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.

Christening Without Christianity


chev1958
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Christening Without Much Christianity
Anglican church offers 'baptism lite' to attract non-worshippers

By Steve Doughty
London Daily Mail
Jan. 18, 2011

Church of England baptism services may be re-written to remove some references to Christianity.

The plan for a new ‘baptism lite’ service designed to make christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the Church’s parliament, the General Synod.

Supporters say the baptism service should be ‘expressed in culturally appropriate and accessible language’ that is readily understood by ‘non-theologically versed Britons’. But traditionalist clergy said the idea amounted to ‘dumbing down’.

The new service would be used at 150,000 christenings each year. If the plan is accepted, it will be the third full re-write of the baptism ceremony in around 30 years – the version in the Church’s Book of Common Prayer went virtually unaltered for more than 400 years until 1980.

Complaints centre on three sections of the baptism service from the Church’s latest prayer book, Common Worship, authorised for use in 1997.

In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’. They are asked to ‘submit to Christ as Lord’.

The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that ‘there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough’. He added: ‘The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.’

Dr Stratford and his supporters have also called for a new version of prayers that refer to the symbolic role of water in baptism. He said that among clergy from poor and inner city parishes ‘there was a strong plea for a shorter prayer in direct but poetic language that allows the Gospel to resonate better with people’s experience of life’.

He added: ‘This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse, but for a prayer that the majority of non-theologically versed Britons would understand.’ A third part of the service was condemned as too long and not ‘direct’.

Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith organisation, said there were problems with the 1997 service, but added: ‘Simply dumbing it down is not the answer.’

Bishops indicated yesterday that if the Synod accepts the argument a committee will be instructed to begin writing a new baptism service, but they warned that such re-writing would raise arguments over faith and doctrine.

William Fittall, secretary general of the synod, said that bishops are ‘clear that now is not the time to embark on the long and complex process involved in such a revision or replacement’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Christening Without Much Christianity
Anglican church offers 'baptism lite' to attract non-worshippers

By Steve Doughty
London Daily Mail
Jan. 18, 2011

Church of England baptism services may be re-written to remove some references to Christianity.

The plan for a new ‘baptism lite’ service designed to make christenings more interesting to non-churchgoers will be considered next month by the Church’s parliament, the General Synod.

Supporters say the baptism service should be ‘expressed in culturally appropriate and accessible language’ that is readily understood by ‘non-theologically versed Britons’. But traditionalist clergy said the idea amounted to ‘dumbing down’.

The new service would be used at 150,000 christenings each year. If the plan is accepted, it will be the third full re-write of the baptism ceremony in around 30 years – the version in the Church’s Book of Common Prayer went virtually unaltered for more than 400 years until 1980.

Complaints centre on three sections of the baptism service from the Church’s latest prayer book, Common Worship, authorised for use in 1997.

In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’. They are asked to ‘submit to Christ as Lord’.

The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that ‘there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough’. He added: ‘The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.’

Dr Stratford and his supporters have also called for a new version of prayers that refer to the symbolic role of water in baptism. He said that among clergy from poor and inner city parishes ‘there was a strong plea for a shorter prayer in direct but poetic language that allows the Gospel to resonate better with people’s experience of life’.

He added: ‘This was not a plea for a prayer in Scouse, but for a prayer that the majority of non-theologically versed Britons would understand.’ A third part of the service was condemned as too long and not ‘direct’.

Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic Forward in Faith organisation, said there were problems with the 1997 service, but added: ‘Simply dumbing it down is not the answer.’

Bishops indicated yesterday that if the Synod accepts the argument a committee will be instructed to begin writing a new baptism service, but they warned that such re-writing would raise arguments over faith and doctrine.

William Fittall, secretary general of the synod, said that bishops are ‘clear that now is not the time to embark on the long and complex process involved in such a revision or replacement’.


It doesn't surprise me.

Our local Anglican church has a woman Vicar who is soon planning to take maternity leave.

About 9 miles away is an Anglican church that advertises mass and confessions.

One of my nephews who once went to an Anglican church had one of his daughters dedicated there. He insisted it was not a baptism. There was another family who had a child dedicated at the same time. My nephew had a reading from Mark's gospel. The other family brought along a family member who was a budhist dressed in saffron robes. This budhist read from a book by a budhist monk. The vicar spoke on the budhist reading and later referred to Mark as "the other reading."

There was the case, a couple of years ago, where a vicar, on leave, was practising as a hindu priest in India, but was intending to return. The woman vicar who was filling in for him said "We do actually prefer our priests to be Christians."

A few years ago the then Bishop of Durham, caused a stir when he denied the virgin birth and other core doctrines. He was surprised at the rumpus, as he said that their colleges taught that. (I know that not all of them do.)

On 6th Feb 1831, H B Buteel, one of the leading Evangelicals in the Anglican Church and university at Oxford, preached a sermon in which he attacked the unworthy living of the ministers and added a The Orgrievance that godly young men of calvinistic disposition were denied college testimonials which were not withheld from young men notrious for debauchery and various kinds of riotous living. One hearing the sermon was the rector of Exeter College who was reported as saying, 'Well, I must say I quailed, for indeed it is true: you know we have to have young men brought to be qualified for ordination and we have to sign papers declaring that they are called by the Holy Ghost, some of them ungodly young men.' J N Darby who was passsing through Oxford at the time wrote a defence of vigorous defence Buteel and Calvinism. B W Newton who had asked Darby to write the tract regretted the way it was done and remarked "A right and true and soothing statement of Calvinism would have put everything right in Oxford. Most of the Evangelicals in the area left the Anglican church soon after, many to join the Plymouth Brethren others to become Baptists. (from The Origins of the Brethren, by Harold H Rowden.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In one, parents, godparents or an adult being baptised are asked to ‘reject the devil and all rebellion against God’ and to renounce ‘the deceit and corruption of evil’. They are asked to ‘submit to Christ as Lord’.

I'm not surprised that complaints centred around this public profession, I love it!



The Reverend Dr Tim Stratford, from Liverpool, who is putting the plans before the synod, said in a paper that ‘there remains some unhappiness about the language not being earthed enough’. He added: ‘The concern is one of the language not making strong enough connections to life choices in such a way that it can be heard.’

Not being earthed enough? Sounds familiar - 1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

The Church of England fell into apostasy many years ago, all this is just par for the course and we're all at the 18th hole!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

All I can say is that God is doing a tremendous work in my local Anglican church. Anglican is much like Baptist. It varies so much from local church to local church. God is also doing a tremendous work through the Anglican church in Africa and in Asia.

My pastor went to seminary in England, and attended a very spirit filled Anglican church there. There is such a sense of history, and a strong committment to theology. Some of the best contemporary theologians are Anglican. My favorites are John Stott and J.A. Packer.

I can't tell from this article what the proposal is, or even how much support it has among the bishops. I can tell you that what they decide is not binding on Anglican churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If there were a truly good Anglican church they would unyoke themselves from the wicked Anglican Church at large as Scripture commands.

It's amazing how the Anglican Church, Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, various other churches are clearly far outside of being biblical and yet some professing Christians decide it's okay for them to reject the commands of Scriptue to separate from such by declaring that their particular local church is "good" and they don't agree with or follow their denominational leaders/Church. If those individual churches were truly "good" and they truly reject the unbiblical and wicked ways of their denominational Church/leaders, they would abide by the Word of God and separate from them. The fact they don't is proof they are not as "good" as some proclaim, and is proof they don't abide by the Word of God with regards to unequal yoking and commands for separation. Typically, when one checks into the actual "good" churches within these denominations it quickly becomes clear they in fact are in far more agreement with their denominational leadership than is claimed and they are unbiblical in several areas along with their denomination.

Christ says if we love Him, we will obey His commandments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No surprise to see wayward churches going farther astray. The Anglican, Episcopalian, United Methodist and many other denominations are more intent upon pleasing man than God.


I wonder when they'll all fall under the Pope?
Ezekiel 34:710
7 Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;
8 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;
9 Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;
10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All I can say is that God is doing a tremendous work in my local Anglican church. Anglican is much like Baptist. It varies so much from local church to local church. God is also doing a tremendous work through the Anglican church in Africa and in Asia.

My pastor went to seminary in England, and attended a very spirit filled Anglican church there. There is such a sense of history, and a strong committment to theology. Some of the best contemporary theologians are Anglican. My favorites are John Stott and J.A. Packer.

I can't tell from this article what the proposal is, or even how much support it has among the bishops. I can tell you that what they decide is not binding on Anglican churches.


I would love to see your web site for this rogue Anglican church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



A newspaper reporter called it the same thing when the split occured.. lol

http://www.saintandrews-lr.org/index.php

Here is a brief history of the church: http://www.saintandrews-lr.org/OurStory.php
they are part of this network

www.theamia.org


I didn't see anything to recommend this church or any statements separating themselves from the Anglican Church.

From the website:

Worship at St. Andrew’s provides a weekly encounter with God through Scripture, Spirit, and Sacrament—blending the best of the evangelical, charismatic, and traditional aspects of the Christian faith.

When you come to St. Andrew’s, dress as comfortably and casually as you like.


The sermons page would show up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



I didn't see anything to recommend this church or any statements separating themselves from the Anglican Church.

From the website:

Worship at St. Andrew’s provides a weekly encounter with God through Scripture, Spirit, and Sacrament—blending the best of the evangelical, charismatic, and traditional aspects of the Christian faith.

When you come to St. Andrew’s, dress as comfortably and casually as you like.


The sermons page would show up.



They separated from the Episcopal church, and the Anglican chruch of Rwanda took them in. The church is an incredible place to worship, learn and share in the love of Christ. And who wouldn't want an "encounter with God through Scripture, Spirit and Sacrament?" We have people who dress in suits, and homeless people who come in fatigues since that is the only clothes they own. It is fantastic. Edited by kindofblue1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



They separated from the Episcopal church, and the Anglican chruch of Rwanda took them in. The church is an incredible place to worship, learn and share in the love of Christ. And who wouldn't want an "encounter with God through Scripture, Spirit and Sacrament?" We have people who dress in suits, and homeless people who come in fatigues since that is the only clothes they own. It is fantastic.


Where's their doctrinal statement? Why still associated with anything Anglican? You do realize the Anglican Church was formed to be basically RCC-lite don't you? What are their views regarding Sacrament? Why the mix of evangelical, charismatic and traditional? Why is their website so vague?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Where's their doctrinal statement? Why still associated with anything Anglican? You do realize the Anglican Church was formed to be basically RCC-lite don't you? What are their views regarding Sacrament? Why the mix of evangelical, charismatic and traditional? Why is their website so vague?


I don't see anything vague about their website. We take communion every week. We believe that as often as we do so, we proclaim the death, burrial and ressurection of Christ. We value historical tradition of the church, and respect our forefathers in faith, and maintain a sense of connection through liturgy and participatory worship. We value being led by the Holy Spirit and following his direction for our lives and for our church, so that is where the charismatic comes in. We are unashamedly evangelical because it is our mission to carry the love and message of Christ into the world. We are traditional because we value great hisotrial tradition such as hymns of the faith, greath theologians, etc. our philosophy on communion is that if you are a believer and follower of Christ and have been baptized, you may take communion and share in the proclamation of his death, burial and ressurection.

Why still anglican? Because the founders of the church were anglican and valued the Anglican tradition, and were sad to see the direction fo the Episcopal church. They want to reform the chruch as a whole where needed, while maintaining what is good about their faith tradition.

I don't want to get into an extensive debate over the church I attend. I posted the link because someone was interested in viewing it. I attend this church because it is where God has led me to attend and serve in this season of my life. I attend because I find deep, authentic meaningul ways to serve and worship God, and for the deep sense of community that I have with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have no problems with it being Anglican or having some liturgical worship. I find it very meaningul. Edited by kindofblue1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I don't see anything vague about their website. We take communion every week. We believe that as often as we do so, we proclaim the death, burrial and ressurection of Christ. We value historical tradition of the church, and respect our forefathers in faith, and maintain a sense of connection through liturgy and participatory worship. We value being led by the Holy Spirit and following his direction for our lives and for our church, so that is where the charismatic comes in. We are unashamedly evangelical because it is our mission to carry the love and message of Christ into the world. We are traditional because we value great hisotrial tradition such as hymns of the faith, greath theologians, etc. our philosophy on communion is that if you are a believer and follower of Christ and have been baptized, you may take communion and share in the proclamation of his death, burial and ressurection.

Why still anglican? Because the founders of the church were anglican and valued the Anglican tradition, and were sad to see the direction fo the Episcopal church. They want to reform the chruch as a whole where needed, while maintaining what is good about their faith tradition.

I don't want to get into an extensive debate over the church I attend. I posted the link because someone was interested in viewing it. I attend this church because it is where God has led me to attend and serve in this season of my life. I attend because I find deep, authentic meaningul ways to serve and worship God, and for the deep sense of community that I have with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have no problems with it being Anglican or having some liturgical worship. I find it very meaningul.


All very vague and very much full of "I". None of what you have said makes this a biblical church and it's continued association with Anglicanism is proof of it's unwillingness to obey Scripture.

No disrespect intended, but your assertions that this church is wonderful and you personally get something from it, carries no more weight than those who say the same thing about their snake handling church, the name-it-and-claim-it churches, the Mormons or others attempting to justify their wayward or false churches. The folks in the "wonderful" social club church in this town say the same things you say.

A church should have a solid, biblical Statement of Faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



All very vague and very much full of "I". None of what you have said makes this a biblical church and it's continued association with Anglicanism is proof of it's unwillingness to obey Scripture.

No disrespect intended, but your assertions that this church is wonderful and you personally get something from it, carries no more weight than those who say the same thing about their snake handling church, the name-it-and-claim-it churches, the Mormons or others attempting to justify their wayward or false churches. The folks in the "wonderful" social club church in this town say the same things you say.

A church should have a solid, biblical Statement of Faith.


A church founded on the belief of Jesus Christ and on the Bible, who seek to follow the Holy Spirit as he leads them is indeed a very biblical church. We seek to love God with all of our hearts, soul and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves. We proclaim Christ weekly. You have pointed absolutely nothing unbiblical. I don't know how you can judge a church without even stepping foot in the doors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




I don't see anything vague about their website. We take communion every week. We believe that as often as we do so, we proclaim the death, burrial and ressurection of Christ. We value historical tradition of the church, and respect our forefathers in faith, and maintain a sense of connection through liturgy and participatory worship. We value being led by the Holy Spirit and following his direction for our lives and for our church, so that is where the charismatic comes in. We are unashamedly evangelical because it is our mission to carry the love and message of Christ into the world. We are traditional because we value great hisotrial tradition such as hymns of the faith, greath theologians, etc. our philosophy on communion is that if you are a believer and follower of Christ and have been baptized, you may take communion and share in the proclamation of his death, burial and ressurection.

Why still anglican? Because the founders of the church were anglican and valued the Anglican tradition, and were sad to see the direction fo the Episcopal church. They want to reform the chruch as a whole where needed, while maintaining what is good about their faith tradition.

I don't want to get into an extensive debate over the church I attend. I posted the link because someone was interested in viewing it. I attend this church because it is where God has led me to attend and serve in this season of my life. I attend because I find deep, authentic meaningul ways to serve and worship God, and for the deep sense of community that I have with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have no problems with it being Anglican or having some liturgical worship. I find it very meaningul.


Kindofblue, your church sounds wonderful. Keep going there and growing in your faith and do not pay any mind to people who seek to tear you down.

A little about why I just popped up - I used to post here but I stopped due to attacks like this. I am Episcopalian. I also love Jesus with all my heart and believe in helping my fellow man as he taught us. You aren't going to convince anyone on here that your church is "right" in their eyes. Fortunately, no one's eyes on earth matter. Remember that and keep doing what you're doing.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Kindofblue, your church sounds wonderful. Keep going there and growing in your faith and do not pay any mind to people who seek to tear you down.

A little about why I just popped up - I used to post here but I stopped due to attacks like this. I am Episcopalian. I also love Jesus with all my heart and believe in helping my fellow man as he taught us. You aren't going to convince anyone on here that your church is "right" in their eyes. Fortunately, no one's eyes on earth matter. Remember that and keep doing what you're doing.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.


KOB has already posted his church rejected the Episcopal Church because they had turned from following God.

In any event, what you say here sounds much like what many said against Jeremiah, Amos, Paul and others.

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." Ecclesiastes 12:13

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15

Many have posted here on OB the wicked and unbiblical ways within the Episcopal and Anglican churches of which Scripture commands Christians to have no part in, to separate from and to reprove. Those who reject this command from God are not being attacked by those who point these things out, rather those who reject the Word of God in this are are attacking God's soveriegnty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16-17 :bible:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



And also with you.

Now I take my leave for a bit. I have concluded it is not profitable or good for me to continue this debate.


"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken." Jeremiah 6:16-17
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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 15 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...