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.

GIANTS in ancient history - the Nephilim


Brother Parrish
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:1-6 (KJV)

Verse 4 is quite clear, the sons of God had children by the daughters of men.

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 1:6 (KJV)

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 2:1 (KJV)

sons of God is fallen angels.


None of those verses contains the word "angels".
Please show me a passage which at least describes or defines a son of God as being an angel.


Direct Definitons

Sons of God This verse describes how to become a son of God. John 1:12

Sons of God This one tells that they are "led by the Spirit of God" Romans 8:14

Sons of God This one says they will be "manifested" in the future. Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. If angels are sons of God, are they going to be manifested too?

Sons of God are believers Philippians 2:15

Sons of God are believers 1 John 3:1

u]Sons of God are believers 1 John 3:2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And your view does not prove that they're not fallen angels.

I said in our last discussion on this, I can agree to disagree on this.

But it sure does not make sense that godly men marrying daughters of men would cause anything so evil that would cause God to bring on a flood and destroy everyone but Noah and his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


None of those verses contains the word "angels".
Please show me a passage which at least describes or defines a son of God as being an angel.


Direct Definitons

Sons of God This verse describes how to become a son of God. John 1:12

Sons of God This one tells that they are "led by the Spirit of God" Romans 8:14

Sons of God This one says they will be "manifested" in the future. Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. If angels are sons of God, are they going to be manifested too?

Sons of God are believers Philippians 2:15

Sons of God are believers 1 John 3:1

u]Sons of God are believers 1 John 3:2


I have, but your rejecting them, and you better believe I know all about those verses your using from the New Testament.

Sons of God is not humans in Job 1 & 2 nor in Genesis 6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
But it sure does not make sense that godly men marrying daughters of men would cause anything so evil that would cause God to bring on a flood and destroy everyone but Noah and his family.


Consider an earth with a population similar to ours today - if you have the righteous compromising with the wicked, and all the wicked living wickedly, it makes sense that the world is ripe for judgment - as ours will certainly be soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
And your view does not prove that they're not fallen angels.

I said in our last discussion on this, I can agree to disagree on this.

But it sure does not make sense that godly men marrying daughters of men would cause anything so evil that would cause God to bring on a flood and destroy everyone but Noah and his family.


Brother,
The Bible does not say "marrying daughters of men" caused God to bring the flood. It DOES NOT say that.
These are the reasons God brought the flood:
1. WICKEDNESS The Bible says the "wickedness of MAN was great"
2. THOUGHTS The thoughts of MAN'S heart were continually evil.
3. VIOLENCE The earth was filled with violence.
4. CORRUPTION The earth was corrupt.
5. GRIEF The Bible says it "grieved Him at His heart"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

heartstrings, I'm not going to go no further with you, you keep on telling me things I already know and we are going no where.

Jerry, No doubt, it rightly seems to me we are ripe for judgment, for it does seem man is doing every imagination that comes to his mind at this point in time and there is no limit to the sin he will commit. And besides that, mankind is getting very open with his sin to the point of bragging about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Sons of God is not humans in Job 1 & 2 nor in Genesis 6.


For cryin' out loud, man! The Bible don't say they are not humans!

I have, but your rejecting them.........

Brotherman, NONE of those verses uses the word ANGELS!! It only says "sons of God"!
Read the verses you posted, do YOU see the word ANGELS??
Do you find a BIBLE verse ANYWHERE which states: "sons of God are angels"???
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you will go back, you will find that Jerry said they were angels spoken of in Job as sons of God, but he disagrees with me, he doesn't think they are fallen angels.

So you need to go back and read the post, you've missed quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Heartstrings... For cryin' out loud, man!
Calm down and listen up, you might learn something son!
I already told you, the SONS OF GOD are always angels in the OT.
Who do you think they were in Job 38:6-7, MORMONS? Mankind had not been created!
Well, that's what you are implying, that's what Mormons teach, you can read about that here:
http://epologetics.org/sonsofgod.php

Your dogmatic approach is only showing your lack of understanding, and you sound more and more like God's men you were mocking earlier. At some point I hope you will see that your view is not the only one around...

"The sons of God ('bene elohim' and variants) are divine members of God's heavenly host...The title 'sons/children of God' is familiar from Ugaritic mythology, in which the gods collectively are the 'children of El'...The sons/children of God are also found in Phoenician and Ammonite inscriptions, referring to the pantheon of sub-ordinate deities, indicating that the term was widespread in the West Semitic religions." - Oxford Companion to the Bible

"A meeting of the angels in heaven. They are the sons of God, ch. 38:7. They came to give an account of their negotiations on earth and to receive new instructions. Satan was one of them originally; but how hast thou fallen, O Lucifer!" - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

"Sons of God - The angels called the sons of God, because they had their whole being from him, and because they were made partakers of his Divine and glorious image. Shouted - Rejoiced in and blessed God for his works, whereby he intimates, that they neither did advise or any way assist him, nor dislike or censure any of his works, as Job had presumed to do." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?
http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html

"?Sons of God? is clearly used of angels in Job 38:7. The Septuagint (LXX) here translates ?sons of God? as ?angels of God.? This need not mean that evil angels, or demons, actually cohabited with women. Nevertheless, evil angels on earth could have used the bodies of ungodly men, by demonic possession, to achieve their evil purpose of producing an evil generation of people" (Gen. 6:12)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... hilim9.asp

"The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:

"The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)

Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants." Basing his exposition on the Greek version of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels of God." Says Bamberger, "Had he found the phrase 'sons of God' in his text, he most certainly would have been inspired to comment on it." (9)

Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)

The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)

Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants." Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of the angels for their villainy. (13)

Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..." But the Bible meant something far more sinister--the sexual union between angels from Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of the gravity of such a union, and its dire consequences for the human race, God moved to destroy the race before it could destroy itself--except for one family which had not been contaminated."
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes thank you John81,
I agree, GIANTS in ancient history - the Nephilim it's a great study and I am enjoying it tremendously!
I was sharing some of this with my teenagers and they were fascinated, all of them had heard about giants of old.
You have to look at all sides of the debate, and have an open mind sometimes to see what the Bible is trying to teach us.
I invite everyone to go back and look at my original links in post no.1, they are a very good read! :thumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I must say' date=' this is a very interesting thread. :thumb[/quote']

Yes, but it's getting confusinger and confusinger! :huh: Heartstrings - I believe Jerry 808.. is with you in your stance although you don't seem to realize it.

Anyways, this topic is not worth getting all riled up over. :godisgood:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


We're not riled up.

Heartstrings and I are far apart I believe, I stated that the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6 is fallen angels.

But it seems Heartstrings missed some of what was said in earlier post, or ignored it, I surely would not speculate which, so I was bowing out.

But it can be confusing, I studied this out back in about 1999, them sought a pastor friend whom I thought very much of. I actually feared telling him the understanding I came to, for I did not know where he stood in the issue.

He wold not tell me what his thoughts were on it until I told mine, I was amazed that he agreed fallen angels were being spoke of in Genesis 6.

Thank you Brother Parrish for the post. But some people will never accept the thought that fallen angels are being spoke of in Genesis 6, they just can't see no logic in that.

To me, this is just my own humble opinion, some seem to try and explain some things away to keep it from being fallen angels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Heartstrings... For cryin' out loud, man!
Calm down and listen up, you might learn something son!
I already told you, the SONS OF GOD are always angels in the OT.
Who do you think they were in Job 38:6-7, MORMONS? Mankind had not been created!
Well, that's what you are implying, that's what Mormons teach, you can read about that here:
http://epologetics.org/sonsofgod.php

Your dogmatic approach is only showing your lack of understanding, and you sound more and more like God's men you were mocking earlier. At some point I hope you will see that your view is not the only one around...

"The sons of God ('bene elohim' and variants) are divine members of God's heavenly host...The title 'sons/children of God' is familiar from Ugaritic mythology, in which the gods collectively are the 'children of El'...The sons/children of God are also found in Phoenician and Ammonite inscriptions, referring to the pantheon of sub-ordinate deities, indicating that the term was widespread in the West Semitic religions." - Oxford Companion to the Bible

"A meeting of the angels in heaven. They are the sons of God, ch. 38:7. They came to give an account of their negotiations on earth and to receive new instructions. Satan was one of them originally; but how hast thou fallen, O Lucifer!" - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

"Sons of God - The angels called the sons of God, because they had their whole being from him, and because they were made partakers of his Divine and glorious image. Shouted - Rejoiced in and blessed God for his works, whereby he intimates, that they neither did advise or any way assist him, nor dislike or censure any of his works, as Job had presumed to do." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?
http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html

"?Sons of God? is clearly used of angels in Job 38:7. The Septuagint (LXX) here translates ?sons of God? as ?angels of God.? This need not mean that evil angels, or demons, actually cohabited with women. Nevertheless, evil angels on earth could have used the bodies of ungodly men, by demonic possession, to achieve their evil purpose of producing an evil generation of people" (Gen. 6:12)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... hilim9.asp

"The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:

"The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)

Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants." Basing his exposition on the Greek version of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels of God." Says Bamberger, "Had he found the phrase 'sons of God' in his text, he most certainly would have been inspired to comment on it." (9)

Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)

The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)

Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants." Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of the angels for their villainy. (13)

Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..." But the Bible meant something far more sinister--the sexual union between angels from Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of the gravity of such a union, and its dire consequences for the human race, God moved to destroy the race before it could destroy itself--except for one family which had not been contaminated."
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html


Brother Parrish,
The Bible uses precise wording. It leaves no words out and adds no unnecessary ones.
In these two verses, I want you to focus on one word:
Gen 6:1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm going to try just one more time, trying to point you to Holy Scriptures where the answers lie to your questions which have already been answered.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Where and when did this take place at? "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" When God laid the foundation of the world.

Who was with God at that time? "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" The morning star and the sons of God. Check out and find who the morning star & the sons of God and you will have your answer. By the way, at that time God had not created Adam, so it could not have been men, humans, present with Him. Hint, sons of God are angels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother Parrish, regardless of your position, quoting references to a corrupted Bible manuscript (Septuagint) and an apostate Jew's (Philo) interpretation certainly does not help your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..."


Sons of Seth states they were from that line - sons of God indicated they were believers who compromised. Someone can be from a certain line and still be an unbeliever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Every one of the named sons of Seth lived so many hundred years and "begat sons and daughters" so yes, some of these many un-named "sons and daughters" were, no doubt, unbelievers.
When I referred to "Sons of Seth" I meant the ones whose names appear both in Genesis 5 and in the direct line of Christ .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...