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.

"REPLENISH" the earth.....


BrotherTony
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Genesis 1:28 KJV: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

I have been asked by a Ruckmanite about this verse. I know that my father and i went round and round about this verse and the one word "replenish" in particular. If the "Gap Theory" isn't correct, then what is the resoning behind this particular word being used in the English (KJVO) translation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Exactly, Salyan. This is Webster's 1828 Dictionary's definition of replenish as used in Genesis 1 - his definition is almost 200 years closer than ours, so would more reflect the word usage in 1611 than any modern dictionary:

REPLEN'ISH, v.t. L. re and plenus, full.

1. To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are replenished with water.

Multiply and replenish the earth. Gen. 1.

2. To finish; to complete. Not in use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Jerry said:

Exactly, Salyan. This is Webster's 1828 Dictionary's definition of replenish as used in Genesis 1 - his definition is almost 200 years closer than ours, so would more reflect the word usage in 1611 than any modern dictionary:

REPLEN'ISH, v.t. L. re and plenus, full.

1. To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are replenished with water.

Multiply and replenish the earth. Gen. 1.

2. To finish; to complete. Not in use.

For some reason this person won't accept that same explanation. I'm finding this typical of people who follow Ruckman. I usually try to aboid them just fot the fact that they seem so contentious and pretentious about the Bible and things of God. I find very little "Christian" attitude in them..period. Just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The argument lies not with the definition of the word everyone knows what that is: "to fill up again". The argument is it's usage.

God tells Adam to replenish the earth the next commandment similar to that is Noah (Gen. 9:1) telling his sons to replenish the earth after all people were wiped out. So these scarey bogeymen Ruckmanites, as well as any Ruckmanite before there was any Peter Ruckman, are saying this means there was a pre-Adamic population on Earth before Adam that had been wiped out so Adam needed to fill the Earth up again.

I don't know if I agree with this and I'm not going to argue over it but I do understand why they teach this from this verse.

Personally, I lean more towards a injunction to keep having children (replenish, fill up) and growing the human race as the old die off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

replenish the earth, and subdue it

As always context is key. The false theory of prior peoples has to take the verse out of proper context to make their doctrine. They claim replenish is referring to the people and then attempt to say this means Adam is and his descendance are replacing people that were killed off. They claim  The directive is for mankind but the context shows "Be fruitful, and multiply," is about the people but "Replenish is not about the people but about what the people are to do with the earth.

"replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Means that mankind is given authority by God over the earth to "Dress and Keep it" as also stated in Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 

Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:15 are companion texts teaching the same directive. "Replenish" with "Dress" refer to the same directive to put things back to how God made it and "Subdue" with "Keep" means we are to suppress things from over growing and keep it how God made it. 

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, John Young said:

As always context is key. The false theory of prior peoples has to take the verse out of proper context to make their doctrine. They claim replenish is referring to the people and then attempt to say this means Adam is and his descendance are replacing people that were killed off. They claim  The directive is for mankind but the context shows "Be fruitful, and multiply," is about the people but "Replenish is not about the people but about what the people are to do with the earth.

"replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Means that mankind is given authority by God over the earth to "Dress and Keep it" as also stated in Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 

Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:15 are companion texts teaching the same directive. "Replenish" with "Dress" refer to the same directive to put things back to how God made it and "Subdue" with "Keep" means we are to suppress things from over growing and keep it how God made it. 

Very nicely explained! You should be a pastor 🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Also, we know from the rest of the Bible that it cannot mean refill the earth due to its previous occupants being killed off because the Bible also teaches this:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

There was no death of people or animals until Adam fell - Romans 5 and 8 and 1 Corinthians 15 all teach how Adam's sin affected this whole world. Death in creation was caused by the fall - that means no gigantic fossil graveyard or old earth before Adam and Eve sinned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Also, we know from the rest of the Bible that it cannot mean refill the earth due to its previous occupants being killed off because the Bible also teaches this:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

There was no death of people or animals until Adam fell - Romans 5 and 8 and 1 Corinthians 15 all teach how Adam's sin affected this whole world. Death in creation was caused by the fall - that means no gigantic fossil graveyard or old earth before Adam and Eve sinned.

I've never been one to believe in the Gap Theory. My father and I went round and round on this subject, and he and I enjoyed doing so because of my Bible college and Christian school background. He was raised Catholic and Lutheran and Boys Town, where he was for a couple of years off and on, had a priest who believed in the gap. Dad was sharp as a tac, and he knew his Bible, but he could convince very few of the Gap Theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 12/1/2021 at 4:08 AM, SureWord said:

The argument lies not with the definition of the word everyone knows what that is: "to fill up again". The argument is it's usage.

God tells Adam to replenish the earth the next commandment similar to that is Noah (Gen. 9:1) telling his sons to replenish the earth after all people were wiped out. So these scarey bogeymen Ruckmanites, as well as any Ruckmanite before there was any Peter Ruckman, are saying this means there was a pre-Adamic population on Earth before Adam that had been wiped out so Adam needed to fill the Earth up again.

I don't know if I agree with this and I'm not going to argue over it but I do understand why they teach this from this verse.

Personally, I lean more towards a injunction to keep having children (replenish, fill up) and growing the human race as the old die off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

  Clarence Larkin taught this in 1918 and so did others long before Dr. Ruckman was a gleam in his father's eye. Ruckman also believed in the Virgin birth. Do we deny this because he taught that also. REPLEN'ISH, v.i. To recover former fullness. Webster 1828 Did Webster know Ruckman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 minutes ago, Bro. West said:

  Clarence Larkin taught this in 1918 and so did others long before Dr. Ruckman was a gleam in his father's eye. Ruckman also believed in the Virgin birth. Do we deny this because he taught that also. REPLEN'ISH, v.i. To recover former fullness. Webster 1828 Did Webster know Ruckman?

The Oxford English Dictionary says that it means "to fill", not to REFILL....The English language wasn't even the same from the 1500's to the 1800s, which puts at question the definition in the Websters dictionary. Mr. Ruckman, Larkin, and others are incorrect in believing there was a pre-Adamic race and that the world needed to be reconstructed. Otherwise God couldn't have thought that all he had created each day "was good." That would have been negated by the former world had there been one, which there wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Pe 3:5
It was like a fishing bobbin, the flood with Noah the Earth was submerged. 9, And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20, Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. Gen 7

You can not say the Earth was good here And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Gen 1:2 Does God create thing with form and void.

God create the Earth to be inhabited For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else. Isa 45:18 You could not inhabit a earth that is without form and void and darkness. What happen?                                                   And to use Rom. 5: 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12 as a proof text will not work because Satan sinned before this and was in Eden walking on stone of fire (Eze. 28). Wrong Eden Brother
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No one said all was good during the time of the flood - the reference was to creation week - and by the end of the week, God said it was VERY good. NO sin or death yet in His creation.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Right, God did not create this world to be empty, He formed it to be inhabited. God started with a formless ball of dirt, water, etc. and then started to form it. Think of making anything - for the sake of an illustration, start off making a plasticine earth - you start off with the basic ball of clay, then you form it. In the Lord's case, that is what He did, THEN He created life to inhabit it. He started off with nothing and made it into the planet we now inhabit (with life and features, but no sin yet).

Also, words are defined by their context in the Bible, and by the overall teachings of the Bible. A word may have a broader range of meaning, but the context of the passage (and of the whole Word of God) determines what the word means in a particular place. It is never going to mean something that contradicts the rest of the Bible. So even if the word replenish included the meaning of refill or later added that definition as the English language developed, it does not mean that in Genesis 1 because that would contradict all the rest of the Bible, including Romans 5 which teaches no death or sin on this world until Adam sinned - therefore no need to refill or recreate this planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, Bro. West said:

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Pe 3:5
It was like a fishing bobbin, the flood with Noah the Earth was submerged. 9, And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20, Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. Gen 7

You can not say the Earth was good here And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Gen 1:2 Does God create thing with form and void.

God create the Earth to be inhabited For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else. Isa 45:18 You could not inhabit a earth that is without form and void and darkness. What happen?                                                   And to use Rom. 5: 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12 as a proof text will not work because Satan sinned before this and was in Eden walking on stone of fire (Eze. 28). Wrong Eden Brother
 

Scriptures only give ONE Eden. They don't say that there are two...that an extra-Biblical doctrine. And the Bible is quite clear that the earth WAS INDEED without form and void and darkeness dwelt upon the face of the deep. There's no indication that an intelligent designer couldn't have surfaces below the water to be made to whatever specifications. This was one thing that led me to the conclusion that Ruckman was off his nut. He had to use extra-Biblical ideology to try to fit into his theology...that doesn't work. The Bible doesn't give  any indication of when the angels of Heaven were made...they could have been created BEFORE the heavens and the earth...the heavens doesn't necessarily mean HEAVEN...that abode could have been there LONG BEFORE the creation of the heavens and the earth, the angels along with it. God doesn't give us the answer to that, and it's wrong to try and put our own ideology into theology to make it fit our beliefs...that's called idolatry and heresy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This start off making ae earth plasticine is private interpretation. God spoke and by his word the world came to be. He did not use divine silly putty. I see you write poems love to read them I have bring writing them for years and I put them in my weekly devotional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Right - it was my attempt to give an illustration that fit the passage. God created the universe out of nothing, but He did not create it fully formed and full of life. He created it in stages, each day He did something new and different - separated the land and the sea, created the atmosphere, created the sun, moon, and stars, created plant and sea life, created bird and animal life, created mankind, etc. (This was not an attempt to quote the exact order of events.) At the end of each specific act of creation, He pronounced what He had done good, then at the end of the six days of creation, He pronounced all that He had done as very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 6, Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened ? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 
    7, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38   

The sons of God were before the earth. I was checking out your site are you a Calvinist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The context is referring to all the angels of God - which may refer to before the earth was created altogether (as some believe) or specifically before day three when the earth and the water were separated. See verse 4. (This is what I believe.)

Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Whenever that was**, none of the angels had fallen yet - only righteous or innocent beings are called sons of God. (Adam in Luke 3 because he was directly created by God, the angels who were individually created by God and before they fell, Jesus Christ the sinless son of God, and born again believers, who are individually recreated spiritually when they trust trust for salvation.)

**Like I stated above though, I believe this was just before day three, and none of the angels had fallen yet; therefore no sin anywhere in the universe during or prior to the creation week.

No, I am not a Calvinist in any way, shape or form - and how does that relate to anything being discussed here? I am sure that there are some Calvinists that do and some that do not believe in some form of the Gap theory.

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

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • 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...