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.

The Purification Approach To The Kjv


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

There are people that believe that this is prophetic with regards to the KJV. They feel that the various printings are purifications (for example some think the Oxford 1769 printing is one purification) and that there will be a final error free printing. So AV 1611 would be the first .... Oxford 1769 another ... etc.

That is, the KJV was complete and perfect from the beginning but there is a purification process with the printed representations of the KJV that will result in a jot and tittle perfect printed text after the seventh printing. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

There are people that believe that this is prophetic with regards to the KJV. They feel that the various printings are purifications (for example some think the Oxford 1769 printing is one purification) and that there will be a final error free printing. So AV 1611 would be the first .... Oxford 1769 another ... etc.

That is, the KJV was complete and perfect from the beginning but there is a purification process with the printed representations of the KJV that will result in a jot and tittle perfect printed text after the seventh printing. What do you think?

I never heard the teaching applied to the various editions of the KJV or companies involved in printing the KJV. It has been applied to the seven major English versions of the bible culminating in the KJV.

 

1) Tyndale's

 

2) Matthew's

 

3) Coverdale's

 

4) Great Bible

 

5) Geneva

 

6) Bishop's

 

7) King James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I never heard the teaching applied to the various editions of the KJV or companies involved in printing the KJV. It has been applied to the seven major English versions of the bible culminating in the KJV.

 

1) Tyndale's

 

2) Matthew's

 

3) Coverdale's

 

4) Great Bible

 

5) Geneva

 

6) Bishop's

 

7) King James

If this or the other were to be true then in order for the Word to be consistent, the same would have to apply for each translation into each language.

 

Psalm 12:6 is simply making an emphatic statement as to the purity, the sureness, the trustworthiness of the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

There are people that believe that this is prophetic with regards to the KJV. They feel that the various printings are purifications (for example some think the Oxford 1769 printing is one purification) and that there will be a final error free printing. So AV 1611 would be the first .... Oxford 1769 another ... etc.

That is, the KJV was complete and perfect from the beginning but there is a purification process with the printed representations of the KJV that will result in a jot and tittle perfect printed text after the seventh printing. What do you think?

I think it is balony.  :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If this or the other were to be true then in order for the Word to be consistent, the same would have to apply for each translation into each language.

 

Psalm 12:6 is simply making an emphatic statement as to the purity, the sureness, the trustworthiness of the Word of God.

Not necessarily. The argument is that God wasn't obligated to preserve his word in every language. Just like the original inspiration of scripture only came in one language, i.e. koine Greek, (talking NT here) then God was only obligated to preserve it in one language, i.e. English. The argument is carried further by saying that since koine Greek is a dead language and English is the "universal language" then logically that would be the language God chose to purify and preserve his word. Also, the fact that the English bible has produced the most fruit the last 500 years would confirm the position that it's the preserved word of God.

 

A lot of this is hard to prove. Really, it can't be proven scripturally only practically and perhaps through through mss research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not necessarily. The argument is that God wasn't obligated to preserve his word in every language. Just like the original inspiration of scripture only came in one language, i.e. koine Greek, (talking NT here) then God was only obligated to preserve it in one language, i.e. English. The argument is carried further by saying that since koine Greek is a dead language and English is the "universal language" then logically that would be the language God chose to purify and preserve his word. Also, the fact that the English bible has produced the most fruit the last 500 years would confirm the position that it's the preserved word of God.

 

A lot of this is hard to prove. Really, it can't be proven scripturally only practically and perhaps through through mss research.

That doesn't seem to hold water. Scripture doesn't say God's Word will only be preserved in one language. While the KJB has a solid track record, translations in other languages do too.

 

Actually the universal language is American English, certainly not the kings English from over 500 years ago, so that point doesn't fit. There is also the point that American English is slipping from it's top spot, just as the American dollar is slipping.

 

In any event, in its context, Psalm 12:6 is simply making an emphatic statement as to the purity, the sureness, the trustworthiness of the Word of God; not putting forth a formula for the translation of the Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That doesn't seem to hold water. Scripture doesn't say God's Word will only be preserved in one language. While the KJB has a solid track record, translations in other languages do too.

 

Actually the universal language is American English, certainly not the kings English from over 500 years ago, so that point doesn't fit. There is also the point that American English is slipping from it's top spot, just as the American dollar is slipping.

 

In any event, in its context, Psalm 12:6 is simply making an emphatic statement as to the purity, the sureness, the trustworthiness of the Word of God; not putting forth a formula for the translation of the Word.

Yes, but the argument of the bible correctors is that God only inspired his word in the "original languages" and therefore they keep the words of God bound up in a dead language that not even the Greeks speak or read anymore and which only they (the bible correctors) can truly understand. Which of course none of them can agree on (they are always adding or changing the meaning of the Greek words). The bible linguists become like priests at the Latin Mass speaking a dead language nobody can understand and the "layman" waits for them to explain the true meaning of the words.

 

 So what is the difference between what they teach and what this teaching is. Where does it say in scripture that God only could give his word or preserve his word without error in the original languages (notice I didn't say "original manuscripts/autographs" because now they say "original languages/ tongues" which is not quite the same)?

 

As far as the "American English" vs the King's English I think you are splitting hairs here. They are still both modern English, the KJV being Early Modern English. English is far from slipping. Even now the Chinese are making it a mandatory language to learn in their schools and France has apparently spent billions of euros to get people to learn their language as opposed to English but people still choose English. It's the language of the UN, the Olympics and universal travel. The dollar might slip and America might crumble but the language will be around until the Second Coming.

 

You might be right about Psalm 12:6 being a emphatic statement or a Hebrew expression concerning purity, but than again maybe not. I'm not really sure which it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know enough of any other language to check these matters myself. A few folks that I know, and trust, who can, speak of some translations they know in other languages as being the preserved Word of God just as they believe the KJB is. They will readily point out that there are some translations in some languages that are poor translations, naturally they don't see these as the preserved Word of God any more than they do the corrupted English MVs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I never heard the teaching applied to the various editions of the KJV or companies involved in printing the KJV. It has been applied to the seven major English versions of the bible culminating in the KJV.

 

1) Tyndale's

 

2) Matthew's

 

3) Coverdale's

 

4) Great Bible

 

5) Geneva

 

6) Bishop's

 

7) King James

In the following video a similar list is given at 3 min 39 seconds then at 4 min 42 seconds he gives a list of King James Bible revisions claiming the last on the list is the final purification, I'll type his list here:

 

1) 1611 He

 

2) 1611 She

 

3) 1613

 

4) Cambridge 1629

 

5) Cambridge 1638

 

6) Oxford 1769

 

7) Pure Cambridge Edition

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In the following video a similar list is given at 3 min 39 seconds then at 4 min 42 seconds he gives a list of King James Bible revisions claiming the last on the list is the final purification, I'll type his list here:

 

1) 1611 He

 

2) 1611 She

 

3) 1613

 

4) Cambridge 1629

 

5) Cambridge 1638

 

6) Oxford 1769

 

7) Pure Cambridge Edition

 

1. "or Sheba" not "and Sheba" in Joshua 19:2 
2. "sin" not "sins" in 2 Chronicles 33:19 
3. "Spirit of God" not "spirit of God" in Job 33:4 
4. "whom ye" not "whom he" in Jeremiah 34:16 
5. "Spirit of God" not "spirit of God" in Ezekiel 11:24 
6. "flieth" not "fleeth" in Nahum 3:16 
7. "Spirit" not "spirit" in Matthew 4:1 
8. "further" not "farther" in Matthew 26:39 
9. "bewrayeth" not "betrayeth" in Matthew 26:73 
10. "Spirit" not "spirit" in Mark 1:12 
11. "spirit" not "Spirit" in Acts 11:28 
12. "spirit" not "Spirit" in 1 John 5:8 

 

Sorry, but I don't see either one as being in error.

 

For example:

 

"Bewray" is just an archaic word meaning "betray".

 

The root of the English word "flee" means to "fly".

 

"Spirit" or "spirit"? Really, either can be used. In I John 5:8 the "spirit" that bears testimony on earth is the regenerated spirit of man through the Spirit of God. If you doubt this check out John 3 where Jesus speaks of the "water and the Spirit".

 

 "Sin" or "sins". We all know that the word "sin" can also refer to sins collectively like in the statement, "Christ bore my sin on the cross". Well, Christ bore all my sins on the cross (John 1:29)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually, I found a total 14 distinguishing "marks" on his website. Then I checked them against 8 texts (2 local church/ministry supported King James Bibles, KJV 1611, 1637 Cambridge, 1728 KJV published by Baskett, 1769 Oxford,  1840 KJV edition published for the American Bible Society, and an original 1909 Scofield) How about I post them on separate threads one at a time? Some may be interested because most contemporary King James Bibles differ here:

Joshua 19:2, 2 Chron 33:19, Ezra 2:26, Job 30:6, Job 33:4, Jer 34:16, Ezek 11:24, Nahum 3:16, Matt 4:1, Matt 26:39, Matt 26:73, Mark 1:12, Acts 11:28, and 1 John 5:8

 

One reason this is important is explained in this slightly long (36 min) video:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To imply what one person has decided is pure, the "PCE" is to infer that all other KJV Bibles are not.   Nonsense. 

One person building an Ark was nonsense too. But I am with the Ark builder. Some things are spiritually discerned and between the individual and God. To say Pure in refence to Psalms refers "purified 7 times over" as being prophetic. If some believe that then what is that to thee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

One person building an Ark was nonsense too. But I am with the Ark builder. Some things are spiritually discerned and between the individual and God. To say Pure in refence to Psalms refers "purified 7 times over" as being prophetic. If some believe that then what is that to thee?

 

That person was directed by God and I don't think it was nonsense.  When an uneducated person decides what is pure that is nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Chick and Gipp nail it:

 

http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=05.htm

 

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp?FROM=biblecenter

 

http://www.chick.com/bc/2001/cantbelieveit.asp?FROM=biblecenter - This has been true in my life and in those around me.  The worldliest Christians are vehemently opposed to the King James Bible, like the devil himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The links aren't posting right, I'll put the vimeo channel with Gipps videos underneath:

 

part 2 is

which can be downloaded;

mobile:

/download?t=1375959384&v=102668201&s=3fe191c6f12698ef404df43d89603ff4

HD:

/download?t=1375959384&v=102670441&s=521c1b4158e602ecb2f85ced04aad2ad

SD:

/download?t=1375959384&v=102668911&s=00e1b83980745f02ba5d57cf0f25c094

 

http://bigdealKJv.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 13 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...