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.

Suicide and salvation?


2Tim215
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

10. Assurance of Salvation.

I Tim. 4:2, “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;”

Some people aren’t confused about salvation as described in chapter one of this book. Instead, some Christians have scorned the grace of God and lived their lives in sin. When this happens, the Holy Spirit is quenched (He’s still there, you just can’t hear Him anymore) and the man’s conscience is seared. Very often when this happens, the assurance of salvation is gone. “How could I be saved and do…” This isn’t a matter of God taking something away from you; it’s just one of the many natural consequences of sin.

As you can see, a Christian does stand to lose a lot, or miss out on some pretty wonderful things if he lives his life for himself. Paul warned the Romans to not sin that “grace may abound.” God is merciful, but He’s not one to be trifled with.


Who is speaking lies in hypocrisy? Those who depart from the faith and give heed to doctrines of devils. This is not saying they were saved and lost their Salvation. Matter of fact, it proves that they were not saved at all. They turned from the truth to believe a lie. Those who are saved are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Not one of your points prove a saved person can come to the point of committing suicide or will commit suicide.... not one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

2. Saved people never backslide on a permanent basis, there are sins that a Christian is unable to commit, and a Christian will always get right at some point.

Here are the problems I have with the second view:

1. What sins are a Christian incapable of committing? Where does the Bible lay this out? If a Christian and a lost man both have the same old nature in them (which they do) then isn't a saved man who is completely following the flesh just as capable of sins as a lost man?


A Christian will never commit suicide. God disciplines them and brings them to right standing again.



2. Where does the Bible state that a Christian will always get right? If a Christian will always get right, why does God kill Christians who refuse to get right (see points 5, 6, and 8)? Obviously there are times that a Christian backslides and doesn't get right! Ananias and Sapphira, Demas, Diotrephes... who knows, maybe even Hymenaeus and Alexander were saved??


I have already addressed these points. Hebrewws 12.reveals that God chastens those He loves. If any don't feel the chastening of the Lord, the Word of God reveals that they are bastards and not sons.


3. There is no clear and consistent standard when it comes to this teaching. No drunks are saved! But we'll ignore liars. No Christian will commit suicide... but he'll murder and cheat on his wife (David)? C'mon, this teaching is about as solid as the idea you can lose your salvation. Those who teach you can lose your salvation all have different rules on how to do it and no two of them agree. Certain sins will damn you, but NOT MY SINS!


The child of God may sin, but he will not continue in sin because God will chasten him. God chastened David through Nathan. By the way, David was not still living in adultery when Nathan rebuked him. The New Testament reveals that once a woman's husband is dead, the man the woman married is no longer an adulterer. Once Uriah died in battle, David could marry Bathsheba without being an adulterer. David's sin was great, but God chastened him... and he repented.

God always chastens those He loves. And those He chastens hear His voice and follow Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Something to think about:

Isaiah 26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee

Philippians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice.

Philippians 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

SFIC, you are way to quick to assume that the man in I Cor. 5 was lost. He was saved! If he died after being given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, his SPIRIT would have been saved. He was not lost. God was going to kill him if he had not repented. This fact destroys your theory that Christians always repent eventually. Your teaching is very flimsy. All these people who professed to be Christians were not? Every single one of them? Because they didn't endure to the end (sounds like Calvinism to me!)? When things start becoming a little “too convenient” I smell the strong scent of bologna. I don't buy what you’re saying and nobody else does either.

I don't buy the idea that God removes a Christian's free will at salvation - which is the end result of what you're saying. You might as well become a Calvinist and get it over with because that is where you're headed.

A drunk goes to Hell, even if he has a profession of faith - but not a liar (same verse in Revelation!). A man can be saved and commit murder, adultery, and even incest - but no Christian is capable of committing suicide?

Suicide is the greatest affront to God? Are you kidding me? Idolatry is the greatest affront to God, not suicide. How many stories of people who killed themselves while in dark depression or drug addiction would you have to hear before you understood that? If I came home to find my family raped and murdered I might commit suicide! Do you think I would do it out of a deep rebellion to God or because I felt hopeless and wanted out? To broad-brush suicide as the worst sin is so unbelievable. Honestly, biblically, God killed and judged more people over complaining and idolatry, and He spends much more time talking about how bad those sins are than any other sin. He hardly ever mentions suicide.

You are so incredibly off base, it's very, very sad. The saddest part about this is the stuff you are saying here can really hurt some people. For those that have loved ones who may have killed themselves, your words could be very hurtful. I think you need to really get into your Bible, prayer, some serious self-examination.

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What happened to Samson was "muwth", not "ratsach" There is a difference. God does not want man committing suicide.


If you were standing under a ton of bricks and you knew that all you had to do was intentionally push two pillars aside to let it fall on you... yes sir, pushing those pillars would be suicide. If you can't get that, I see no point in wasting any more time on this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

SFIC, you are way to quick to assume that the man in I Cor. 5 was lost. He was saved! If he died after being given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, his SPIRIT would have been saved. He was not lost. God was going to kill him if he had not repented. This fact destroys your theory that Christians always repent eventually. Your teaching is very flimsy. All these people who professed to be Christians were not? Every single one of them? Because they didn't endure to the end (sounds like Calvinism to me!)? When things start becoming a little “too convenient” I smell the strong scent of bologna. I don't buy what you’re saying and nobody else does either.

I don't buy the idea that God removes a Christian's free will at salvation - which is the end result of what you're saying. You might as well become a Calvinist and get it over with because that is where you're headed.

A drunk goes to Hell, even if he has a profession of faith - but not a liar (same verse in Revelation!). A man can be saved and commit murder, adultery, and even incest - but no Christian is capable of committing suicide?

Suicide is the greatest affront to God? Are you kidding me? Idolatry is the greatest affront to God, not suicide. How many stories of people who killed themselves while in dark depression or drug addiction would you have to hear before you understood that? If I came home to find my family raped and murdered I might commit suicide! Do you think I would do it out of a deep rebellion to God or because I felt hopeless and wanted out? To broad-brush suicide as the worst sin is so unbelievable. Honestly, biblically, God killed and judged more people over complaining and idolatry, and He spends much more time talking about how bad those sins are than any other sin. He hardly ever mentions suicide.

You are so incredibly off base, it's very, very sad. The saddest part about this is the stuff you are saying here can really hurt some people. For those that have loved ones who may have killed themselves, your words could be very hurtful. I think you need to really get into your Bible, prayer, some serious self-examination.
Rick, I could say you are way too quick to say the man was saved.

In Romans, Paul admonishes the reader to not continue in sin. (Romans 6:1-2). In Galatians, he exhorts the spiritual to restore one who has been overtaken in a fault. Paul would not have instructed the Church to turn a saved man over to the devil. The man was lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Jerry, please go back and read my posts. I never said a saved person could lose his or her Salvation. I said some will prove that they never were saved to begin with.


Are you saying that a believer, who in a instant of dispair, for instance, jumps off a bridge, or falls under a tube train, is not saved?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm not quick at all to assume he was saved. It's clear in the verse that if he died his spirit would be saved, though his flesh was delivered to Satan.

He was saved! Also, he repented and was restored to the church. You don't restore (as in bring back into fellowship) a lost person.


You're grasping at straws and ignoring the clear evidence against your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



If you were standing under a ton of bricks and you knew that all you had to do was intentionally push two pillars aside to let it fall on you... yes sir, pushing those pillars would be suicide. If you can't get that, I see no point in wasting any more time on this one.
If I pushed a ton of bricks, they would not fall unless God gave me the strength to do so.

The fact is, Samson was given the strength to do what he did and he asked God to let him die. Samson was not taking his own life, he was requesting God to take his life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If I pushed a ton of bricks, they would not fall unless God gave me the strength to do so.

The fact is, Samson was given the strength to do what he did and he asked God to let him die. Samson was not taking his own life, he was requesting God to take his life



Judges 16:28And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.
29And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.
30And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not quick at all to assume he was saved. It's clear in the verse that if he died his spirit would be saved, though his flesh was delivered to Satan.

He was saved! Also, he repented and was restored to the church. You don't restore (as in bring back into fellowship) a lost person.


You're grasping at straws and ignoring the clear evidence against your position.
I am not grasping at straws. Why in the world would the Church be instructed to cast a saved member out? It is clear the man was not saved.

Paul told Timothy that the Word of God was given for reproof, for doctrine, for correction and for instruction in righteousness. Why? That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. The reproof, doctrine, correction and instruction is for the man of God.

1 Corinthians 5 is the only place that Paul instructs the Church to put someone out. In Galatians, the fallen brother is to be restored by the Church... not thrown out!

The man was thrown out because the man was lost and did not belong in the Church.

Where did Paul say to restore that man of 1 Corinthians 5 to the Church? I have heard many preachers claim it is 2 Corinthians 2, but I find no evidence of that man being the same one as the one being ousted. Matter of fact, the Church is not told to restore the man in 2 Corinthians 2, but rather to receive him into their fellowship. The man had been sorely inflicted with punishment by many and Paul told the Church to act contrary to the ones who had inflicted the punishment. I don't believe that he was speaking of the same man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members




Judges 16:28And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.
29And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.
30And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
I am well aware of the passage. Notice Samson did not have the strength on his own? He asked God "strengthen me". For what purpose? "that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my eyes". And God strengthened him and he cried out to God, "Let me die". Samson was not committing suicide... he was executing judgment on the Philistines. And he asked God to take his life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am well aware of the passage. Notice Samson did not have the strength on his own? He asked God "strengthen me". For what purpose? "that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my eyes". And God strengthened him and he cried out to God, "Let me die". Samson was not committing suicide... he was executing judgment on the Philistines. And he asked God to take his life.

Simple question:
WHO PUSHED the pillars?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

I disagree. If God is calling someone to do a work for Him, He is going to provide a way for that person to do that work. Where God guides... God provides. The girl committed suicide out of an act of rebellion... both toward her father, and also toward God... if indeed God had called her to do a work.

The girl did not have the Comforter guiding her into all truth, bringing her mind to rest in times of hardship... that is obvious.

Well, standing, your first paragraph shows your ignorance of the situation, but that's okay, because I didn't give all of the details, nor will I. There was no question about God providing, on anyone's part. Her suicide wasn't a rebellion against her father or against God. It was in despair because of what was going on. And it isn't up to any of us to question whether or not God was calling her to a work.

She did have the Comforter. But she had taken her eyes off of the Lord due to things that had happened. And anyone who has ever done that (no-one on this page can say they haven't at one time or another) knows that taking our eyes off the Lord brings distress: to our minds, to our hearts, to the very innermost of our being. You are not God, and therefore cannot say she didn't have the Comforter. I'll introduce you to her when we get to Heaven, where she is now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




Thanks Jerry for your down-to-earth post. I believe your most valuable asset when it comes to this forum is your experience and wisdom when it comes to these things on a pratical matter. Many times we (or at least I do) get caught up in all the doctrinal minutia and arguments and sometimes lose sight of the pratical side of things.


SFIC,

You keep dodging things. Anyone can take a dogmatic stand on something, but when people challenge you on that stand and you just ignore the difficult questions no one respects that stand. In post #114 I pointed out three major problems with your stand but you completly ignored two of them and only half-heartedly addressed one. You also completly ignored the following statement (this will be the third time I've posted it for you):


"Even if they were lost, the young man delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh was not. He had sex with his father's wife and was saved! Paul's solution was to deliver the young man unto Satan - not to go to Hell but to die. God would have killed him if he had not repented, and before you tell me that the man was guaranteed to repent because 'the sheep always follow the Shepherd in the end,' go back and read this passage under point six:

I Cor. 11:29-30, “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.


Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Well, standing, your first paragraph shows your ignorance of the situation, but that's okay, because I didn't give all of the details, nor will I. There was no question about God providing, on anyone's part. Her suicide wasn't a rebellion against her father or against God. It was in despair because of what was going on. And it isn't up to any of us to question whether or not God was calling her to a work.

She did have the Comforter. But she had taken her eyes off of the Lord due to things that had happened. And anyone who has ever done that (no-one on this page can say they haven't at one time or another) knows that taking our eyes off the Lord brings distress: to our minds, to our hearts, to the very innermost of our being. You are not God, and therefore cannot say she didn't have the Comforter. I'll introduce you to her when we get to Heaven, where she is now.
HC,
Your post concerning the girl stated that she committed suicide because her father would not let her do something she felt God wanted her to do. Whether you want to admit it or not, that would be an act of rebellion to her father. Scripture says "Children, obey your parents in the Lord for this is right." If her father forbad her to do something, she should have obeyed... unless it was forbidding her to serve the Lord.

And if the Lord told her to do something, and she did not, she was in fact in rebellion just as Jonah was in rebellion when he got on the ship for Tarshish. And suicide is an ultimate act of rebellion against God. It is rejecting God to obey another.

I highly doubt I will see any suicides in heaven. They have murdered themselves, following the thief who comes to steal, kill and destroy instead of following the giver of life and peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Standing, if you read my post again, you will see that I said it was the straw that broke the camel's back...meaning there is more to the story. She was 19, therefore no longer really a child, and her father forbade her from doing what she believed God wanted her to do. So, either she was rebelling against her father for telling her she couldn't obey God, or she was rebelling against God in not doing it, according to your scenario. Let's completely leave out total despair because of things happening (about which you do not know). There are only two ways it could be in your book. But you are wrong. Plain and simple. And you can doubt all you want that you will see any suicides in Heaven. Again, I will introduce you to her when we get there. =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm going to try and make this my final post under this topic. You fail to accept context of the Holy Scriptures & contest of the post I have made & we are going no where.

There is only one sin that Jesus' blood cannot cover, that is unbelief, yet it seems you add at least one more, suicide.

I sure hope you have food for thought on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...