Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Pastoral Qualifications


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Jesus' statement to the woman at the well is very interesting. Thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband.

Was the woman intimate with the sixth man at all? Or were they just living under the same roof?

It was pointed out earlier that marriage was a result of the intimate act between man an woman, yet the woman at the well now had a man that was not her husband?

Hmmmmm. The answer must be there somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is in general about divorce, not specific to pastoral qualifications.

The Lord Jesus Christ made it clear that God has always been opposed to divorce (Mt 19:3-6; Mal 2:14-16). It was allowed in O.T. times because of the hardness of man's heart (Mt 19:7-8). The Lord Jesus mentioned only one possible situation in which divorce is allowable before God-immorality (Mt 19:9). The Christian who for some reason leaves his or her mate is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to his mate (1Co 7:11-12).

Divorce and Remarriage

by Bruce Lackey

As we consider the subject of divorce and remarriage, it is most important that we approach it with the proper attitude. 1Pe 4:7-8 describes the three-fold attitude that that we need, especially in these last days as we look for the return of the Lord Jesus Christ-being sober, watching unto prayer, and having fervent charity. We might say, simply, that we need to think, pray, and love. When he says "be ye therefore sober," that obviously means to think. We cannot give in to our feelings, or to sentiment, or to public opinion, or even to the particular needs of our closest friends or family. Thinking properly would be thinking according to Scripture. Then, we are to pray. We must seek the Lord's wisdom about this matter. Then, of course, love. It is a serious mistake to develop any kind of a scriptural opinion which causes us to hate or snub people, to look down upon them, or fail to love them. That would be an improper use of the Word of God.

1. Mal 2:14-16 makes it clear that God hates divorce. There can be no doubt that "putting away" is another term for divorce. It is vital to know what God's attitude toward divorce is, especially when we see other Scriptures which give permission for the very thing that God hates!

Why would God hate divorce? All of us can think of situations where we are sure that divorce was the proper thing; in some cases we are sure that it was the only answer to a very unhappy situation. At the same time, all who have dealt with people who have gone through a divorce realize that it is always the children who suffer most. That is exactly the reason which God gives here for hating it. Verse 15 tells us that God made one (that is, one woman for one man, as He did in the Garden of Eden) that He might seek a godly seed. God is interested in children being brought up in His nurture and admonition.
Many people disagree with that, saying that the children are better off with a single parent, or with a new parent, than being in an unhappy home. At first, this seems reasonable, but the years have taught us, even unbelievers who deal with children's problems, that it is an unsettling and detrimental thing for children to be shuttled back and forth between parents who have custody or visitation privileges. How often have we heard a parent say, "I dread to see the children go to visit their father (or mother) this weekend, because I know they will get into some kind of ungodliness, or will return being adversely affected by it all."
In many cases, the children will follow the ungodly parent rather than the one who is trying to obey the Bible. Divorce does not prevent that from happening.

2. God's original plan for marriage was that there would be no divorce. In Mt. 19 this was made very clear in a conversation between Christ and the Pharisees. In verse 3, we should note that they were asking the Lord about De. 24:1, which was the only verse giving permission for divorce. However, rather than explaining that verse, Christ first referred to Ge 1:27 and Ge 2:24 by saying, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" (Mt 19:4-5). Then He applied the two verses by saying, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (v.6). Thus, God's original plan, that which He had "at the beginning," was one woman for one man, becoming one flesh, and cleaving to each other. The important thing to notice is that when the Pharisees asked about De. 24:1, Christ did not explain that verse; rather, He went all the way back to Ge. 1 and 2 to show God's original plan.
Why, then, did God give permission for divorce in De 24:1? That was the very question which was asked by the Pharisees and brings us to the verse in question, and to point number three.

3. God did permit divorce for one reason. De 24:1-2, "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." Here is clear permission and instruction about divorce and remarriage!

The problem of interpretation, for the Pharisees, was that phrase in verse 1, "some uncleanness." Did it mean immorality, or any thing that the man might have disliked about his wife? Such had been the controversy through the years between rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel, and those who followed one or the other. The Pharisees were asking the Lord Jesus which interpretation He agreed with. However, they had a serious misunderstanding about the passage which is seen by their question in Mt 19:7, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement..?" Christ corrected them in the next verse by saying, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives." "Suffer" in Scripture means to permit; we must note that there is a great difference between a command and a permission. Sometimes in Scripture God permitted things that He did not command (such as polygamy).
[see Polygamy.]

Sometimes people object to that as an inconsistency in God. Why would He do that? Christ explained: "because of the hardness of your hearts." Then, it is most important to see that He immediately said, "but from the beginning it was not so." God made changes in the various dispensations; He changed what He required man to do, from one age to another; He also gave permissions in one age that He did not give to others. Until He gave the law through Moses, man could offer sacrifices to God anywhere, but in De. 12:5-14]], He required them to come to a particular place, and to that place only. Now, in our age, we do not even offer such sacrifices! Clearly, then, God has changed His requirements and permissions for mankind from age to age.

The commands of the law were not meant to be permanent, but temporary, for Israel during those years while they awaited the coming of the Saviour. God knew, of course, that when Christ would come, He would be the Lamb of God which would take away the sin of the world. The Law was temporary, and that includes the permission about divorce.

4. This permission about divorce was only for the dispensation of law. To prove this point, let's back up one chapter to De. 23, and read v. 1. "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord." Everyone understands that this was temporary; no one tries to enforce this rule today, when a person wants to join a church!

Another prohibition in that chapter that people do not enforce today is found in v. 2, "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." Similarly, no one enforces v. 3).
which prohibits an Ammonite or a Moabite from entering the congregation of the Lord. These were obviously temporary, since Christ commanded us to go and preach the gospel to all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to follow Him. Everyone realizes that about chapter 23, but many ignore this matter when they get to chapter 24!

5. Christ's plan for the church age is not found in Mt. 19, but in 1Co. 7. How can we be sure of that? By remembering that Christ lived under the dispensation of the law (see Ga 4:4, "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..."). Thus, He observed the Passover, one of the regulations of the law of Moses, but we are certainly not commanded to do so today. Christ explained De 24:1 to the Pharisees because they were still under the law. The four Gospels record many places where the Lord Jesus dealt with local and temporary matters which affected them, at that time, in that place, but not us today.

We are obligated to do as Christ did with the Pharisees: distinguish between what God gave through Moses for Israel during that time, and what God's original plan was. In other words, we must "rightly divide the word of truth" (2Ti 2:15).

Almost all of 1Co. 7 is devoted to the subject of marriage and the various problems that attend it. Verses 10-11 show that God's plan for us today is the same as it was in the beginning: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."
This clearly shows that God does not want divorce. However, recognizing that some people will divorce in spite of what God wants, He admonishes that the wife who departs has only two options: "let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." Perhaps He had in mind a situation where a husband was physically harming the wife and/or children, or where their lives were threatened. Or, He might have been thinking of situations such as those today in which one person can get a divorce whether the other partner wants it or not. In such a case, the options are clear: remain unmarried or be reconciled. If God permitted remarriage today, this would have been the perfect place to state it; as a matter of fact, this is the place that it would have been absolutely necessary to state so.

We note that Paul said, "...yet not I, but the Lord." This was not merely what Paul thought, but what God commanded. In v. 12, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord..." Paul did not disclaim inspiration, but rather taught that he was dealing with a matter which Christ did not mention while He was on earth. We should remember that Christ told His disciples, in Joh 16:12-13, that He had not told them everything, because they could not have absorbed it. He said that the Holy Spirit would come and reveal more of Christ's truth; this situation in 1 Corinthians is a fulfillment of that. While on earth, the Lord Jesus did not say anything about a believer being married to an unbeliever. That was left for Paul to deal with.

1Co 7:14 gives one reason why divorce should not occur: the unbelieving partner is sanctified by the believer. A second reason is that the children would be sanctified, also. What a great privilege it is for one person in a family to be saved! The presence of one Christian in a family brings the blessing of God, which would be impossible otherwise. To say that the unbeliever is sanctified does not guarantee his salvation; to say that the children are holy does not guarantee their salvation, either. Sanctified and holy do not necessarily mean to be saved or purified or made better. A good example of that is 1Pe 3:15, where we read that we are to "sanctify the Lord God" in our hearts; obviously, we cannot improve the Lord. We sanctify Him, but we certainly do not save or purify Him! To sanctify means to set something or someone apart, to be different from all else. Thus, to sanctify the Lord in our hearts is to give Him a place which is above all else.

In a family where at least one member is saved, that family is set apart, different from other families which do not have any believers in them, in this respect: not only can they hear the gospel, but they can also see the effects of it in everyday life. [such a family also has a special blessing of the Lord because of the presence of the child of God.] How few in this heathen world have that privilege! A family which had at least one Christian in it would have a better chance of being saved than otherwise.
Therefore, Scripture is admonishing the believer not to leave the unbelieving mate. We can imagine what a problem it be to be married to an idolater, especially when we learn that idolaters often participated in fornication as a part of their worship. What conflict there would be, also, in religious discussions in the home! How easy it would be to get into heated arguments about funerals, etc. Even though such conditions might be miserable to live in, the Bible says that the unbeliever should not depart. Reason? Verse 16, "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"

God is interested in saving people! He knows that believers can win others to Christ, especially when they live with them and demonstrate the benefits of the gospel. Our problem is that we not only are not very zealous about soul winning, we also do a poor job of living Christ in everyday activities.

Verse 15 is taken by some Christians to give permission for divorce and remarriage, when it says, "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister in not under bondage in such cases: but God has called us to peace." Does the phrase "not under bondage" free the divorced person to remarry? A little common sense will show that it does not. Even if we consider this writing to be uninspired, there would be no way that a sane person would make a statement in v. 11 and then contradict it in v. 15. In v. 11 he gave only two options to the divorced person: remain unmarried, or be reconciled. Why would a person limit the possibilities to these two, then add another a few sentences later? No intelligent person does things that way. Then, when we remember that these words were inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is ridiculous to think that the Spirit of God would set down a requirement, then change it thirty seconds later.

What, then, does v. 15 teach? Simply that when the unbeliever leaves, the believer has no further responsibility to be the proper wife or husband to that departed one. To understand the necessity for this we need only to remember that, even in our day, a divorced man sometimes returns to his estranged wife and wants to spend the night. Sometimes a Christian woman thinks that she should permit such, since she did not seek the divorce in the first place; but this verse teaches that the believer has no responsibility of marriage toward the one who has departed. The departed husband may not return and expect the wife to be obedient, unless there is a reconciliation. The departed wife may not return and expect to be provided for, unless there is a reconciliation.

In a similar way, some Christians interpret v. 28 to permit remarriage after divorce, when it says, "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned..." The same reasoning applies. Even from a human standpoint, no one would make a regulation in v. 11 and then change it in v. 28. Add inspiration, and the argument is strengthened.

God's plan for the church age is no divorce. If a divorce does take place, He certainly does not permit remarriage. The only possibilities, if a divorce occurs, are indicated in v. 11: either remain unmarried, or be reconciled. That may seem to be very difficult, even harsh, for God to make such a demand, but there are many passages of Scripture which teach that if we follow the Saviour, we are going to have to make some sacrifices. That is the missing requirement in modern Christianity! We are trying to formulate a Christian life that is nothing but a bed of roses; we insist on pleasure and comfort, believing that if we obey the Bible everything will be good and easy. Such a life is not taught in Scripture. Consider: Ro 12:1 and Lu 9:23. Each one who is serious about obeying the Lord will have to make a sacrifice in some way. God calls on some to make financial sacrifices; a great many of God's choice servants have to get by on very little money. Others must sacrifice health, as Paul did in enduring his "thorn in the flesh" (2Co 12:7-10). Others are called upon to live without a mate, when divorce occurs, doing without a family, which many others are permitted to have. No doubt the Saviour had this in mind when He said, "...and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Mt 19:12).

6. Conversion does not change the prohibition regarding remarriage. Some Christians believe that since we become new creatures when we are converted, with old things passing away and all things becoming new (2Co 5:17), the new believer is free to remarry a Christian if the divorce took place before conversion. The fact that this is not true is seen in 1Co. 7; in four places, the Lord says that we should remain in the situation in which we were saved. Consider "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called everyone, so let him waLu. And so ordain I in all churches" (1Co 7:17). The word "called" does not mean "called to preach," or "called to be a missionary," but "called to salvation." 1Co 1:9 and many other verses use the word "called" to describe what God does when He convicts us of our sins by the preaching of the gospel, and saves us.

He applied that command to circumcision, then repeated: "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called" (1Co 7:20). Another application was made regarding being a servant or being free; then the statement was repeated in verse 24, "Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God." Then he applies the very same command to the state of marriage in verses 25-26, rewording the command in v. 27, "Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife."

7. The remarried person is not "living in adultery." We often hear that phrase, but it is not found in Scripture, to my knowledge. It is true, according to Mt 19:9, that adultery is committed when the divorced person remarries, but it is improper to say that such people are continuing to live in adultery every time they come together. Reason? 1Co 6:9-10 says that neither fornicators nor adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God. (It will not do to say that a person could be saved without having an inheritance in the kingdom of God, because Ro 8:17 says, "...if children then heirs." Therefore, to inherit the kingdom of God is the same thing as to be saved.)

Perhaps a person committed adultery at a second marriage before conversion; if so, then 1Co 6:11 describes that person as "washed... sanctified... justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." They are not "living in adultery" any longer.

But what if the remarriage takes place after conversion? If they were "living in adultery," they would lose eternal life, an impossibility because of such promises as Joh 6:37. Also, 1Jo 1:9 would not be true; they could not confess their sins and be forgiven.

Sometimes people try to solve this problem by saying that such persons should cease having physical relationships altogether, so that they will not be guilty of adultery. However, such a situation would be a contradiction of 1Co 7:2-5, which tells the husband and wife that they should not deny themselves to each other, unless they agree to do so for a limited time for the purpose of fasting and prayer. Then, they are to come together again in order to avoid being tempted by Satan.

If a Christian is guilty of remarriage, he or she should confess it as the sin of adultery (not lightly or frivolously, but realizing the seriousness of the sin) and receive God's forgiveness. Then, that Christian should believe God's promise in Heb 10:17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Hateful? That's pretty strong. I wonder how a divorced Christian would feel about her stating that they're a bad example and can't even teach a second grade Sunday school class? Who cares if it happened twenty-years ago and they didn't do anything wrong? I'm not being hateful; I'm being honest about what she's saying. I do regret if I came across like I was picking on Blossom, that's not my intention. She's saying the same thing that many other good people say, and I'm sure she's a good person and a good Christian who loves the Lord - it's just that what she's saying is wrong. I wasn't trying to be hateful; I didn't do any name calling. I'm just tired of people saying, "I don't look down on someone who's been divorced..." only to follow that up with list of things they aren't good enough to do. That's not what I said. That's how you interpreted it. I've said what I meant that it is a standard I would hold for myself and I've said why. Hey but let's not let the truth of what I've said stand in the way of robust debate!

Now that you've said my comments were hateful, are you going to be consistant and assign a label to Jerry for habitually telling people they're arguing with God and His Holy Scriptures when they disagree with what he thinks? Or he safe because he agrees with you?

I'm not defending people who have their house out of order or are recently going through divorce proceedings. I'm defending people who have recovered from something like that years and years ago in which they were biblically divorced and have been showing Christian fruit in thier lives for years (and there's plenty of people like that).



Jesus wouldn't. He told the woman at the well that she had several husbands in her life. Jesus didn't consider her still married to her first husband, he recognized several different marriages as being separate and individual. From what you're saying, God only sees one spouse - unless that spouse dies. That not what Jesus said here.

John 4:16-18, "Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Rick,

I have mentioned Jerry's "tone" on several occasions but you have yet again shown how your flesh makes you presume you know everything about certain members and how "inconsistent" I am. Your sarcastic comments just go to prove my point of your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...