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.

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 8:52 AM, Jim_Alaska said:

Until I joined this message board I had never even heard of the F part of IFB. I, and any other Independent Baptists I fellow shipped with simply described ourselves as Independent Baptists, I always thought and continue to think that this simple designation is all that is needed. I think that at this late date the term "Fundamental" has come to be associated with extremists, especially outside of Baptist or even Christian ranks.

I use the term IFB here on these boards simply because it seems that this is the term that has been used here historically. But as for myself, I think it is an unneeded and possibly even a confusing descriptive term, especially to those outside of Baptist ranks.

I will never drop the name, "Baptist" because I believe that the truth has, and still does, reside in Baptist ranks. I will also continue to use the term "Independent" in my every day life to describe what kind of Baptist I am. I believe that our designation as "Independent" is born out by Scriptural examples of how the Church That Jesus Built is to function.

One of the reasons I have come to appreciate all the letters, including the "F", is because it gives me an oppotunity to explain it, and help others grow by helping their understanding. EVen though the fundamentals themselves seem to be slightly different for each group, that is why the "I" is there, as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
10 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

Can we draw the line with one gospel for jew and gentile? 

Oboy, you've done it now. Stirring the pot, lol.  

Actually I don't remember if it is here, but there sure are a lot who believe that the Jews had one gospel and when they rejected Christ, there was another gospel, mixed with works of the law, for the Hebrew believers, than later, an entirely different one for Gentile believers.

Here's my issue with that, one thing Simon Peter himself said, : "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:8-11)

Peter very clearly tells us that the Lord gave the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles "even as he did unto us", (the same way), And put NO DIFFERENCE between us and them (NO Difference!!!), puirifying their hearts BY FAITH, (not the law and faith), Then he makes clear the law cannot be borne by the Jews nor the Gentiles, and both believers have been freed of that law. THEN...THEN: "We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ WE SHALL BE SAVED, EVEN AS THEY."  How can it be any clearer? Same salvation, ergo, same gospel. Period. No difference.  

So I am in agreement with you. But all amy not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

Can we draw the line with one gospel for jew and gentile? 

Sure, let it be written.........is anyone writing this?

Actually I think the couple of folks who argued for that left this site quite a while ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 11/15/2016 at 8:58 AM, Ukulelemike said:

I admit, at times, to seriously considering dropping the IFB title, due to the poor name it has been given by some, preachers that are legalists, abusive and rule with an iron fist-I suspect most of us could name a few in that camp. However, I also realize that if that were the case, I'd have to drop the title of Christian, as well, because it has been so greatly perverted for the last...oh, 2000 years. So as I choose to continue to call myself a Christian, because TRUE biblical Christianity is right, so I have chosen to continue to call myself Independent Fundamental Baptist, because I believe in the meaning of the term(s), and hold to the heart of it. So instead of dropping the label, instead I choose to teach people what it means. I have a brief statement on our church website explaining what it is and did a tract that I pass out with gospel tracts, so people know WHO we are and WHY we are who we are.

I was saved in an Independent Baptist church so i will always hold that fact in my heart with gratitude. But the most important fundamentals I hold to are Jesus and the King James Bible so this is where my chief loyalty lies: if "IFB" were gone tomorrow, Jesus is all I need. Having said that, I would rather be in a good IFB church now, more than any other. But due to that highlighted above in one nearby IFB church and what I see as dubious practices of the next nearest church's pastor in another , there are no other IFB churches nearby. I am now in a SB church. But the pastor here preaches the Word, the people love God and each other, and are busy about God's work. The pastor and his wife live a blameless life, he rules his house well, none of his 5 kids are unruly and he treats everyone with respect.  I would say that one of the "limits" this board should have, as well as any sound church, is zero tolerance for vulgar language, abusive behavior, disrespect of Fundamental Baptist (Bible) doctrine, not being inordinately judgmental, and zero tolerance for teaching false doctrine such as Replacement Theology and Calvinism which are both dangerous IMO.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sometimes, when I read through the various threads on topics I am amazed at what I read.  For instance, the question of what is an IFB church, the thread began with some very interesting and straight forward response that caused me to stop and think and appreciate the answers.  But as the thread moved forward there were periods of time I felt like was watching a group of young children fight over one primary toy while all the other toys lay around them unused.

 

While there are squabbles about independent, or the meaning of fundamental or even what is a Baptist we miss the heart of the question. 

 

Listen carefully, you will see me write these things over and over, we believe in the autonomy of the Local New Testament Church this is a distinguishing mark of Baptist’s, pastor you run the church God has made you steward of as you believe God wants you to do.  This means you are i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t!  What you or I believe, or want has no bearing on the local New Testament Church being independent and autonomous.

 

Secondly, we are fundamental this means we believe in the very basics of Bible doctrine ie. Bible teaching the virgin birth, the inspiration and preservation of the word of God, salvation by grace through faith, Baptism by immersion, the death burial and resurrection of Christ, the premillennial return of Christ, the great white throne judgement, etc.  Listen you or I may not like, their music, their group of friends, what they read, who they support etc. The question is are they fundamental in their doctrine?

 

Are they Baptist is the real question?  There are many evangelical churches that preach the fundamentals (you may not want to hear that but it is true).  So the question would seem to be what defines a Baptist?  Find this answer and you will find the answer brother Matt asked in his original post.  If you do your study and research you will find that many of our forefathers practiced things we would consider heresy today I am not trying to impugn their character or their movements, it is just a fact because they were independent and autonomous they held to some weird doctrinal concepts.  But what made them Baptists were their distinctives.

 

The heart of the historical Baptist is different we hold to a set of distinctives that we would die for rather than change our position.  They are in no particular order the following.

1.    Infallibility, inspiration and preservation of the word of God.

2.    The autonomy of the local New Testament church

3.    The two ordinances given to the local New Testament church

4.    Soul Liberty

5.    The priesthood of the believer

6.    Only a baptized and regenerated membership (this disqualifies Calvinists who believe regeneration occurs before salvation)

7.    Separation of the local church from government intervention not separation of government from church intervention.

 

Historic Baptists have held to these distinctives and these distinctives are what set us apart from all other churches and their memberships.  I know we like to include the 1611 as a distinctive but really it cannot be, we may venerate it but our Baptist distinctives pre-date the King James Bible by hundreds of years.  We want to hold to our Anabaptist roots and rebaptizing plays a major role in our history none-the-less it is our distinctives that tell the story. 

 

Let me conclude with this thought, what is independent and what is fundamental will never be settle across Christendom but whether you are Baptist by historical standards that you can look at.  There has been a lot of discussion on open or closed communion in another thread, let me help you that is a Baptist distinctive and you can only stand one way and be in historical alignment with our forefathers.  I am not trying to create controversy because I can love all the brethren but when you tell me you are Baptist you need to hold to those things which have set us apart from others for hundreds of years, about two thousand I believe.   

 

          

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 9:58 AM, Ukulelemike said:

I admit, at times, to seriously considering dropping the IFB title, due to the poor name it has been given by some, preachers that are legalists, abusive and rule with an iron fist-I suspect most of us could name a few in that camp. However, I also realize that if that were the case, I'd have to drop the title of Christian, as well, because it has been so greatly perverted for the last...oh, 2000 years. So as I choose to continue to call myself a Christian, because TRUE biblical Christianity is right, so I have chosen to continue to call myself Independent Fundamental Baptist, because I believe in the meaning of the term(s), and hold to the heart of it. So instead of dropping the label, instead I choose to teach people what it means. I have a brief statement on our church website explaining what it is and did a tract that I pass out with gospel tracts, so people know WHO we are and WHY we are who we are.

Where was I to not agree with this? :4_6_2v: To quote Dr. Ian Paisley, the world likes to refer to us as "funny-mental" people. Rainbows still belong to God too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 5/26/2017 at 6:50 AM, heartstrings said:

"foundational" baptist

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Psalm 11:3

I do like that word, 'Foundational" Had thought about changing our church name to Foundation Baptist Church, or possibly, Pillar and Ground Baptist Church. Maybe if we ever are able to get another building we can include a name change. Honestly, while Bible Baptist Church is alright, sometimes I think is evokes too much Ruckman in it, since many BBC's out there follow some Ruckman patterns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/25/2017 at 2:14 PM, BaptistJonStewart said:

I don't mind if we change the name IFB to UCB (Unaffiliated Conservative Baptists). 

 

On 6/8/2017 at 10:52 AM, BaptistJonStewart said:

The word, fundamentalist, has taken a different definition nowadays as compared to the 1920s and 1930s. I don't see anything wrong with changing the movement to a different name with similar definitions.

We're all Independent Churches and Christians. Start using the UCB to describe yourself and encourage your church to uses it. (No one can or is going to stop you) Then see if other churches and people will be "moved" to use the title as well! "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." and all that.....

 

Jul.  O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.         40
  Rom.  [Aside.]  Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
  Jul.  ’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part         45
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes         50
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.
  Rom.        I take thee at thy word.
Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptiz’d;         55
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.
  Jul.  What man art thou, that, thus be-screen’d in night,
So stumblest on my counsel?
  Rom.        By a name
I know not how to tell thee who I am:         60
My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself,
Because it is an enemy to thee:
Had I it written, I would tear the word.
  Jul.  My ears have not yet drunk a hundred words
Of that tongue’s uttering, yet I know the sound:         65
Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?
  Rom.  Neither, fair maid, if either thee dislike.
  Jul.  How cam’st thou hither, tell me, and wherefore?
Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Once again we must consider how much of baptist doctrine can be done away with before one can no longer be called a baptist.

Independent is one thing, nut to recognise say, a cat, that creature must have the attributes of a cat.

It might be a lion, a tiger, a leopard, a burmese, a siamese - all different kinds of cats - but there are basic attributes that make it recognisably a cat.

A dog has many similar attributes, but by certain and specific attributes we can distinguish a dog from a cat.

There are two parts to being an independent baptist church:

Independent - there are many independent churches around and some of them even preach a majority of right doctrine. But that doesn't make them baptist.

Baptist - therr are specific attributes that make a church a baptist church.

Without those attributes they may be a gospel preaching independent church, but they are NOT and independent baptist church.

 

So how many of these attributes can be done away with before someone is no longer an independent baptist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think the most important letter in "IFB" is the "F"

Hebrews 12:2

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

Romans 12

 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

 

James 1

26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

 

Psalm 119:140

140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

 

I think a Baptist should  look to Jesus, "walk right, talk right" , "spit white" and hold to the King James Bible  :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, but anyone can be independent and fundamental - this site is called Online BAPTIST for a reason.

If baptists stop being biblical, THEN I will stop being a baptist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 18 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...