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.

Outlawing Opinion


John81
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Where would you find that. It is pretty much who do you believe? Do you believe the gov who is so honest and christian' date=' or good christian men who have looked into it.[/quote']

I believe credible people who are familiar with the facts, know the law, understand its application, and can present their assessment from an a schollarly/informational standpoint, rather than a biased arguementative stand point.

You find it in scholarly publications such as law journals, American Law Review, Corpus Juris . . . Not on blogs or websites with a predisposed disposition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ok. I'll concede that reasonable people may differ on what that consider to be legitmate or valid citations. However, the first link is to a newsletter (a webletter at that) that is admittedly a propoganda compaign against the proposed legislation, which does nothing more than list occurences which it expects the believer to accept as true without any indept factual information or legal citation to the legal proceedings it references. The only purpose behind the cite is to feed those who already have a predisposed mindset, with a list of situations which are supposed to justify that mindset. I would not be allowed to cite that article if I were making a legal argument either for, or against, the proposed legislation.


If your a lawyer and were truly interested I assume you could look up the actual cases, I don't care if you couldn't cite the articles I linked in a legal argument, I am not a lawyer and wasn't making a legal argument, you claimed you were unable to find evidence and I pointed you to some. The article on way of life also listed sources for at least some of their information contrary to your claim. Rather than look into it as you would if you genuinely wanted to know you proceed to attack the sources as biased. Maybe that works in court but you should at least admit you have a predisposed mindset yourself. Your not fighting a court case, don't let common sense get lost in a technical jungle, thats how lawyers got a bad reputation in the first place. :wink

Furthermore, and assuming the occurences listed actually occurred, the judicial proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, in nature. They are causes of action brought by one private citizen against another for things that have been done or said which either offend or disparage the person. We already have such causes of action in the U.S., we call them "libel" and "slander." Of course, in the U.S., one cannot be found liable for libel for merely printing bible verses in a newspaper. However, if the verses were a part of an article or ad that would otherwise be libel, then the same thing would happen here. That's just it about the citation. There is absolutely no way to know all the facts based on a three sentence blurb purposely written with a certain slant.


The reason the charges were brought was because of canada's hate crime bill. They were not brought on more general grounds of libel or slander, no specific person was attacked or disparaged in most(if not all) of those cases, it was just persecution based on disapproval of what was said.

It looks like this is another case of censorship from some time in the past on this very forum. http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=23083 Apparently this happened due only to the exercising of free speech.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


If your a lawyer and were truly interested I assume you could look up the actual cases, I don't care if you couldn't cite the articles I linked in a legal argument, I am not a lawyer and wasn't making a legal argument, you claimed you were unable to find evidence and I pointed you to some. The article on way of life also listed sources for at least some of their information contrary to your claim. Rather than look into it as you would if you genuinely wanted to know you proceed to attack the sources as biased. Maybe that works in court but you should at least admit you have a predisposed mindset yourself. Your not fighting a court case, don't let common sense get lost in a technical jungle, thats how lawyers got a bad reputation in the first place. :wink



The reason the charges were brought was because of canada's hate crime bill. They were not brought on more general grounds of libel or slander, no specific person was attacked or disparaged in most(if not all) of those cases, it was just persecution based on disapproval of what was said.

It looks like this is another case of censorship from some time in the past on this very forum. http://www.onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=23083 Apparently this happened due only to the exercising of free speech.


I couldn't even look up the cases based on the information given by the website because it doesn't give the names of all parties, nor the jurisdiction. That's what's great about such a site. No one can easily examine the content do to the lack of adequate information. I guess being a lawyer does put me in a certain position regarding information. I have been trained not give much creedance to information that cannot be backed up by anything other than "trust me." Anything that is written in the manner in which that article presents the information should be questioned automatically due to its admittedly biased tone. The article is not written to inform, but to influence your opinion of hate crimes law. The writer has an interest in your opinion (or changing it) and therefore presents the information in a certain manner, all the while being vague enough to prevent you from questioning him. For instance, I would like to know exactly what was printed in the newspaper. If it was bible verses alone, with no surrounding context, I would be concerned as well. However, the fact that he is so vague makes me question whether or not he is telling the whole story.
Additionally, I'd like to know the wording of the law, or if it is just common law.

When you sit on a jury, do you make a final judgment after only hearing one side of the argument?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I couldn't even look up the cases based on the information given by the website because it doesn't give the names of all parties, nor the jurisdiction. That's what's great about such a site. No one can easily examine the content do to the lack of adequate information. I guess being a lawyer does put me in a certain position regarding information. I have been trained not give much creedance to information that cannot be backed up by anything other than "trust me." Anything that is written in the manner in which that article presents the information should be questioned automatically due to its admittedly biased tone. The article is not written to inform, but to influence your opinion of hate crimes law. The writer has an interest in your opinion (or changing it) and therefore presents the information in a certain manner, all the while being vague enough to prevent you from questioning him. For instance, I would like to know exactly what was printed in the newspaper. If it was bible verses alone, with no surrounding context, I would be concerned as well. However, the fact that he is so vague makes me question whether or not he is telling the whole story. Additionally, I'd like to know the wording of the law, or if it is just common law.


That particular case was later overturned as way of life pointed out in their article, but it is strange that you as a lawyer say you are unable to find out more when I can find out more about the particular case you question in a five minute web search.

Are these articles "non-biased" enough to be valid in your view? Possibly not the second but hopefully the former. :wink

http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/qry/page.taf?id=146


http://files.efc-canada.net/si/Religious%20Freedom%20in%20Canada/EFC/Owens%20case%20analysis.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


That particular case was later overturned as way of life pointed out in their article, but it is strange that you as a lawyer say you are unable to find out more when I can find out more about the particular case you question in a five minute web search.

Are these articles "non-biased" enough to be valid in your view? Possibly not the second but hopefully the former. :wink

http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/qry/page.taf?id=146


http://files.efc-canada.net/si/Religious%20Freedom%20in%20Canada/EFC/Owens%20case%20analysis.pdf


I didn't question the case. I questioned the articles. I also haven't looked for any information on it, so who knows what I could find. I have access to Westlaw and Lexis Nexis, so I could probably find something if I wanted. You are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you. I don't have to do anything until you prove something. The first article you posted here looks pretty valid, although I always question web sources. It's a case brief, not the actual opinion, but it is definitely unbiased. The second article is propaganda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I didn't question the case. I questioned the articles.


Before you said: "Furthermore, and assuming the occurences listed actually occurred" That isn't questioning the cases?

I could probably find something if I wanted. You are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you.


But before you said: "I couldn't even look up the cases based on the information given by the website because it doesn't give the names of all parties, nor the jurisdiction."

Which is it? Could you or couldn't you? Don't worry about an answer now because that doesn't really matter at this point. :smile

And also you said:

"I understand this is the propoganda being spread in opposition to the expansion of the Hate Crimes Law. However, I'm yet to see one piece of factual evidence to substantiate it. I tried to find something myself, but could find nothing whatsoever. If you have such information, please direct me to it."

So you see I was responding to your supposedly genuine request for information, not making an assertion myself, and you are repeatedly contradicting yourself in your own statements. Disappointing for a lawyer. There is no point taking this further since you have made it clear that you are not really looking for information in an unbiased manner and I am not trying to win a court case or "prove" anything to someone with their mind already made up.

I hope some day you will have clearer sight on this issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Outlawing Opinions, yes, I see that coming, there be many Christians who show detest towards those who do not completely agree with them.

Plus our president said there was going to be a new way of doing business in Washington, I believe he thinks everyone should follow him blindly, that his opinion is the only way, and his way was going to be the new way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Outlawing Opinions, yes, I see that coming, there be many Christians who show detest towards those who do not completely agree with them.

Plus our president said there was going to be a new way of doing business in Washington, I believe he thinks everyone should follow him blindly, that his opinion is the only way, and his way was going to be the new way.


The liberal mindset is that they have all the answers and if only everyone else would fall in line they could create the perfect world. It comes as little surprise they want to silence those who disagree with them. In their own warped minds, silencing those who disagree with them would be for the "greater good" so they could more quickly create their utopian society.

Even among liberal "Christians" there is this same trend. They seek to silence those who truly hold to Scripture.

Notice when a liberal gives a speech on a college campus or elsewhere, if there are conservative or Christian protestors they tend to be respectful enough to allow the liberal to speak. When a conservative gives a speech and liberal protestors are present they tend to do all they can to prevent the consrvative from speaking. They will shout so the conservative can't e heard, they will throw food, they will create a ruckus, anything to prevent the conservative from get his message out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, the liberals tend to have a dictator personality. I've noticed that holds very true with liberal Christians. I know you've noticed how upset they get and what they will accuses others of if they do not submit to their liberal opinions.

Perhaps they really don't believe what the Bible says will become of this world.

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

But I firmly believe we are fast approaching the day when conservative opinions will become outlawed, along with teachings of the "Holy Bible."

There is already talk of shutting up conservative talk show host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Yes, the liberals tend to have a dictator personality. I've noticed that holds very true with liberal Christians. I know you've noticed how upset they get and what they will accuses others of if they do not submit to their liberal opinions.

Perhaps they really don't believe what the Bible says will become of this world.

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

But I firmly believe we are fast approaching the day when conservative opinions will become outlawed, along with teachings of the "Holy Bible."

There is already talk of shutting up conservative talk show host.


Liberal Christians discard many things in the Bible. Some even discard Jesus!!!

When our pastor first began at our home church over 25 years ago the church was a part of a group of area churches. I think it was the second meeting our pastor attended with this group that the idea was raised of jointly hosting a summer event for children. One pastor said he didn't think there should be any of that "preaching Jesus stuff" at the event and another pastor seconded this! Our pastor was shocked and asked to see if he heard right. Sure enough, they didn't want any preaching of the Gospel in any way at all. Our pastor pressed the issue and four pastors were firm against the Gospel and the rest of the pastors remained silent (cowards!). Our pastor asked what's the point of having a Christian event for children if it's secular. The pastors against the Gospel said they just wanted to have something fun with no pressure and none of that controversial Jesus stuff. Our pastor said he couldn't and wouldn't go along with such and left the group saying he wouldn't return.

As a new pastor he was somewhat concerned as to the reaction of his new church but after explaining the situation they agreed he had done the right thing.

For many liberal Christians, Christianity is about being "good" and doing "good things". Many hold the belief that their efforts on earth will usher in the future Kingdom of God. They believe they must make the world a better place by their efforts and once they have done so, Christ will return.

They are always at the ready to discount parts of Scripture they don't like and to interpret Scripture to fit their liberal agenda and beliefs.

More than ever, liberal Christians are working hand-in-hand with political liberals in an attempt to paint Bible believers as some sort of evil and to silence those who hold true to Scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I had a pastor friend that joined in with a crusade which was made up of many different beliefs, and as a counselor during the invitation his moth was shut to what he could say to a person who came forward. We had several conversations about this, him never agreeing with me it was wrong for him to take part in this. About a year later one day we met up some where. 1st thing he told me, "You were right, I should never have took part in that crusade, it really took me a long time to understand why it was wrong, I'll never do it again."

I know it can sound like some real good works, sad to say many fall for it never thinking it thru. But its great that there be some who understand this and do not fall for it. It never hurts to try and explain it, that person just might see the light.

You used the word coward, I suppose some are to much of a coward to speak up and stand strong for our Savior as He promised to do for us.

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, 12 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...