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.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?


John81
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

"generations" (Hebrew toledot) can essentially be equated to "history" and/or "descendents".  In Genesis it is essentially used as a delimeter between subjects.  You'll notice that anytime you find a "[these] are the generations of..." the focus of the narrative shifts.  Examples:

So it might be similar to 'the chronicles of' like a volume of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some who try and make far too big a deal of this. They go to the point of proclaiming that those who don't agree with their interpretations of various things from the Creation account and other aspects from Genesis just might not be right with God. Some declare that without a proper (meaning their) interpretation of Genesis one can't be a solid Christian, can't witness properly and can't really believe the Bible.

 

 

Hello John,

Can you explain something:

In my thread 'Days of Creation', Sword and others were wondering where my faith was at because I 'don't agree with their interpretations of various things from the Creation account' and You said to me ' >>>'Wow! Why not just accept what Scripture says? Sword and others have given excellent answers already yet you continue to carry on which makes a person wonder "why".<<<<   

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
thechnical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello John,

Can you explain something:

In my thread 'Days of Creation', Sword and others were wondering where my faith was at because I 'don't agree with their interpretations of various things from the Creation account' and You said to me ' >>>'Wow! Why not just accept what Scripture says? Sword and others have given excellent answers already yet you continue to carry on which makes a person wonder "why".<<<<   

In the other thread you are denying the clearly given meaning of the Word of God as presented. Pointing that out doesn't question your salvation or whether you can present the Gospel accurately.

That said, I really don't think this needs to be discussed in two threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello ye all,

If God has established at least some parts of this creation for ever and ever (The non material creation) and they are not going to pass away, what is the chances that the earth is only 6000 or 12000 years old? that would make this the first 6000 years of a creation which will last for ever and ever.

Ps 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
Ps 148:6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

They shall be changed into a new heaven and a new earth.

Ec 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

I'd say the chances are pretty good based on the biblical reckoning of time/chronology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That said, I really don't think this needs to be discussed in two threads.

I agree with you on that I wasn't really aware of this thread, I don't have a lot of time to browse threads so sometimes just start one coz it is easier., so Ill just paste my point from that thread into this one.

>>>THIS HAS BEEN PASTED FROM THE THREAD ' Days of Creation'

Hello I guess this is about my last words on this topic, hope you find time to read them and consider them.

By the time Moses had been born, the word 'Day' must have been used to reference a day, this must have been in the language presumably from the beginning,

Then God gave Moses revelation including Gen 1&2 God would have used the language which he had Given Man before in Adam

So the Days of Genesis were named by words which the Hebrewians were familiar with, just in a very similar manner that we are familiar with the English, they would have been familiar with the Hebrew words for Days, Evenings and Mornings.

The question is, do we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis, by the Context of Moses Culture, or do we define our understanding of the Day of Genesis by the Context within which it is given, I.E. within the revelation.

In a similar way to the visions of Daniel, we see the use of words with which the Hibrewians are familiar, ie week or days, do we define those weeks, and days, by conforming them to the Hebrew culture, which would be very similar to us demanding that a week is a literal seven day week, or do we define them with the context of the vision with which they are contained?

As I read Genesis,  Chapter one in particular cannot be historical in the proper sense of the word, for obvious reasons, I.e. in the early verses there was no earth and no man to take a record of anything. After the third day we read:

Ge 1:14-16 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

We can tell from the description that this is talking about what we now know as the sun and moon and stars. That is the creation of our days, and our inhabitable environment.

After the fifth day God made the Animals and finally Adam/Man, male and female made he them. So there is the start of Man's history, and a more detailed account from an historical perspective is given in Genesis two. But our 24 hour days or warm periods, only started in day four of of Genesis 1.

And I say again if you take a thoughtful look at Genesis 1:1-5 God made a Light, and he called that light DAY, this was the original first mentioned and first created Day, and the warmth wasn’t anything to do with our sun. So the other six days (and evenings) must be of the same type as this first one. That is why I say contextually it cannot be in reference to our 24 hour days, because our days had not been created as yet.

Job 38:4-12 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

As far as going against the word of God or the fundamentals, I’ve been here before, it is religious tradition talking, I guess some fear, my faith is in God as revealed in Christ, not in any traditional interpretation of the Bible. I used to be Catholic, I recognise Zeal based in Tradition, The Gospel is an attack on the fundamental Catholic world-view which to them is almost like life itself, it is their historical and spiritual sense of self. You sound like you are doing the same thing, putting some of your faith in tradition/traditional understanding and equating it with faith in God or Gods revealed word, or putting your faith in Gods word as interpreted by tradition. I can assure you I will not knowingly go against Gods word on any point, this does however lead to clashing with Christian traditional interpretations quite often.

And I say again I don't think this (Moses days or Gods days) is a fundamental doctrine of Scripture, other than in it is an accurate account of God creating the universe given by revelation through Moses, as the text itself affirms, latter in Genesis, If I recall. But in that we find it in our Bible that is enough affirmation to it's accuracy for me. I believe the creation account is foundational to a mature understanding But Christ told Peter that it was the revelation of who Christ was which was the rock on which the Church was to be built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any harm in believing it to be a seven '24 hour day' week, but now that I see that it cannot be that, then I think it is wrong for others to unnecessarily oppress me and try to intimidate me to conform to an interpretation which I have grown out of, I honestly don't worry about people believing in a 'man's week' time scale for creation, and if what I am seeing is right, then it can only put me in a more spacious and better place ready to be taught perhaps the next point, perhaps on for example, what happens after Harvest? well generally there is a change of season and then another spring, and then another harvest, and so on, it is never ending, so we have the Gospel harvest due in its season, then what Is it never ending too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone please explain the use of the word "day" in these verses.

Genesis 2:4,5

4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

It says in the "day" the heavens and earth were made and also it includes the plants but the plants did not show up until the third day.

Hello Wilchbla

This is one of the first verses of Scripture I noticed which got me seeking. I don't know how long the 'DAY' was, but I know it wasn't the same time span as the 'DAYS' in Chapter one. On closer inspection I noticed that God made Light and called it Day, the First Day, and it wasn't in reference to our sun at all., to Me it Just means God is bigger, and I'm sure I am not the only one who has noticed that  God has got his way of humbling us and making us reliant on Him. lol. 1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. Not pleasant at the time!

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
to emphesize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been pasted from another thread on the same topic. ' Days of Creation.'

The Sword. Matt said.

>>>I apologize if I have been coming on a little strong on this one, but it is not an issue of tradition. A tradition is a dogmatic practice or doctrinal assertion that has no biblical foundation. The Catholic church has many of these, and I'm sure you know them well. However, this is an issue of sound biblical interpretation. 300 years ago your position would have made absolutely no sense to anyone capable of reading the Bible in any language. 100-200 years ago you would have been looked at cross-eyed and called out for supporting Darwin. 50 years ago you would have been accused of being on Darwin's side of the Scopes Trial. Today, there are so many Christians have capitulated to evolutionary theory being taught as fact for long that they've felt compelled to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate the evolutionary timeline at the expense of upholding biblical inerrancy. Your position, whether you believe so or not, is a concession an atheistic worldview that has been steadily beating the drum that the earth is older than the Bible says it is. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis only ever made sense after people began trumpeting deep time.<<<

There is Traditional doctrine as well, in pentecostal churches and among Reformists, all round. I don't see why you are so concerned about Darwinians, & Co. Do they really shape what you believe, do you need to stand opposite them, no matter what they say? As I mentioned before back in the days of the reformation they used to believe that the earth was the centre of the solar system and the sun travelled round the earth, Calvin said while preaching on 1 Cor, that anyone who believed that the sun was in the centre and the earth rotated round it was insane and probably demon possessed. I know you won't think that much of Calvin, but it is a fairly typical sort of way which people bind their faith in Gods word to their faith in their interpretation of it, and it only gets worse when most believe the same interpretation.

Having said that lets go with what John was saying and move this into the other thread, 'how old is the earth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This has been pasted from another thread on the same topic. ' Days of Creation.'

The Sword. Matt said.

>>>I apologize if I have been coming on a little strong on this one, but it is not an issue of tradition. A tradition is a dogmatic practice or doctrinal assertion that has no biblical foundation. The Catholic church has many of these, and I'm sure you know them well. However, this is an issue of sound biblical interpretation. 300 years ago your position would have made absolutely no sense to anyone capable of reading the Bible in any language. 100-200 years ago you would have been looked at cross-eyed and called out for supporting Darwin. 50 years ago you would have been accused of being on Darwin's side of the Scopes Trial. Today, there are so many Christians have capitulated to evolutionary theory being taught as fact for long that they've felt compelled to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate the evolutionary timeline at the expense of upholding biblical inerrancy. Your position, whether you believe so or not, is a concession an atheistic worldview that has been steadily beating the drum that the earth is older than the Bible says it is. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis only ever made sense after people began trumpeting deep time.<<<

There is Traditional doctrine as well, in pentecostal churches and among Reformists, all round. I don't see why you are so concerned about Darwinians, & Co. Do they really shape what you believe, do you need to stand opposite them, no matter what they say? As I mentioned before back in the days of the reformation they used to believe that the earth was the centre of the solar system and the sun travelled round the earth, Calvin said while preaching on 1 Cor, that anyone who believed that the sun was in the centre and the earth rotated round it was insane and probably demon possessed. I know you won't think that much of Calvin, but it is a fairly typical sort of way which people bind their faith in Gods word to their faith in their interpretation of it, and it only gets worse when most believe the same interpretation.

Having said that lets go with what John was saying and move this into the other thread, 'how old is the earth

Yes, there is traditional doctrine that completely lacks biblical support. This, however, is not one them. Your example is not a valid comparison because the Bible says nothing of structure of the solar system to indicate geocentrism (earth at the center of the solar system). If there is a similarity in your example, it is that there is nothing to be found in the Bible about billions of years for the age of the earth.

Darwinism doesn't shape my beliefs, but it does shape the beliefs of our youth, new believers, and people struggling to come to faith. Therefore, it should be a concern to anyone and everyone who is concerned with evangelism and spreading the Gospel (which should be every Christian on earth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hi Old-Pilgrim, you know that some of the posts you are replying to are over six years old, right? And some of the people you are asking questions of, like Wichbla and Seth Doty, haven't visited the forum for at least a couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"[these] are the generations of..."

 

I learned from Hovind that these statements also meant a change in authors.  Only Adam could have recorded the first couple of chapters for example but it was Moses who put the whole book together.

That make sense, God Spoke to Moses face to face, but we are not told for example that Adam didn't keep a history, or one of his 'other sons or daughters', or grandsons. Who knows if one of his grandsons might have went to Adam and said can you tell me those stories again, The Lord God has put it in my heart to write them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there is traditional doctrine that completely lacks biblical support. This, however, is not one them. Your example is not a valid comparison because the Bible says nothing of structure of the solar system to indicate geocentrism (earth at the center of the solar system). If there is a similarity in your example, it is that there is nothing to be found in the Bible about billions of years for the age of the earth.

Darwinism doesn't shape my beliefs, but it does shape the beliefs of our youth, new believers, and people struggling to come to faith. Therefore, it should be a concern to anyone and everyone who is concerned with evangelism and spreading the Gospel (which should be every Christian on earth).

I agree basicly, but my point is bad theology result in the lost remaining lost, if they look at the Bible and a bad theological interpretation of it (and it might actually be that the theology is carnal and unenlightened rather than the lost soul being unspiritual) The cult or the Aew Ager (Mystery Religion)  can then use that verse of scripture to mislead the lost. Calvin & co were so dogmatic because they believed the new scientific view was against Scripture, Not sure what scripture, perhaps ones which talk about the rising of the sun. I think the literal six days theology leaves room for improvement, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard worse. Have you thought about Ezekiels wheel? Eze 1:15 Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.' do we need to take this as a literal wheel from the culture of Ezeliels day, such as a chariot wheel or a wheel for grinding wheat, or could we not just take it as a generic term meaning 'some sort of round thing which turns round an axis', as such must we take 'the first DAY' from Moses Revelation of genesis as a man day? even though the context of the vision indicates that it wasn't a man day, i.e. determined by the heat from the sun.

Ex 20:10 But the seventh day (This is obviously a 24 hour day) is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:


Ex 20:11 For in six days (this however looks more like the days of Gen 1) the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

De 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant (this ark is a copy)of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

 we have a heavenly Tabernacle and a earthly one
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

We have a real SUN and an earth one
Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
Mal 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

The whole of creation is a pattern or picture of Gods Gory, it is to shew forth the Glory of The Lord

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Ex 20:10 But the seventh day (This is obviously a 24 hour day) is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:


Ex 20:11 For in six days (this however looks more like the days of Gen 1) the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

 

 

So your just going to change the meaning of day from one verse to the next when it fits your interpretation?

 

this is not dividing the word of God properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

So your just going to change the meaning of day from one verse to the next when it fits your interpretation?

 

this is not dividing the word of God properly.

It is dividing the word when it shouldn't be divided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your just going to change the meaning of day from one verse to the next when it fits your interpretation?

 

this is not dividing the word of God properly.

I don't particularly have much of an interpretation, but Genesis 1:1-5 God made a Light, and he called that light DAY, this was the original first mentioned and first created Day, and the warmth wasn’t anything to do with our sun.

I'm just taking the word as I find it without superimposing my prepositions over the top of it. IE I see the word Day being used in a revelation which God gave to Moses and I just assume that MUST be a day the same as our days. No, if Genesis meant that you would not have a day till Wednesday after the sun was made, that is assuming the earth had started turning at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Thumb's Up
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • 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...