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.

Surogates? - Pastors and Scholars Please Read and Advise


futurehope
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Tools for the Ministry


To say that because my womb is closed that I may not be "meant to have children" is saying that an HIV positive crack whore pregnant with her 6th is IS meant to be a mother.

And I am assuming that all of you that believe it is to be left to God to open or shut a womb does not use any preventative measures (birth control, tubes tied, etc). Considering that, by this reasoning, doing so would be against His will as He will shut your (your wife's) womb when He is ready for you to no longer have children.




The same as a person who doesn't accept cancer as a death sentence and seeks treatment. "Man's ways" are to use chemo and radiation. Does that make it wrong for a person to reject God's plan of death and use medicine? Ultimately it is God's decision but I don't see it as being wrong to everything within our power to live.

No one said that there was anything wrong with trying to treat a disease; but to take the matter of conception outside of the confines of marriage and the way that God designed things, is wrong.

I think the most important thing is to make sure that we pray for His will. Each step of our infertility journey has been covered in prayer. And not prayer that our will be done, but His. The scariest story in the Bible to me is Rachel demanding children "lest she die". She never once asked what God wanted of her only that she get what she wanted. She got what she wanted and died in the process. And then there was Sarah who followed her will and we all know what happened there. Exactly the point! She tried to go about it her own way because she lacked the faith to have patience and trust that God would keep His promise. Sarah was the type of woman that in today's world would have been running to the clinic to start working on IVF or surrogacy. So, since we all DO know what happened their, why should women follow in her footsteps?We ask God that He guide our steps and that we do His will. I ask him daily that if His will is for us to remain childless that He give me the strength to accept it and to remove this desire from me. If it is His will for us to have children we ask that He show us the way and show us if we are going down the wrong path. We are planning on doing IVF (not with a surrogate) and we ask Him to only give us a child if it is His will. If we conceive then how do you explain that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Annie, seriously, can we at least make arguments for or against this that actually apply and not stretch things far beyond what they actually mean?

How is this stretching things? You have pulled from thin air the idea that since the Bible doesn't mention any other options, God designed only ONE way for babies to be conceived and born. Scripture nowhere asserts your idea. Maybe I've misunderstood; I want to give you a chance to clarify. What Scriptures lead you to believe that a baby MUST be conceived only through the act of sex, then MUST develop in his own mother's womb? Yes, I know that references scattered throughout Scripture indicate that this is the normal, natural way, which is obvious to everybody...Nobody's saying that surrogacy is normal or natural. You are saying that, since surrogacy is not the "natural, normal" way--the way, as you say, that "God designed" childbirth--it goes against God's will. All I did was to take your logic and use it in other arguments to show that it doesn't hold water. Just because something is not "normal" or "natural" doesn't stop you from doing it.

Your main argument has been that since God is in control, we'd better not mess with that by taking our own action. My point all along has been that we take action all the time in life issues, even though, indeed, God is in control. Your arguments are not consistent with the way you live, if you approve of taking medicine and having surgery and undergoing organ transplants (which are mentioned nowhere in the Bible--do they then go against God's design?).


You missed the point. You're concerned about "God's design." You are hung up on the idea that "God did not design" for babies to be conceived this way (even though you haven't given Scriptural support for that idea). My point here is that God's "design" goes far beyond the mere location and events of conception and pregnancy. God's biological design--the way He designed that life be created--is that a baby be conceived by a father and a mother, a sperm cell and an egg cell, to form offspring that adds to the family unit. No one can argue with this. This truth is what makes cloning wrong.


I'm missing your meaning here. Of course love and intimacy is a part of conceiving a child. But love and intimacy, as you know, do not guarantee conception. And...if I may be crass for a moment...anyone who has had to "try" to get pregnant the natural way knows that love and intimacy often elude them at the prescribed times.

An orgy? Do you know what an orgy is? I doubt the parents, doctor, and/or surrogate mother are acting with wildly unbridled passions and lust. I fail to see any connection here. You have ignored the motives and purposes of what you are describing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Futurehope,
If a soldier in Iraq, gets both legs blown off, and doctor's are able to fit him with bionic or prosthetic legs, is that OK with you? How about if your father or mother's only chance for survival is an artificial heart?
What if you need a pacemaker? What if you can't eliminate normally and must have a catheter or colostomy? Are those things normal? Let me ask you: Are drugs and medicines a "normal" thing for your body? I don't think so. But I don't see any rebuke from the Lord here, against what doctors do...when you NEED it.

Luk 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

I think that, by far, the most miraculous thing about "procreation is the meeting of the wife's egg and the husband's sperm. Like I said before, not being able to conceive 'normally" is a medical problem. But, if you can procreate normally, praise God, you don't NEED a physician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tools for the Ministry

Annie and Heartstrings:

The point is that neither of you are looking at this for what it is. You are trying to compare taking medicine with playing God to determine the point in time a life will begin. Yes, I am well aware that God could stop that life from beginning, but He could also stop the murderer from killing; just because He doesn't intervene doesn't meen it is within His will. Neither of you seem to have the ability or determination to trust God to provide life, but believe it is something we should have the power and authority to take it into our own hands. Both of you have brought in examples that have nothing to do with the topic and tried to blanket all medical practices with what John and I have stated.

Annie, for someone who claims to know their bible so well, I find it hard to believe that you actually think masturbation is not sin...but I have heard of more rediculous things. Even the most disgusting and vile people know that it is sin, so I won't waste my time posting the scripture as I'm pretty sure you are already fully aware of it. As for the "orgy" comment: at it's very root, it involves several people entering into group sexual acts that are to be left between a husband and wife; just like conception should be left there.

Bottom line, you've both been given the biblical examples, and ignore them to your own desires. Yes, what is "normal" is what should be done. I think the bible makes it very clear that doing what is "natural" is appropriate and going outside of that is almost always sin. I know understanding this requires the use of a little logic, but it's probably worth your time to be a little logical before chasing after your own wishes, wills, and desires.

God's design is perfect, it is us that is corrupt, but He is still able to use us in our corrupt state to do His will. If a woman is truly praying for God to give her a child, but won't sit still long enough and be patient long enough for God to provide that miracle, she isn't showing any real faith, but simply an "I want" conversation with God. I'll make this clear one last time: I have no problem with "treatments" of a disease that prevents a woman from conceiving, I do have a problem with IVF and surrogacy and the reasons are obvious. If you want to treat a disease, do it; but don't try to take the power or authority to give life into your own hands. With the logic you all are trying to apply, it's okay to clone, and kill, because the mysteries of how to do it have been unlocked. Sound foolish? So does a woman who claims to have faith taking matters out of God's hands and into her own (or a doctor's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that neither of you are looking at this for what it is. You are trying to compare taking medicine with playing God to determine the point in time a life will begin.

Isn't that what humans do all the time? God has obviously given humans the ability to choose in this area. Conception REQUIRES human action; it is not "all God."

Annie, for someone who claims to know their bible so well, I find it hard to believe that you actually think masturbation is not sin...but I have heard of more rediculous things. Even the most disgusting and vile people know that it is sin, so I won't waste my time posting the scripture as I'm pretty sure you are already fully aware of it.

First, when and where did I "claim to know my Bible so well?" I hope I would never be so prideful as to claim that I know everything about the Bible. Such a claim would be ludicrous in the extreme. And, I did not say that masturbation is not sin. I just asked you, "Is it?" and then asked for Scripture on that topic. You have evaded that question with rhetoric instead of answering it directly. And, no, I am not aware of any Scripture that addresses masturbation. If you know of one or more passages, please tell me about them.

Bottom line, you've both been given the biblical examples, and ignore them to your own desires. Yes, what is "normal" is what should be done. I think the bible makes it very clear that doing what is "natural" is appropriate and going outside of that is almost always sin. I know understanding this requires the use of a little logic, but it's probably worth your time to be a little logical before chasing after your own wishes, wills, and desires.

With all due respect, this is just more rhetoric. Where does the Bible "make it very clear that doing what is natural is appropriate and going outside of that is almost (almost???) always sin"? If this is indeed very clear in Scripture, then you would abstain from using anything unnatural (like surgery, transplants, processed foods, synthetic materials--the list goes on and on) in your life, or you would be sinning. It seems to me that it is your logic, not mine, that needs shoring up. First, there is no biblical basis for what you have asserted. Second, your logic doesn't make sense, for the reasons I've been mentioning. Third, you don't even live by what you have asserted (that doing anything unnatural is sin).

With the logic you all are trying to apply, it's okay to clone, and kill, because the mysteries of how to do it have been unlocked.

I will repeat, this is not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying it is OK to do fertility treatments BECAUSE the mysteries have been unlocked. What I am saying is that we can use modern advances in medicine, technology, communication, etc., UNLESS it goes against Scripture. We can use the Internet, but we can't look at porn. We can enjoy television, but not every program. We can take advantage of modern medicine, but some things are off limits (like abortion, cloning, euthanasia, etc.). What you have failed to show from Scripture is why surrogacy is off limits. (I have already acknowledged that if embryos are destroyed, then obviously there are problems.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Good posts Futurehope.

The thing is, the Bible is clear with regards to the sanctity of life, who is to control the womb, etc. There is plenty in the Bible to support that we are not to attempt to prevent life, God has put forth one means for life to be perpetuated and He has stated clearly that's to be His domain.

There is no biblical basis for preventing life or for producing life in an unbiblical manner.

We can either accept the Word of God, or we can go with the many non-biblical arguments. As for me and my house, we choose to accept the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope no one here every has to deal with infertility or has a friend or family member have this problem .

Its painfully clear that its still a taboo topic and that the people facing it will not get the support they need .
They will instead be told that its "God's Will " or to be content etc ...

Its like a death and people who have family die are surely not told to deal with it and get over it .

Infertility = death the death of dreams and hopes

I am sorry that those who have it are never understood and treated kindly but instead told how wrong they are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Good posts Futurehope.

The thing is, 1 the Bible is clear with regards to the sanctity of life, 2 who is to control the womb, etc. 3 There is plenty in the Bible to support that we are not to attempt to prevent life, 4 God has put forth one means for life to be perpetuated and 5 He has stated clearly that's to be His domain.

6 There is no biblical basis for preventing life or for producing life in an unbiblical manner.

We can either accept the Word of God, or we can go with the many non-biblical arguments. As for me and my house, we choose to accept the Word of God.


You make six statements here without showing the scripture to back them up.
By all means, show us what the word of God says on each statement.

But on statement 6........
Nobody here is advocating "producing life"; man cannot "produce life"/
And who here is advocating "preventing life? Are you arguing against "birth control" now?

There is no biblical basis for preventing life or for producing life in an unbiblical manner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


You make six statements here without showing the scripture to back them up.
By all means, show us what the word of God says on each statement.

But on statement 6........
Nobody here is advocating "producing life"; man cannot "produce life"/
And who here is advocating "preventing life? Are you arguing against "birth control" now?



knowing John, he fully support quiver full (like the Duggars). Some catholics don't believe in birth control either.

But anyway, I do believe we should be content what we can and can not do too (and some people case is not able to have children). I can't always be upset that I have limits because of my deafness. People tell me all the time "oh, you should be glad you are deaf because there are some things I wish I didn't have to hear".

I have a hearing child and it is VERY frustrating to raise him as a hearing person. Why? because people have a high standard on how a hearing person should talk, write, act, etc. Plus, he can hear things that I can't. But I can do it. I just can't be upset with God for restricting my communication, even with my own child. Nor be upset with other people because they have their own opinion . Even Parents with deaf kids have to deal with comments that hurt them. People would tell them that they should accept their kid is deaf and don't attempt to make them hearing-- meaning no hearing aids, no cochlear implant, nothing.. just teach him sign languages. Others think they should force their child to communicate with hearing people so he can be part of their culture and have good jobs (which I think this is untrue.. the result is usually the same no matter which direction you go). Being genetically deaf, it is really scary for me to have another child, wondering if my children will be deaf too. Not that it is bad to have deaf kids, it is the responsibility that go with it that can be overwhelming. Being scared to pass your genetic traits to your kids (and deciding if you should not have them no matter how badly you want them) is just as frustrating as not able to have kids.. and top of it all, you have people tellling you NOT to have kids.

I can relate somewhat about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If and how many children we have is up to the LORD> I don't say this to hurt anyone having problems having a child but thru prayer the Lord provides children! in Christ's love pixiedust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tools for the Ministry

Isn't that what humans do all the time? God has obviously given humans the ability to choose in this area. Conception REQUIRES human action; it is not "all God."

Yes, people do this all the time, but that doesn't make it right. Yes, He has given us the ability to choose - we either choose right or wrong...you have chosen to support sin. Yes, human action is required - whether to sin or not, there is human action.


First, when and where did I "claim to know my Bible so well?" I hope I would never be so prideful as to claim that I know everything about the Bible. Such a claim would be ludicrous in the extreme. And, I did not say that masturbation is not sin. I just asked you, "Is it?" and then asked for Scripture on that topic. You have evaded that question with rhetoric instead of answering it directly. And, no, I am not aware of any Scripture that addresses masturbation. If you know of one or more passages, please tell me about them.

Most of your posts are rather prideful as to the understanding of God's word and thinking that you have understanding. So, do you or don't you believe masturbation is sin?


With all due respect, this is just more rhetoric. Where does the Bible "make it very clear that doing what is natural is appropriate and going outside of that is almost (almost???) always sin"? If this is indeed very clear in Scripture, then you would abstain from using anything unnatural (like surgery, transplants, processed foods, synthetic materials--the list goes on and on) in your life, or you would be sinning. It seems to me that it is your logic, not mine, that needs shoring up. First, there is no biblical basis for what you have asserted. Second, your logic doesn't make sense, for the reasons I've been mentioning. Third, you don't even live by what you have asserted (that doing anything unnatural is sin).

Romans 1

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes' date=' people do this all the time, but that doesn't make it right. Yes, He has given us the ability to choose - we either choose right or wrong...you have chosen to support sin. Yes, human action is required - whether to sin or not, there is human action.[/quote']

Futurehope, I think you missed my meaning here. The fact is that conception is not "all God." Humans must act in order for a baby to be conceived. Their action (intercourse--->union of sperm and egg) is indeed necessary in order for a new life to begin. If they did not act, a new life most certainly would not begin. Therefore, since humans know "how babies are made," they have been created with the ability to choose either to act or not to act in order to produce life. Humans do have a choice in the matter of procreation (whether to act or not to act). I don't see how you can deny this. God doesn't work outside of man's actions on this one. (There is, of course, one notable Exception.) That is all I was saying.


Futurehope, it grieves me to think that something in my attitude here has given you the idea that I think I "know it all" when it comes to God's Word. Could you point me to a specific example, so that I may evaluate your assertion here?

Regarding masturbation, you have come out strongly against it, without giving Scriptural support. I have made no assertions either way (and I must admit I'm a bit curious why you are trying to pin me down on this one when you are the one making the assertions). I merely asked for that support. Your hesitancy in providing it makes me wonder if you know why you think it is a sinful behavior. I am certainly not interested in having a prolonged discussion about it, here, in mixed company, especially when it doesn't have much to do with the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Futurehope, it appears to me that we are not making any progress in this discussion partly because we do not understand each other. For example, for the life of me, I cannot understand what you mean by "natural." I thought I did, but now I realize I don't. If you mean "as nature intended," then logic would dictate that you would "let nature take its course" in all things (including sickness, death, pregnancy complications, etc.) if you are to be consistent. But you don't (or at least I don't think you do). So, that's one aspect of the discussion that has me scratching my head.

Another aspect of this discussion is the "human control" element. You have not addressed that (in your last response to my post on that matter). So, that's another loose end hanging. I think it's an important one.

And, as I've said before, your unwillingness to post Scripture about your other assertion (about the specifics of the fertility treatment process) also has me puzzled. I'm not sure why you need me to make "a statement" before backing up your assertion with Scripture, especially when you are the one who introduced that topic in the first place. It appears to me (I could be wrong) that you are hoping that I will disagree with you, so you can "play a trump card" and say, "Aha! You're wrong. Look at this!" I've already told you that I'm unaware of any Scripture dealing with that topic...That was your cue to say, "Have you considered this one?" Your hesitancy to do so is, as I said, puzzling, and seems to indicate vulnerability in your position. If you want to keep talking about it, post the Scripture, and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, I really don't have anything more to say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If and how many children we have is up to the LORD> I don't say this to hurt anyone having problems having a child but thru prayer the Lord provides children! in Christ's love pixiedust




How does prayer provide children from the Lord ?

I have prayed and even been anointed yet I have none .

Not trying to be rude I just don't see how you have come up with that statement .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




How does prayer provide children from the Lord ?

I have prayed and even been anointed yet I have none .

Not trying to be rude I just don't see how you have come up with that statement .


There are many factors in this, including our faith and the Lord's timing. Consider how long various women in the Bible prayed for children before the Lord gave them a child.

The Lord answers prayers for children as He does all prayer, first of all it must be within His will to provide what is asked for and second, it must be in His perfect timing.

The Lord has various reasons for seeming to delay in answering. It may be a matter of growing ones faith, of bringing one to fully trust in the Lord, it may have to do with when the perfect time is for receiving the answer, it may have something to do with what the Lord knows one will have to go through between the time of the request and the answer, or a myriad of other things.

In the end, it basically comes down to us putting our full faith and trust in God, which is what He desires. If we truly pray that His will be done we can rest assured that whatever His will is, it's perfect and right in all ways.

LAF, I do pray the Lord will provide you with the answers you seek and that He would grant you peace, comfort and strength with wisdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...