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.

Billy Graham's Sad Disobedience to the Word of God


PastorMatt
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kevin, With all you claim to know by stating difference churches, denominations, do not teach different paths to heaven, and calling me a liar, I would think at least you would be familiar with another gospel.

Maybe you need to search the Scriptures a little bit more.

Um...there's really no correlation between the two but I understand if that's your way of trying to make a dig on me.

I was asking you what your interpretation of what "another gospel" is since you seem to think that people who disagree with you believe that other gospel now. You never cease to amaze me. Which doesn't happen often, so well done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Kevin, Go check it out. The majority of denominations teach a work base salvation, with some of them adding baptizing to the equation. Some even add church membership as a must.

The Bible only teaches one way to be saved, that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I don't expect you to believe me, for most everything I post you disagree with.

Here while back I stated I like Curtis Hutson best, you said you like John Rice the best. Actually I don't like Curtis Hustson best because of their teachings, I like him best because of the way he words and explains things, their teachings are mostly identical.

Plus there be very few things that you would agree John Rice on, I really don't believe you have any knowledge of his teachings.

I'm posting some articles by him, try reading them and see how much you his teachings you really agree with.

Answers from John Rice


Dear Catholic Friend



What Must I Do To Be Saved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin, Go check it out. The majority of denominations teach a work base salvation, with some of them adding baptizing to the equation. Some even add church membership as a must.

The Bible only teaches one way to be saved, that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

We aren't talking about this anymore so I have no idea why you brought it back up.

I don't expect you to believe me, for most everything I post you disagree with.

I NEVER said that there were many ways to get to Heaven and never even came anywhere close to implying that so I think you're way off base here.

Here while back I stated I like Curtis Hutson best, you said you like John Rice the best. Actually I don't like Curtis Hustson best because of their teachings, I like him best because of the way he words and explains things, their teachings are mostly identical.

Plus there be very few things that you would agree John Rice on, I really don't believe you have any knowledge of his teachings.

I'm posting some articles by him, try reading them and see how much you his teachings you really agree with.

You've completely lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


We aren't talking about this anymore so I have no idea why you brought it back up.


I NEVER said that there were many ways to get to Heaven and never even came anywhere close to implying that so I think you're way off base here.


You've completely lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about.


Maybe these will remind you.

RE: Religion Responsible for Abuse of Women?


On this one just scroll down, you will see the post I made, them a few posted below it you will see yours on how much better you like John Rice than Curtis Hutson.

RE: John R. Rice

But please, read those articles I posted by John Rice, seems from what you've posted on this message board that you disagree with him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



:umno:


Here you go:

Colossians 2:11-12 (King James Version)

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And how about a little of this:

15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Also, consider this:

Origen wrote in the 3rd century that "the Church received from the apostles the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Origen, Commentarii in Romanos 5,9.

Further in 252, the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants should not be baptized until they are eight days old and, rather, stated that infants should be baptized as soon as reasonably possible. Cyperian, Epistulae 64 (59), 2.

As you can see, the early Church baptized infants from the beginning. Cute and petty remarks are no match for scripture and facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Here you go:

Colossians 2:11-12 (King James Version)

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And how about a little of this:

15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Also, consider this:

Origen wrote in the 3rd century that "the Church received from the apostles the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Origen, Commentarii in Romanos 5,9.

Further in 252, the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants should not be baptized until they are eight days old and, rather, stated that infants should be baptized as soon as reasonably possible. Cyperian, Epistulae 64 (59), 2.

As you can see, the early Church baptized infants from the beginning. Cute and petty remarks are no match for scripture and facts.


The bolded portion is from Luke 18.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Maybe these will remind you.

RE: Religion Responsible for Abuse of Women?


On this one just scroll down, you will see the post I made, them a few posted below it you will see yours on how much better you like John Rice than Curtis Hutson.

RE: John R. Rice

But please, read those articles I posted by John Rice, seems from what you've posted on this message board that you disagree with him.

lol. Still lost. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about infant baptism and you're bringing up Curtis Hutson and John Rice. :icon_confused:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Kevin, Go check it out. The majority of denominations teach a work base salvation, with some of them adding baptizing to the equation. Some even add church membership as a must.

The Bible only teaches one way to be saved, that is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I don't expect you to believe me, for most everything I post you disagree with.

Here while back I stated I like Curtis Hutson best, you said you like John Rice the best. Actually I don't like Curtis Hustson best because of their teachings, I like him best because of the way he words and explains things, their teachings are mostly identical.

Plus there be very few things that you would agree John Rice on, I really don't believe you have any knowledge of his teachings.

I'm posting some articles by him, try reading them and see how much you his teachings you really agree with.

Answers from John Rice


Dear Catholic Friend



What Must I Do To Be Saved


Jerry, I checked out the link to jesus-is-savior.com and for all my soul cannot believe a man who claims the anointment of God would endorse such filth. From 9/11 conspiracy theories to an interpretation of scripture that one would expect from a person with a learning disability, that website is full of lies. It is so dirty that I had to take a bath after reading it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Here you go:

Colossians 2:11-12 (King James Version)

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.



"circumcision made without hands" is not speaking of baptism, it is speaking of saving faith. If it were baptism it would not be "made without hands" would it? That requires a physical act.

"Romans 2:26-28 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."


And how about a little of this:

15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.


What about it? The children were neither being baptized or circumcised so I fail to see what your trying to say.

Also, consider this:

Origen wrote in the 3rd century that "the Church received from the apostles the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Origen, Commentarii in Romanos 5,9.


From his many writings it is clear that Origen was a false teacher and I could care less what he says. On top of that by the third century he was nearly as far removed from the apostles as I am from the revolutionary war.


Further in 252, the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants should not be baptized until they are eight days old and, rather, stated that infants should be baptized as soon as reasonably possible. Cyperian, Epistulae 64 (59), 2.

As you can see, the early Church baptized infants from the beginning. Cute and petty remarks are no match for scripture and facts.


If you will look in the bible, particularly in the book of revelation, you will see that "Christian" churches were engaging in horrible practices even before the apostles died. The fact that the apostate beginnings of the catholic church were baptizing babies a 150 years after the apostles died doesn't prove anything but that they were wrong.

If this was going on in churches while the apostle John was still alive:

Revelation 2:20-22 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Then it isn't surprising to see that much of "Christianity" was corrupt from a very early date.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"circumcision made without hands" is not speaking of baptism, it is speaking of saving faith. If it were baptism it would not be "made without hands" would it? That requires a physical act.

Baptism is not made with hands. Baptism is spiritual, dunking someone is a representation of that.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Baptism is not made with hands. Baptism is spiritual, dunking someone is a representation of that.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.



You are wrong. Baptism is physical it is not spiritual. It is a picture by which we show that we are identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. There is nothing spiritual about the water itself. No such thing as holy water. :icon_smile:

This assumes your not trying to go off on the "baptism of the Spirit" rabbit trail which is a whole different discussion than what is being discussed here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Jerry, I checked out the link to jesus-is-savior.com and for all my soul cannot believe a man who claims the anointment of God would endorse such filth. From 9/11 conspiracy theories to an interpretation of scripture that one would expect from a person with a learning disability, that website is full of lies. It is so dirty that I had to take a bath after reading it.


Yes, I know, you hate God's truths, but remember, this is not a Episcopalian message board, on this board we lived only by God's Word and we expose those who do not hold to God's truths.

Joh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



"circumcision made without hands" is not speaking of baptism, it is speaking of saving faith. If it were baptism it would not be "made without hands" would it? That requires a physical act.

"Romans 2:26-28 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

This in and of itself shows that you have an unbiblical understanding of baptism. It's not just some physical act. It is spiritual. Everything of Christ is spiritual.



What about it? The children were neither being baptized or circumcised so I fail to see what your trying to say.

You'll continue to fail to see the truth if you don't take off those dirty gritty blinders. This passage alone shows that Christ intended for infants to be included in the Church in the same sense that adults are.



From his many writings it is clear that Origen was a false teacher and I could care less what he says. On top of that by the third century he was nearly as far removed from the apostles as I am from the revolutionary war.

Yeah, a false teacher. That little phrase has been thrown around so much here that it has totally lost its meaning. I don't agree with all of Origen's ideas. He was alive during a time when the Christian doctrine was still unsettled amongst the many Churches. However, he infant baptism is not his idea. His comment is just merely evidence that it was a practice of the early Church. And I'd be careful of what I said about a martyr. Anyone who dies for their faith deserves at least a little respect.



If you will look in the bible, particularly in the book of revelation, you will see that "Christian" churches were engaging in horrible practices even before the apostles died. The fact that the apostate beginnings of the catholic church were baptizing babies a 150 years after the apostles died doesn't prove anything but that they were wrong.

Again, you either fail to comprehend the discussion due to genetic or physical inability, or you are purposely misrepresenting my point. The Council of Carthage isn't proof that the Church was baptizing infants 150 years after the death of the apostles. It is proof that not only had infant baptism been in practice from a very early time, but that their wasn't any argument against it. Rather, the argument was that it should be performed EARLIER in infancy.

If this was going on in churches while the apostle John was still alive:

Revelation 2:20-22 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Then it isn't surprising to see that much of "Christianity" was corrupt from a very early date.

If you want to see what the earliest Christians practiced, just read the letters of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and others. These men knew the apostles, received the laying on of hands from them, and continued their teachings.

If "believer's baptism" is so clear from scripture and was the practice of the apostles, then were is your proof? Where in the historical record can we find this? The fact is that the idea of "believer's baptism" did not arise until shortly before the reformation. It is an Anglo phenomenon that has its origins in England, not first century Palestine. And I know you won't believe me. You can't, because to do so would destroy what you have been taught to believe. So, I ask that you don't believe me. Go research it for yourself. Just try to find one instance in which the early Christians didn't endorse infant baptism. Better yet, find a single proponent of "believer's baptism" before the precursors of the Reformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Wow, PTwild, you are seriously out to lunch here. Origen was a serious heretic and false teacher. He was as lost as lost can be. Infant baptism is not in the Word of God and is from the put of Hell. The Bible does not teach or even imply it. The passage you quoted says we are to be childlike to be saved - not that children need to be baptized. It does not even mention baptism in that passage!

Just because the same passages refer to both baptism and circumcision does not make the two equal in meaning, purpose, or in regards to the recipients of either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...