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.

Big night for tea party: O'Donnell wins Delaware


John81
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Big night for tea party: O'Donnell wins Delaware


By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer Michael R. Blood, Associated Press Writer – 46 mins ago
It's tea time in America.

Conservative Christine O'Donnell pulled off a stunning upset over nine-term Rep. Mike Castle in the Republican Senate primary in Delaware Tuesday, propelled by tea party activists into a November showdown with Democrat Chris Coons. After a primary season shaped by economic pain and exasperated voters, the grass-roots, antiestablishment movement can claim wins in at least seven GOP Senate races, a handful of Republican gubernatorial contests and dozens of House primary campaigns, and it influenced many others.

In the fight for New Hampshire's Republican Senate nomination, a second insurgent trailed in vote counting that was still going on Wednesday. After lagging in early returns, former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte moved ahead of Ovide Lamontagne with a lead of roughly 1,000 votes, with results tallied from 85 percent of precincts. Ayotte was backed by establishment Republicans and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin; Lamontagne, a former chairman of the state Board of Education, campaigned with the support of tea party activists.

In New York, tea party ally Carl Paladino dealt another shock to the GOP establishment, defeating former Rep. Rick Lazio in the race for the party's nomination for governor. Paladino will face state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the well-known son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo.

The Delaware outcome reflected the energy and enthusiasm of the tea partiers, but O'Donnell also enters the race against Coons as an underdog, putting GOP control of the Senate further out of reach. Former George W. Bush political adviser Karl Rove told Fox News Channel, "This is not a race we're going to be able to win." Delaware Republicans had actively worked against O'Donnell in Tuesday's primary.

On Wednesday, a triumphant O'Donnell accused the party of "Republican cannibalism."

"We have to rise above this nastiness and unify for the greater good, because there's a lot of work to be done and there are a lot of people who want to get involved if the Republican Party would," O'Donnell said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Click image to see more photos from Tuesday's primaries


AP/ROB Carr
O'Donnell said she hopes the party will unite to help her win in November, but said, "It is doable without the support of the Republican Party."

Democratic National Committee chief Tim Kaine told NBC's "Today" on Wednesday that O'Donnell's win was good for Democrats and a further sign of the "civil war" in the Republican party.

"That creates opportunities for us," he said. The O'Donnell win shows that moderate Republican voters are being forced from their party and will "have to look long and hard before supporting these candidates," Kaine said.

Speaking Tuesday night at an Elks Lodge in Dover, Del., O'Donnell thanked Sarah Palin for her endorsement as well as the Tea Party Express, a California political committee that spent at least $237,000 to help her defeat Castle, a moderate and a fixture in Delaware politics for a generation.

Republican Party officials who saw Castle as their only hope for winning the Delaware seat once held by Vice President Joe Biden made clear they will not provide funding for O'Donnell in the general election. The Republican state chairman, Tom Ross, has said O'Donnell "could not be elected dogcatcher," and records surfaced during the campaign showing that the IRS had once slapped a lien against her and that her house had been headed for foreclosure. She also claimed — falsely — to have carried two of the state's counties in a race against Biden six years ago.

In Minneapolis, former President Bill Clinton said the Republican Party is pushing out pragmatic voices in favor of candidates that make former President George W. Bush "look like a liberal."

O'Donnell has said she would work in Congress to repeal President Barack OBama's health care overhaul. She was also a spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group that opposes abortion, including in the case of rape, and supports abstinence-only sex education.

The victories by O'Donnell and Paladino are the latest evidence of the influence of the tea party movement, a loose-knit coalition of community groups that advocate limited government, tightfisted spending and free markets.

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who was aided by spending by the Tea Party Express, became an overnight Republican star in January when he claimed the seat held for decades by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Brown's win set the stage for a year of outsider candidates, and the tea party has scored prominent primary election wins in Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and Alaska.

But can they win in November?

O'Donnell and other tea party candidates have called for an abrupt turn toward austere government, and the question will be how far voters want to go to reshape Washington.

The movement's spirited rallies have attracted tens of thousands of people, and they've made their presence felt at the polls: Republican turnout in the primary season has well outpaced Democratic. Even in races where the tea party has been less visible, its influence is evident in candidates' arguments. In the California race for governor, Democrat Jerry Brown is depicting himself as a tax-cutter who keeps his eye on the bottom line.

But for all its enthusiasm, the tea party has elevated sometimes unpolished or flawed candidates who — in some cases — will be more vulnerable in November, particularly in states or districts that are more moderate. The movement has also opened fissures with the GOP establishment. In Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who was defeated by tea party favorite Joe Miller, is considering a write-in candidacy and says the Alaska Republican party was "hijacked" by the Tea Party Express, which she calls an "extremist group." The committee, based in California, endorsed Miller and ran ads supporting him.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada once appeared headed for near-certain defeat in the state that has the nation's highest unemployment, but he's now running even with tea party favorite Sharron Angle, a Republican who wants to phase out Social Security for younger workers, opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, and would break up the federal Education Department.

In Colorado, Republicans tried to get their nominee for governor, tea party favorite Dan Maes, to quit the race after embarrassing missteps. He's claimed he worked as an undercover police officer in Kansas — statements that have not been corrOBorated by authorities — and he once suggested that a Denver bike-sharing program is part of a U.N. conspiracy to control American cities.

For the GOP, the tea party "is a mixed blessing," said Bill Whalen, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.

The movement's voters are energized but "anyone but Sharron Angle would have Harry Reid dead to rights. Abolishing the Education Department, it's a little too much," Whalen said.

The loosely connected movement, which took shape in early 2009 in reaction to bailouts and rising government debt, has no central organization that endorses candidates. There are thousands of local chapters, some of which are tethered to national groups.

Tea party candidates have been aided by support from conservative political committees that share the movement's limited government, free market agenda, including the Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks, Club for Growth and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund.

The financial arm of the Tea Party Express — the Our Country Deserves Better PAC — has spent about $1.6 million in advertising and mailings in a handful of races, including $237,000 in Delaware. It pumped $588,000 into the GOP primary in Alaska to lift Miller over Murkowski.

The Tea Party Express' biggest investment has been in Nevada, where it has spent $790,000 on Angle's behalf. It also spent about $350,000 in Massachusetts to help Brown win.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100915/ap_on_el_ge/us_primary_rdp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Republican Party leadership is making it very clear they want nothing to do with conservatives and would even prefer losing seats to liberal Dems than to support conservative Repubs.

Once again the Repub Party leadership chooses to support liberal Repubs over conservative Repubs. In the case of Delaware the Repub leadership has declared they won't give financial support to the conservative Repub who won the primary nomination.

How many times does the Repub Party have to do such things before Christians and conservatives realize the Repub Party is not favorable to either?

Considering the Repub Party leadership has declared they won't be supporting conservative candidates it would be foolish for conservatives and Christians to donate any money to the Repub Party because it will only be used to promote the more liberal Repubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republican party hasn't had any good options in a while - at least not on the national level. Most moderates, myself included, have felt that the party has been hijacked by the religious right and the far right for a very long time. Moderate Republicans and Democrats are elusive now. For proof on this just look at McCain's presidential campaign. He was forced to cater to the super conservative wing when just a few short years ago he was saying very different things. Maybe we need a viable 3rd party soon. Where in the world are us fiscal conservatives and social moderates supposed to go? Guess that's why I refuse to register with either party...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

The Republican party hasn't had any good options in a while - at least not on the national level. Most moderates, myself included, have felt that the party has been hijacked by the religious right and the far right for a very long time. Moderate Republicans and Democrats are elusive now. For proof on this just look at McCain's presidential campaign. He was forced to cater to the super conservative wing when just a few short years ago he was saying very different things. Maybe we need a viable 3rd party soon. Where in the world are us fiscal conservatives and social moderates supposed to go? Guess that's why I refuse to register with either party...

That's why so many are turning to tea party candidates (which is what she is).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"Moderates" is a false category. Moderates are mostly liberal but not willing to call themselves such.

Christians should absolutely be wanting candidates which are biblical believers in Christ who truly follow Christ in all aspects of their lives.

The Dem Party is solidly liberal-socialist. The Repub Party is a wishy-washy liberal Party that wants to play the "but we're not as liberal as them Party so you can pretend we are conservative if it makes you vote for us" Party.

Neither the far right nor the religious right have ever dominated the Republican Party. The closest they ever came to a real conservative candidate was Ronald Reagan. Even then Party leaders worked against him and have worked hard to liberalize the Party even further since the end of Reagans second term.

"Moderate Republicans" are liberals and they are the ones that control the Party. This is why they have been so against the Tea Party movement and against conservative candidates that run as Repubs.

God calls Christians to be "hot", standing firm upon His whole Word; not "lukewarm" (moderate). Christ even said it's better for a person to be "cold", not pretending to be what he isn't, than to be lukewarm/moderate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


"Moderates" is a false category. Moderates are mostly liberal but not willing to call themselves such.

Christians should absolutely be wanting candidates which are biblical believers in Christ who truly follow Christ in all aspects of their lives.

The Dem Party is solidly liberal-socialist. The Repub Party is a wishy-washy liberal Party that wants to play the "but we're not as liberal as them Party so you can pretend we are conservative if it makes you vote for us" Party.

Neither the far right nor the religious right have ever dominated the Republican Party. The closest they ever came to a real conservative candidate was Ronald Reagan. Even then Party leaders worked against him and have worked hard to liberalize the Party even further since the end of Reagans second term.

"Moderate Republicans" are liberals and they are the ones that control the Party. This is why they have been so against the Tea Party movement and against conservative candidates that run as Repubs.

God calls Christians to be "hot", standing firm upon His whole Word; not "lukewarm" (moderate). Christ even said it's better for a person to be "cold", not pretending to be what he isn't, than to be lukewarm/moderate.


Wow. You are again offering a mere opinion (which you have the right to have) while calling my opinion wrong. Moderate is a category and many people fall into it. Where do you get off saying that moderates are liberals who don't want to call themselves such? Do you have some statistics or a source to back that up?

Where did this turn to a discussion about Christian candidates? Last time I checked we were talking about the tea party and political philosophy.

And yes, ever since Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" the Republican party has been hijacked by the far right and extreme social conservatives. If you don't believe me, actually take a look at the Republicans in Congress and look at their ratings on the conservative/liberal scale. I'm sure you will still disagree because these people are not IFB conservative, but the fact still remains.

Interesting, you have managed to turn a political philosophy that is rather vague (as political philosophies usually are) and have attempted to create a moderate political philosophy with being a lukewarm Christian. It makes no sense, but I should be used to it by now. Amazing the leaps you will take.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators



Yes, but tea party candidates are generally far right leaving me still with where are moderates supposed to go with the tea party hijacking the GOP?

Well, actually, tea party candidates are not far right by and large. I actually wish some of them were more in line with the Constitution. The prOBlem is that the news media is painting an untrue picture of them - not just the candidates, but the tea partiers as well.

Take Scott Brown, for instance. He won Kennedy's old seat in Mass with massive help from the tea party. And he is by no means far right. I wouldn't even call him moderate. He is actually Kennedy lite, since he has gone with the Dems on just about everything - contrary to what he indicated before people chose him.

Fiorini is another one who is supported by many tea partiers. And she is by no means a Constitutionalist. She is, however, a moderate. And that is one of the reasons she is being pushed by many in the tea party - because they know that in certain areas like MA and CA true Constitutionalists prOBably won't make it.

As to hijacking the GOP - if the GOP wants to get back to its roots then maybe people won't be so angry with the rank and file of them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Wow. You are again offering a mere opinion (which you have the right to have) while calling my opinion wrong. Moderate is a category and many people fall into it. Where do you get off saying that moderates are liberals who don't want to call themselves such? Do you have some statistics or a source to back that up?

Where did this turn to a discussion about Christian candidates? Last time I checked we were talking about the tea party and political philosophy.

And yes, ever since Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" the Republican party has been hijacked by the far right and extreme social conservatives. If you don't believe me, actually take a look at the Republicans in Congress and look at their ratings on the conservative/liberal scale. I'm sure you will still disagree because these people are not IFB conservative, but the fact still remains.

Interesting, you have managed to turn a political philosophy that is rather vague (as political philosophies usually are) and have attempted to create a moderate political philosophy with being a lukewarm Christian. It makes no sense, but I should be used to it by now. Amazing the leaps you will take.


Look at the voting records of moderates, they tend to line with the liberals. Moderates hold to liberal positions no conservative or Christian would hold to.

Newt was no conservative, though he likes to sound like one sometimes. I clearly remember the "Contract with America" and how it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Newt paid lip service to the contract only; he never pressed for it's actual implementation. The Repub Party has become more liberal since then.

This thread deals with candidates, as the title suggests by mentioning one, as well as politcal philosphy and any time Christians are having a discussion it should be known whether a candidate is Christian or not and how they line up with biblical principles.

Notice how many years the last Bush was in office with a congress controlled by Repubs. There was no end to abortion, no legislation making things clear regarding homosexuality either in the military or society at large, no efforts to shrink the government back in the bounds of the Constitution, no rollback of the advances liberals have made.

For the Christian, Scripture is to be the backbone, the foundation upon which all of life is viewed and lived.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Notice how many years the last Bush was in office with a congress controlled by Repubs. There was no end to abortion, no legislation making things clear regarding homosexuality either in the military or society at large, no efforts to shrink the government back in the bounds of the Constitution, no rollback of the advances liberals have made.


This type of thing won't end with the federal government until the STATES begin to take back the power that is theirs. Nullification will go a long way toward ending a lot of stuff that has been going on. A state has the right to nullify any unconstitutional federal law. But most people aren't aware of that...

An excellent and eye-opening book to read is: http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490
It would be a good book to give to state legislators as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



This type of thing won't end with the federal government until the STATES begin to take back the power that is theirs. Nullification will go a long way toward ending a lot of stuff that has been going on. A state has the right to nullify any unconstitutional federal law. But most people aren't aware of that...

An excellent and eye-opening book to read is: http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490
It would be a good book to give to state legislators as well.


According to the Feds, the "civil war" settled that. The States only have the rights the Feds agree to let them have.

Likely as not, unless nearly every State attempted nullified a Federal law, the Feds would demand compliance and a quick response by troops if they failed. We saw this during the "civil rights" era.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators



According to the Feds, the "civil war" settled that. The States only have the rights the Feds agree to let them have.

Likely as not, unless nearly every State attempted nullified a Federal law, the Feds would demand compliance and a quick response by troops if they failed. We saw this during the "civil rights" era.

Ah, but Missouri's doing it with the health care... :thumb:
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Look at the voting records of moderates, they tend to line with the liberals. Moderates hold to liberal positions no conservative or Christian would hold to.

Newt was no conservative, though he likes to sound like one sometimes. I clearly remember the "Contract with America" and how it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Newt paid lip service to the contract only; he never pressed for it's actual implementation. The Repub Party has become more liberal since then.

This thread deals with candidates, as the title suggests by mentioning one, as well as politcal philosphy and any time Christians are having a discussion it should be known whether a candidate is Christian or not and how they line up with biblical principles.

Notice how many years the last Bush was in office with a congress controlled by Repubs. There was no end to abortion, no legislation making things clear regarding homosexuality either in the military or society at large, no efforts to shrink the government back in the bounds of the Constitution, no rollback of the advances liberals have made.

For the Christian, Scripture is to be the backbone, the foundation upon which all of life is viewed and lived.


Well I'm not sure what moderates you are looking at. There are very, very few true moderates in Congress. Even so, they are members of the Democratic or Republican party and cop to the leadership under pressure.

Again I'll ask you if you have anything to back up your position. And "moderates hold to liberal positions no Christian would hold to"? Really? Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of true Christians that are not conservative politically and plenty that are even (gasp!) Democrats. A book you might want to check out (but I know you won't) is "Jesus rode a Donkey". It's about how the right doesn't have a monopoly on Christianity.

You are correct about the Bush administration in some respects. Actually, there were many laws passed in states that severely limited a woman's right to choose. Regardless, it's next to impossible if not impossible to change the Roe decision now by legislation.

It's interesting that you mention legislation regarding homosexuality and shrinking the government back to the bounds of the Constitution right next to each other. Federal legislation regarding homosexuality or defining marriage would be waaay outside the bounds of the Constitution. It's really funny how far right conservatives love the Constitution until it disagrees with their pet cause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators


You are correct about the Bush administration in some respects. Actually, there were many laws passed in states that severely limited a woman's right to choose. Regardless, it's next to impossible if not impossible to change the Roe decision now by legislation. States have the right to pass laws regarding abortion because it is murder. Putting it down as a "woman's right to choose" is just the lingo that has convinced a few generations that it is a good thing. No woman has the right to choose to murder her child, no matter how it's inconveniencing her. And that does fall under the purview of the states. NOT the federal government, re: Roe v. Wade or congressional legislation.

It's interesting that you mention legislation regarding homosexuality and shrinking the government back to the bounds of the Constitution right next to each other. Federal legislation regarding homosexuality or defining marriage would be waaay outside the bounds of the Constitution. It's really funny how far right conservatives love the Constitution until it disagrees with their pet cause. Far right conservatives? My goodness - I thought moderates love the Constitution as well...as to your comment about homosexuality: I totally agree with you. It is way beyond the bounds of the Constitution and the federal government has no business in it. However: states do. And that is why the federal judge who has tried to shanghai the referendum in CA was way out of line. It's Congress' responsibility to rein him in, but they won't because they like power - and allowing each branch of federal government to do what they want assures the other branches they can, too. Checks and balances don't work when you have 3 federal branches checking each other...unless the states get involved. Very involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Oh yes, I love the Constitution and I certainly hope other moderates do too! I was just remarking that it's interesting how some claim to love the Constitution until it interferes with something they think should be done (ie a federal marriage amendment). I prOBably wasn't clear and it was def unfair for me to only call out the far right for this. It happens to many regardless of political persuasion. We all know the far left is equally guilty... :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Well I'm not sure what moderates you are looking at. There are very, very few true moderates in Congress. Even so, they are members of the Democratic or Republican party and cop to the leadership under pressure.

Again I'll ask you if you have anything to back up your position. And "moderates hold to liberal positions no Christian would hold to"? Really? Hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of true Christians that are not conservative politically and plenty that are even (gasp!) Democrats. A book you might want to check out (but I know you won't) is "Jesus rode a Donkey". It's about how the right doesn't have a monopoly on Christianity.

You are correct about the Bush administration in some respects. Actually, there were many laws passed in states that severely limited a woman's right to choose. Regardless, it's next to impossible if not impossible to change the Roe decision now by legislation.

It's interesting that you mention legislation regarding homosexuality and shrinking the government back to the bounds of the Constitution right next to each other. Federal legislation regarding homosexuality or defining marriage would be waaay outside the bounds of the Constitution. It's really funny how far right conservatives love the Constitution until it disagrees with their pet cause.


These are a few typical moderate positions that are actually liberal and also unbiblical:

support the murder of unborn babies (abortion)
support homosexual "marriage" or "civil union" (a stepping stone to "marriage")
support for a vast array of unconstitutional government agencies and programs

According to Scripture true followers of Christ will abide in His Word, they will be known and seen for OBeying the Word of God in all aspects of their lives. The Dem Party platform is unbiblical and their overall policies and goals are unbiblical. Any Christian truly following Christ would be unable to support them and unwilling to be one.

The Word of God gives clear direction as to where a Christian should stand, even with regard to politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




These are a few typical moderate positions that are actually liberal and also unbiblical:

support the murder of unborn babies (abortion)
support homosexual "marriage" or "civil union" (a stepping stone to "marriage")
support for a vast array of unconstitutional government agencies and programs

According to Scripture true followers of Christ will abide in His Word, they will be known and seen for OBeying the Word of God in all aspects of their lives. The Dem Party platform is unbiblical and their overall policies and goals are unbiblical. Any Christian truly following Christ would be unable to support them and unwilling to be one.

The Word of God gives clear direction as to where a Christian should stand, even with regard to politics.


Some moderates are more socially conservative than others, so this blanket statement doesn't apply to all moderates. Many moderates view a lot of these things as issues that the federal government should leave alone, regardless of whether or not they privately condone or support these things in their personal lives. I would say that a lot of moderates don't believe in forcing their moral world view on others, no matter what it is. This cannot be said for either the far right or the far left.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • 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
  • 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...