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.

Duck Dynasty Patriarch Suspended


Recommended Posts

  • Members

After an interview with GQ magazine, Phil Robertson, the Duck Dynasty patriarch was suspended indefinitely from the popular television show that has millions of viewers worldwide.

Phil Robertson commented to the GQ interviewer that homosexual behavior was just not logical.  This could not be tolerated by A&E Network, a strong supporter of the LGBT community. 

I have a feeling the Duck Dynasty show will be going downhill pretty fast.  Learning that they support sodomy, I can no longer support them by promoting any shows they air.

Read of Phil's suspension here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I tried to post this and Phil's reply to the matter but I can't post copy/paste on OB for some reason.

 

There is no tolerance from the "tolerance" crowd when it comes to anything they disagree with, and that goes a hundredfold when what they disagree with is biblical.

 

A&E just couldn't wait to announce they don't agree with the biblical view espoused by Phil and to declare themselves longtime supporters of various sexual perversions (which are all sin).

 

It might be interesting to see how this plays out. If the rest of the family refuses to do new episodes without Phil will the network drop the "suspension" or will they risk losing their top rated program and all the money that would cost them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They don't want to lose their sodomite audience and support, so more than likely if the Duck Dynasty show goes downhill (which is what I think will happen) A&E will try to work up another show that might attract viewers.

To tell the truth, I hope the Network loses so many viewers after their suspending Phil that the network fades into nothingness.

The Robertson family is a tight-knit family, so I do not think Jase, Jeb, Alan & Willie will be as enthusiastic to do shows after the suspension of their dad.  And more than likely, the viewers will see less of Miss Kay too.  She sticks with her husband, so I am sure she is not going to be too happy herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I agree, the rest of the family won't agree to the network tossing fill to the wolves and then going on without him as if nothing has happened. They already took a stand previously when the network tried to force them to stop using the name of Jesus and tried to get them to stop having the family meal and prayer at the end of episodes. The family made it very clear they would not stop being themselves when it comes to their faith and told the network if they insisted upon dropping Jesus and prayer, the show was done. The network backed down.

 

No doubt the homosexual audience for that show is exceedingly small, and most likely most of their fans won't jump ship over this issue. If A&E cans the show and rejects the fans, they could take a very large hit and nothing the pro-homosexual groups could do would make up for that.

 

I agree it would be great to see A&E gone; it's another of those networks which started as one thing and as soon as they gained an audience turned into something totally different; and not in a good way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

There's a major petition circulating which already has almost 40,000 signatures demanding that A&E bring Phil back.  Glenn Beck has offered to bring the show to Blaze.  I'm thinking A&E bit off more than they can chew on this one.  I hope the backlash is so strong that A&E's bottom line ($$$) suffers.   :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

God is love.  But God is also just.  His Word states that it is abomination for man to lie with mankind.  His Word further states all that work abominations will have their part in the lake of fire.

Sodomites can continue to deceive themselves into believing that God is not going to judge them for the abominable practice of man lying with man, but it will happen nonetheless.

God cannot lie.  He has stated that man lying with man is an abomination to Him.  It is just as much an abomination today as it was when God told Moses it was in 1450 B.C..

While I do not agree with Phil Robertson's religious denomination, I wholeheartedly agree with him in his stand for what the Word of God teaches concerning sodomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Not sure why people are so enamoured with this show. Its great they profess Christ and pray, but so did Edgar Cayce. They are millionaires, and more so due to the show and the subsequent merchandising. yet they wear their hair like women, meaning, if you understand your Bibles, they aren't fit to give all those much-lauded prayers on their show.  On top of that, they aligned themselves with a wicked TV station, ignoring the biblical call to separate from the wicked-instead they signed a contract, then get mad when the devil they contracted with demands they do something against their faith.

 

I just have a hard time feeling sorry for them. They will cry all the way to the bank with all the new publicity this will give them. Then they can go and sign a contract with the other devil, Glen Beck, the mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not sure why people are so enamoured with this show. Its great they profess Christ and pray, but so did Edgar Cayce. They are millionaires, and more so due to the show and the subsequent merchandising. yet they wear their hair like women, meaning, if you understand your Bibles, they aren't fit to give all those much-lauded prayers on their show.  On top of that, they aligned themselves with a wicked TV station, ignoring the biblical call to separate from the wicked-instead they signed a contract, then get mad when the devil they contracted with demands they do something against their faith.

 

I just have a hard time feeling sorry for them. They will cry all the way to the bank with all the new publicity this will give them. Then they can go and sign a contract with the other devil, Glen Beck, the mormon.

 

I feel about the same way.

 

And of course if they believe the teachings of the coC, they are not saved, they are still lost in their sins. There's only one way a person can be saved, & its only by grce though faith in Jesus, not of self, not of works, & the coC teaches works based salvation.

 

After hearing about this the wife & I talked about it. My first thought was, will his boys keep doing the show.

 

We know they are money hungry because of the wine deal.

 

With that said many profession Christian have gone crazy over them, & support their every way. Perhaps many of them thinks the fame & or money will rub off on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I still cant' quote, so bear with me.

 

Thus far, I've not heard any of the Robertson's "crying" about any of this.

 

From what I've read, this really has little to do with who likes or dislikes the show (or just doesn't care), it's a matter of various groups attacking this particular man for saying what he said and citing what Scripture says about various sins and saying he believes the Bible.

 

This isn't an attack upon Phil, or Duck Dynasty, it's an attack upon the Word of God and the God of the Bible.

 

Sadly, I've heard several so-called conservatives and professing Christians saying Phil shouldn't have said what he did, should have known better than to have quoted the Bible, or that they outright don't agree with the Bible (though they were careful to say they disagree with Phil, rather than having the guts to admit or face the fact they are disagreeing with the Bible (and therefore God) on the matter of homosexuality; as well as other sexual perversions and sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know how you would come to that conclusion.

 

The Robertsons, especially Phil, has been very open and outspoken regarding their biblical beliefs.

 

At the same time, A&E has been very clear in trying to distance themselves from non-PC things regarding Duck Dynasty and the Robertsons.

 

What this sounds like is what was almost inevitable to happen. That is, anti-Christian folks and promoters of perversion just watching and waiting for one of the Robertsons to say something they believe they can turn into a firestorm that will get them off TV.

 

Since the show first began (and it was A&E that sought out the Robertsons to do the show, not the other way around) there have been calls to rid the show of prayer, the use of Jesus name, and to get rid of the guns.

 

While A&E is PC, they are also greedy. They attempted to force the Robertsons to drop those things but when the family said "no", the network backed down. Still the liberal and perverse Left has continued to make demands and seek ways to be rid of the show where the name of Jesus is respectfully used and prayers are offered before a meal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is probably going to backfire on the network. The media has been pushing hard for homosexuality to be completely accepted as "normal" and to frame all those who disagree as "bad" people and bigots some time. While they have made significant strides toward shifting public opinion to match their point of view they are not all together there yet. They are overreaching on this one as the biblical point of view on homosexuality that he expressed is not yet as widely rejected and despised as they wish it would be. There are still a lot of even completely secular people who find it disgusting and morally objectionable even though they may not have the nerve to say so publicly.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I still cant' quote, so bear with me.

 

Thus far, I've not heard any of the Robertson's "crying" about any of this.

 

From what I've read, this really has little to do with who likes or dislikes the show (or just doesn't care), it's a matter of various groups attacking this particular man for saying what he said and citing what Scripture says about various sins and saying he believes the Bible.

 

This isn't an attack upon Phil, or Duck Dynasty, it's an attack upon the Word of God and the God of the Bible.

 

Sadly, I've heard several so-called conservatives and professing Christians saying Phil shouldn't have said what he did, should have known better than to have quoted the Bible, or that they outright don't agree with the Bible (though they were careful to say they disagree with Phil, rather than having the guts to admit or face the fact they are disagreeing with the Bible (and therefore God) on the matter of homosexuality; as well as other sexual perversions and sins.

 

Of course, there's many Christians, even pastors, even Sunday school teachers that would say, "Don't say that." And they be in every brand of church there is on the face of this earth.

 

We have had many presidents who claimed to be true Christians, yet they never use the great platform they have to spread the truth of the Word.

 

Paul, he had a big platform & he used it to preach the truth, much more so than to defend himself. He let Christ live though him, daily.

 

I once had a friend that was of the coC & he clearly said, Bible teachings are for home & church only, & should be left in the home & church, & not proclaimed publicly.

 

The person who is bent like that does not do this.

 

Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

 

They refuse to let Chris live though them, its all about I. Of course many of these people when they attend church they will say & do all the right things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes there are many professing Christians who believe it's okay to call yourself a Christian, but all that "religious stuff" should be kept private. This has long been a widespread belief among many Christians in America.

 

Over the years I've had many tell me that I shouldn't say what the Bible says, or even that it's not practical for us to try and live according to the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how you would come to that conclusion.

 

After this amount of publicity, do you think that more people will watch the show or less?  


Money is A&E's motivator.  Viewers mean dollars.  More viewers, more dollars. 

 

That is how I come to my conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The problem is, the support is mostly going toward Phil, not A&E. Most Phil supporters are not going to praise or give any more support to A&E if they bring Phil back, but A&E will lose their PC friends and risk attack from them.

 

In the meantime, the "brand" that will gain the most from this will be the Robertsons, not A&E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Robertson Family Releases Statement on A&E Decision to Suspend Phil Robertson

 

"We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. '

 

They seem to be saying without Phil there will be no show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...