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.

ABC's 20/20 Special on Independent, Fundamental Baptists


PastorMatt
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Did anyone see the 20/20 special on IFB's? If not, I recommend you view it and then give your thoughts.

http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/SH559026/VD55121488/2020-48-victims-forced-confession


It made me thankful that my church is not like what was being portrayed on TV.
I did not like how they made it seem like all IFB churches are abusive, mine most defiantly is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What really alarmed me that in middle of the program it spoke about the Pastor preached on 2 week old babies being spanked. That I never heard at the several IFB churches I attended over the last 6 years. I seen a few ladies tap the 10 month old tushy very lightly and it worked but not spank a 2 week old like spanking.

I also had a problem of them of thinking dressing in long dresses and skirts are kinda of a old trend and forced about. Yes there some churches I have heard does that but not many does that. I am glad the current church pastor there at that church defended the faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Naturally this worldly program would find a way to attack Christianity in general and fundamentalists in particular.

Unfortunately, all too many have a view of IFBs along these lines; even many professing Christians. The media, and others, have done a great job of demonizing anything "fundamentalist" and anything truly Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I used to love watching 20/20 back in the day but I grew out of it because it didn't interest me. I am wondering if they wrapped up churches that is labeled baptist is bad also.

To some, the Baptist name has come to mean a church with stern, grouchy folks who believe they are perfect and everyone else is going to hell. They view Baptist as being "fundamentalist" in the bad way of considering the term.

This is the main reason many Baptist churches that go soft will drop the name "Baptist".

What those who demonize Baptists and fundamentalists are really seeking to do is attack God and turn people from Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I watched it via the link. On the one hand the media and the ex-IFB's no doubt have an anti-IFB agenda and are engaged in something of a smear campaign, but that doesn't mean that some of their accusations might not be true. To what extent the accusations are true, half truths, fabrications, or exaggeration it is impossible to say. If you take what is presented at face value though I think it is safe to say such things are not the norm though IFB churches are diverse and there are certainly some that are borderline cultic. I noticed they got some "nice" clips of Jack Schaap saying foolish things, but I suppose that isn't that hard to do. All they would need is a few clips from Steve Anderson and Peter Ruckman to complete their little "IFB's are a crazy cult" "hit" job. If that sort of preaching was all I had to go by I would think IFB's were nuts too. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I watched it via the link. On the one hand the media and the ex-IFB's no doubt have an anti-IFB agenda and are engaged in something of a smear campaign, but that doesn't mean that some of their accusations might not be true. To what extent the accusations are true, half truths, fabrications, or exaggeration it is impossible to say. If you take what is presented at face value though I think it is safe to say such things are not the norm though IFB churches are diverse and there are certainly some that are borderline cultic. I noticed they got some "nice" clips of Jack Schaap saying foolish things, but I suppose that isn't that hard to do. All they would need is a few clips from Steve Anderson and Peter Ruckman to complete their little "IFB's are a crazy cult" "hit" job. If that sort of preaching was all I had to go by I would think IFB's were nuts too. lol


I can agree entirely with what you say above. I would add that I sat under several IFB Pastors and attended many IFB Churches and I've never seen any evidence of these unconfirmed allegations.

Further, the liberal bias and worldly thought almost drips from the sides of interviewer's mouth like saliva from a hungry dog. I wonder what her position on the RCC's recent fame for child molestation is? I feel better now. Edited by 1Tim115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I watched it and Schaap looked like an idiot as usual. I feel bad for Phelps, he did not look good in the parking lot interview. I can tell you there is more to the story with the girl. Phelps did call the police and the mother considers her daughter to be a liar. Check out their statements at www.drchuckphelps.com. What Pastor Phelps should have done was to make sure the police investigated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband and I watched it...It was pretty frustrating for us, because we actually know P astor C huck P helps (T r i nity pastor accused of covering up rape) and his family very well. We also know J oc elyn Z ic hterman and C am ille L ewi s (the two women who are on the rampage against the "IFB" and who were interviewed on the show). We know the stories behind their desire for vengeance, because we watched each step of their journeys out of fundamentalism. B ri an F u ller (current pastor of T rini ty who was interviewed on the show) is also a personal friend; we were just up at Tri ni ty last year for a conference.

The main frustration we had with the program is that it is pretty much what we expected: sloppy, irresponsible journalism. Although Vargas claimed to have researched "the IFB" for a year, she couldn't manage to tell the difference between...
...Jack Schaap (foaming at the mouth, insulting the women in his church) and the pastor who spanks 2-week-old infants (IOW, crazy people)
and...
churches like yours and mine (and Tri ni ty Baptist).

You'd think that Vargas, in doing all that research about the IFB, would have learned that there are major differences between various IFB churches. But, no, she lumps the good, the bad, and the crazy all together and suggests that "the IFB" is a cult. Scandals and sensational stories mean high ratings; the public cries out for titillation. What other reason does 20/20 need in order to listen to the people with the most dramatic allegations and (even better) allegations about spiritual leaders? And Vargas was rewarded: 20/20 came out on top--#1--this week.

For those interested in the truth behind the Chuck Phelps story, here's a link telling his side: http://www.drchuckphelps.com/ I can vouch for this man's complete honesty. He even admits that, hindsight being what it is, he would probably have handled things a little differently with the "church" aspect (which was not even "discipline," anyway). But legally, he did everything by the book, and he has the records to prove it. The police, not Chuck Phelps, dropped the ball.

Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

There are horrible things that have happened under the auspices of IFB and other groups. The fact that they "zeroed in" on only IFB is telling...they could have compared it to other groups. You know, like the Catholic priests who rape boys and seduce women...

As to the girl who claims to have been raped. If she was, then she needs to be vindicated. But, truthfully: had I been raped by a man who then came to my door when my parents weren't home, there is no way I would have let him in. At 15, 13, 12 or otherwise. If she was raped, why didn't she say something? Actually, she was raped, whether she asked for it or not.

15 year old girls are quite capable of seduction. I've known some. I've also known girls who were raped by men in leadership. It is a problem, but I don't know if I believe she's completely innocent.

My thoughts are kind of along the lines of: she got pregnant and so had to admit to something....but she was still 15 - or actually 16. Forgive? Uh-uh, not if it were my daughter.

I agree, Annie, that was sloppy "journalism."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What really alarmed me that in middle of the program it spoke about the Pastor preached on 2 week old babies being spanked.


This is nothing new. John R Rice taught that babies should be spanked. I'm not saying they should and I wouldn't do it but his kids seemed to have turned out alright.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are horrible things that have happened under the auspices of IFB and other groups. The fact that they "zeroed in" on only IFB is telling...they could have compared it to other groups. You know, like the Catholic priests who rape boys and seduce women...

As to the girl who claims to have been raped. If she was, then she needs to be vindicated. But, truthfully: had I been raped by a man who then came to my door when my parents weren't home, there is no way I would have let him in. At 15, 13, 12 or otherwise. If she was raped, why didn't she say something? Actually, she was raped, whether she asked for it or not.

15 year old girls are quite capable of seduction. I've known some. I've also known girls who were raped by men in leadership. It is a problem, but I don't know if I believe she's completely innocent.

My thoughts are kind of along the lines of: she got pregnant and so had to admit to something....but she was still 15 - or actually 16. Forgive? Uh-uh, not if it were my daughter.

I agree, Annie, that was sloppy "journalism."


Whether she was 15 and was seducing the man she is still innocent. The man was a married man and regardless of how the girl acted she is still a child and he is an adult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Having been the victim of covered-up abuse myself, a lot of what was said in the 20/20 episode and on this thread hits close to home.

I thought the 20/20 production was relatively balanced in its approach and they did not verbalize a conclusive view that all IFB churches are cults or that they all have the types of problems highlighted in their show. Near the beginning and again in the closing sequences, they equated having standards (specifically dress and music standards) with being a cult, which is dishonest, and they also edited the music and video clips of IFB churches to come across in a very sinister way. Those seemed to be the two most unwarranted representations of IFB churches in their show. They definitely could have gone much further in their attacks, but didn't, and for that I am thankful.

I had also already heard of the women who were interviewed and who seem to have made it their personal goal to destroy the name of fundamental churches through broad-brushing all fundamental churches as being evil and heretical. Their efforts are based mostly on separation issues and allegations of oppression. It seems to me that they add in and magnify the stories of abuse to make their other positions less assailable.

One of the best points raised by the interviewer was the disingenuous practice among most IFB churches of denying their common roots and spheres of influence. The pastor who so graciously granted an interview did a good job of answering most of the questions, but when questioned about the island-like facade adopted by most IFB churches when trouble arises, he dropped the ball. There are very few truly INDEPENDENT Fundamental Baptist churches left. In my opinion, it seems like the "I" in "IFB" most often stands for "Institutional." This opinion is based on the widespread practice of most churches to limit their fellowship to a very tight institution based sphere of influence. Along with joining in some sort of fellowship, most will also only defend those IFB's who are members in good standing with an approved ministry that has sprung from their own preferred institution or association or fellowship.

The thing that disturbed me most as I watched was seeing the letterhead of a prominent IFB lawyer (who, by the way, has helped some of the worst examples of IFB preachers, pastors, and evangelists out of a plethora of legal troubles, mostly having to do with sexual perversion) in one of the video clips of Pastor Phelps' statement to 20/20. To me, that only hurts the credibility of Dr. Phelps. Besides, he says on his own website that there are many particular things he would have done differently in hindsight, so he shouldn't be surprised that others would follow his own lead in finding fault with the way things were handled years ago.

The most encouraging part was seeing a relatively young IFB pastor not defending the lunacy that can indeed be found in some corners of IFB-dom. It was disturbing, however, that he had not figured out a way to let the folks in his church know that he had two registered sex offenders in his church. Every pastor should be aware of who is sitting in the pews of the church where he is the watchman and should find some way to properly warn those for whose very souls he is watching. In that regard, it should be every pastor's goal to keep the children in the watch-care of the church from having to find out the hard way who among their fellow church-goers struggles with sexual deviance.

One thing that all believers should know is that God's grace is sufficient for every need and in dealing with every situation. It will never be acceptable in His eyes for people to use their scarred past to attack those who would endeavor to stay true to God and His word. In fact, God isn't interested in leaving such scars in our past when He can so thoroughly heal us by His grace.

I am a testimony of His power to heal from such wounds. By the way, I am still an independent (not beholden to any institution), fundamental (desiring to be separated from this world unto God for his own glory), Bible-believing baptist.

Praise the Lord and Him alone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We had a registered sex offender in our church at one time. This is a small town in a very rural county so most already knew who he was when he came to our church. Our pastor met with him several times and believed he was born again and was sincere in his desire to live for God and serve Him.

Our pastor explained to the man that for his safety, as well as others, he would not be allowed to work in any aspect of the children's ministries. Our pastor also explained this to all those who did work in the children's ministries, as well as to the board members and a few others. The man wasn't "kept under watch" or escorted everywhere in the church, but folks were aware of the safety limitations which had been put into place.

To that man's credit, during his entire time at our church (he has since moved to another State), he never complained about the limitations (though he did express sorrow and regret that such were necessary), he abided by the limitations, he never attempted to see how close he could get to the line of those limitations. He did serve the church faithfully in other capacities and was faithful in church attendance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Whether she was 15 and was seducing the man she is still innocent. The man was a married man and regardless of how the girl acted she is still a child and he is an adult.


They're both guilty. A 15 girl can be just as guilty as anyone. Anyone who watches the news or has any experience in the real world knows how predatorial teen girls can be. The only difference is that a 15 year old girl man not understand the consequences of her actions but she sure can know her actions are wrong. One reason teens are out of control is because they get the "I'm innocent" pass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

We had a registered sex offender in our church at one time. This is a small town in a very rural county so most already knew who he was when he came to our church. Our pastor met with him several times and believed he was born again and was sincere in his desire to live for God and serve Him.

Our pastor explained to the man that for his safety, as well as others, he would not be allowed to work in any aspect of the children's ministries. Our pastor also explained this to all those who did work in the children's ministries, as well as to the board members and a few others. The man wasn't "kept under watch" or escorted everywhere in the church, but folks were aware of the safety limitations which had been put into place.

To that man's credit, during his entire time at our church (he has since moved to another State), he never complained about the limitations (though he did express sorrow and regret that such were necessary), he abided by the limitations, he never attempted to see how close he could get to the line of those limitations. He did serve the church faithfully in other capacities and was faithful in church attendance.


Sounds like to me that your pastor handled this well. He didn't totally humiliate the man by announcing it to everyone in the church yet made it known to those who were the leaders of the church. To me this is a delicate situation. Saying nothing to anyone is reckless but over doing it and blathering to everyone about his past could drive the man out of church altogether and forever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



They're both guilty. A 15 girl can be just as guilty as anyone. Anyone who watches the news or has any experience in the real world knows how predatorial teen girls can be. The only difference is that a 15 year old girl man not understand the consequences of her actions but she sure can know her actions are wrong. One reason teens are out of control is because they get the "I'm innocent" pass.

That's true. While the man would hold the greater share of blame, a 15 year old girl who attempted to seduce a man would not be innocent. For the most part, 15 year old girls who engage in such things are not of the innocent sort, but rather are already sexually active and experienced in such matters. This absolutely does not absolve the man of the primary responsbility to flee from such, especially if he is aware of the girls age, yet the girl is not blameless in such a situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



That's true. While the man would hold the greater share of blame, a 15 year old girl who attempted to seduce a man would not be innocent. For the most part, 15 year old girls who engage in such things are not of the innocent sort, but rather are already sexually active and experienced in such matters. This absolutely does not absolve the man of the primary responsbility to flee from such, especially if he is aware of the girls age, yet the girl is not blameless in such a situation.

Maybe...I think this is a case, though, in which the girl was seduced by the man, and fell into a "consensual" relationship with him. As you said, each party is responsible only for his/her own sin...the man for playing on a young girl's innocence and emotions, and taking advantage of her immature judgment...and the girl for committing sexual acts that she knew were wrong with a married man.

Of course, I think it goes without saying that in the case of rape/assault, the party being assaulted is not at all responsible for that crime. The blame is solely the rapist's. But, protest some people, the girl was dressed immodestly! Okay, let's say the girl was dressed immodestly (which in most cases is subjective). Is she at all guilty for the rape? No, because she did not commit the act of rape. But if she is guilty of immodesty, then that is the sin which she needs to confess. She should not blame herself for the rape. I think people (whether intentionally or unintentionally) lay more blame for a rape on a woman who is not dressed modestly than one who is dressed modestly. But (and I think this distinction is important) the blame for the act of rape is upon the rapist alone. My husband and other men I know see immodest women all the time, almost everywhere they go, and don't choose to rape them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


That's true. While the man would hold the greater share of blame, a 15 year old girl who attempted to seduce a man would not be innocent. For the most part, 15 year old girls who engage in such things are not of the innocent sort, but rather are already sexually active and experienced in such matters. This absolutely does not absolve the man of the primary responsbility to flee from such, especially if he is aware of the girls age, yet the girl is not blameless in such a situation.


I don't understand; whay are they this way?
Some folks that we play music with have a young daughter, I would say 15 or 16, and the last couple of times I've seen her she acted every flirty toward me and wanted to hug me...putting her whole chest against mine. I'm thinking...that's an ungodly way to hug someone.......something just ain't right here. But why? I'm a middle aged man. She won't be hugging me anymore.

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Romans 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Proverbs 23:26 My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways.
27For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit.
28She also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressors among men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

  • 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...