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.

Large Block Capital Letters in KJV


Bro. West
 Share

Go to solution Solved by Pastor Scott Markle,

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/29/2021 at 5:28 AM, Bro. West said:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

The last 10 words are in italics, which you know means they had no manuscripts to justify this reading. Were they taking liberty with the word of God by adding these or is this advance revelation?

Actually, you are dead wrong - there is earlier manuscript evidence for those words. Maybe they KJV translators did not have a manuscript that had that passage or they felt the evidence was not conclusive or strong enough on its own (but they obviously believed the passage was genuine so included it), but to be honest with their translation, they put those words in italics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Solution

In this post I wish to respond concerning the question over the second half of 1 John 2:23.

On 12/29/2021 at 8:28 AM, Bro. West said:

Another passage you might consider is 1John 2:23.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

The last 10 words are in italics, which you know means they had no manuscripts to justify this reading. Were they taking liberty with the word of God by adding these or is this advance revelation? We have them now, but they did not. Even the stinking NIV has to have this. This reading must drive KJV haters nuts. I bet dollars to donuts they wish no support was found.

On 12/29/2021 at 1:09 PM, Bro. West said:

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

These last ten words were originally written by the Apostle John, that is inspiration. They without manuscript support wrote down what the inspired original said, that is revelation. Had they had what we have now there would be not need of italicized words. They were not writing something as in the “Lost books of the Bible” and claiming inspiration.

There only 3 possibilities: they just made it up. It came from the devil or The Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them. We are not talking about one or two words to transfer from one idiom to another, but a complete sentence. Had they left out these 10 words critics now would have a field day. Had they left these off verse 23 would of flowed into verse 24 without any problem. Question, where did they get these 10 words? You have 3 options, pick one.

Happy New Year

And within the second to last paragraph of that which you posted on my personal profile:

Quote

 

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?

 

By the fact that you have repeated this case to me three different times, it seems that it is important to you.  So then --

Your presentation of this case is somewhat false (and thus somewhat manipulative and deceptive).  You provide us with THREE options to choose (which all turn out to be false options), but you neglect to provide the FOURTH option wherein the truth is actually found.  The three options that you provide to us for the case concerning the second half of 1 John 2:23 are as follows:

1.  The King James translators just made up this portion of 1 John 2:23, and thus took liberties with the Holy Scriptures by adding these ten words.  (I answer -- This option is false.)

2.  The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 from the devil.  (I answer -- This option is false.)

3.  The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 as an "advance revelation" from God the Holy Spirit.  (This is the option that you desire for us to choose; however, I again answer -- This option is false).

Now, these were the only three options that you offered us.  Yet there is a fourth option that you neglected to offer us, as follows:

4.  The King James translators included this portion of 1 John 2:23 because it already existed in previous sources of Holy Scripture, sources which they did indeed have available to them for their consideration.

Brother West, you yourself attempted to cancel this option as even being possible with the following statements:

On 12/29/2021 at 8:28 AM, Bro. West said:

The last 10 words are in italics, which you know means they had no manuscripts to justify this reading. Were they taking liberty with the word of God by adding these or is this advance revelation? We have them now, but they did not. Even the stinking NIV has to have this. This reading must drive KJV haters nuts. I bet dollars to donuts they wish no support was found. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On 12/29/2021 at 1:09 PM, Bro. West said:

These last ten words were originally written by the Apostle John, that is inspiration. They without manuscript support wrote down what the inspired original said, that is revelation. Had they had what we have now there would be not need of italicized words. They were not writing something as in the “Lost books of the Bible” and claiming inspiration.

There only 3 possibilities: they just made it up. It came from the devil or The Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them. We are not talking about one or two words to transfer from one idiom to another, but a complete sentence. Had they left out these 10 words critics now would have a field day. Had they left these off verse 23 would of flowed into verse 24 without any problem. Question, where did they get these 10 words? You have 3 options, pick one.

Happy New Year (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

The problem here is that you are wrong about what the King James translators had available to them.  In truth, they did NOT develop these "10 words" completely new for the King James translation.  In truth, the second half of 1 John 2:23 ALREADY EXISTED in previous English translations.  Although it was not included in the 1526 Tyndale, the 1537 Matthews, or the 1560 Geneva translations, it WAS included in the 1395 Wycliffe translation and in the 1568 Bishop's Bible, which certainly were available to the King James translators for their consideration.  Furthermore, this second half of 1 John 2:23 was also found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, and Aramaic translations/versions, in Luther's German translation of 1545, in the Spanish Sagrada Escrituras of 1569, and in the Italian Diodati of 1649, which were also available to the King James translators for their consideration.  Finally, although this second half of 1 John 2:23 was not included in Stephanus' Greek text of 1550, it WAS indeed found in Beza' Greek text of 1598.  Indeed, this portion of 1 John 2:23 WAS found in various Greek texts that the King James translators certainly had available to them for their consideration.

Therefore, in the particular case of 1 John 2:23, the use of italicized words does NOT indicate that the King James translators were unaware of any source support for the second half of the verse.  So, why then did they put the second half of the verse in italics?  Since (as far as I am aware) none of the King James translators communicated their reasoning in print, and since none of them remain alive today to ask, we can only speculate.  One possible answer is that some of the King James translators were not as confident as others about the authenticity for that portion of 1 John 2:23.  Thus in order to demonstrate THEIR HUMILITY (as per your own declaration of their character, Brother West -- "To say that these learned translators were humble would be an understatement"), those who were less confident humbly allowed it to be included; and those who were more confident humbly allowed it to be placed in italics.  Another possibility is that the King James translators believed that the second half of 1 John 2:23 should be included, but they placed it italics in order to humbly acknowledge that it was not included in previously accepted English translations of the Holy Scriptures.

(Note: As for myself, I find that there is more than enough source evidence for its authenticity.  Even so, I have NO doubts against it.)

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

  • Members

 Then how do you account for the arrangement of books in a premillennial order, the break in Isaiah 40:3 matching the 40th book Matthew with John the Baptist or Isaiah 66 matching the 66 book, Revelation.   How do you explain But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. Gen 13:13 which has 13 words and 39 letters 3x13. This is rebelling  against human nature and the first time 13 appears in Writ it has to do with rebelling (Gen.14.4) and that Judas Iscariot has 13 letters and he rebelled against Jesus Christ. And Jesus gave Judas the SOP (Son Of Perdition). John 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. And we are not even mentioning the Large Block Letters and the BRANCH or the connection with the inscription at Calvary. And I will give you one more the Patriarchal trinity. 

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob whom one could call the patriarchal trinity appears in Scripture to designate the true line of the nation of Israel. This trinity appears 33 times, which is noteworthy Yet notice when the last time it is used.
(Acts 7:32)  [Saying], I [am] the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.
 This is part of the sermon Stephen preached before the people (Jews), scribes and elders of Israel. Where upon hearing his message they stoned him. The patriarchal trinity never shows up again and Israel as a nation is becoming the tail and not the head in this dispensation as far as position is concerned (Acts 28:24-28). You see I believe I am reading a live BOOK (Heb. 4:12) The above is from one of my devotional I send out. I can not give you a verse to explain these things, you may scoff and call them accidental and there are many more. I wonder if I should chain down my Bible when I go to sleep for it might want to run around my den and knock over the furniture. Do not forget the BOOK is called a HIS. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Heb 4:13 You can not see these things if you believe we have a dead book and run to "the Greek". I am amazed at the English preserved, infallible and precious BOOK.

                                                 HAPPY NEW YEAR
 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nothing happens by chance when it come to the Book and I appreciate your research. These chapter and verse marking, which you call a tool. They surely were not given by the devil or groups that wanted to control the masses. To believe that God was not behind this is foolish. They have helped to memorize Writ and help preach the Gospel and bring the lost to a saving knowledge of the Saviour. I do not know if they were inspired or guide to do so. There is no reason not to retain them at all. The printing press was used to print Bibles, should we retain it as a means to publish his word or should we ban the press and go back to hand written works.

God's provenance shows up in both the markings and the press. 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 minutes ago, Bro. West said:

Nothing happens by chance when it come to the Book and I appreciate your research. These chapter and verse marking, which you call a tool. They surely were not given by the devil or groups that wanted to control the masses. To believe that God was not behind this is foolish. They have helped to memorize Writ and help preach the Gospel and bring the lost to a saving knowledge of the Saviour. I do not know if they were inspired or guide to do so. There is no reason not to retain them at all. The printing press was used to print Bibles, should we retain it as a means to publish his word or should we ban the press and go back to hand written works.

God's provenance shows up in both the markings and the press. 

  

Your comparing the markings of pages and verses and the comparison of the printing press is like comparing apples and bananas. It makes no sense whatsoever! Both are simply tools made by man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bro. West said:

Do not forget the BOOK is called a HIS. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Heb 4:13

Yowza - heresy much?

Hebrews 4:12-13 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Verse 12 is talking about the written Word of God, verse 13 is talking about Jesus/God Himself, as the verse indicates and the whole context of the Bible itself teaches. Jesus, the Son of God and Son of man, is our judge. He will judge us by His Word.

Edited by Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
2 hours ago, Bro. West said:

Nothing happens by chance when it come to the Book and I appreciate your research. These chapter and verse marking, which you call a tool. They surely were not given by the devil or groups that wanted to control the masses. To believe that God was not behind this is foolish. They have helped to memorize Writ and help preach the Gospel and bring the lost to a saving knowledge of the Saviour. I do not know if they were inspired or guide to do so. There is no reason not to retain them at all. The printing press was used to print Bibles, should we retain it as a means to publish his word or should we ban the press and go back to hand written works.

God's provenance shows up in both the markings and the press. 

  

Titus 3:9 (KJV) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Titus 3:9 (KJV) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

You are right. Excellent counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 hours ago, Bro. West said:

 Then how do you account for the arrangement of books in a premillennial order, the break in Isaiah 40:3 matching the 40th book Matthew with John the Baptist or Isaiah 66 matching the 66 book, Revelation.   How do you explain But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. Gen 13:13 which has 13 words and 39 letters 3x13. This is rebelling  against human nature and the first time 13 appears in Writ it has to do with rebelling (Gen.14.4) and that Judas Iscariot has 13 letters and he rebelled against Jesus Christ. And Jesus gave Judas the SOP (Son Of Perdition). John 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

First, I find no need to "account" for these things.  These things are based upon the so-called "doctrine of numerology," to which I grant very little credibility because it lacks Scriptural support.

Second, if for the sake of the argument we grant that the 1611 King James translation is the final basis for our Biblical study as English readers, then your numbering system concerning the books of the Bible is incorrect.  In the 1611 King James translation the 40th book was NOT Matthew.  Rather, the 40th book was 1 Esdras; for the 1611 King James translation included 14 books of the Apocrypha between Malachi and Matthew.  This would also mean that the 1611 King James translation included 80 books altogether, not 66.

Third, the fact that the 1611 King James translation included 14 books of the Apocrypha actually raises a question in relation to your belief system.  You believe that the 1611 King James translation provided "advance revelations," since you believe that the King James translators were somehow specially guided by God the Holy Spirit in the translational process.  So then, since they included 14 books of the Apocrypha, do you believe that we should be viewing these additional books as Holy Scripture as well?  If not, then how do you account for the inclusion of the Apocrypha by those who were supposedly so specially guided by God the Holy Spirit?  Was the inclusion of the Apocrypha by the will of man, by the will of God, or by the will of the devil?

Fourth, if, on the other hand, you deny the credibility of the Apocrypha books (although they were included in the 1611 edition of the King James translation) because those books are no longer included in the 1769 edition of the King James translation (which is the one that we use today), then that raises a different question.  Which of the five editions of the King James translation (1611 edition, 1629 edition, 1638 edition, 1762 edition, 1769 edition) is the single one that you have chosen to be your final authority?  Furthermore, if you choose any one of the four editions after the 1611, to what extent did the King James translators really possess the "special" guidance of the Holy Spirit, since what they did needed further editing changes?  In addition, what "special" guidance of the Holy Spirit was required for the various editors of these additional editions, in order to rightly make editing changes to that which had been originally given in 1611?  Finally, if the various editors were so granted "special" guidance of God the Holy Spirit to make editing changes to that which had come before them, then why is it no longer possible for God the Holy Spirit to provide "special" guidance again in our day to make more editing changes in our day (not that I myself have any desire that any such thing should occur)?  According to your belief system, how can you doctrinally verify from Holy Scripture that the edition of the King James translation that you have chosen for yourself is the FINAL authority which allows no further editing changes?

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...