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.

Church of Christ


DennisD
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Rick, allow me to try again.

1. The Bible does not at any point give any command to nor any example of any person “praying Jesus into his heart.” We are not saved through some prayer. Now, does God hear a prayer given by a sinner (a non-Christian/someone not saved)? I have hear people who have said yes and I have heard those who have said no, but it isn’t what a person says but what God’s word says. We have John 9:31 which says, “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.” This man made the statement that God doesn’t, but what this man speaking by inspiration. I don’t see any indication that he was. We have the example of Cornelius in Acts 10 who was not a Christian at this point and prayed. God certainly heard his prayers. We have various passages which discuss the prayers of the saints. (1 John 5:14-15, Heb 4:14-16, etc.) I certainly believe that as a Christian I have blessings which those who are not in Christ do not (Eph 1:3). The real question is does God answer the prayers of sinners?

2. One must be baptized (Mark 16:16; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3, etc). It does matter why we are baptized. Acts 2:38 states that we must be baptized for (unto) remission of sins. If I am “baptized because I have already been saved” then I am not obeying this command. My faith is in Christ; it is in that if I submit to Him/obey Him then I am saved. I am not saved because I have earned/merited anything but because I did what He commanded me to because He is Lord and He is the perfect sacrifice. I realize that most people who profess “faith only” accuse me of preaching a meritorious works salvation; that is simply not the case. I can not say it enough. I can do nothing that will ever earn my salvation…ever, but that does not mean that there is nothing that I must do. Again, it does not matter who the man is who baptizes the individual. What does matter is the heart (mind) of the person who is being baptized.

3. A person who obeys the Gospel does have to remain faithful (Rev 2:10). That does include actually continuing to be a part of the worship service, the assembling of the saints (Heb 10:24-25). Since denominationalism is sinful (1 Cor 1:10, Eph 4:1ff, John 17), then I can not be a part of such. Allow me to explain it this way…..we will link it to our discussion of MI….if it is a sin to worship the Lord with MI, then I am not being faithful to participate in such worship. I realize that you do not believe it is a sin but I submit to you that the Bible does teach that it is and thus it would be sinful to participate in such and I would not be faithful in doing so. I am also not faithful in participating in denominationalism/division.

4. Not to oversimplify things but follow the Bible. I can not in one or two sentences answer this question. One must faithfully assemble with the saints, worship God in the manner that he/she is commanded to do, live the life of a Christian avoiding those things which are sinful (Gal 5:19ff, Col 3:1ff, etc). I know that this may not answer your question to your satisfaction but it is the best I can do in a sentence or two. I am not sure if you are getting at the point of a “creed” or not but I will say that we do not have a creed; we do not have two or three or ten points that sums everything up.

5. Please define what you mean by doctrinal. If you are speaking about salvation, proper worship, etc then in no way am I saying that we can disagree with the Bible. There are issues that many people argue over which is silly to worry about. I have heard of a few who do not believe in the trinity but not many. I believe it was Barton W. Stone during the restoration period who denied the trinity. I have a book by one Gospel preacher who denies the trinity but those may be the only two in the church that I know anything of. I don’t know who you have been around but I can only speak of my experience. I will say this, I would be more that happy to discuss this subject with anyone and can provide ample scripture related to this matter.

Again, I hope that I have answered your questions this time. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the Word.


Thanks, that clears some things up.

1. God does hear the prayer of sinners. You used Cornelius as an example so I assume you believe that He also answers the prayers of sinners, because in sending Peter God answered his prayer. While we're on the subject of Cornelius, how do you explain all those Italians getting the Holy Spirit and being saved before they were baptized?

2. You said it doesn't matter who baptized the man, just that the person is baptized unto the remission of sins. So in churches all over the world (including Catholic, Mormon, Anglican, Lutheran, etc) who baptize for that reason you believe the person is saved when they get baptized, correct?

3. Denominationalism is sinful, you say. It also seems that you're saying that the only group of professing Christians that are not a denomination happens to be the one group you are a part of. Don't you think that's a little convenient? If I'm getting you right, you're saying that you can't be saved and be part of a denomination, so the only way to be saved is to be a member of the Church of Christ, correct?

4. I accept your answer on this, though obviously I disagree with it. This explains why those who refuse to believe in Eternal Security have no real assurance of salvation.

5. When you say that we can't disagree with the Bible, do you mean you can't disagree with the Bible and live a full and complete Christian life or you can't disagree with the Bible and go to Heaven when you die? What would you say about the CoC folks I know of who are adamantly against the teaching of the Trinity? Are they still going to Heaven when they die because they have been baptized, are faithful, and are members of the Church of Christ? Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Jim,

First allow me to say that I do not who you and Rick and others have been talking with or seeing because most of what I have heard about the church of Christ members which you have "met and or known" are far off from the people that I know. Now, are there some people who profess to be Christians who believe in things contrary to what the Bible says? Of course. Are there people who profess to be Christian who will treat people undkindly? Sadly, yes. I wish that people understood the harm they do by being unkind. But, most members of the church that I know would either not speak at all for fear of saying something wrong or would be joyful to talk with someone about the word of God. At one time I would have fallen into the first group; now I welcome the opportunity to speak to anyone who is willing to discuss the Word.

As far as "arguing no matter what scriptures are shown," I could say the same thing for you. I have shown multiple scriptures which clearly contradict many of the things which you are claiming and yet you still refuse to see the truth.

As to Saylan and others who might wish to understand more about what we believe, I am more than happy to discuss any point with anyone who wishes to know about something. I will answer any question to the best of my ability and when I might not know something I will be more than happy to study further so that I can answer the question. Am I "militant?" Only as far as the Word of God teaches me to be. It teaches me to contend for the faith (Jude 3), to preach the truth in love (Eph 4:15), etc. I will be glad to look at anything anyone has to say but I will not believe it just because it is said. (1 John 4:1)


All I can do is tell you what I have experienced and dealt with, I asked one lady why she was that way, and she told me her CoC pastor and a visiting evangelist had instructed the people to be that way, using your statement of "contending for the faith", and then I dealt with her pastor in a business setting, (he did not know i had talked to her), and he upon finding out I was a baptist preacher, became very forward with me, and I didn't even bring up religion. Say what you want, I know what I have dealt with and unless you are a different coc333 than was here around about Nov. & Dec. of last year, you can get pretty forward with those of us that are on a a Baptist discussion board. As last time if I remember right, (correct me if I'm wrong) you got so militant with us and our beliefs/tenets/doctrines, that the Mods locked to thread.th_tiphat.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Amen, as I go out to speak to others there are those who seem to want to stand a argue scripture, versions and religion, I too do the best I can to walk away without slamming a door shut on the hope that later there maybe someone that can reach them with the truth. The two groups that seem to be the most militant on their beliefs when I knock at their door are some Catholics and coc's and th coc,s seem to be the more militant, even to the point I have had some of them to start hollering at me. There also seems to be two groups of coc's and the one is more militant than the other, to the point of confrontation.

With coc333, it seems to me that coc333 is from that group, he is going to stand and argue his points no matter what scripture we give him to share our beliefs with him, I have seen, saylan post asking to try to understand what the coc believe and and think he must believe this back and forth is counterproductive to his ability to understand the difference. All I can say is pray and study the word of God, KJB, and look at the what it says as a whole.



I want say that about coc333, for I feel he is proclaiming from his heart what he believes, nothing more, nothing less.

To many of our Baptist brothers and sisters thinks they can argue Bible doctrine with atheist, unbelievers, those who teach other paths to be saved besides grace though faith and bring them to believe as we do. They do it out in the world, they do it on the internet.

The Bible is very plain, the lost cannot comprehend the Bible. And yes, I know there be those that say that is not true, I've already given Holy Scriptures that backs that up. That is why I do not go through life arguing the Bible with such people. And most that do this all they do is harden the heart of the one they're arguing with. Even in this topic some of our brothers has made smarty remarks towards coc333 that were competely unnecessary, that were no called for.

I give coc333 props for not answering back in the same tone as they poted to him. And of course him being of the coc, if he had, they would probably be demanding that he be banned, simply for doing them as they did him. Again, I'm not defending his belief, I disagree with his beliefs. but pointing he has reacted kindly, not offering back what was given to him.

As I previously said, in the past I've been rude like that too, I'm trying very hard not to be that way no longer, sometimes its quite difficult not to be, especially with some of the remarks even my own brothers and sisters makes from time to time that disagrees with me on some points. Being that way gains nothing, but it can cause hard feeling, and its a good way to stir up a flame, which we should never do nor attempt. I try my best to be stem, strong, in my beliefs, trying not to speaks words that causes flame. Just recently on here one person disagree with another one calling them arrogant, that is plain disgraceful, for they said this simply because they disagreed with a fellow believer. So far they seem to think it was the right thing to do, as far as I know.

Tit 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

We can't show the attributes spoke of in Titus 3:2, if we are rude, stirring up flames with those we agree with nor with those we disagree with.

Col 4:5 ¶ Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.

We can't walk in wisdom if we are rude to those without, if we are arrogant towards them, if we are rude to them stirring up flames, nor can we use the time before us as we should. When we start calling people arrogant, or other words of flame, we close their ears to everything we say after that, building up hostilities, we even become brawlers that is mentioned in Titus 3:2.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

And when giving someone an answer, we surely need to be sure we have a right answer before opening our mouths.

Yes, many think they are free to give rude answers to anyone that does not agree with them, when we do that its seems to make us feel superior, when we ought to be meek, and humble, gentle, kind, while trying to spread the "Good News."

And when someone is rude to us, uses them word that are bad about causing flame:

Ro 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil
1Pe 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil,

We should just turn our cheek to them, offering only kindness,, meekness to them just as the Word tells us to. And when our temper gets the best of us, we should be quick to apolgize, say I'm sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




I want say that about coc333, for I feel he is proclaiming from his heart what he believes, nothing more, nothing less.

To many of our Baptist brothers and sisters thinks they can argue Bible doctrine with atheist, unbelievers, those who teach other paths to be saved besides grace though faith and bring them to believe as we do. They do it out in the world, they do it on the internet.

The Bible is very plain, the lost cannot comprehend the Bible. And yes, I know there be those that say that is not true, I've already given Holy Scriptures that backs that up. That is why I do not go through life arguing the Bible with such people. And most that do this all they do is harden the heart of the one they're arguing with. Even in this topic some of our brothers has made smarty remarks towards coc333 that were competely unnecessary, that were no called for.

I give coc333 props for not answering back in the same tone as they poted to him. And of course him being of the coc, if he had, they would probably be demanding that he be banned, simply for doing them as they did him. Again, I'm not defending his belief, I disagree with his beliefs. but pointing he has reacted kindly, not offering back what was given to him.

As I previously said, in the past I've been rude like that too, I'm trying very hard not to be that way no longer, sometimes its quite difficult not to be, especially with some of the remarks even my own brothers and sisters makes from time to time that disagrees with me on some points. Being that way gains nothing, but it can cause hard feeling, and its a good way to stir up a flame, which we should never do nor attempt. I try my best to be stem, strong, in my beliefs, trying not to speaks words that causes flame. Just recently on here one person disagree with another one calling them arrogant, that is plain disgraceful, for they said this simply because they disagreed with a fellow believer. So far they seem to think it was the right thing to do, as far as I know.

Tit 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

We can't show the attributes spoke of in Titus 3:2, if we are rude, stirring up flames with those we agree with nor with those we disagree with.

Col 4:5 ¶ Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.

We can't walk in wisdom if we are rude to those without, if we are arrogant towards them, if we are rude to them stirring up flames, nor can we use the time before us as we should. When we start calling people arrogant, or other words of flame, we close their ears to everything we say after that, building up hostilities, we even become brawlers that is mentioned in Titus 3:2.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

And when giving someone an answer, we surely need to be sure we have a right answer before opening our mouths.

Yes, many think they are free to give rude answers to anyone that does not agree with them, when we do that its seems to make us feel superior, when we ought to be meek, and humble, gentle, kind, while trying to spread the "Good News."

And when someone is rude to us, uses them word that are bad about causing flame:

Ro 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil
1Pe 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil,

We should just turn our cheek to them, offering only kindness,, meekness to them just as the Word tells us to. And when our temper gets the best of us, we should be quick to apolgize, say I'm sorry.

:amen: and :amen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites




All I can do is tell you what I have experienced and dealt with, I asked one lady why she was that way, and she told me her CoC pastor and a visiting evangelist had instructed the people to be that way, using your statement of "contending for the faith", and then I dealt with her pastor in a business setting, (he did not know i had talked to her), and he upon finding out I was a baptist preacher, became very forward with me, and I didn't even bring up religion. Say what you want, I know what I have dealt with and unless you are a different coc333 than was here around about Nov. & Dec. of last year, you can get pretty forward with those of us that are on a a Baptist discussion board. As last time if I remember right, (correct me if I'm wrong) you got so militant with us and our beliefs/tenets/doctrines, that the Mods locked to thread.th_tiphat.gif


Jim,

I think there seems to be a misunderstanding in our presrent discourse. When I speak of being disappointed in the behavior of certain Christians, I am not speaking of a willingness to stand for the truth. I am not speaking of those who know the Word and are willing to speak out about it. I am speaking of those who yell, make personal attacks, treat others unkindly....

I am forward in the sense that I am willing to discuss the Word of God. As I have stated in previous post, I believe that any time and any place is the right time and right place to discuss the Word of God. I, to my knowledge, have never made any personal attacks against anyone on this board. I have always tried to be respectful in discussions but I have also not been willing to back down from what the Word teaches.

Remember this, Christ was "militant" as was Paul, Peter, and others. I suppose it just depends on what your definition of militant is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites





I want say that about coc333, for I feel he is proclaiming from his heart what he believes, nothing more, nothing less.

To many of our Baptist brothers and sisters thinks they can argue Bible doctrine with atheist, unbelievers, those who teach other paths to be saved besides grace though faith and bring them to believe as we do. They do it out in the world, they do it on the internet.

The Bible is very plain, the lost cannot comprehend the Bible. And yes, I know there be those that say that is not true, I've already given Holy Scriptures that backs that up. That is why I do not go through life arguing the Bible with such people. And most that do this all they do is harden the heart of the one they're arguing with. Even in this topic some of our brothers has made smarty remarks towards coc333 that were competely unnecessary, that were no called for.

I give coc333 props for not answering back in the same tone as they poted to him. And of course him being of the coc, if he had, they would probably be demanding that he be banned, simply for doing them as they did him. Again, I'm not defending his belief, I disagree with his beliefs. but pointing he has reacted kindly, not offering back what was given to him.

As I previously said, in the past I've been rude like that too, I'm trying very hard not to be that way no longer, sometimes its quite difficult not to be, especially with some of the remarks even my own brothers and sisters makes from time to time that disagrees with me on some points. Being that way gains nothing, but it can cause hard feeling, and its a good way to stir up a flame, which we should never do nor attempt. I try my best to be stem, strong, in my beliefs, trying not to speaks words that causes flame. Just recently on here one person disagree with another one calling them arrogant, that is plain disgraceful, for they said this simply because they disagreed with a fellow believer. So far they seem to think it was the right thing to do, as far as I know.

Tit 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

We can't show the attributes spoke of in Titus 3:2, if we are rude, stirring up flames with those we agree with nor with those we disagree with.

Col 4:5 ¶ Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.

We can't walk in wisdom if we are rude to those without, if we are arrogant towards them, if we are rude to them stirring up flames, nor can we use the time before us as we should. When we start calling people arrogant, or other words of flame, we close their ears to everything we say after that, building up hostilities, we even become brawlers that is mentioned in Titus 3:2.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

And when giving someone an answer, we surely need to be sure we have a right answer before opening our mouths.

Yes, many think they are free to give rude answers to anyone that does not agree with them, when we do that its seems to make us feel superior, when we ought to be meek, and humble, gentle, kind, while trying to spread the "Good News."

And when someone is rude to us, uses them word that are bad about causing flame:

Ro 12:17 Recompense to no man evil for evil.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil
1Pe 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil,

We should just turn our cheek to them, offering only kindness,, meekness to them just as the Word tells us to. And when our temper gets the best of us, we should be quick to apolgize, say I'm sorry.


Thank you Jerry. Eph 4:15
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Thanks, that clears some things up.

1. God does hear the prayer of sinners. You used Cornelius as an example so I assume you believe that He also answers the prayers of sinners, because in sending Peter God answered his prayer. While we're on the subject of Cornelius, how do you explain all those Italians getting the Holy Spirit and being saved before they were baptized?

2. You said it doesn't matter who baptized the man, just that the person is baptized unto the remission of sins. So in churches all over the world (including Catholic, Mormon, Anglican, Lutheran, etc) who baptize for that reason you believe the person is saved when they get baptized, correct?

3. Denominationalism is sinful, you say. It also seems that you're saying that the only group of professing Christians that are not a denomination happens to be the one group you are a part of. Don't you think that's a little convenient? If I'm getting you right, you're saying that you can't be saved and be part of a denomination, so the only way to be saved is to be a member of the Church of Christ, correct?

4. I accept your answer on this, though obviously I disagree with it. This explains why those who refuse to believe in Eternal Security have no real assurance of salvation.

5. When you say that we can't disagree with the Bible, do you mean you can't disagree with the Bible and live a full and complete Christian life or you can't disagree with the Bible and go to Heaven when you die? What would you say about the CoC folks I know of who are adamantly against the teaching of the Trinity? Are they still going to Heaven when they die because they have been baptized, are faithful, and are members of the Church of Christ?


You are welcome Rick.

1. Cornelius was not saved prior to baptism. The HS was given in the same way it was in Acts 2 to the Apostles. These two passages (Acts 2 and Acts 10) were the fulfillment of the HS being poured out upon all flesh as we study in Jude 2. This is not speaking of the HS in the sense that Christians receive Him today. This is a much deeper discussion than we will be able to have in one or two sentences.
2. The Bible teaches that when one hears the word (Rom 10:17), believes in Christ (John 3:16), repents of his/her sins (Acts 3:19), confesses Christ as the Son of God (Matt 10:32-33), and immersed in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) is saved and Added to the church by the Lord (Acts 2:41, 47). A person who is saved must remain faithful (Rev 2:10). You discuss all of these religious groups. People who participate in such are not being faithful and above that, to my knowledge these groups do not teach such anyway.
3. Convenient? I don’t believe convenience has anything to do with it. It has nothing to do with me in that the church is the church no matter what I personally know, accept or practice. The church is not the church because I am a member of it but because Christ founded it.
4. I am glad that I was able to answer your question.
5. We can’t disagree with the Bible and be a Christian and thus go to heaven. Allow me to clarify. I don’t believe that any of us are perfect nor do I believe that we will get everything perfectly correct. I am sure that there are things that I still don’t understand…well, I know that there are issues which I still do not fully understand; there are certain issues which God does not see the need for us to know/understand everything. But, if we are talking about what it takes to be saved/become a Christian, live faithfully, etc we can understand it and must understand it. Remember that the Word is the Truth (John 17:17) and that it will set us free. (John 8:32)

Allow me to ask you a question or two.

1. Can you admit that you and I do not agree with each other on the plan of Salvation? To my understanding, you assert that we are saved by “faith only.” I assert that the Bible teaches that one must, among other things, be baptized for the remission of sins.
2. Are you willing to concede that AT LEAST one of us is INCORRECT in this matter (not discussing which if either is correct)?
3. Do you admit that if you are correct in saying faith only then I am teaching a false doctrine and thus am lost and that all who follow that false doctrine are lost but if I am correct and you are in fact wrong in so much as we do have to be baptized for the remission of sins then you are lost and all who follow that doctrine are lost? Of course, I am guessing that you will admit that if we are both in error then we are both lost?
4. Based on these previous questions, do you see the sinfulness of denominationalism (denominations) which teaches false doctrines on such important subjects as salvation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
You are welcome Rick.

1. Cornelius was not saved prior to baptism. The HS was given in the same way it was in Acts 2 to the Apostles. These two passages (Acts 2 and Acts 10) were the fulfillment of the HS being poured out upon all flesh as we study in Jude 2. This is not speaking of the HS in the sense that Christians receive Him today. This is a much deeper discussion than we will be able to have in one or two sentences.
2. The Bible teaches that when one hears the word (Rom 10:17), believes in Christ (John 3:16), repents of his/her sins (Acts 3:19), confesses Christ as the Son of God (Matt 10:32-33), and immersed in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) is saved and Added to the church by the Lord (Acts 2:41, 47). A person who is saved must remain faithful (Rev 2:10). You discuss all of these religious groups. People who participate in such are not being faithful and above that, to my knowledge these groups do not teach such anyway.
3. Convenient? I don’t believe convenience has anything to do with it. It has nothing to do with me in that the church is the church no matter what I personally know, accept or practice. The church is not the church because I am a member of it but because Christ founded it.
4. I am glad that I was able to answer your question.
5. We can’t disagree with the Bible and be a Christian and thus go to heaven. Allow me to clarify. I don’t believe that any of us are perfect nor do I believe that we will get everything perfectly correct. I am sure that there are things that I still don’t understand…well, I know that there are issues which I still do not fully understand; there are certain issues which God does not see the need for us to know/understand everything. But, if we are talking about what it takes to be saved/become a Christian, live faithfully, etc we can understand it and must understand it. Remember that the Word is the Truth (John 17:17) and that it will set us free. (John 8:32)

Allow me to ask you a question or two.

1. Can you admit that you and I do not agree with each other on the plan of Salvation? To my understanding, you assert that we are saved by “faith only.” I assert that the Bible teaches that one must, among other things, be baptized for the remission of sins.
2. Are you willing to concede that AT LEAST one of us is INCORRECT in this matter (not discussing which if either is correct)?
3. Do you admit that if you are correct in saying faith only then I am teaching a false doctrine and thus am lost and that all who follow that false doctrine are lost but if I am correct and you are in fact wrong in so much as we do have to be baptized for the remission of sins then you are lost and all who follow that doctrine are lost? Of course, I am guessing that you will admit that if we are both in error then we are both lost?
4. Based on these previous questions, do you see the sinfulness of denominationalism (denominations) which teaches false doctrines on such important subjects as salvation?


Yes, I agree that one of us is wrong, and if you've tried to mix faith with works then you're lost. Yes, I see the sin of teaching false doctrine that damns people to Hell, and if you want to call that denominationalism then be my guest. I'm a little hesitant to say that just being a denomination different than my own is a sin because of this passage:

Mark 9:38-40, "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40) For he that is not against us is on our part."

You use a lot of circular reasoning, and while appreciate you taking the time and effort to answer what you have, whether you know it or not you avoid a lot of specific questions. I asked you if you thought it was convenient that out of all the groups of professing Christians in the world YOURS is the only one who is true church, therefore to be saved you must be part of YOUR group. You never answered the question; you just started talking about how the church is the church. Face it: you teach that being part of a certain group or association is what puts you in "the church" and what makes you saved. I can believe everything you believe but go to a church that has a different name on the sign and you'd think I was going to Hell.

You never answered this:

"What would you say about the CoC folks I know of who are adamantly against the teaching of the Trinity? Are they still going to Heaven when they die because they have been baptized, are faithful, and are members of the Church of Christ?"

From what I've gathered so far, your plan of Salvation is:

1. Believe.
2. Get baptized unto the remission of sins.
3. Stay faithful.
4. Remain a consistent member of a church with the label "Church of Christ" on the sign.

Thank you for answering questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
We should just turn our cheek to them, offering only kindness,, meekness to them just as the Word tells us to. And when our temper gets the best of us, we should be quick to apolgize, say I'm sorry.


Are you saying that there is never a time and place for sarcasm, rudeness, and name calling?

1. Jesus was sarcastic, rude, and a name-caller from time to time - was He wrong?

2. Elijah was one of the greatest prophets in the Bible and he was very sarcastic and rude, and God blessed him right in the middle of it.

3. Micaiah was rude and flippant to a ruler, and God spoke through Him moments later.

5. John the Baptist was mean and called people names, and Jesus said that of men born of a woman there wasn't a better man.

6. God the Father is sarcastic in a few places in the Bible and it says He mocks people from Heaven.


Sarcasm, rudeness, and name-calling, if done correctly can highlight points of a discussion that need to be highlighted. Sarcasm illustrates the ridiculousness of someone else's argument by doing more than just telling them it's a ridiculous argument - it actually shows them it's ridiculous. Rudeness and name-calling, though they should be used very sparingly can also be used to make someone feel unconfortable in their current state. A heretic that is spreading doctrine that will land people in Hell should not feel comfortable, especially in a place like this.

Conversely, sometimes a little sarcasm can lighten the mood. I called Covenanter an old British Curmudgeon yesterday, but he knows I love him in the Lord and I didn't mean and ill will by that remark. I fully expect him to counter by calling me a Yankee Popinjay. Sarcasm is a way of reminding people we're all human and should lighten up sometimes. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators



Are you saying that there is never a time and place for sarcasm, rudeness, and name calling?

1. Jesus was sarcastic, rude, and a name-caller from time to time - was He wrong?

2. Elijah was one of the greatest prophets in the Bible and he was very sarcastic and rude, and God blessed him right in the middle of it.

3. Micaiah was rude and flippant to a ruler, and God spoke through Him moments later.

5. John the Baptist was mean and called people names, and Jesus said that of men born of a woman there wasn't a better man.

6. God the Father is sarcastic in a few places in the Bible and it says He mocks people from Heaven.


Sarcasm, rudeness, and name-calling, if done correctly can highlight points of a discussion that need to be highlighted. Sarcasm illustrates the ridiculousness of someone else's argument by doing more than just telling them it's a ridiculous argument - it actually shows them it's ridiculous. Rudeness and name-calling, though they should be used very sparingly can also be used to make someone feel unconfortable in their current state. A heretic that is spreading doctrine that will land people in Hell should not feel comfortable, especially in a place like this.

Conversely, sometimes a little sarcasm can lighten the mood. I called Covenanter an old British Curmudgeon yesterday, but he knows I love him in the Lord and I didn't mean and ill will by that remark. I fully expect him to counter by calling me a Yankee Popinjay. Sarcasm is a way of reminding people we're all human and should lighten up sometimes. :)

Yeah, but you ignored my ham comment in the Marriage Supper thread. :frog: :icon_mrgreen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Yes, I agree that one of us is wrong, and if you've tried to mix faith with works then you're lost. Yes, I see the sin of teaching false doctrine that damns people to Hell, and if you want to call that denominationalism then be my guest. I'm a little hesitant to say that just being a denomination different than my own is a sin because of this passage:

Mark 9:38-40, "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40) For he that is not against us is on our part."

You use a lot of circular reasoning, and while appreciate you taking the time and effort to answer what you have, whether you know it or not you avoid a lot of specific questions. I asked you if you thought it was convenient that out of all the groups of professing Christians in the world YOURS is the only one who is true church, therefore to be saved you must be part of YOUR group. You never answered the question; you just started talking about how the church is the church. Face it: you teach that being part of a certain group or association is what puts you in "the church" and what makes you saved. I can believe everything you believe but go to a church that has a different name on the sign and you'd think I was going to Hell.

You never answered this:

"What would you say about the CoC folks I know of who are adamantly against the teaching of the Trinity? Are they still going to Heaven when they die because they have been baptized, are faithful, and are members of the Church of Christ?"

From what I've gathered so far, your plan of Salvation is:

1. Believe.
2. Get baptized unto the remission of sins.
3. Stay faithful.
4. Remain a consistent member of a church with the label "Church of Christ" on the sign.

Thank you for answering questions.


Being in any denomination is a sin. The Bible condemns it and so I must do the same. Ah, Mark 9:38-40….good passage but it does not support denominationalism. Notice that not once did Jesus say that this man taught something other than the truth. As a matter of fact, as you have underlined, he said” he that is not against us is on our part.” If you read the Bible it is clear that those who teach error is not “for us.” You might turn to John 15 where Jesus spoke of the vine and branches. Many people mistakenly turn to that passage to justify denominationalism; it doesn’t teach such either.

I have not used circular reasoning. If you have an example of such, please provide it. Yes, you asked me and I answered the question on convenience. The fact is that I just did not answer it the way you wanted me to. It really isn’t a issue of convenience. As I stated, the church is the church regardless of what I say or do. Your implication is, of course, that I am just conveniently labeling “my denomination” (the church of Christ is not a denomination) as the right church. I will not say something that is simply false.

No, I am not saying that being a part of any group or association is what puts anyone into “the church.” What the Bible says is that by obeying the Gospel the LORD puts me into THE church. (Acts 2:47) I have read Baptist writings that state that one can be a Christian without being in the Baptist church. Others claim the same thing. If I can be a Christian without being in any denomination and I can then I choose to do so. I choose to be a Christian only.

As to the issue of the trinity: I would be concerned if I were teaching error about God. I would be afraid if I were denying that either the Father, the Son, or the HS do not exist.

I don’t have a plan of salvation but God’s plan of salvation is that we must Hear (Rom 10:17); believe in Christ (John 3:16); Repent of our sins (Acts 3:19); Confess Christ as the son of God (Matt 10:32-33; Acts 8:36ff); and be immersed in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). That is God’s plan since it is His Word, not mine.

You are welcome. Again, I am more than happy to discuss the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Rick:
Conversely, sometimes a little sarcasm can lighten the mood. I called Covenanter an old British Curmudgeon yesterday, but he knows I love him in the Lord and I didn't mean and ill will by that remark. I fully expect him to counter by calling me a Yankee Popinjay. Sarcasm is a way of reminding people we're all human and should lighten up sometimes.

Not so much of the "old." I was born in 1939. And I prefer "English" to British.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

definition of denomination:

denomination; Identifying word or words by which someone or something is called and classified or distinguished from others.

For even the churches of Christ have Identifying word or words by which they are called and classified or distinguished from others.

denomination; A group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith.

And even the churches of Christ be a denomination, for they are a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith known as the churches of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


definition of denomination:

denomination; Identifying word or words by which someone or something is called and classified or distinguished from others.

For even the churches of Christ have Identifying word or words by which they are called and classified or distinguished from others.

denomination; A group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith.

And even the churches of Christ be a denomination, for they are a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith known as the churches of Christ.


Jerry,

A dictionary will define a word in every way that it is used in society. I suggest that you look up the word "baptized" in your dictionary. You might be surprised that one definision includes sprinkling which is not a Biblical definition of the word as even the Baptist admit.


Denomination is a part of a whole. The church of Christ is not a part of anything but is in fact a whole; it is the church which Christ established and owns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The "Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches" was originally "The Fellowship of Independent & Unattached Churches & Missions." Many of the churches affiliated included (Undenominational) in their name.

The FIEC was mocked the "Undenominational Denomination."

We were formed in 1922 by the association of the many companies of faithful believers breaking away from the denominations (including the Baptist Union) as modernism set in. There is no hierarchy. All churches are self governing & independent. The FIEC exists for inter-church fellowship, & legal & practical advice. I was at a conference last week concerning "Growing Church Workers" looking on to the next generation of church leaders. We have an agreed 9-point doctrinal basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Still its a Denomination.

SBC Churches are self governing, each church is completely Independent of all other churches, each church chooses own pastor, teachers, and ect. chooses what mission or missions it will support. The convention does not tell the churches what to do, the churches tells the convention what to do. Now I don't agree with how its all done. In fact, I know several groups of churches set up in about the same manner and many that know nothing about them say the convention and are associations rules the churches.

It sounds like yours is no different than they, just as the churches of Christ are not either, even though they claim to be. And I know well its worthless to mention this to many of those, they've been told the convention and are associations rules and refuse to believe the truth of the matter.

Now, the Roman Catholic Church is not set up in that manner, with it there is one universal church, called the 'mother church,' and all others answer to it. Of which there is nothing in the Bible like it, the Bible speaks of no 'ruling mother church.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Still its a Denomination.

SBC Churches are self governing, each church is completely Independent of all other churches, each church chooses own pastor, teachers, and ect. chooses what mission or missions it will support. The convention does not tell the churches what to do, the churches tells the convention what to do. Now I don't agree with how its all done. In fact, I know several groups of churches set up in about the same manner and many that know nothing about them say the convention and are associations rules the churches.

It sounds like yours is no different than they, just as the churches of Christ are not either, even though they claim to be. And I know well its worthless to mention this to many of those, they've been told the convention and are associations rules and refuse to believe the truth of the matter.

Now, the Roman Catholic Church is not set up in that manner, with it there is one universal church, called the 'mother church,' and all others answer to it. Of which there is nothing in the Bible like it, the Bible speaks of no 'ruling mother church.'


Jerry,

There are many differences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Maybe this has been brought up and I missed it but I am having a hard time figuring out what the CoC (or anyone that believes baptism has some sort of power in salvation) says in regards to the thief on the cross next to Jesus. Jesus told him he'd be in paradise but I can't imagine there was any baptizing going on after he called on Christ to save him.

Edited by DennisD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Maybe this has been brought up and I missed it but I am having a hard time figuring out what the CoC (or anyone that believes baptism has some sort of power in salvation) says in regards to the thief on the cross next to Jesus. Jesus told him he'd be in paradise but I can't imagine there was any baptizing going on after he called on Christ to save him.

I can't speak for COC, nor do I believe baptism has saving efficacy. The thief died before Pentecost, as did ALL the OT saints. His testimony shows that he was baptised into Christ by the Holy Spirit. His repentance was accepted by his Saviour.

Luke 3:16John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

1 Cor. 12:13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The one baptism of Eph. 4 is the one baptism that unites Jew & Gentile into Christ. It is a common baptism.
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...