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.

Total Inability...withou Excuse


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was looking for insights and while I didn't come up with any, I did come across a discussion asking this:

If God knows out of 60 billion people only 10% will accept Christ, why does He allow the other 90% to even be born if He doesn't want anyone to go to hell?

If God knows 100 people in Houston will be saved if they go hear Pastor James preach, why doesn't He make sure all 100 hear Pastor James preach?

Since God only dealt directly with Israel for several thousand years, wasn't most of humanity at that time without any means of salvation? Could the same be said with regards to most of humanity for over a thousand years after Christ since the Gospel wasn't reaching them?

These questions come up from people asking sincerely and I would like to learn better answers for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You are incarcerated in a condemned prison facility which my demolitions crew is preparing to destroy this afternoon. In the cell block where you are, each cell contains one inmate and without a key, his escape is totally impossible. Each inmate is TOTALLY UNABLE to escape his imminent destruction.. Now, as I personally clear the building, I go to each cell, unlock it, and release the occupant, but when I come to YOUR cell, I just ignore you and walk on by .

Any prisoner who fails to escape the building before the detonations begin, will be killed or at least severely injured. We are going to include this "severely injured" category because, unlike God, I don't have the capability of asking YOU any questions if you are dead. So, the explosions are over, the smoke and dust have cleared and when I come to your charred, demolished cell and find you mangled and barely breathing and ask: "Why did you not escape?" To which YOU reply; "you gave me no key...and you never even spoke to me". To which I reply: "you have no excuse"............


Its obvious what you're attempting to say but, I don't agree.


Why are you incarcerated? Why were you placed where you are?
Why didn’t we, who might have prevented incarceration, ever explain these things?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

OK, my bad. It was a feeble attempt to make an illustration.
The simple fact is, acording to Romans 1, God has "shewed" his "eternal power and Godhead" and made Himself known to all ungodly men so when they get to the great white throne, no one will have any excuse. Redemption was made free and available to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Ro 1:19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

John, Simple fact, they're without excuse, you either believe God, or not. Fact is, some will not, they refuse, & no amount of words humans can speak will convince them, if they will not believe the Word of God.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The power is in the Word of God, not in man, not in the preacher, pastor, evangelist, or who ever.

Even if you could someone into someone, someone else would come along & talk them out of it.

Let God's Word do the talking, them let the Holy spirit do its thing, yet, the Holy Spirit will not over rule the will of mankind.

And, who ever finds their self in hell, they can only blame them self.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All right. So we have two camps here. One that says God has made a condition for salvation and that condition is to believe and that this "choice" is available to all mankind. The other says God stops at some and passes on by others using comments like "irresistible grace"; "predestined"; "foreknew" and others to justify this doctrine.

One says free will

One says "God's will"

Now if it's free will, then how do babies make a choice? Does God come speak baby gobbly gook that they understand and they make some baby gobbly gook decision to follow Christ?

Or does God "foreknow" the baby's decision and decide for them?

Those of us in the free will camp either ignore this question, believe in the "age of accountability" thing or say all those who have not decided on their own free will to follow Christ are in hell.

Those in the "Calvinist" or "reformed whatsit" camp don't care, God's got His own and the rest can go to hell.


So this is the God some of you serve:

  • One who damns fetuses, babies, children, the autistic and those born brain damaged all to hell. (I am leaving out the ones who haven't heard because I understand and accept Romans)
  • One who has made Himself the sacrifice for sin for ONLY those that hear, UNDERSTAND and believe with a complete understanding of the doctrine of salvation.

The others serve a God that like I said just doesn't care, He's already done His pick and choose thing and we have no will in the matter.

Come on people, even the Jews understand that the parents are accountable for the child until a certain age - bat mitzvah!

I choose to believe the Word and the Word tells me that though God is vengeful and righteously ruthless at times He is also FAR MORE of the following:
  • Just
  • Compassionate
  • Long suffering
  • Merciful
  • Holy
  • Righteous
  • Self sacrificing (Jesus for those that don't know)

And He knows what He's doing. So just because I don't know and HE hasn't made it clear I will stick to what He has told me:


1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. - Sanctified through the faith of the parent! A DIFFERENT SALVATION FOR CHILDREN that are not yet of an age to understand the doctrine of salvation - prove otherwise!


And I don't care what "some" have preached or "commentaries" say I follow the WORD of God - KJV AV and it says "NOW ARE THEY HOLY" - it doesn't say legitimate, they would have used that word if that's what they meant - IT SAYS HOLY!!!!

So if you are a KJV believing believer then stand your ground, ignore what the preacher says, the commentaries say and HEED the Word and it says they are holy and sanctified through the faith of the parent just as we are sanctified through the faith of Christ. The passage context is salvation, not illegitimate children. It's married believers and unbelievers, not the unmarried.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If your theory is true, then why trust Christ? After all, if we who were born to Christian parents are saved because of our parents being saved, then there is no need for us to trust Christ... we're already assured of Salvation.

If that is how you got saved, I have bad news for you.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

A child is not automatically saved just because he or she was born to Christian parents. That child must trust Christ just as his or her parents did or when that child dies he or she will go to a devil's hell. He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If your theory is true, then why trust Christ? After all, if we who were born to Christian parents are saved because of our parents being saved, then there is no need for us to trust Christ... we're already assured of Salvation.

If that is how you got saved, I have bad news for you.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

A child is not automatically saved just because he or she was born to Christian parents. That child must trust Christ just as his or her parents did or when that child dies he or she will go to a devil's hell. He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him.


Not a theory - 1 Cor 7:14 says the children of a saved parent are holy. I suppose this covers the "age of accountability" doctrine. As a young child the gospel was explained to me and I made a choice to accept Jesus as my savior, recommitted my life in my teens and was baptized, so no I do not base my salvation on that and I never stated that I did. I do however believe that the child of a believer is protected (covered by the faith of the parent if you will) until the time they can make there own decision. And just as God sees us through the blood of Christ and His faith, He sees our children through our faith. So just as Christ is responsible for the Church His bride and so the believing father responsible for his wife and children, if no father then the believing mother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Then Jesus was lying when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by Me". He should have said "I am a way; man can also come to the Father by being born to a Christian parent.

Sorry, 2Tim. Your theory doesn't jive.


Once again you put words in my mouth so I will let you read it again - this time read slowly and pay attention - I will even highlight for you:


Not a theory - 1 Cor 7:14 says the children of a saved parent are holy. I suppose this covers the "age of accountability" doctrine. As a young child the gospel was explained to me and I made a choice to accept Jesus as my savior, recommitted my life in my teens and was baptized, so no I do not base my salvation on that and I never stated that I did. I do however believe that the child of a believer is protected (covered by the faith of the parent if you will) until the time they can make there own decision. And just as God sees us through the blood of Christ and His faith, He sees our children through our faith. So just as Christ is responsible for the Church His bride and so the believing father responsible for his wife and children, if no father then the believing mother.


Do you by chance see the word "saved"; "believer" or any such thing in that statement? By this I mean "kept safe" though this does fly in the face of many a believers child having died too young to make a conscious decision. Like I said - it's a difficult one that no one really knows the answer to and if there is one we don't always like it. So I will stick to this one even if it sounds foolish, just as you stick to your "Repent" in order to be saved. We all have our faults. And to keep the peace don't use this as an opening to do the whole repent thing again - it's been done to death already. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Once again you put words in my mouth so I will let you read it again - this time read slowly and pay attention - I will even highlight for you:



Do you by chance see the word "saved"; "believer" or any such thing in that statement? By this I mean "kept safe" though this does fly in the face of many a believers child having died too young to make a conscious decision. Like I said - it's a difficult one that no one really knows the answer to and if there is one we don't always like it. So I will stick to this one even if it sounds foolish, just as you stick to your "Repent" in order to be saved. We all have our faults. And to keep the peace don't use this as an opening to do the whole repent thing again - it's been done to death already. :D

That would be another means of salvation and Scripture tells us there is only one way of salvation.

If your theory were true, then that women who killed her children in Texas so they would go to heaven and not risk missing heaven later in life was actually being a good mother!

As well, you are putting forth an idea of children of a Christian parent being saved because of their parent until that child reaches some certain age when God takes away their salvation, at which point they stand condemned and hell-bound unless they then decide to accept Christ. Scripture speaks nowhere of this but does speak of our salvation being sure, one is only assured of heaven if they are born again into God's family and they can never lose this.

Simply because the word "holy" is used in the verse you refer to doesn't mean the children are saved. "Holy" is used in various ways throughout Scripture and in this verse it certainly does not mean that one is saved.

Also remember that no doctrine is ever to be formed from one verse. Where matters of doctrine are concerned, Scripture repeats these and verifies them from one point to another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Agreed John, but please point out where I said saved. I do not believe that babies nor children up to a certain age are saved by other means and no where did I say that. I am also not taking a single verse out of context and "creating" a doctrine. The whole passage speaks of unequaly yoked and equaly yoked marriages in the context of salvation so where does legitimacy come in? Paul speaks of having received a letter asking questions - we do not have that letter and he does not specify the questions so I must take the scripture at face value and not read anything into it - so "sanctified" and "holy" mean exactly what they are meant to mean in the context of salvation. So I state AGAIN - I believe that possibly the children of believers are PROTECTED by God's grace and mercy until they make there own choice. IOW - they are kept alive if there parents are walking in God's will. This is my personal belief based on what I understand. But if you & SFIC believe that all babies, fetuses and children are damned to hell then by all means do so.

But I must say that the Calvinist camp is sounding far more attractive every minute with their belief that we have no say and that God chooses whom He will, then I don't have to worry about my unborn child not making it or not making a decision if they die before understanding the doctrine of salvation because God has already chosen and nothing I do nor say nor teach can change that.

It's easy for you to say that I can not believe a child is protected, but the thing is, you nor SFIC don't know either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Agreed John, but please point out where I said saved. I do not believe that babies nor children up to a certain age are saved by other means and no where did I say that. I am also not taking a single verse out of context and "creating" a doctrine. The whole passage speaks of unequaly yoked and equaly yoked marriages in the context of salvation so where does legitimacy come in? Paul speaks of having received a letter asking questions - we do not have that letter and he does not specify the questions so I must take the scripture at face value and not read anything into it - so "sanctified" and "holy" mean exactly what they are meant to mean in the context of salvation. So I state AGAIN - I believe that possibly the children of believers are PROTECTED by God's grace and mercy until they make there own choice. IOW - they are kept alive if there parents are walking in God's will. This is my personal belief based on what I understand. But if you & SFIC believe that all babies, fetuses and children are damned to hell then by all means do so.

But I must say that the Calvinist camp is sounding far more attractive every minute with their belief that we have no say and that God chooses whom He will, then I don't have to worry about my unborn child not making it or not making a decision if they die before understanding the doctrine of salvation because God has already chosen and nothing I do nor say nor teach can change that.

It's easy for you to say that I can not believe a child is protected, but the thing is, you nor SFIC don't know either.

I have said all along that Scripture is silent as to what happens when a baby is aborted, a two year old dies, the mentally handicapped pass away. We are not told directly that they have some special entrance to heaven nor are we told they go to eternal hell. Whatever God's plan regarding these, I trust Him and I don't need to know and He certainly doesn't have to tell us.

Jesus pointed out to His disciples that they did not choose Him, but that He chose them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I do not believe that babies nor children up to a certain age are saved by other means and no where did I say that. ...... so "sanctified" and "holy" mean exactly what they are meant to mean in the context of salvation.
You are contradicting yourself.

As to you claim that the child is kept alive if the parents are walking in God's will, there are enough obituaries of children of godly parents to prove that claim wrong. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Agreed John, but please point out where I said saved. I do not believe that babies nor children up to a certain age are saved by other means and no where did I say that. I am also not taking a single verse out of context and "creating" a doctrine. The whole passage speaks of unequaly yoked and equaly yoked marriages in the context of salvation so where does legitimacy come in? Paul speaks of having received a letter asking questions - we do not have that letter and he does not specify the questions so I must take the scripture at face value and not read anything into it - so "sanctified" and "holy" mean exactly what they are meant to mean in the context of salvation. So I state AGAIN - I believe that possibly the children of believers are PROTECTED by God's grace and mercy until they make there own choice. IOW - they are kept alive if there parents are walking in God's will. This is my personal belief based on what I understand. But if you & SFIC believe that all babies, fetuses and children are damned to hell then by all means do so.

But I must say that the Calvinist camp is sounding far more attractive every minute with their belief that we have no say and that God chooses whom He will, then I don't have to worry about my unborn child not making it or not making a decision if they die before understanding the doctrine of salvation because God has already chosen and nothing I do nor say nor teach can change that.

It's easy for you to say that I can not believe a child is protected, but the thing is, you nor SFIC don't know either.


For most, false teachings always sound more attractive.


Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

For most people are gathered together crowding up around that broad gate that leads to destruction.

Yet, we should not believe something because its attractive, but because its God's truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You are contradicting yourself.

As to you claim that the child is kept alive if the parents are walking in God's will, there are enough obituaries of children of godly parents to prove that claim wrong.


No contradiction, infants, babies, are protected by God. Why? They have not the mentality, maturity, understanding, knowledge, to make a rational decision. Nothing contradictory by God protecting showing mercy to such a group of people.

But it would be evil to condemn anyone to hell that did not have the mentality, understanding, knowledge to understand the Gospel. Pl;us, the Bible backs it up, & its been pointed out recently 2 or 3 different times. I refuse to go though that every time you bring it up, I feel sure you have made that statement as least two times recently, if not more. Edited by Jerry80871852
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No contradiction, infants, babies, are protected by God. Why? They have not the mentality, maturity, understanding, knowledge, to make a rational decision. Nothing contradictory by God protecting showing mercy to such a group of people.

But it would be evil to condemn anyone to hell that did not have the mentality, understanding, knowledge to understand the Gospel. Pl;us, the Bible backs it up, & its been pointed out recently 2 or 3 different times. I refuse to go though that every time you bring it up, I feel sure you have made that statement as least two times recently, if not more.
And how do you know exactly that they don't have the capability to believe? Have talked to them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No contradiction, infants, babies, are protected by God. Why? They have not the mentality, maturity, understanding, knowledge, to make a rational decision. Nothing contradictory by God protecting showing mercy to such a group of people.
But it would be evil to condemn anyone to hell that did not have the mentality, understanding, knowledge to understand the Gospel. Pl;us, the Bible backs it up, & its been pointed out recently 2 or 3 different times. I refuse to go though that every time you bring it up, I feel sure you have made that statement as least two times recently, if not more.


Exactly what I have been saying and to John, no it's not a false teaching - it's not a teaching at all, just something I choose to believe. Whether they are saved or protected or not accountable until a certain age I really do not know but I just choose to believe in His Mercy that has been evident throughout the Word and not only on the occasional example of his just and righteous wrath.
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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
  • 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...