Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

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

      INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

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

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

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

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

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame For A Woman To Speak In Church.


heartstrings
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think it's also and maybe only, a practical reason. Men are SUPPOSED to be logical while woman are more emotional. Though biblical spirituality has emotion it is good to note that the majority of God's Word is practical and sound doctrine is always practical. Practicality and logic go hand in hand and anyone making sound spiritual (biblical) decisions in any leadership role needs logic and practicality. This includes teaching God's Word. Leadership in any form can never be emotional. Emotional decisions are inevitably bad decisions (not always, but mostly). If one looks at the modern charismatic or denominational churches where woman lead one will always see a higher emotional content rather than a practical and logical biblical one. In this day and age where woman are regarded as equal in the home, the church and the work place we see "harder" woman taking on the roles of men.
My wife is a nurse and as an artist I work from home - more often than not she brings in far more than I do and it is often commented upon by certain family members that I am the "wife" as these days "stay at home dads" are accepted as the norm and with job cuts, etc it is sadly often the case that men have to stay at home. Yet I am the leader of our household. I manage the finances, etc but we share all decision making though I have final say and I am blessed with a wife that very seldom says "I told you so!" :knuppel:
I say all this because a lot of what Paul said concerning woman has been abused by men for selfish reasons and when we put aside our pride, self and personal feelings we will see that men and woman are equal in God's eyes and are just DIFFERENT with different roles to play, neither one less or inferior to the other. Men are just as prone to make emotional decisions as woman are - usually in anger and always in pride, men are just not supposed to be RULED by emotions as woman can be - we are the father, they the mother. We the law giver, they the care giver (and by law I mean spiritual law, not chauvinistic law) and the list goes on.
It's when we reverse these roles that problems arise.


Your right about emotions, yet many calming to be Christians are driven more by emotions than they are God's truths. That is true among both men & women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hello. I am not trying to overstep my authority in the Lord's house, but I have an opinion. We women stand up and give testimonies of our salvation and the goodness of God. If I was asked to pray during the service I would not. I would look to my husband.
My understanding of the verse is that women were not to speak in other tongues. The gift of tongues was for the Jews. I do not believe the author meant that women ought not to speak at all during the service. However, it does state that the woman should ask her husband at home anything she doesn't understand.
I don't believe women are to create a disturbance. I don't believe men should either, but some men take this scripture and run with it. Not showing the love of God and the respect the Lord has for women.
No offense to the men who do treat women respectfully.
The Bible mentions a man and his own house. I believe some things are a little different if the woman is a widow or single.
I believe a woman should be able to shout an amen (as long as she is not too loud) or to sing in the service. I think all of ya'll allow women to sing. That would be in direct disobedience of your verse you are quoting.


I agree with Dave, your not in trouble, not the least bit, opinions are welcome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hello. I am not trying to overstep my authority in the Lord's house, but I have an opinion. We women stand up and give testimonies of our salvation and the goodness of God. If I was asked to pray during the service I would not. I would look to my husband.
My understanding of the verse is that women were not to speak in other tongues. The gift of tongues was for the Jews. I do not believe the author meant that women ought not to speak at all during the service. However, it does state that the woman should ask her husband at home anything she doesn't understand.
I don't believe women are to create a disturbance. I don't believe men should either, but some men take this scripture and run with it. Not showing the love of God and the respect the Lord has for women.
No offense to the men who do treat women respectfully.
The Bible mentions a man and his own house. I believe some things are a little different if the woman is a widow or single.
I believe a woman should be able to shout an amen (as long as she is not too loud) or to sing in the service. I think all of ya'll allow women to sing. That would be in direct disobedience of your verse you are quoting.


I agree with this. Really, do some of you folks think Paul was saying that women can't testify, sing, shout praises in church? That somehow that's shameful?

"Let the redeemed of the Lord say so." Edited by Wilchbla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Funny, I get a different message concerning opinions.


:hijacked:
:ot:

You fail to understand one thing, you tried to drive your opinion on that matter into the ground. You expressed your opinion, kept repeating it, over & over, so the fact is, you expressed your opinion. You would not let go, you even started another topic to keep on expressing the opinion you had already expressed in many post. There is a time to drop topics, I for one was, glad to see it locked.

:11backtotopic:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Funny, I get a different message concerning opinions.



<snip>

Everyone has opinions on this board. And many post them over and over.

My opinions were not accepted because they were against popular belief.

But the fact is, I had Scripture that clearly backed my opinions.


Oh stop being sore! If everyone agreed with you who would you have to argue with? No one will EVER agree 60% on doctrine, let alone 100% - we tell you where we stand and you ALWAYS tell us where you stand - you don't see us complaining like a child that Johnny got the cake and Suzie didn't. That shows the attitude of a sore loser, a bully and a person that is not 100% behind there own convictions. If you were you would rest easy in the truth. Besides - you give us stuff to think about - it's our own responsibility to check the Word and see whose right - not yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If it were directly against Scripture, John would have written a reprimand in his epistle. It is clear that he did not.

As I said, if a pastor gives a woman permission to speak, then she is not usurping authority. A woman could lead the services in such a case.


How does that fit with a woman keeping silence in church?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here's another
1 Timothy 2:8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but tobe in silence.


si·lence
noun
1.
absence of any sound or noise; stillness.
2.
the state or fact of being silent; muteness.



Word Origin & History
silence

early 13c., from O.Fr. silence "absence of sound," from L. silentium "a being silent," from silens, prp. of silere "be quiet or still," of unknown origin. Replaced O.E. swige. The verb (trans.) is attested from 1590s, from the noun. Silencer "mechanism that stifles the sound of a motor or firearm" first

I don't know, It just appears to be saying just what it says. nothing more and nothing less. "Testifying" is not "absence of sound" or "quiet" So, I'm still not settled on this; why allow one without the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

heart, you make a good point...however... :icon_smile:

The word silence (in the Timothy verses) comes from the word hesuchia - which means silence absolutely, but it also means quietness in the sense of peaceable. 1Tim. 2:2 uses the word hesuchion for quiet when he says "that we may lead a quiet and peacable life...)" I'm sure Paul didn't mean we were to live totally silently...(nor did he mean a woman couldn't point out the meaning of a word :icon_mrgreen: )

Testifying is not the same as teaching. And testimony time is under the moderation of the pastor, so he is ceding the floor, as it were, to those who testify, but he is not ceding authority. And, if a woman's hubby (if she's married) has no problem with her testifying, then she is submitting in the areas she should. Testifying and singing both fall under the authority of the pastor, so women who participate are not usurping anything. (wilch, I gotta say - I don't think women shouting praise in a service is proper...jmo)

I'm still not on board with a woman praying if there are men present, though. Leadership in (mixed) services, whether it's prayer or speaking, belongs to the men, imo. And I think that's based on scriptural teachings. (However, 1 Corinthians 11 throws a wrench into the conversation, because it talks about a woman praying with her head covered...)

I'm thinking that both sets of verses you posted have an awful lot to do with a wife's attitude towards her husband. And a whole lot to do with women improperly disrupting services...

As to 2 John, there are a couple of schools of thought about who the elect lady is. Usage of pronoun would seem to indicate that it is not actually a person, but a local church. Possibly John's church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Happy,
What you're saying makes sense, and I'm more inclined to agree than disagree. But, at the same time, I'm reluctant to rely on Greek words, because they very often were translated into different words in English. My belief is that English words should have English definitions. In other words, at the time the KJB was written, the common man didn't have the luxury of Googling the Greek meaning as we do today. I personally believe it was written to be understood in English, by the English without having to rely on another language.. Am I making sense?

Like when I researched the word "ordained" used in Acts 13:48, I found that it's Greek word tasso, was also translated as "addicted". Today, when we think "addicted" we think "druggie" "crack head".or whatever. The two words are undoubtedly closely related, but I personally believe they don't mean exactly the same thing or God, in His providence, would not have seen fit to allow them to be different in our KJB, assuming we believe the KJB is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people. But, I;m with you; I felt quite uneasy as the woman was praying in service. It just didn't seem right, I'm going to have to meditate on this for awhile.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here's another
1 Timothy 2:8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but tobe in silence.


si·lence
noun
1.
absence of any sound or noise; stillness.
2.
the state or fact of being silent; muteness.



Word Origin & History
silence

early 13c., from O.Fr. silence "absence of sound," from L. silentium "a being silent," from silens, prp. of silere "be quiet or still," of unknown origin. Replaced O.E. swige. The verb (trans.) is attested from 1590s, from the noun. Silencer "mechanism that stifles the sound of a motor or firearm" first

I don't know, It just appears to be saying just what it says. nothing more and nothing less. "Testifying" is not "absence of sound" or "quiet" So, I'm still not settled on this; why allow one without the other?
Notice Paul said "I suffer not a woman..."? I believe it was Paul's personal preference. He did not allow it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here's another
1 Timothy 2:8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


Lets take a look at the scripture you provided.
  • Vrs 8 - men praying, not woman
  • Vrses 9-10 - woman "profess godliness" through good works and modesty - is this not a testimony? Is a woman's testimony not maybe a "silent" one through actions? Food for thought?
  • Vrs 11-12 - Her silence is in conjunction with teaching and the context of the book is church leadership, doctrine and preaching - so her silence must be in context with those aspects only.

Paul then goes on to explain why:

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
  • Vrs 13 - Adam first, not Eve.
  • Vrs 14 - Eve deceived, not Adam and this is important as Adam was NOT deceived - he knew the consequences and took the responsibility of her sin on himself - this is the same responsibility of the husband and father - he teaches and guides his wife and family in all things spiritual - he is the head of the home for this very reason.

Vrs 15 though is one I am still working on as I do not believe a woman is saved only through child bearing only if they "continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" Thoughts on this would be appreciated.

So the answer would seem to be that any vocalization of a woman in a meeting is not acceptable besides that of praise as that is not once mentioned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

heart, I understand where you are coming from...and I don't think we have to run to the Greek for every little thing. But I do think it's important for us to remember that words change in meaning over the years. The old English used was specific and known completely by those of that time. But nowadays, people aren't always educated in the classics, nor do they understand a lot of the Old English (or the King James English, as many people - even nonChristians - put it.)

One word in particular that has been misunderstood is "conversation." When the KJB uses that word, it is speaking of lifestyle, not speech. But I have heard people present it as speech. Now granted, speech is part of our lifestyle, but the word in the KJB encompasses so much more.

SFIC - I don't think it was just Paul's opinion...that would justify feminists who call Paul a misogynist. In other scripture, Paul specifically states it is him, not the Lord. I think he would do the same thing here. As to it simply referring to speaking in tongues, I don't think so, or he wouldn't have repeated essentially the same thing in Timothy. As to the elect lady - that is why I said there are two schools of thought. I don't think it was an individual woman. But there it is - it's opinion, with pros and cons to both. :icon_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There also is a difference between discussions and teaching.


yes, Bro Matt, there is a difference, and I believe you know the difference, but perhaps this is not the place for it. (I didn't bring the subject up, remember?)
There is one lady, whose name I forgot that has a masters degree or something, and she is doing much more than voicing an opinion.

Yes, here we go, seems when we hit home some people get their dander up!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Lets take a look at the scripture you provided.
  • Vrs 8 - men praying, not woman
  • Vrses 9-10 - woman "profess godliness" through good works and modesty - is this not a testimony? Is a woman's testimony not maybe a "silent" one through actions? Food for thought? I've known and worked with many people, women included, who "professed godliness" out in the world. So that doesn't necessarily mean the "professing" here was in church either.
  • Vrs 11-12 - Her silence is in conjunction with teaching and the context of the book is church leadership, doctrine and preaching - so her silence must be in context with those aspects only.

Paul then goes on to explain why:

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
  • Vrs 13 - Adam first, not Eve.
  • Vrs 14 - Eve deceived, not Adam and this is important as Adam was NOT deceived - he knew the consequences and took the responsibility of her sin on himself - this is the same responsibility of the husband and father - he teaches and guides his wife and family in all things spiritual - he is the head of the home for this very reason.

Vrs 15 though is one I am still working on as I do not believe a woman is saved only through child bearing only if they "continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" Thoughts on this would be appreciated. THis is one of things I keep harping on: We need to find the ROOT MEANING of the word. Basically, the word saved means "preserved" or "not wasted". You can "save money" or be "saved from Hell". The verse here is speaking, I believe, about a woman's intellect, wisdom, and knowledge being utilized and not wasted via her training and raising Godly children. That's the way I understand it. It has nothing to do with salvation from perdition.

So the answer would seem to be that any vocalization of a woman in a meeting is not acceptable besides that of praise as that is not once mentioned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Keeping silence can also mean not being argumentive, contentious or interuptive. Women are not supposed to try to take control of a service since many women like to take control of things. It doesn't always have to mean not being able to talk or make a peep. I would think that God would want everyone to proclaim and praise his name in church. The problem is that many churches today are controlled by the women even in they are not preaching from the pulpit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Thumb's Up
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...