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.

Women SS Teachers ??


Bro K
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Considering I Tim 2:12 and I Cor 14:35; Should a woman teach a women SS Class?

I Tim 2:12..."But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but to be silence."
I Cor 14:35..."And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't believe they can to the congregation but I think the harder question might be, can they teach to other women and children? I believe the answer to be yes.

My wife teaches my two sons all the time and our Pastors wife does teach the children at Sunday school.

But, the scripture does seem clear so I don't know...it's just the way it's been done in my church and I figure my Pastor is more knowledgeable and there is a reason we do it the way we do. :puzzled3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

The Bible also gives injunction for older women to teach younger women. When you study out those verses, you see that the 1 Corinthians verses are speaking to the fact that women had been speaking out in church. That isn't right (and is one of the reasons that many churches don't allow women to vote at business meetings...some don't even allow women to attend the business meetings).

The idea behind the verses in Timothy is not to forbid women from ever teaching. Women teach every day - and if a woman can't teach, then God wouldn't give her children. :icon_mrgreen: Even if she doesn't school them, she's teaching them.

If the pastor of the church appoints a woman to teach a woman's Sunday School class (and her hubby agrees), there's nothing unscriptural about it - she isn't usurping the authority of the pastor nor her husband. However, if it's a mixed class, she would be. If a church has an adult woman's Sunday School class and a man were the teacher, I wouldn't attend! It would just be too uncomfortable. And in this day and age I think it could be questionable, too, to outsiders. I've attended churches that had mixed adult Sunday School classes, always taught by men, and these were great. But not a ladies class...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Bible also gives injunction for older women to teach younger women. When you study out those verses, you see that the 1 Corinthians verses are speaking to the fact that women had been speaking out in church. That isn't right (and is one of the reasons that many churches don't allow women to vote at business meetings...some don't even allow women to attend the business meetings).

The idea behind the verses in Timothy is not to forbid women from ever teaching. Women teach every day - and if a woman can't teach, then God wouldn't give her children. :icon_mrgreen: Even if she doesn't school them, she's teaching them.

If the pastor of the church appoints a woman to teach a woman's Sunday School class (and her hubby agrees), there's nothing unscriptural about it - she isn't usurping the authority of the pastor nor her husband. However, if it's a mixed class, she would be. If a church has an adult woman's Sunday School class and a man were the teacher, I wouldn't attend! It would just be too uncomfortable. And in this day and age I think it could be questionable, too, to outsiders. I've attended churches that had mixed adult Sunday School classes, always taught by men, and these were great. But not a ladies class...


Would she be usurping the authority and/or responsibilities of the husbands whose wives are in the class? I fully support the older(wiser) woman teaching the younger women; but should these teachings be limited to everyday life issues; instead of bibical doctrines.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Would she be usurping the authority and/or responsibilities of the husbands whose wives are in the class? I fully support the older(wiser) woman teaching the younger women; but should these teachings be limited to everyday life issues; instead of bibical doctrines.?

I don't see how she'd be usurping the husbands' authority - after all, if the husband is okay with his wife going to it, he's de facto giving his permission. If a husband doesn't want his wife in that kind of class, he can say no. I honestly don't know why he would, though, unless he knew the teacher was a doctrinal wacko. I think if it became a preachy kind of thing, it would prOBably be over the line - women preachers, in any venue, are wrong. Most of the women's adult SS classes I have known are about every day life issues - in light of scripture. Stop to think - not even a lot of mixed classes are completely doctrine. They are Bible, applied to life. And truly, I don't think it's wrong for a woman to teach another woman Bible doctrine - after all, salvation is a Bible doctrine, and we wouldn't say that a woman shouldn't tell another woman about the Lord, would we?

edited to add: I know of a church in TN that has several different Sunday School classes on offer. The ladies classes are grouped according to age, which puts new moms together, women in empty nests together, etc. And that can help point a teacher towards needs in a good, specific way. The men's classes vary, not so much by age though. There is also a mixed adult class so that those couples who would rather attend together may. The last time we were there, the pastor was the teacher of that class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

:goodpost:

I whole heartily agree with you LuAnne!

On a missions trip I went to a month ago, my husband and I decided to go to the Sunday School class on heaven. When the Sunday School teacher walked in and introduced herself it threw us off a little bit. After the Sunday School class, we decided it would have been better for a person more doctrinally grounded to teach the class. We had a whole discussion on soul sleeping. In the end most of the people decided that the Bible isn't clear on the matter and it really doesn't matter. This would be an example of a woman teaching men and upsurping their authority IMO. My husband who is very quiet in crowds was not very happy. I was surprised when he started jumping in the conversation to discuss why soul sleeping is not Biblical. So in a mixed class I absolutely 100% believe a woman should not be teaching. I am not saying a woman can not be doctrinally grounded, but men seem to have more authority and are listened to more in the church setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Women teaching children's classes is OK, but that is far as it should go.


With all due respect, Jerry8, if that's the way you and your church want it, that's great!

The hard truth of the matter, though, is if someone takes these verses to mean that a woman can't teach a woman's class, then it has to apply to children as well. Because children are under their father's authority and responsibility. And no women have any business, then, telling anyone about the Lord, because that is teaching.

The whole emphasis in those verses is a woman teaching and preaching to MEN in a church assembly situation. There is no ban on women teaching women (in fact, as I mentioned, older women are TOLD to teach younger women) or children....but if you ban women teaching women, you've got to ban women teaching children, in order to be consistent. (the "you," by the way, is generic, not aimed at anyone in particular)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

With all due respect, Jerry8, if that's the way you and your church want it, that's great!

Quote:
The hard truth of the matter, though, is if someone takes these verses to mean that a woman can't teach a woman's class, then it has to apply to children as well. Because children are under their father's authority and responsibility. And no women have any business, then, telling anyone about the Lord, because that is teaching.

The whole emphasis in those verses is a woman teaching and preaching to MEN in a church assembly situation. There is no ban on women teaching women (in fact, as I mentioned, older women are TOLD to teach younger women) or children....but if you ban women teaching women, you've got to ban women teaching children, in order to be consistent. (the "you," by the way, is generic, not aimed at anyone in particular)


Happy, I agree and disagree with your post. You said the "whole emphasis is a woman teaching and preaching to men in a church assebly situation". Two key points:
1. It is the AUTHORITY of the pulpit that they are not usurp, and not merely men. i agree that a woman should not "preach" to even other women, she is not called preach.

2. "in a church assembly situation" which includes Sunday School, but excludes soul winning. You logic therefore is erroneous. As for elder women teaching the younger, that too applies to a non church assembly type teaching as someone has already said. Teach them to be chaste, keepers at home, etc. as the scriptures say. Edited by BroMatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Happy, I agree and disagree with your post. You said the "whole emphasis is a woman teaching and preaching to men in a church assebly situation". Two key points:
1. It is the AUTHORITY of the pulpit that they are not usurp, and not merely men. i agree that a woman should not "preach" to even other women, she is not called preach.

2. "in a church assembly situation" which includes Sunday School, but excludes soul winning. You logic therefore is erroneous. As for elder women teaching the younger, that too applies to a non church assembly type teaching as someone has already said. Teach them to be chaste, keepers at home, etc. as the scriptures say.



You're right - it was illogical. Thanks for pointing it out. With the fact that the verses are talking about the authority of the pulpit (and I knew that - I guess I just assumed that the way I worded it showed it, sorry), it should show that if the pastor believes that the church ladies could profit from having a woman's Sunday School class, with a woman teacher (emphasis on teacher, not preacher), it is not unscriptural. FWIW - our church does not have a separate women's Sunday School class. The ladies of our church are doing fine. :icon_mrgreen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

OK.

What about women missionaries? Are they preaching when they evangelzie? And should they? My great great aunt emigrated to Australia and then became a Baptist missionary to India, East Bengal. There we a number of women missionaries there, and few men. She wrote a number of times asking for men to be sent for as women they could not go into the Bazaar and speak to men. There was an English missionary in Calcutta who came and baptized their converts.

I think someone said "Women should not do soul winning" Surely we are all required to share our faith?

But how far should female missionaries go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

OK.

What about women missionaries? Are they preaching when they evangelzie? And should they? My great great aunt emigrated to Australia and then became a Baptist missionary to India, East Bengal. There we a number of women missionaries there, and few men. She wrote a number of times asking for men to be sent for as women they could not go into the Bazaar and speak to men. There was an English missionary in Calcutta who came and baptized their converts.

I think someone said "Women should not do soul winning" Surely we are all required to share our faith?

But how far should female missionaries go?



Invicta, I too have a cousin who is/was a missionary too Malaysia. She is "Dutch Reformed", I believe, but look at Bible examples. I do not have all the answers, but we both know who does! The only time, as I recall, that Jesus sent a women on a "mission trip" of sorts, was the woman at the well (John 4), when she "left her waterpot" and went into the city to tell others. It is not clear if she was "sent" by Christ, but she did go. Any other time, the Lord always deals with the man as the authority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

perhaps this will help. I wrote it in devotional form, as I do most things I write, but it applies best here, I believe.

Usurping Authority

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6)

I have heard several theories on why the woman was in transgression, (1 Tim. 2:14) when Adam, apparently took willingly of the forbidden fruit, but I feel that none of them give the text due credit. My belief is that women were made to be followers, and not leaders. I think that is why Satan tempted the woman instead of the man, who was not himself above temptation. In this account, the woman had the desire to be wise, which implies leadership, and my theory is supported further by the curse that man shall have rule over her. (v. 16) Apparently Adam listened to his wife, and he also did eat (v.6); she seemed to be the dominant one. I believe that the Lord was teaching them that they had their roles reversed, and that Adam was to be the leader, and Eve the follower and supporter. We cannot say what would have happened had Satan tempted Adam first, but we do know that he was a subtle creature, and very cunning in his wiles and ways; he knew what he was doing.
Today we have many women in leadership roles, and though they may do a good jOB, they were not meant to be there! The question is not how well they perform, but to whom they are loyal and submissive; it is not a question of status, but of OBedience to the Lord. Some will no doubt remind me of Deborah, who was used of the Lord, but so was a dumb animal when Balaam went to betray the Lord in the matter of Balak! (Num. 22:21-30): The Lord can do what He wishes because our reasons are not his, and his are not ours. Please forgive my sarcasm, but the point is made, God can make exception to any rule as he sees fit, and we are not to question his motives. One example out of all the Bible does not set the precedent for the interpretation of others; nowhere else do we see a women in a rulership role, and under God’s blessing. Even the queen of Sheba was awed by the way the Lord used Solomon, and she was respectively submissive to his rule. Until we get back to the roles that God intended for us, we will not be under the umbrella of his blessing, and subject to his will in the matter of service and submission. A woman’s main OBjective ought to be to be submissive to her man; she need not be wiser than him; she need not be stronger than him; she merely needs to be submissive to him, and God will bless her for it. That, by the way, is the very best place a woman can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Feminism has crept into the church and has brought much chaos to the situation. It's common for women "preachers", teachers, lay leaders and Christian women in general to speak in feminist, worldly terms while trying to cover it with a varnish of Christianity.

One of the favorite themes of feminists is to speak of the strength of women; to lift up, build up and promote the idea of the "strong woman". Naturally, masculine terms are used in this as what the feminists are promoting is that women are as strong, or stronger, than men in virtually all areas. Women don't need men, women can handle everything themselves, women can and should do anything a man can, etc.

Today this same concept is promoted by Christian women. Often they will speak or write of being a "strong woman". Often they will say that Christian women were not meant to be doormats (which is true) but then they carry on to the extreme telling of all the manly things women can do. No consulation with Scripture regarding whether women should do something just because they can or not. Does Scripture proclaim women should act masculine? Should women act masculine to prove they are not doormats? A man can act feminine but should he? Does the Bible advocate or condone such?

This feminism has not only plagued our women but a good many of our men as well; including pastors. Sure, many women have pushed to have leadership roles in church but it was the men, including pastors, who allowed them such. Often is used the excuse that there are not enough men to fill all the positions. Then why don't the women use their influence to get their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, to step up rather than proclaiming they will do it themselves? Why have pastors not encouraged the women to influence their men to step forward? Why have pastors given in and took the easy way out?

In many churches across the land today if a pastor proclaimed he were removing all women from leadership roles there would be church splits abounding.

Even where Christian women are more likely to follow the biblical model we see the disturbing trend of women speaking to men in ways they shouldn't, speaking to pastors in ways they shouldn't (this occurs both in face-to-face conversation as well as via internet, phone, texting). This is a slippery slope. If these women openly speak in unpolite, rude, crude, sarcastic, scolding, demeaning, belittling, arrogant, strong ways today, how long before this translates from words to actions? What about the example they are setting for the younger generations and others? And this is happening among IFBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

perhaps this will help. I wrote it in devotional form, as I do most things I write, but it applies best here, I believe.

Usurping Authority

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6)

I have heard several theories on why the woman was in transgression, (1 Tim. 2:14) when Adam, apparently took willingly of the forbidden fruit, but I feel that none of them give the text due credit. My belief is that women were made to be followers, and not leaders. I think that is why Satan tempted the woman instead of the man, who was not himself above temptation. In this account, the woman had the desire to be wise, which implies leadership, and my theory is supported further by the curse that man shall have rule over her. (v. 16) Apparently Adam listened to his wife, and he also did eat (v.6); she seemed to be the dominant one. I believe that the Lord was teaching them that they had their roles reversed, and that Adam was to be the leader, and Eve the follower and supporter. We cannot say what would have happened had Satan tempted Adam first, but we do know that he was a subtle creature, and very cunning in his wiles and ways; he knew what he was doing.
Today we have many women in leadership roles, and though they may do a good jOB, they were not meant to be there! The question is not how well they perform, but to whom they are loyal and submissive; it is not a question of status, but of OBedience to the Lord. Some will no doubt remind me of Deborah, who was used of the Lord, but so was a dumb animal when Balaam went to betray the Lord in the matter of Balak! (Num. 22:21-30): The Lord can do what He wishes because our reasons are not his, and his are not ours. Please forgive my sarcasm, but the point is made, God can make exception to any rule as he sees fit, and we are not to question his motives. One example out of all the Bible does not set the precedent for the interpretation of others; nowhere else do we see a women in a rulership role, and under God’s blessing. Even the queen of Sheba was awed by the way the Lord used Solomon, and she was respectively submissive to his rule. Until we get back to the roles that God intended for us, we will not be under the umbrella of his blessing, and subject to his will in the matter of service and submission. A woman’s main OBjective ought to be to be submissive to her man; she need not be wiser than him; she need not be stronger than him; she merely needs to be submissive to him, and God will bless her for it. That, by the way, is the very best place a woman can be.



I've been told that many of the false teachings, churches, that a woman was behind it, those who said this, stated its easier to deceive a woman with false doctrine than a man, for they go by emotion, not Bible truths.

Notice, I said I've been told, this is not my statement, but I do believe the woman is easier to deceive for her emotion has so much affect on her more so that emotions affect most men. The Bible seems to back this up.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

I've been told that many of the false teachings, churches, that a woman was behind it, those who said this, stated its easier to deceive a woman with false doctrine than a man, for they go by emotion, not Bible truths.

Notice, I said I've been told, this is not my statement, but I do believe the woman is easier to deceive for her emotion has so much affect on her more so that emotions affect most men. The Bible seems to back this up.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


Mary Baker Eddy - Christian Science
Elizabeth White - 7th Day Adventist

I can't think of any others, but there are prOBably some! I know Mormonism was started by a man, Catholicism by a man, the Charismatic movement by a man - and the Charismatic movement definitely has women in usurping roles!!!

I agree with you, Jerry8, and I believe the Bible does too, that it's easier to deceive a woman. In fact, 2 Timothy calls those women "silly." The deceivers creep into their homes - so, this could be anything: tv, internet, wrong friends, sinful preachers, etc. But the women are taken captive because they are silly. They don't have discernment - and that is because they have not allowed God to lead them. Their hubbies could be at fault, too, for allowing deceivers in the home, for not making sure the wife is what she should be spiritually, etc.

The fact remains, there are women out there who are easy prey. And all women could be - if they do not stay in the Word and in prayer...and in subjection to their own husbands! Protection extraodinaire for women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Bible says that the older women are supposed to teach the younger women and what better place to meet and do that than at church?. Our church has a women's SS class which is taught by one of the older women. But women don't teach men at our church.

1 Timothy 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sOBriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

But is it OK for a woman to teach men or "usurp authority" as long as it's not in the churchhouse? Why would it mean to dress, act, and do one way at church and another way everywhere else? It's telling men are to pray everywhere.(pray without ceasing, the Bible says) Women are also to dress modest everywhere...not just at church. If it's wrong to dress a certain way at church, it's wrong outside the church. Even so, if it's wrong to teach men or "usurp authority" over men in the churchouse it's wrong everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
But is it OK for a woman to teach men or "usurp authority" as long as it's not in the churchhouse? Why would it mean to dress, act, and do one way at church and another way everywhere else? It's telling men are to pray everywhere.(pray without ceasing, the Bible says) Women are also to dress modest everywhere...not just at church. If it's wrong to dress a certain way at church, it's wrong outside the church. Even so, if it's wrong to teach men or "usurp authority" over men in the churchouse it's wrong everywhere else.


Amen! I believe that we as Christians have become very hypocritical in our walks in such things as these and in many other areas.

I realize that what I am about to say is kinda off topic, but I believe it to be something important that we rarely OBserve in our lives. What we do outside of the church building is just as important as what we do in the church building. I have met many people who seem to think that if they lie while physicaly in the church building, or as they put it "at church," that God sees it as an extra hefty sin and might even strike them down for it with lightning or in some other magnificent way! As far as I am aware, all sin is equal in God's sight. Whether you sin in the church building or outside of it, it is still a grave slight to our Lord and Savior.

This extends to how we behave ourselves. We should carry ourselves with a grave mind, humble spirit, and desire to serve our Lord whether we are in church or outside of it. Anything less is hypocrisy!

Let it be clear that I am not saying that it is wrong to have a special reverence for the "Lord's house." When believers assemble together, whether in doors or outside, to learn more of their saviour and worship Him we should come with extra reverence. We should be humbled that the God of the universe, our Maker and Creator, would care enough and even dare to love such creatures as ourselves. That realization should put a healthy fear in us and we should worship (fall flat on our face) Him. What I am saying is that when we play the part of being a good Christian at church, but letting some things slide when outside of church there is a foundational prOBlem that is puting the whole temple at risk of collapsing.

Again, I realize this isn't what this thread was about, but I feel that this is overlooked by many. I pray that I made myself understood. Feel free to question me on what I have said above if I wasn't.

Thank you,
God Bless!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Amen! I believe that we as Christians have become very hypocritical in our walks in such things as these and in many other areas.

I realize that what I am about to say is kinda off topic, but I believe it to be something important that we rarely OBserve in our lives. What we do outside of the church building is just as important as what we do in the church building. I have met many people who seem to think that if they lie while physicaly in the church building, or as they put it "at church," that God sees it as an extra hefty sin and might even strike them down for it with lightning or in some other magnificent way! As far as I am aware, all sin is equal in God's sight. Whether you sin in the church building or outside of it, it is still a grave slight to our Lord and Savior.

This extends to how we behave ourselves. We should carry ourselves with a grave mind, humble spirit, and desire to serve our Lord whether we are in church or outside of it. Anything less is hypocrisy!

Let it be clear that I am not saying that it is wrong to have a special reverence for the "Lord's house." When believers assemble together, whether in doors or outside, to learn more of their saviour and worship Him we should come with extra reverence. We should be humbled that the God of the universe, our Maker and Creator, would care enough and even dare to love such creatures as ourselves. That realization should put a healthy fear in us and we should worship (fall flat on our face) Him. What I am saying is that when we play the part of being a good Christian at church, but letting some things slide when outside of church there is a foundational prOBlem that is puting the whole temple at risk of collapsing.

Again, I realize this isn't what this thread was about, but I feel that this is overlooked by many. I pray that I made myself understood. Feel free to question me on what I have said above if I wasn't.

Thank you,
God Bless!



No doubt the church house is a place set apart for Jesus' brother's and sister's to worship Him and the Father. I feel it is a scared place. But your right, there be many who take their Christian sleeve off as they exit this building, behaving one way within their home and their home church, them another way in the world.

I heard it said about the late Congressman Kennedy. That he is a very religious person, but he did not wear his Christian sleeve in the public.

There is one word that describes a person who does such things, they're a hypocrite.

Although I had a church of Christ friend, he believer that the Bible was for church and home, that its teaching should be left in the church and the home, and not held to when one is in the world, actually that contradicts the teaching we have in the Bible.
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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • 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...