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.

Attention Moderators And Administrators


Auburn88
 Share

Recommended Posts

On another message board, "Dr"JamesAch is falsely claiming that I have "numerous accounts" here.

 

Obviously, what our false witness bearing friend says elsewhere is not your problem.

 

However, if what he is saying is true (and, like all the other accusations he's made toward me, it's not), then that would a violation of OB rules.

 

Would you please investigate this and tell us whether or not I have any other accounts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you contacted the other board webmaster about this? Also can you PM me a link to the board?

I'm more concerned about disproving his claims that I have "numerous accounts" on OB.

 

The other board isn't an issue. He's about to be banned from there, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'm more concerned about disproving his claims that I have "numerous accounts" on OB.

 

The other board isn't an issue. He's about to be banned from there, anyway.

While that's understood ("The other board isn't an issue"); at the same time, for an individual who claims to be a born again, IB preacher to be lying about someones's activity on this board (IF that's actually happening) somewhere else (online or off) IS an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm more concerned about disproving his claims that I have "numerous accounts" on OB.

 

The other board isn't an issue. He's about to be banned from there, anyway.

Sounds like from your OP the other board is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Had Dr Ach wanted an accusation from another board to be known here, I am sure he would gladly have posted it. 

We all know he does not pull any punches.

That said, BroMatt has the link to the post Auburn was complaining about and I am sure he will take appropriate measures.

Regardless, if BroMatt reads the post, he will see that accusations were first made toward Dr Ach by Auburn.  Why is Auburn complaining when he was the original accusing party?

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

I think we should wait to hear from Dr. James Ach's side of the story. Sounds like the OP wants him banned from both websites.

 

No, not at all. I just want the mods to investigate me to tell me whether or not I have more than one account here.

 

I know I don't, but I would like their decision as evidence.

 

And, besides, whether I want him banned from BaptistBoard is a moot point at this point, as he's probably going to be banned, anyway. He's already had two threads closed and a stern rebuke from the mods.

Edited by Auburn88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, if BroMatt reads the post, he will see that accusations were first made toward Dr Ach by Auburn.  Why is Auburn complaining when he was the original accusing party?

Even if that were true, I'm not complaining. I'm just asking a question.

 

Don't you think it's reasonable of me to want to know if I'm breaking the rules by having these alleged "numerous accounts"?

Edited by Auburn88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like from your OP the other board is the issue.

Not at all. He's been dealt with on the other board.

 

What I'm doing is bringing his complaint here to ask the moderators to investigate it and, if warranted, to punish my alleged violation of the rules.

 

That seems fair, doesn't it? I mean, I'm not above the rules, am I? If his accusation is true, shouldn't it be addressed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The thing about investigating does not necessarily mean you don't have more than one account. 

The mods or administrators would have to know other factors as well.  For instance, if you change your ISP, your IP also changes... which means a different IP.  One could sign up under one name and then change IP's and sign up under an entirely different name without being detected.   Or, signing on using a different name while visiting a different location, such as a hospital or library.

Am I accusing you of doing such?  Not at all.  I am just pointing out the fact that one can put multiple names on a board without being detected using several methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about investigating does not necessarily mean you don't have more than one account. 

The mods or administrators would have to know other factors as well.  For instance, if you change your ISP, your IP also changes... which means a different IP.  One could sign up under one name and then change IP's and sign up under an entirely different name without being detected.   Or, signing on using a different name while visiting a different location, such as a hospital or library.

Am I accusing you of doing such?  Not at all.  I am just pointing out the fact that one can put multiple names on a board without being detected using several methods.

 

Maybe. But I would rather know if they believe I have one or not. Unfortunately, all I have is their word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I didn't deem it necessary to even bother responding to this because I have refused to allow members like this to interrupt the cohesiveness of believers on this forum. The atmosphere on this forum is pleasant, productive and fruitful. There are many different views on here and sometimes debates get heated, but everyone here has made a habit of holding each other accountable, and at OB, we have a fellowship here that works.

 

The atmosphere of BB is vitriolic, spiteful, vengeful, some racism,and is antagonist toward those who do not agree with Calvinism. It is an experience that all of the Non Calvinist have complained about and they have recently begun to "fight back" to the point where it is being referred to as a forum revolution blamed on me.

 

Evidence was shown here, and on the other forum of Auburn88's tactics, and he was shown to be the instigator. I can show links on the BB where Auburn has degraded me on threads that I didn't even participate on. And it is clear that his intention is to cause strife and discord in an attempt to interrupt the cohesiveness of like-minded believers who are in agreement against doctrines that he doesn't approve of.

 

On the BB, the mods did not and have not reprimanded me, they did not close MY thread but someone elses, and the "stern warning" from the admin there was directed at EVERY ONE, not just one person in particular. But, why that is somehow relevant to this forum to me shows the true spirit behind Auburn's intentions. If he truly wanted a moderator to prove he had only one account, he could have PM'd Matt to ask for such instead of making a public spectacle out of an issue that he is angry about on another forum. 

 

I personally would have never raised the issue had Auburn not mentioned my posts and actions on this forum where he attempted to convince others on the BB that I "act like an Arminian" on the OB. This entire fiasco is a caricature created by Auburn, and then when he thought he provoked the response he was looking for, he attempted to play the victim. It didn't work when he tried it here, so then he began to throw my name all over the BB, as I said, in posts that I was not even a part of and of which had nothing to do with me. (I will provide proof of this to anyone that asks in a PM, including Mods if they want to see it).

 

I and several others have our suspicions that Auburn has more than one account. When he first commented me on the thread about "New Argument Against Calvinism" Post 29, he used a pejorative jab referring to me as a Catholic. Mind you, I had never previously had ANY interaction with him, nor on BB, nor any other forum. This was his very FIRST comment to me. At the time, his account had 10 posts on it. Ten posts in the 3 years he has had the account. It now has 139 posts since he has used it often to ridicule Non Calvinists on here and criticize the believers on OB for being "unkind" "judgmental" "unchristian" because we disagree with Calvinism.

 

Having multiple accounts like that serves a good purpose from someone who wants to continue debating with their regular account without risking it being banned, by usurping the flow of threads with a "throw away" account.

 

Is being accused of having more than one account under such circumstances the worst possible accusation that could be levied against Auburn? He seems to think so. But one thing is clear, and I can prove it, and others have already seen the evidence for themselves and weighed in on the matter, that Auburn88, regardless of who he is, started the conflict me, and is not satisfied that I have chosen to ignore him on THIS forum and thus has endeavored to find underhanded ways to try getting under my skin to provoke me here. I refuse to allow him to provoke me here in an attempt to turn the OB into a free-for-all that he is used to on other forums. 

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't deem it necessary to even bother responding to this because I have refused to allow members like this to interrupt the cohesiveness of believers on this forum. The atmosphere on this forum is pleasant, productive and fruitful. There are many different views on here and sometimes debates get heated, but everyone here has made a habit of holding each other accountable, and at OB, we have a fellowship here that works.

 

The atmosphere of BB is vitriolic, spiteful, vengeful, some racism,and is antagonist toward those who do not agree with Calvinism. It is an experience that all of the Non Calvinist have complained about and they have recently begun to "fight back" to the point where it is being referred to as a forum revolution blamed on me.

 

Evidence was shown here, and on the other forum of Auburn88's tactics, and he was shown to be the instigator. I can show links on the BB where Auburn has degraded me on threads that I didn't even participate on. And it is clear that his intention is to cause strife and discord in an attempt to interrupt the cohesiveness of like-minded believers who are in agreement against doctrines that he doesn't approve of.

 

On the BB, the mods did not and have not reprimanded me, they did not close MY thread but someone elses, and the "stern warning" from the admin there was directed at EVERY ONE, not just one person in particular. But, why that is somehow relevant to this forum to me shows the true spirit behind Auburn's intentions. If he truly wanted a moderator to prove he had only one account, he could have PM'd Matt to ask for such instead of making a public spectacle out of an issue that he is angry about on another forum. 

 

I personally would have never raised the issue had Auburn not mentioned my posts and actions on this forum where he attempted to convince others on the BB that I "act like an Arminian" on the OB. This entire fiasco is a caricature created by Auburn, and then when he thought he provoked the response he was looking for, he attempted to play the victim. It didn't work when he tried it here, so then he began to throw my name all over the BB, as I said, in posts that I was not even a part of and of which had nothing to do with me. (I will provide proof of this to anyone that asks in a PM, including Mods if they want to see it).

 

I and several others have our suspicions that Auburn has more than one account. When he first commented me on the thread about "New Argument Against Calvinism" Post 29, he used a pejorative jab referring to me as a Catholic. Mind you, I had never previously had ANY interaction with him, nor on BB, nor any other forum. This was his very FIRST comment to me. At the time, his account had 10 posts on it. Ten posts in the 3 years he has had the account. It now has 139 posts since he has used it often to ridicule Non Calvinists on here and criticize the believers on OB for being "unkind" "judgmental" "unchristian" because we disagree with Calvinism.

 

Having multiple accounts like that serves a good purpose from someone who wants to continue debating with their regular account without risking it being banned, by usurping the flow of threads with a "throw away" account.

a]

Is being accused of having more than one account under such circumstances the worst possible accusation that could be levied against Auburn? He seems to think so. But one thing is clear, and I can prove it, and others have already seen the evidence for themselves and weighed in on the matter, that Auburn88, regardless of who he is, started the conflict me, and is not satisfied that I have chosen to ignore him on THIS forum and thus has endeavored to find underhanded ways to try getting under my skin to provoke me here. I refuse to allow him to provoke me here in an attempt to turn the OB into a free-for-all that he is used to on other forums. 

In other words, you lied. Just like your father, the Father or Lies, you lied.

 

Where is your evidence that I have "numerous accounts"? What are the names on these alleged accounts? If what you're saying is true, then why aren't the moderators and administrators taking your charges seriously?

 

The only basis you seem to have for your slander and false witness is that I allegedly only had three posts in ten years. How is that evidence?

 

That's not unreasonable at all. This board has very few members (most likely because people passing by see hateful little trolls like you and decide to  skip it). You do realize, don't you, that there are entire forums on this message board that don't receive new posts for weeks or even months at a time.

 

You, yourself, don't even respond to them. So, given that most of them, I don't find interesting enough to post to in the first place. So why is it that unreasonable that I don't post here as often as some others? Is it really damning evidence to you that I have a life outside of the internet? Tthat I'm not such a social pariah that people in the real world actually want to interact with me? If you can't imagine a life away from message boards, then you need to see a doctor about that.

 

Bottom line: Even the moderators aren't taking your charges seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Auburn, your accusation of Dr Ach being of the devil is uncalled for.  You made false accusations about him on the other board before he even said anything about you.  Get the beam out of your own eye before you try to get a speck out of someone else's.

As to the moderators doing anything, they will.  Maybe you need to cool off before their actions are directed toward you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In other words, you lied. Just like your father, the Father or Lies, you lied.

 

Where is your evidence that I have "numerous accounts"? What are the names on these alleged accounts? If what you're saying is true, then why aren't the moderators and administrators taking your charges seriously?

 

The only basis you seem to have for your slander and false witness is that I allegedly only had three posts in ten years. How is that evidence?

 

That's not unreasonable at all. This board has very few members (most likely because people passing by see hateful little trolls like you and decide to  skip it). You do realize, don't you, that there are entire forums on this message board that don't receive new posts for weeks or even months at a time.

 

You, yourself, don't even respond to them. So, given that most of them, I don't find interesting enough to post to in the first place. So why is it that unreasonable that I don't post here as often as some others? Is it really damning evidence to you that I have a life outside of the internet? Tthat I'm not such a social pariah that people in the real world actually want to interact with me? If you can't imagine a life away from message boards, then you need to see a doctor about that.

 

Bottom line: Even the moderators aren't taking your charges seriously.

Ummm...I can't speak for the moderators, but if they aren't responding it's probably because I NEVER MADE A CHARGE! LOL It is something you made a big deal out of ON ANOTHER FORUM and BROUGHT IT HERE, so there's nothing for them to investigate. 

 

But, just look at how you started your comment, by calling my father Satan. I'm pretty sure that not only is that against the OB rules, but is quite un-Christian, and says everything in support of the accusations against you for being vitriolic, and with that being said, I'll let Matt handle it from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Oh and just for everyone here, I finally did receive an infraction on the other forum for "slandering" the NIV. I welcome an infraction like that as a badge of honor, and if anyone would like to complain about it to them, I'll say it again on here:

 

Question: What Bible Version Do You Use?

 

Dr James Ach: The KJV when I want the truth, the NIV when I want to roast marshmallows.

 

That's what I was infracted for and in celebration of that infraction, I'm going to go to the bookstore and buy a 5$ NIV and ROAST SOME MARSHMALLOWS!

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh and just for everyone here, I finally did receive an infraction on the other forum for "slandering" the NIV. I welcome an infraction like that as a badge of honor, and if anyone would like to complain about it to them, I'll say it again on here:

 

Question: What Bible Version Do You Use?

 

Dr James Ach: The KJV when I want the truth, the NIV when I want to roast marshmallows.

 

That's what I was infracted for and in celebration of that infraction, I'm going to go to the bookstore and buy a 5$ NIV and ROAST SOME MARSHMALLOWS!

I read that post on the other board.  LOL  Dr Bob wasn't too happy about it. 

I am sure the NIV makes good fuel for roasting Marshmallows or Frankfurters.  LOL.

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, 16 Guests (See full list)

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