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.

Was the King James Bible itself inspired?


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

I believe that KJV is the best translation for the English speaking people, but I absolutely DO NOT believe it was inspired. The only things that were inspired were the original autographs. Through the years there may have been mistakes in copying, but not to a degree that it would affect the meaning of the text. I, unlike Ruckman and others of his sort, do not believe in "double-inspiration." And I also very much disagree with people who use the "purified seven times" verses to try and make their point. Their exegesis of this portion of Scripture has been skewed to fit their ideology. Honest exegesis will show that the comparison says, Ps 12:6  "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." 

Nowhere does it say that the KJV has been purified seven times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

The Bible says God's Word IS inspired, is given by inspiration. No, God did not reinspire the KJV - BUT where does the Bible teach that it loses it's inspiration when someone copies or translates it?

If you look within the Bible itself, there are parts that were copied (such as Jeremiah recopying and rewriting the same scroll after it was originally destroyed, Ezekiel copying it out again after eating the original scroll, Hezekiah copying out the Proverbs of Solomon) and parts that were quoted by other writers (including NT writers speaking Greek but quoting the Hebrew OT, Luke writing Paul's conversion account and his Hebrew messages in the book of Acts - yet he wrote the book of Acts in Greek). Yet we find Paul, Jesus, Peter and other Bible writers declaring all these books and passages the inspired Word of God. Yes, I can give many specific verses where this is done in the Bible (ie. the copying/rewriting of Biblical texts, translating of other passages within the Bible itself) - and it is still the inspired Word of God. Not reinspired - but it never lost it's original inspiration!

And lastly, God never said His Word WAS inspired - but IS inspired! I have a faithful, accurate translation of His Word in English in my King James Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 9/22/2021 at 5:42 AM, Jerry said:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

The Bible says God's Word IS inspired, is given by inspiration. No, God did not reinspire the KJV - BUT where does the Bible teach that it loses it's inspiration when someone copies or translates it?

If you look within the Bible itself, there are parts that were copied (such as Jeremiah recopying and rewriting the same scroll after it was originally destroyed, Ezekiel copying it out again after eating the original scroll, Hezekiah copying out the Proverbs of Solomon) and parts that were quoted by other writers (including NT writers speaking Greek but quoting the Hebrew OT, Luke writing Paul's conversion account and his Hebrew messages in the book of Acts - yet he wrote the book of Acts in Greek). Yet we find Paul, Jesus, Peter and other Bible writers declaring all these books and passages the inspired Word of God. Yes, I can give many specific verses where this is done in the Bible (ie. the copying/rewriting of Biblical texts, translating of other passages within the Bible itself) - and it is still the inspired Word of God. Not reinspired - but it never lost it's original inspiration!

And lastly, God never said His Word WAS inspired - but IS inspired! I have a faithful, accurate translation of His Word in English in my King James Bible.

That is excellent, Jerry.  I absolutely agree.  I can hold a KJV Bible in my hand and confidently say, "This is the word of God".  Years ago, I studied the Bible translation issue, fasted and prayed about it, and asked God to show me the truth.  The attached file is the story of how God led me through this amazing "journey" to a settled conclusion.  If you or anyone else wishes to read it, I hope that it is a blessing.  Your post is a blessing to me.

Take care my friend,

Brother Bruce

The Trial of God's Word.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nothing but semantics. Inspired or preserved? At the end of the argument you believe the same thing. The KJV is the perfect word of God 

The translators who would have PRESERVED God's words would needed inspiration from God to carry it out. If not you would end up with just another "reliable translation".

"But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." - Job 32:8

Inspiration does not necessarily mean revelation though many always read it as such. They are two different doctrines. 

The men who built the Tabernacle in the wilderness received inspiration from God to do it but Moses received the revelation in how it was to be built. And remember, the Tabernacle had to be built perfectly as God instructed Moses.- Exodus 35:31. 

As far as I'm concerned this is more gnat straining over semantics to divide the brethren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thanks Bruce. I just saved and emailed it to myself so I could read it in ibooks. Hey, do you know if you can just copy/paste a file into itunes to add it to ibooks? You can do that with music and videos.

Now, stepping away from the computer to read it on the couch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, SureWord said:

Nothing but semantics. Inspired or preserved? At the end of the argument you believe the same thing. The KJV is the perfect word of God 

The translators who would have PRESERVED God's words would needed inspiration from God to carry it out. If not you would end up with just another "reliable translation".

Absolutely disagree.

Inspiration means "God Breathed". God did not breathe out the KJV. He inspired the original penmen and He the preserved His Word for us from Generation to generation. Currently, the KJV is our preserved Word of God 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Pastorj said:

Absolutely disagree.

Inspiration means "God Breathed". God did not breathe out the KJV. He inspired the original penmen and He the preserved His Word for us from Generation to generation. Currently, the KJV is our preserved Word of God 

I think you are disagreeing with him on semantics.

How is the word preserved? How would the translators know what Greek and Hebrew texts to use? Is it the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit not God breathed?

In ancient Hebrew times, and a text of Moses was lost, and a new one was copied, was that text inspired or just “persevered”.

If the Greek texts of the New Testament books where the only ones inspired, and the KJV is only a preservation, Why would God say the Greek is his inspired word and not the English? If he is saying that, are we not fools for using the KJV?

My point is this. If the Holy Spirit ordained the usage of the KJV book, who are we to say what is inspired vs preserved? Is God’s will not the same upon both? Why are we using the means of Man to say what is what in the realm of Gods wisdom. And why are we separating the two? In my view, and I am assuming Surewords, this separation of Preserved vs Inspired is vain, and spits on what God has given us. 

 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I think you are disagreeing with him on semantics.

How is the word preserved? How would the translators know what Greek and Hebrew texts to use? Is it the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit not God breathed?

In ancient Hebrew times, and a text of Moses was lost, and a new one was copied, was that text inspired or just “persevered”.

If the Greek texts of the New Testament books where the only ones inspired, and the KJV is only a preservation, Why would God say the Greek is his inspired word and not the English? If he is saying that, are we not fools for using the KJV?

My point is this. If the Holy Spirit ordained the usage of the KJV book, who are we to say what is inspired vs preserved? Is God’s will not the same upon both? Why are we using the means of Man to say what is what in the realm of Gods wisdom. And why are we separating the two? In my view, and I am assuming Surewords, this separation of Preserved vs Inspired is vain, and spits on what God has given us. 

 

 

I'd like to suggest to you Dr. David Sorenson's book "Touch Not the Unclean Thing," on the inspiration and preservation of the texts. It's pretty straightforward, and I usually recommend it to people who are confusing inspiration and preservation and asking the questions you just asked. There are several other books available as well on the subject. I believe one is by David White....I don't often recommend anything written by Dr. David Cloud, but he also has some good information on the preservation of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

 

I'd like to suggest to you Dr. David Sorenson's book "Touch Not the Unclean Thing," on the inspiration and preservation of the texts. It's pretty straightforward, and I usually recommend it to people who are confusing inspiration and preservation and asking the questions you just asked. There are several other books available as well on the subject. I believe one is by David White....I don't often recommend anything written by Dr. David Cloud, but he also has some good information on the preservation of the Bible.

My issue is not a problem of being confused on the differences between Preservation and Inspiration… I am saying the problem lies in how other people are saying inspiration and preservation are not equally directed by God. God gave me  ( God breathed ) the Holy Spirit, and I was born again, yet I sin. However God keeps me preserved with the Holy Spirit so I do not lose my salvation.  Now the gift of being given the Holy Spirit and being preserved with the Holy Spirit is one and the same. So it is with how God keeps his word.

We as Bible believing Christians have a view of dispensationalism, I would argue here maybe that actually the Bible is ministered in this way, in a form of dispensation given by the Holy Ghost. Which is no less a grace and miracle than the original “”””inspiration””””

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
19 hours ago, Jerry said:

Thanks Bruce. I just saved and emailed it to myself so I could read it in ibooks. Hey, do you know if you can just copy/paste a file into itunes to add it to ibooks? You can do that with music and videos.

Now, stepping away from the computer to read it on the couch.

Hi Jerry,

I'm sorry but I've never used ibooks so I don't have the answer to your question.  Perhaps someone else on this post can help.

Take care,

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Two significant New Testament passages concerning inspiration are the following:

2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God."

2 Peter 1:21 - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Concerning the application of these passages in relation to the King James translation, we might consider whether the following is Biblically legitimate to claim:

1.  All the King James translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God.

2.  The King James translation came not in 1611 by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Concerning other English translations, we might consider whether the following is Biblically legitimate to claim:

1.  All the Geneva translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God.

2.  The Geneva translation came not in past time by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Or,

1.  All the New International translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God.

2.  The New International translation came not in past time by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

(Note: In this posting I am NOT revealing my own position concerning these considerations; rather, I am presenting these considerations in order to challenge precise understanding within doctrinal positioning.)

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When Hezekiah quoted Solomon's writings and put together part of the book of Proverbs - it was still inspired Scripture - it didn't suddenly lose it's inspiration because it was copied out into it's final form.

When any of the Greek-speaking New Testament writers quoted the Hebrew Old Testament - it was still the Word of God - it wasn't suddenly less inspired or uninspired.

When Luke quoted Paul's Hebrew speeches and testimony in the book of Acts - originally spoken in Hebrew, but quoted in Greek - it didn't suddenly turn out to be something other than the Word of God, didn't suddenly lose it's inspiration.

Why should any Bible believing Christian believe or accept the viewpoint that just because the completed Bible is copied or translated that it suddenly becomes uninspired. Sorry, my God is bigger than that - and He promised to preserve His inspired Word forever, every jot and every tittle - that is every word and every punctuation mark in the original (and He didn't say it was only preserved or inspired until copied or translated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, Jerry said:

When Hezekiah quoted Solomon's writings and put together part of the book of Proverbs - it was still inspired Scripture - it didn't suddenly lose it's inspiration because it was copied out into it's final form.

When Hezekiah quoted Solomon's writings and put together part of the book of Proverbs - Hezekiah was a holy man of God who was being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents.  Thus Hezekiah was not simply copying Scripture; rather, he himself was being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to arrange Scripture.

18 hours ago, Jerry said:

When any of the Greek-speaking New Testament writers quoted the Hebrew Old Testament - it was still the Word of God - it wasn't suddenly less inspired or uninspired.

When any of the Greek-speaking and Greek-writing New Testament writers quoted the Hebrew of the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures - they were holy men of God who were being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents.  Thus they were not simply copying and translating Old Testament Scripture into Greek; rather, they themselves were being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to formulate the New Testament Scriptures.

18 hours ago, Jerry said:

When Luke quoted Paul's Hebrew speeches and testimony in the book of Acts - originally spoken in Hebrew, but quoted in Greek - it didn't suddenly turn out to be something other than the Word of God, didn't suddenly lose it's inspiration.

When Luke quoted Paul's Hebrew speeches and testimony in the book of Acts, originally spoken in Hebrew, but quoted in Greek - Luke was a holy man of God who was being moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents.  Luke was not simply copying and translating speeches from Hebrew into Greek; rather, Luke himself was being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to formulate a portion of the New Testament Scriptures.

18 hours ago, Jerry said:

Why should any Bible believing Christian believe or accept the viewpoint that just because the completed Bible is copied or translated that it suddenly becomes uninspired. 

Actually, this begs the question (just as I have presented in my earlier posting) - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that the King James translators were moved by the Holy Spirit of God in precisely the manner that 2 Peter 1:21 presents?  Or to put it another way - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that the King James translators were moved by the Holy Spirit of God to translate the Holy Scriptures into English in precisely the same manner that the various Old Testament penmen and New Testament penmen were moved by the Holy Spirit of God to originally author and arrange the Holy Scriptures as per 2 Peter 1:21?  Furthermore, it may be asked - Is it Biblically accurate to claim that this same process of inspiration as per 2 Peter 1:21 has also occurred with other translations into English and/or that this same process of inspiration as per 2 Peter 1:21 has occurred with translations into other languages than English?  (Note: If you answer "yes" to these questions, then by definition you DO hold to a "re-inspirational" viewpoint of translation.)

18 hours ago, Jerry said:

Sorry, my God is bigger than that.

The question here is NOT about what the Lord our God, the Almighty God, is able to do; rather, the question is about what the Lord our God has revealed concerning what He HAS done in this matter.  If anyone claims a teaching that is not accurate to what God's Word itself reveals as truth, then that teaching is false, even if that teaching sounds really good.

18 hours ago, Jerry said:

Sorry, my God is bigger than that - and He promised to preserve His inspired Word forever, every jot and every tittle - that is every word and every punctuation mark in the original . . . 

Indeed, the Lord our God, the Almighty God, HAS presented such a promise in His Word.  For this reason I myself very firmly hold to the Biblical doctrines of both Biblical inspiration and Biblical preservation.  Yeah, I hold very firmly to the doctrine of "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation for EVERY generation of God's people on the earth.  However, as even you yourself have presented above, "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation means "every word and every punctuation mark IN THE ORIGINAL."  By definition, the very moment that an individual translates from the original language to ANY other language, the jots and tittles (the words, letters, and punctuation marks) CHANGE.  Thus by definition, NO translation actually fulfills the precise definition of "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation.  (Note: If an individual holds only to "CONCEPT" preservation, then that individual might have room to claim that a translation could fulfill the definition of such preservation.)

18 hours ago, Jerry said:

(and He didn't say it was only preserved or inspired until copied or translated).

Actually, by definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation is all about copying under the providential work of God to preserve every "jot and tittle" of His original Word from generation to generation unto the present and into the future.  Thus He most certainly did NOT say that His Word was only preserved until copied, since copying is built into the very definition of Biblical preservation.  Yet the Biblical doctrine of "jot and tittle" preservation does NOT indicate that ALL copying and copies would be providentially protected with "jot and tittle" accuracy.  This means that deceivers CAN create copies with alterations to teach falsehood, and that there CAN be an accumulation of both truly preserved and falsely altered copies over time in competition with one another (such as exists, I believe, in our present day).

On the other hand, as I have presented above, by definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation is a matter for the ORIGINAL words, letter, and punctuation.  By definition "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation CANNOT carry to a translation, since translation by definition requires changes in the "jots and tittles."  For example - (Note: I wanted to use actual Greek letters for this, but could not get them to paste over) "agape" (employing the actual Greek letters) and "love" do NOT have the same "jots and tittles."  Nor would this be the case if we employed the English word "charity" in place of the English word "love."  Greek letters are NOT the same as English letters.  The number of letters in a given Greek word are NOT necessarily the same as the number of letters in the English word to which the Greek word is translated, and the same would hold with Hebrew words.  Even so, when the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word with "JOT AND TITTLE" preservation, He by definition did NOT include the work of translation within the doctrine of "jot and tittle" preservation.

Now, does this mean that I do not view the King James translation has retaining any aspect of inspiration?  No.  Rather, I believe that the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is BOTH about "inspirational origin" (given by) and "inspirational authority" (of God).  I believe that ONLY the original writings can claim "inspirational origin," but that ANY copy that is providentially preserved  and protected ("jot and tittle" preserved) and ANY translation that is accurately translated from that which has been providentially preserved retains "inspirational authority" (is IN TRUTH the very Word OF GOD in whatever language).  However, I most certainly do NOT hold that 2 Peter 1:21 (which clearly speaks in the past tense) can be applied to the process of copying and translating, but ONLY can be applied to the original work of the Holy Spirit in the original formulation of the Holy Scriptures (both in its original writing and original arranging).

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am not in any way saying that Bible translators are moved by the Holy Spirit in their translations or that their became inspired or re-inspired. The Word of God never lost its inspiration - and for clarification, any faithful/accurate translation or copy is just as inspired as the originals (ie. not RE-inspired, but STILL inspired). And for the sake of this conversation: is the King James Bible an accurate, faithful word for word translation of the preserved original underlying manuscripts? If so, then in English we STILL have the inspired, preserved Word of God today - in my English King James Bible that I can hold in my hand, read, study, and meditate on - not just in the originals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Now, does this mean that I do not view the King James translation has retaining any aspect of inspiration?  No.  Rather, I believe that the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is BOTH about "inspirational origin" (given by) and "inspirational authority" (of God).  I believe that ONLY the original writings can claim "inspirational origin," but that ANY copy that is providentially preserved  and protected ("jot and tittle" preserved) and ANY translation that is accurately translated from that which has been providentially preserved retains "inspirational authority" (is IN TRUTH the very Word OF GOD in whatever language).  However, I most certainly do NOT hold that 2 Peter 1:21 (which clearly speaks in the past tense) can be applied to the process of copying and translating, but ONLY can be applied to the original work of the Holy Spirit in the original formulation of the Holy Scriptures (both in its original writing and original arranging).

47 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I am not in any way saying that Bible translators are moved by the Holy Spirit in their translations or that their became inspired or re-inspired. The Word of God never lost its inspiration - and for clarification, any faithful/accurate translation or copy is just as inspired as the originals (ie. not RE-inspired, but STILL inspired). And for the sake of this conversation: is the King James Bible an accurate, faithful word for word translation of the preserved original underlying manuscripts? If so, then in English we STILL have the inspired, preserved Word of God today - in my English King James Bible that I can hold in my hand, read, study, and meditate on - not just in the originals. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

I can agree with that portion of your post which I have emboldened, as long as we are talking about that which I have presented as "inspirational authority," not "inspirational origin."  Thus I can and DO indeed ascribe "inspirational authority" to the King James translation; and I do indeed hold it as the very Word of God in English for me to follow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If I understand what you said above - terms which I am not familiar with - then we agree. The Bible is - not was - inspired, The KJV in no way is the "origin" of the inspiration of God's Word, but has derived inspiration (I think that is how some other people online have put it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The translators of the KJV were not inspired.  God did not Breathe out the words of the KJV

God inspired the original penman and then preserved his Word.  This is critical to understand because the KJV is preserved and can be traced back from Generation to generation which is why I can hold up my KJV and call it inspired. It is also why I could embrace a modern translation if it followed the same process as the KJV.

It is also why I can hold up French, Spanish and other translations and call them inspired 

There are false teachers like Peter Ruckman who taught and pushed a double inspiration where God inspired the KJV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/25/2021 at 2:56 PM, BibleBruce said:

That is excellent, Jerry.  I absolutely agree.  I can hold a KJV Bible in my hand and confidently say, "This is the word of God".  Years ago, I studied the Bible translation issue, fasted and prayed about it, and asked God to show me the truth.  The attached file is the story of how God led me through this amazing "journey" to a settled conclusion.  If you or anyone else wishes to read it, I hope that it is a blessing.  Your post is a blessing to me.

Take care my friend,

Brother Bruce

The Trial of God's Word.pdf 470.38 kB · 2 downloads

Thanks Bruce. Your article was well worth the read. Passed it on to a couple friends, one of which really appreciated it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 11 Guests (See full list)

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