Jack Schaap's view of communion

First Baptist of Hammond? They're as old-fashioned as old-fashioned gets.

Again...

 

That's Just Crazy

Poor Hermeneutics (poor spelling:smilewinkgrin: )

 

I went to another board where they had posted some excerpts of this.......

Schaap is not talking about communion primarily. This is a book on the marriage relationship. It is not for single people, but for people who want help in their marriage relationship. So I take it some of it is a bit more explicit than would be normal for the average reader.....but so is Song of Solomon to most people.

The parts that were posted, well, Im not sure if Id go as far as Pastor Schaap goes, but I also do not think the article as stated in the OP is completely fair. Schaap is not talking about "sex", he is talking about intimacy......and in our world of today, where sex is almost always a dirty word or being used in a filthy manner, we aren't used to it being spoken of in this way. He is discussing the intimacy that a Christian can have with God.....a SPIRITUAL relationship. Frankly I think it is us in our carnality that takes it the wrong way and puts something perverted on what he wrote.

 

I agree bapmom. Unless you read the book IN ITS CONTEXT one may go to the wrong conclusion

 

and while what you just quoted, Logos, may make my "sensitivity alarms" go off, I believe mostly it is because when the majority of people talk like this they are trying to be inappropriate. Dr. Schaap is not. Are you offended by the song "Jesus, Lover of my Soul"?


In surrounding passages of the paragraphs you quoted he makes it clear that he is speaking symbolically. He is not claiming that the Christian literally has a sexual experience with God.......

He is speaking about a spiritual connection with God.....something which is pictured by the marriage relationship.

 

"Spiritual intercourse" ....What kind of context was that written in?

 

Hmmm... I wonder what it means in the passage when Jesus says "depart from me I never "knew" you? .... this puts a new light on that scripture.

 

Pastor Tim,

you are being unfair. Are you going to ask me about every turn of phrase he uses throughout the whole book? I gave you my opinion on what he meant, based on many things Ive heard him preach.....his style, etc. I can't go through and defend every little word he may or may not use.

However, I daresay that some of you will be offended by what he wrote simply because he is who he is and has taken over where he has taken over. Some of you are just waiting to find a "good" excuse to point out how he's turning into some kind of a liberal or going charismatic or something.

The book is a book on marriage, and intimacy within marriage. Intimacy in a marriage is not dirty, it is not shameful. There is nothing wrong with comparing it to a spiritual relationship with God. That is not dirtying our spiritual relationship. I do think that our reactions here show some of how we view the marital intimacy issue.


Edit - I am editing this to add that I have not read the book, only excerpts posted somewhere else. Please be aware that the article referenced in the OP is what I think does the book an injustice. It places a spin on what was written, so then anyone reading the actual excerpts will be predisposed to also place that spin on what was written.

 

Bapmom, I think you have misread my intentions...

I really wonder how he would interpret the word "knew' in the scripture I referred to... I, myself, have often thought that this meant a deeper intimacy than just a casual knowing someone.

I know how easy it is to be misrepresented... just look at the way people treat Rick Warren.

And yes, I am not a fan of Schaap... as a matter of fact, I would not walk across the street to hear him... he is, in my opinion, an egomaniac... only after the power his father-in-law had. But that does not mean that he cannot be misrepresented.

I would be interested in hearing from someone that has read the whole book.

 

my humblest apologies then, Pastor Tim.

I appreciate your willingness to remain open-minded about this. My own sarcastic bent sometimes colors what I read, too! lol :thumbsup:

:flower: (olive branch)

 

If you have not read the book then how can you objectively speak to these issues either?

In the same way anyone that hasn't read the book has no place criticizing it either.

Just curious?

 

No problem... I admit this is hard for me to be open minded about.. considering my feelings about him... but I have seen how those that don't like Rick Warren take things he says out of context, and I don't want to be guilty of this concerning Schaap.


And :flower: right back at ya!

 

PastorSBC,

because, as I said, the "problematic" passages were quoted in entirety on that other board, and I read them before I posted here. From what I read I have enough context to determine for myself an opinion of what his intentions were. I also read his own descriptions of what he intended in this book.

 

Where can we find his own intentions.... Is there a link?
I have also been reading on other boards about this situation, and from what I pick up, even die-hard fundamentalists of his brand are saying he crossed the line. Have you seen this also?

 

I havent seen most other reactions.....except for at OnlineBaptist (If Im allowed to reference another board......please forgive if Im not supposed to do that!)

I guess what Im trying to say is, this is my off-the-cuff responses here. If someone can show me real reasons why this is wrong than Im willing to listen. Know what I mean?

I saw his description of the book when I googled "Divine Intimacy by Dr. Jack Schaap" and found the description of the book from Hyles Publications. The fact that its a marriage book means something to me, when in the OP it is put forth as some kind of commentary on Communion. (Which, btw, most IFBers don't call it Holy Communion, we call it the Lord's Table or the Lord's Supper. And that is a significant difference to us.)

This is something I might ask my preacher about, too. The sense I get though is that most people are responding according to the spin article, rather than solely what they've read themselves.