you for your reply. Like I mentioned in the earlier post I care more about what Scripture says than terminology, that's why I was interested in knowing what event you believe 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is talking about.

Brother, are you saying that this passage is about the "Rapture" of the church? I've heard it preached as that, and I've heard it preached as the Second Advent (Coming) of Christ to the earth. I thought that the rapture was supposed to be in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye...not loud with the shout and the trump of God. I have studied this subject for years, and I have to say, I know many of both persuasions concerning this passage. I know that in Bible college at Maranatha many of us students who were studying eschatology by ourselves in a study group were ostracized by many, and were literally invaded by some of the college professors to confiscate materials. I had mine taken away and was told if I had any questions about the subject I needed to go to Dr. Cedarholm, Dr. Weeks or to Dr. Hollowood. I was somewhat shaken that a Bible college, a place of learning and study wouldn't want us to study this subject. At that time, many of us were leaning towards a mid-trib/pre-wrath position. I have since become a "whenever it happens it happens" since the Bible says that nobody knows the day or the hour except the Father in heaven. I know that the apostles all believed that the time was near then. Of course, I know that it's closer today than it was then, but I'm still studying the position. Maybe you could open a thread on it and give us a complete doctrinal study on it...just a suggestion. I know you're a busy man. I know what all my doctrinal books from MBBC and Fellowship Baptist College when it was in E. Peoria, IL say. They are all dispensationalist, pre-tribulation positions. But, some of the crossing of the verses into both categories make me question the validity of the position. I'm not saying that I disagree with it, but I am saying that it's a difficult thing to study, and too many positions with Scripture to fit each one! 🙂 Clear as mud, eh? LOL

Blessings.

Bro. T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
On 4/20/2021 at 6:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

I doubt any of our theology on this subject are absolutely correct-the Bible says actually quite a bit, but things like timing, and time periods between events, are very vague. I hold to the post-trib/pre-wrath rapture position, and have quite a few reasons for it, but I'm not dogmatic about it, either, because the Bile doesn't really lay out the timing clearly, so I have never considered it a 'fundamental', timing-wise, nor anything to separate over, though I know some who do separate over the timing of the rapture. 

By the way, I don't hold to it due to any Anderson teachings, as I have never heard his teaching on it.   I think the fact that it WILL occur is abundantly clear, and that it is yet future, but as for much more than that, all we can reasonably do is speculate, maybe strongly, but still, I give myself space to be wrong.

Much of what you've stated I'm beginning to lean toward. Also something you hinted at was a difference between tribulation (or great tribulation) and God's day of wrath. I do believe there is a scriptural difference in the two and it helps me to understand some of the Bible passages. Like you, I'm willing to be wrong on this and I agree with another comment that we won't know for sure until we're with the Lord in glory. It isn't a separation issue for me. I enjoy learning from and learning with others and being like an Acts 17:11 Berean.

 

Edited by 1Timothy115
Forgot a sentence :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
14 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

@Jim_Alaska I'm just curious to why you do not use the term "Rapture" to describe the first part of the second coming of Christ. 

No particular reason BroMatt. We were talking about the Rapture so I guess I just got more focused on speaking to the issue of His "coming" and that He would actually come both times.

I have no problem with calling the event in Thess. a Rapture, even though the Bible doesn't call it that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
7 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

No particular reason BroMatt. We were talking about the Rapture so I guess I just got more focused on speaking to the issue of His "coming" and that He would actually come both times.

I have no problem with calling the event in Thess. a Rapture, even though the Bible doesn't call it that.

Thank you Brother, I see no error in how you view the event in 1 Thess., as the terminology is more of a preferential difference.  If I'm going to use the the the words Trinity and Bible (They are not called those names in the Word of God), then I see no reason why I should not use the word Rapture.  I appreciate your explanation.

13 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Brother, are you saying that this passage is about the "Rapture" of the church?

I am, I believe that is the clearest answer in Scripture. I'm getting ready to start work now so I really cant explain in detail. Hopefully this weekend. Have a great day. 

Like was already mentioned earlier, we all have preferences on this subject, to me the important aspect is the fact that He IS coming back like He promised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

The difficulty on whether there is a pre, mid or post Trib rapture rests on discerning whether the nation of Israel will be restored as a separate group with the OT promises literally fulfilled to them or if they will just become part of the Church as Jews who get saved do now and all the OT promises have been fulfilled in the Church. I'm always leary of the position that we have replaced Israel.

The Tribulation is a period of Jacob's trouble and the emphasis is on their restoration though many Gentiles will get saved. As I stated before Isaiah 26, that those verses, which in context are about the Tribulation and Second Coming, apply to Israel but I'm not immoveable from this position. 

I'm not so sure about these things as I used to because there are a lot of godly, God fearing, bible believing brethren on all sides of the debate which makes me think we all may be a little right and a little wrong in our positions. From my experience that is usually the case.

One thing is for sure is that our Lord will return, until that time we are to occupy for him, spread the gospel, live holy lives, edify the saints, do good to the unsaved, watch for his return, that we will be "raptured" aka caught up to meet him in the clouds when he does return and that "all Israel shall be saved".

 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
59 minutes ago, SureWord said:

 I'm always leary of the position that we have replaced Israel.

Yep, me too! My Jewish blood component came through a grafting in process. 

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" [Titus 2:13]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 4/23/2021 at 6:12 AM, SureWord said:

The difficulty on whether there is a pre, mid or post Trib rapture rests on discerning whether the nation of Israel will be restored as a separate group with the OT promises literally fulfilled to them or if they will just become part of the Church as Jews who get saved do now and all the OT promises have been fulfilled in the Church. I'm always leary of the position that we have replaced Israel.

The Tribulation is a period of Jacob's trouble and the emphasis is on their restoration though many Gentiles will get saved. As I stated before Isaiah 26, that those verses, which in context are about the Tribulation and Second Coming, apply to Israel but I'm not immoveable from this position. 

I'm not so sure about these things as I used to because there are a lot of godly, God fearing, bible believing brethren on all sides of the debate which makes me think we all may be a little right and a little wrong in our positions. From my experience that is usually the case.

One thing is for sure is that our Lord will return, until that time we are to occupy for him, spread the gospel, live holy lives, edify the saints, do good to the unsaved, watch for his return, that we will be "raptured" aka caught up to meet him in the clouds when he does return and that "all Israel shall be saved".

 

Well, Zechariah seems to say that Israel, in general, will be saved when they actually witness Christ return at the end of the falling of God's wrath: those Jews who were born again prior to that will be part of the church, these will, it seems, enter into the kingdom of Christ in the flesh. Jesus referred to them as the virgins awaiting the bridegroom, but not as the bride, itself. I admit that it is somewhat confusing to me exactly what position they will hold-I don't believe the church has taken their place, but of course, I also am not sure that the church is actually the bride, as it is the New Jerusalem we see ascending from heaven adorned as a bride for her Husband. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 4/27/2021 at 9:52 AM, Ukulelemike said:

Well, Zechariah seems to say that Israel, in general, will be saved when they actually witness Christ return at the end of the falling of God's wrath: those Jews who were born again prior to that will be part of the church, these will, it seems, enter into the kingdom of Christ in the flesh. Jesus referred to them as the virgins awaiting the bridegroom, but not as the bride, itself. I admit that it is somewhat confusing to me exactly what position they will hold-I don't believe the church has taken their place, but of course, I also am not sure that the church is actually the bride, as it is the New Jerusalem we see ascending from heaven adorned as a bride for her Husband. 

The Church does not take the place of Israel, covenant theology is heresy. Not all Jews will be saved either, only 144,000 during the tribulation 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

The Church does not take the place of Israel, covenant theology is heresy. Not all Jews will be saved either, only 144,000 during the tribulation 

 

 

1: I never said the church has taken the place of Israel-they remain in their place.

2: never said all Jews will be saved, however, more than the 144,000 will be saved. After all, who do you think they are witnessing to? As well, the events of Zechariah tell a different story, in that Jesus will return bodily to Jerusalem and those alive in the city will believe and be saved. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

1: I never said the church has taken the place of Israel-they remain in their place.

2: never said all Jews will be saved, however, more than the 144,000 will be saved. After all, who do you think they are witnessing to? As well, the events of Zechariah tell a different story, in that Jesus will return bodily to Jerusalem and those alive in the city will believe and be saved. 

 

I know you weren’t. The 144,000 are witnessing the Lord to the world, how ever only 144,000 of the Jews will be believers. I believe the others will die away as unbelievers before Jesus returns to Jerusalem.

( also where does it say ALL of Israel will be believers ? Not all of Israel is even Jewish at this time) 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Romans 11:26 (KJV) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

All means all, and that is all that all means.

I can't agree this is the sense of this one scripture, alone by itself.  I believe 1 Corinthians 1:21-25 and Romans 10:1-4 are to the contrary.  

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. [Matthew 10:33] Far too many Jews denied Christ. 

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. [Romans 11:17-21] emphasis added

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

It is true that Israel past and present denied Him. But the Scripture I posted speaks to the future coming of Christ, when not only all Israel, but all the world will see him.

Revelation 1:7 (KJV) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Another Scripture with the word "all" in it. this would include Israel. Israel will at that time realize that He was The Christ that they denied. "and they also which pierced him"  And so, all Israel will be saved.

The Scripture in Romans that I posted is not my interpretation; it is what Scripture says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I know you weren’t. The 144,000 are witnessing the Lord to the world, how ever only 144,000 of the Jews will be believers. I believe the others will die away as unbelievers before Jesus returns to Jerusalem.

( also where does it say ALL of Israel will be believers ? Not all of Israel is even Jewish at this time) 

The 144,000 are those who are sealed. There will be other Jews who get saved. If it were only the 144,000 there would be no women Jewish women or children saved.

"All Israel shall be saved," is the remnant. The true "Israel of God". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, SureWord said:

The 144,000 are those who are sealed. There will be other Jews who get saved. If it were only the 144,000 there would be no women Jewish women or children saved.

"All Israel shall be saved," is the remnant. The true "Israel of God". 

That makes sense. I am wrong! 
 ( but I do still not think ALL Jews at this time will be saved ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

That makes sense. I am wrong! 
 ( but I do still not think ALL Jews at this time will be saved ) 

Yes, you are correct. "All Israel" refers to the remnant. Remember, Jesus said to the Pharisees that God could raise up children of Abraham from the stones indicating that being a Hebrew doesn't equal being a child of God. 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
12 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I know you weren’t. The 144,000 are witnessing the Lord to the world, how ever only 144,000 of the Jews will be believers. I believe the others will die away as unbelievers before Jesus returns to Jerusalem.

( also where does it say ALL of Israel will be believers ? Not all of Israel is even Jewish at this time) 

Zechariah 14:

"1Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

5And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee."

Clearly, this is speaking of Jerusalem and Judah, and speaks of those if Israel that will be currently living in and defending it from the armies of the earth.

Zechariah 12: 

7The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.

8In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

9And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

11In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

12And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;

13The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;

14All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

Again, clearly here speaking of the return of Christ to Jerusalem and the saving of the "House of David", and them receiving the "spirit of grace and supplication". Sounds like they'll be saved.

Today the Israel we see is not, clearly, just Israel, though many area, and from many of the tribes. Today they are the valley of dry bones, with flesh, but without yet the Spirit of life breathed into them-that will happen when Christ returns, as seen in the verses above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 4 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Bro. West went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Nathan Mosel earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Bro. West earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Bro. West went up a rank
      Rookie
    • SureWord went up a rank
      Experienced
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Bro. West  »  BrotherTony

      The original question by Brother Tony was about Peter being wrong in Acts two. Peter is responsible only for the light God gave him at that point. Later God gave him more light as in Acts 10. He is not the only one to have this happen Apollos (Acts 19:1-7) He was re baptized, why because he did not reject more light given to him.
      Cornelius was another who went by the light that he had, but when Peter spoke to him he received that light, in fact Peter may have received light himself not only about the gentiles, but that the Holy Spirit was given before baptism. (Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act 10:47) This is different than Acts 2:38.
      My main point is that the book of Acts is a book of progressive revelation and to rest your doctrine now on Acts two will produce damnable heresies. I know this first hand as being a member of the “Church of Christ” in good old Tennessee as a youth. I could of died and went to hell. Here in Indiana we have plenty that place the plan of salvation in Acts two. No, I am your Brother and not a MR. West, that is if you believe what Peter said again: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1Pe 3:18. This is the ministry of reconciliation spoke by Paul.
      So let me “TROLL” on out of here. Yours Brother West.
       
       
      · 6 replies
    • farouk  »  Rebecca

      Hi Ms @RebeccaGreat new avatar; so does the rabbit have a name?
      · 1 reply
    • farouk  »  Salyan

      Hi @SalyanInteresting avatar picture there; so does it refer to the Shield of Faith (Ephesians 6), perhaps?
      · 2 replies
    • farouk  »  trapperhoney

      Hi @trapperhoney; great header verse from Acts 20.24! I've thought a lot about that verse in the past...
      · 2 replies
    • farouk  »  John Young

      Hi @John Young Great photo of you guys! (your wife?) I've been away a long while from this site but came back recently...
      · 1 reply
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...