Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      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



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.


Nice dodge :thumb:

The fact is the government doesn't operate according to original intent. In fact, very far from it. Unless such is ever changed those in office must operate under the system as is in order to accomplish anything, or they can use such as an excuse to appear to make no stand...which they are making a stand by taking that position.

If these "many moderates" truly view many things as something the Feds shouldn't be involved in why aren't they working to get the Feds out of these areas? What moderates are working to end unconstitutional agencies or programs; or to get the Feds out of the abortion or homosexual "marriage" issue?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



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?

Far right? Conservatives "hijacking" the Republican Party?

No, we have not seen far right. We have not seen a Christian conservative.

All we see are fakes and liberals.
In Christ,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Far right? Conservatives "hijacking" the Republican Party?

No, we have not seen far right. We have not seen a Christian conservative.

All we see are fakes and liberals.
In Christ,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.


There might not be a Christian conservative as you would define it. I'm not sure what your definition is, but there are conservatives that use Christian rhetoric and ideas. Whether or not they are Christians, I can't say unless I know them personally.

Far right though we have seen. And we have seen the national party pandering to its right wing base. I've said it before, but McCain picking Palin for his running mate and revising some of his stances in the 2008 election was a clear example of pandering to the right wing of the GOP.

Would you care to back up your statement with examples?
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Nice dodge :thumb:

The fact is the government doesn't operate according to original intent. In fact, very far from it. Unless such is ever changed those in office must operate under the system as is in order to accomplish anything, or they can use such as an excuse to appear to make no stand...which they are making a stand by taking that position.

If these "many moderates" truly view many things as something the Feds shouldn't be involved in why aren't they working to get the Feds out of these areas? What moderates are working to end unconstitutional agencies or programs; or to get the Feds out of the abortion or homosexual "marriage" issue?


I'm not dodging anything and you know it. Anyone who reads my posts knows that I don't shy from saying what I believe, even if it results in ridicule. All I'm doing is calling out your blanket statements and your assumptions that are not based in fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



There might not be a Christian conservative as you would define it. I'm not sure what your definition is, but there are conservatives that use Christian rhetoric and ideas. Whether or not they are Christians, I can't say unless I know them personally.

Far right though we have seen. And we have seen the national party pandering to its right wing base. I've said it before, but McCain picking Palin for his running mate and revising some of his stances in the 2008 election was a clear example of pandering to the right wing of the GOP.

Would you care to back up your statement with examples?


Could you please do the same?

Who are the far right politicians running the Repub Party?

What does Christian rhetoric prove? OBama and Bill Clinton both use(d) such and they are in no way far right or conservative.

McCain was such a liberal he had to do something in an attempt to get non-liberal Repubs to bother to come out and vote for him. Palin, if you check her completely, isn't anywhere near as conservative as the media and Dem Party have painted her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I'm not dodging anything and you know it. Anyone who reads my posts knows that I don't shy from saying what I believe, even if it results in ridicule. All I'm doing is calling out your blanket statements and your assumptions that are not based in fact.


You have refused to give examples in several cases when asked in several posts in various threads.

What are your moderate positions you believe the Repub Party should stand upon?
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Could you please do the same?

Who are the far right politicians running the Repub Party?

What does Christian rhetoric prove? OBama and Bill Clinton both use(d) such and they are in no way far right or conservative.

McCain was such a liberal he had to do something in an attempt to get non-liberal Repubs to bother to come out and vote for him. Palin, if you check her completely, isn't anywhere near as conservative as the media and Dem Party have painted her.






You have refused to give examples in several cases when asked in several posts in various threads.

What are your moderate positions you believe the Repub Party should stand upon?


I have backed up my statement with examples but I will keep going if you would like. Far right conservatives? Jim DeMint, Joe Wilson, Huckabee (that's a national one you would prOBably know), yes Sarah Palin. She doesn't have a very long record to stand on, but the ideas she is presenting are very far right. And the new tea party candidate that just won? Christine O'Donnell? She is very right as well. The tea party is putting up very right wing candidates. One of them just beat out BOB Inglis of SC (another very conservative Republican) in the primary for the House race.

I'm going to take a leap here and guess that you don't agree with the mainstream interpretation of what constitutes far right and moderate so we are prOBably speaking different languages here.

Could you please tell me where I have refused to give appropriate examples when asked? I don't recall where that has happened.

For your last question, I believe in moderate fiscal conservatism but moderate social liberty. I would like to see the party having the backbone to stand on those issues and to support the candidates like the John McCain of 2000, not the John McCain that would have become a puppet for the tea party.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I have backed up my statement with examples but I will keep going if you would like. Far right conservatives? Jim DeMint, Joe Wilson, Huckabee (that's a national one you would prOBably know), yes Sarah Palin. She doesn't have a very long record to stand on, but the ideas she is presenting are very far right. And the new tea party candidate that just won? Christine O'Donnell? She is very right as well. The tea party is putting up very right wing candidates. One of them just beat out BOB Inglis of SC (another very conservative Republican) in the primary for the House race.

I'm going to take a leap here and guess that you don't agree with the mainstream interpretation of what constitutes far right and moderate so we are prOBably speaking different languages here.

Could you please tell me where I have refused to give appropriate examples when asked? I don't recall where that has happened.

For your last question, I believe in moderate fiscal conservatism but moderate social liberty. I would like to see the party having the backbone to stand on those issues and to support the candidates like the John McCain of 2000, not the John McCain that would have become a puppet for the tea party.


I love a good laugh but it's mighty early in the morning for such.

Huckabee a far right conservative? Not even close. He's also not in leadership within the Repub Party and didn't even have that good of a showing in the 2008 elections.

John McCain was a liberal in 2000 and a liberal in 2008. The only thing he did in 2008 was change some of his wording to try and trick conservative Repubs into backing him. Had he been elected he would have governed according to his liberal leanings.

The tea party isn't the Repub Party and whenever the tea party promotes anyone near conservative the Repub Party fights against them.

What does this mean that you believe in "moderate fiscal conservatism but moderate social liberty"? This statement is so vague and without clear defintion it's virtually meaningless. What positions do you hold that place your beliefs into these categories you selected?
Link to comment
Share on other sites




I love a good laugh but it's mighty early in the morning for such.

Huckabee a far right conservative? Not even close. He's also not in leadership within the Repub Party and didn't even have that good of a showing in the 2008 elections.

John McCain was a liberal in 2000 and a liberal in 2008. The only thing he did in 2008 was change some of his wording to try and trick conservative Repubs into backing him. Had he been elected he would have governed according to his liberal leanings.

The tea party isn't the Repub Party and whenever the tea party promotes anyone near conservative the Repub Party fights against them.

What does this mean that you believe in "moderate fiscal conservatism but moderate social liberty"? This statement is so vague and without clear defintion it's virtually meaningless. What positions do you hold that place your beliefs into these categories you selected?


Well, the tea party isn't exactly a 3rd party either. Most of it's candidates run under the GOP ticket so it's more of a faction of the Republican party. Some in the Republican Party fight against these people, but, in my opinion, they are fighting more against the new faces than the philosophies they espouse. It's all about jOB security...

I figured we would disagree about what constitutes a far right conservative. Being in the party leadership makes no difference. Most mainstream thought would place everyone I mentioned squarely in the far right wing of the party. I'm sure you don't agree with mainstream thought and that's fine but that doesn't make it invalid.

Who do you think is far right? What do you think constitutes far right? I think defining that would prOBably help us.

Yes I'm aware the philosophy that I quoted it vague. Most are and have only meaning to those who hold the philosophy. I guess I would say on the fiscal side that I'm not for oppressive taxes or for a nanny state that takes care of people without having to work. However I am for some degree of a safety net to help society's most vulnerable (ie unemployment benefits for a certain amount of time, healthcare for poor children, etc). I think my tax dollars should support that. However, there needs to be reform b/c my tax dollars should not support people who live extravagantly but rely on the system to take care of them. This hurts those who really need help. Additionally, I believe that the government (at any level) has no business in the private lives of individuals. Yes, things like life and property rights should be protected so morals like murder and stealing should be legislated. However, personal sexual preferences among consenting adults are no one's business.

I'm sure many disagree and that's fine, to be honest I don't want my political beliefs to become the subject of debate on this thread, I was merely defining them because I was asked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Interestingly, on AFR today there was someone on there confronting "moderates". He pointed out there is no such thing. That whether a Dem or Repub calling themselves moderates, what it really means is they are liberals who generally support homosexual "marriage", abortion and such.

When it comes down to it Christians are to base their views and positions upon the Word of God and nothing else. Scripture tells us one of the functions of government is to thwart evil and Scripture gives examples of that which the government should stand against.

As well, Scripture is clear as to the position Christians should hold on the issues at hand. God created marriage and the family. God's Word tells us all we need to know.

The question is, are we going to follow Christ or someone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Interestingly, on AFR today there was someone on there confronting "moderates". He pointed out there is no such thing. That whether a Dem or Repub calling themselves moderates, what it really means is they are liberals who generally support homosexual "marriage", abortion and such.

When it comes down to it Christians are to base their views and positions upon the Word of God and nothing else. Scripture tells us one of the functions of government is to thwart evil and Scripture gives examples of that which the government should stand against.

As well, Scripture is clear as to the position Christians should hold on the issues at hand. God created marriage and the family. God's Word tells us all we need to know.

The question is, are we going to follow Christ or someone else?


Why are you so bound and determined to say that there is no such thing as a moderate? Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that that is not the case. In fact, wherever there is a range of views to be held there will be moderates. AFR? Figures.

To be honest, the labels conservative, moderate, liberal and so on are comparative labels. Their meanings change frequently and only have meaning when being compared to other views. For example, compared to your views on many issues my views are liberal. However, compared to say, the late Senator Kennedy or perhaps Congresswoman Pelosi, many of my views are conservative. Therefore, when you examine me within the spectrum, the only fitting label is moderate.

Yes, on this board or according to AFR I am liberal. Yes, at a NOW gathering I would be conservative. However, the only way to determine a true political label is to examine beliefs within the entire range of possible views.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Liberals have a few litmus tests and if one passes those they are considered a liberal regardless if some of their other positions are not as totally liberal.

Again though, it's not really a matter of what label one wants to call themselves, it's a matter of where we stand with regard to the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
There might not be a Christian conservative as you would define it. I'm not sure what your definition is, but there are conservatives that use Christian rhetoric and ideas. Whether or not they are Christians, I can't say unless I know them personally.

Far right though we have seen. And we have seen the national party pandering to its right wing base. I've said it before, but McCain picking Palin for his running mate and revising some of his stances in the 2008 election was a clear example of pandering to the right wing of the GOP.

Would you care to back up your statement with examples?

Palin is not remotely "far right." Her very existence as a female politician proves she is a liberal. She is a self-proclaimed feminist.

I don't think there's much point, since what we see as 'conservative' and 'liberal' is OBviously quite different. I really can't give examples anyway, since every single person out there that I know of is messed-up.

Forgive me I am misunderstanding your question.
In Christ,
Joel ><>. Edited by Crushmaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Again though, it's not really a matter of what label one wants to call themselves, it's a matter of where we stand with regard to the Word of God.



:amen: That's right! We should stand with the Word of God in every area of our life and not just in the church walls on Sunday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I really can't give examples anyway, since every single person out there that I know of is messed-up.



This is why I stopped caring about politics about four years ago.

I think both parties stink, one just happens to smell worse then the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Palin is not remotely "far right." Her very existence as a female politician proves she is a liberal. She is a self-proclaimed feminist.

I don't think there's much point, since what we see as 'conservative' and 'liberal' is OBviously quite different. I really can't give examples anyway, since every single person out there that I know of is messed-up.

Forgive me I am misunderstanding your question.
In Christ,
Joel ><>.


I know from reading your profile that you do not believe women should be in politics, but regardless of your view on that, I can assure you that Palin is not a feminist in the classic sense. The political ideologies that she espouses are very right wing. She by her own admission is trying to take back the term feminist from liberals who she believes have corrupted the word.

Conservative and liberal relative to ourselves are prOBably different, but conservative and liberal relative to the entire spectrum really shouldn't be different. I'm asking you to give examples of what you think a true conservative would be and then contrast that with all the "liberals and fakes" that we've seen. I'm not asking you to give examples of specific conservative people because you haven't claimed that they exist. Apologies if I wasn't clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

One of the prOBlems today is the term conservative no longer means what it did or should. Today what most people call conservatives are actually neo-cons, which are little more than warmed over liberals.

If one only listens to a bit of what Palin has said and listens to the skewed MSM they might think Palin is a conservative. However, if one looks at all she says and how she has governed and how she has conducted herself it becomes clear she is no conservative.

Yet again, these labels don't matter, or shouldn't, for a Christian. What Christians should be considering is what the Word of God says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Conservative and liberal relative to ourselves are prOBably different, but conservative and liberal relative to the entire spectrum really shouldn't be different. I'm asking you to give examples of what you think a true conservative would be and then contrast that with all the "liberals and fakes" that we've seen. I'm not asking you to give examples of specific conservative people because you haven't claimed that they exist. Apologies if I wasn't clear.

Ahh, I see what you're saying. Very well; I will try.

He would...
1. Be a godly man, a good husband, a good father.
2. He would read his Bible and pray consistently every day, in large quantities, with much quality.
3. He would refrain from secular movies, television, music, etc.
4. He would exhort healthy living.
5. He would hold the Bible to be the ultimate source of moral truth.
6. He would believe in much lower taxes.
7. His wife wouldn't work.
8. He would hold right views on Bible doctrines, men and women's roles, etc.
9. He would advocate the death penalty in many cases of crime.
10. He would be against abortion and homosexual marriage.
11. He would be sold out utterly and completely to God.
12. He would be brave, tough, masculine, and chivalrous.

I suppose I could put a lot more, but I hope this at least somewhat answers your request.
In Christ,
Joel ><>. Edited by Crushmaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Ahh, I see what you're saying. Very well; I will try.

He would...
1. Be a godly man, a good husband, a good father.
2. He would read his Bible and pray consistently every day, in large quantities, with much quality.
3. He would refrain from secular movies, television, music, etc.
4. He would exhort healthy living.
5. He would hold the Bible to be the ultimate source of moral truth.
6. He would believe in much lower taxes.
7. His wife wouldn't work.
8. He would hold right views on Bible doctrines, men and women's roles, etc.
9. He would advocate the death penalty in many cases of crime.
10. He would be against abortion and homosexual marriage.
11. He would be sold out utterly and completely to God.
12. He would be brave, tough, masculine, and chivalrous.

I suppose I could put a lot more, but I hope this at least somewhat answers your request.
In Christ,
Joel ><>.


Fair enough. I could offer some examples of a few men who meet prOBably 11 of 12 of your requirements. The only one I don't know is your #3; I'm not sure that in all cases the men I'm thinking of refrain from all secular forms of entertainment. However, rest assured that there are some politicians, some of whom I know personally that adhere to your requirements. I may not agree with everything they do, but I do respect them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I feel that Huckabee and Palin are far right only to the liberal democrats. Even before Huckabee got into politics he was a liberal, yet he is even more liberal today.

Most all politician's use religion for what they can get out of it, votes.

I've noticed it in local politics and its true for national politics, those who claim to be conservative by Bible standards are actually worldly liberal, and use the Bible {God} for their own purpose, try to win elections}, and only hold a form of godliness and will never take a stand on one is saved only by grace through faith, not of your self, not of works, its a free gift.

Edited by Jerry80871852
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

×
×
  • Create New...