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.

Sabbath Worship?


DaveW
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 years later...
On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2014 at 8:04 PM, DaveW said:


Now there are other passages that show that these Christians met on all sorts of days, but the Bible is quite plain that organised meetings were absolutely definitely held on Sundays.

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a worship service or day of rest.  And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't even believe that the resurrection had taken place.  

The Acts reference has them together very likely because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The "breaking of bread" could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 2/9/2018 at 3:43 AM, rstrats said:

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a worship service or day of rest.  And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't even believe that the resurrection had taken place.  

The Acts reference has them together very likely because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The "breaking of bread" could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.
 

And yet, there are NO references to believers gathering an other day for the purpose of corporate worship. The reference in Acts 20 indicates, in the context, that this was a common thing, to meet and break bread on the first day-Paul happened to be there then, and met with them. And since they met 'to break bread', this more likely refers to the Lord's Supper. Everything about the reference indicates this was an assembly of believers for worship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
43 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

And yet, there are NO references to believers gathering an other day for the purpose of corporate worship. The reference in Acts 20 indicates, in the context, that this was a common thing, to meet and break bread on the first day-Paul happened to be there then, and met with them. And since they met 'to break bread', this more likely refers to the Lord's Supper. Everything about the reference indicates this was an assembly of believers for worship. 

I agree, but nowhere as far as I can see is that they used the 1st day as a day if rest,  Not to say they didn't, but I don't think it says so,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 5:02 PM, Ukulelemike said:

 (see below)


re:  "And yet, there are NO references to believers gathering an other day for the purpose of corporate worship."
 
Nor are there any indisputable references to believers gathering on the first day of the week for the purpose of corporate worship.
 
 
 
 
re: "The reference in Acts 20 indicates, in the context, that this was a common thing, to meet and break bread on the first day..."
 
How does the context show that it was common to observe the Lord's Supper on every first day of the week?
 
And again,  The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840." 
 
But even if it did always mean the Lord's Supper, Acts 2:46 says that the believers broke bread every day which removes any special importance with regard to the first day of the week. 
 
Also, a further explanation taken from B Ward Powers’ First Corinthians - An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary: 
 
"The expression 'the breaking of bread' found in Acts 2 was commonly used amongst the Jews to refer to the sharing of a meal in conscious religious fellowship, and this usage is found in the New Testament, not least in the Gospel by the same author as Acts and even elsewhere in the Acts."
 
"The significance of the religious aspect of the breaking of bread would be greatly heightened for the disciples in the light of the Last Supper, but this is not the same as saying that they held a ritual meal deliberately re-enacting the Last Supper in ­conscious obedience to the command of Christ, commemorating his death through eating bread and drinking a cup; and these features would be necessary if we are to regard the 'breaking of bread' as equating with the Lord’s Supper."
 
"Rather, the evidence indicates that in the New Testament the expression 'the breaking of bread' or 'broke bread' refers to the usual Jewish practice of prayer with which a hunger-satisfying meal commenced. When we recognize that references to the breaking of bread are not references to the Lord’s Supper, we see the significance of what we learn from Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians."
 
Edited by rstrats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It is to my dismay that most churches forget the true purpose of why there are even local churches at all to begin with regardless of what day they decide to assemble on. The key thing is the PURPOSE of assembly: teaching and learning the truth and the mutual encouragement which comes from sharing the truth.  Since most local churches do not teach the truth as their reason for existing -- and in fact for the most part what little they do teach is usually either wrong or seriously flawed -- it doesn't matter if they meet Sunday or Saturday or every day.  For most, Paul's stricture against the Corinthians applies: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse." (1 Cor.11:17; cf. Is.1:11-12; Amos 5:21; Mal.1:10).

Edited by (Omega)
Grammer and words
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • Members
On 2/13/2018 at 11:35 PM, Ukulelemike said:

I agree: there was no "Christian" Sabbath

I think Acts 14 demonstrates that Paul did much preaching in the synagogues on the sabbath. He certainly built churches on the sabbath. Maybe Saturday should be "soul-winning day".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, BobbyH said:

I think Acts 14 demonstrates that Paul did much preaching in the synagogues on the sabbath. He certainly built churches on the sabbath. Maybe Saturday should be "soul-winning day".

Hmmmmmm - I wonder why Paul preached in the Synagogues on the Sabbath?

He absolutely did - in fact it was his manner.....

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

So why did Paul choose to preach to the Jews in the Synagogue on the Sabbath and not some other day?

How many people would he be preaching to on say a Friday?

Or a Tuesday?

Paul's manner, his normal way of things, was to go to the Jews first in every town he went to, and to preach in the Synagogue. The people gathered at the Synagogue on the Sabbath day.

So Paul preached in the Synagogues when there were people in them. 

Something I hinted at, but not state plainly in my first post is that a church can meet on any day, but it cannot be commanded to meet on the Sabbath.

ANY DAY is a good day to worship the Lord.

There are however examples of churches meeting on the first day of the week - specifically mentioning the first day of the week.

There are NO OTHER days are specifically mentioned, although the Bible does say things like "daily".

If we would choose a single day to hold our regular church services, all the weight falls upon Sunday as the first day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact:   No where does scripture say that anyone met on the 1st day of the week for rest and worship, much less that they did it on a recurring basis.  

Fact:  No where does scripture ever say that the Sabbath commandment was rescinded.  

Seems as far as scripture in concerned that there is no scriptural reason for thinking that the status quo didn't remain in place. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Fact: the ONLY day that is specifically mentioned as having a church service OF ANY SORT, is the first day.

That DOESN'T mean that a church service HAS to be on the first day. In fact there are references to churches meeting daily, so apparently ANY DAY is OK to have a church service.

But there is another FACT: Nowhere is it commanded to have a church service on the Sabbath day.

If certain people want to ignore what the Bible says about meetings happening on the first day, then that is their right, but you cannot force a Christian to observe the Sabbath day and you cannot restrict the chosen day of worship from being the first day of the week.

A church should meet on whatever day suits them the best - regardless of what some people say, there is INDICATION that the first day of the week was a day that some churches met on, so if you want to follow their example, then go right ahead.

Traditionally it was convenient to meet on a Sunday because the majority of western nations recognised it as a day for church, and since there is no biblical prohibition against it, Sunday is as good as any other day.

Fact: God gave commandment about this matter:

Col 2:16-17
(16)  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
(17)  Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Meet whatever day you like for church, but do not judge those who do not keep the Sabbath as YOU want them to.

Bible folks..... it is kinda important to read it.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveW,
re:  "Fact: the ONLY day that is specifically mentioned as having a church service OF ANY SORT, is the first day. That DOESN'T mean that a church service HAS to be on the first day. In fact there are references to churches meeting daily, so apparently ANY DAY is OK to have a church service."

And that is all I'm trying to point out; that as far as scripture is concerned, there is nothing special about the 1st day of the week. I think there may be some who think that scripture says that there is.  

 re:  "...FACT: Nowhere is it commanded to have a church service on the Sabbath day."

Again, I was merely pointing out that scripture is silent with regard to a repeal of the 4th commandment (3rd if you're RC).  
 

Edited by rstrats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, rstrats said:

Fact:   No where does scripture say that anyone met on the 1st day of the week for rest and worship, much less that they did it on a recurring basis.  

Fact:  No where does scripture ever say that the Sabbath commandment was rescinded.  

Seems as far as scripture in concerned that there is no scriptural reason for thinking that the status quo didn't remain in place. 
 

I beg to differ.

First, you are trying to make your own facts, using your own reasoning, to make a forced interpretation. You are judging us by your own two "facts." Whether or not there is a scripture verse, as you say, "rescinding" worshipping on the Sabbath day is immaterial to the saints in the New Testament church.

Also, It seems to me that you are making it an issue, and judging us, to require the New Testament saint to worship on the Jewish Sabbath: Saturday, the sixth day. And, to state that the "status quo" is still in place. To me, this is a forced interpretation, an error, not binding on any saint, and is against the words of Paul the Apostle in Colossians 2:16

Did not Paul plainly state, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Colossians 2:16

Like the Seventh Day Adventists, it seems to me that you are forcing your own interpretations on the Sabbath issue and judging those who do not worship on the Sabbath.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, rstrats said:

Seems as far as scripture in concerned that there is no scriptural reason for thinking that the status quo didn't remain in place. 

1 hour ago, rstrats said:

Again, I was merely pointing out that scripture is silent with regard to a repeal of the 4th commandment (3rd if you're RC).  

As Alan pointed out just above, this is incorrect.  Colossians 2:16-17 states, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moons, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."  This New Testament passage speaks concerning a series of subjects that existed under the Old Testament Law --

1.  Meat requirements.
2.  Drink requirements.
3.  Holyday requirements.
4.  New moon (sacrifice) requirements.
5.  Sabbath day requirements.

This passage teaches us the following about these subjects that existed under the Old Testament Law --

1.  No New Testament believer is to be judged in relation to these matters.  (Thus they are NOT a New Testament requirement.)
2.  These Old Testament matters were only a SHADOW of things to come in the New Testament.  (Thus they were to be replaced by the New Testament reality.)
3.  The body of Christ (the church) has now come as the New Testament reality.  (Thus the New Testament church, having come, has now replaced the Old Testament shadow.)

________________________________________________________

Concerning the first day of the week, Sunday --

1.  Our Lord Jesus Christ was resurrected on the first day of the week, Sunday, making it the day to represent the new life of the new covenant and of the New Testament church.
2.  The first day of the week, Sunday, was the day directly chosen by the God the Father & God the Son upon which to send forth the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit and thereby to empower the New Testament church. (For the Day of Pentecost is and always has been on a Sunday.)
3.  Acts 20:7 specifically mentions the first day of the week, Sunday, as the day "when the disciples [New Testament believers] came together to break bread [most likely a reference to the celebration of the Lord's Supper]."
4.  In 1 Corinthians 16:2 the apostle Paul specifically instructed the New Testament church at Corinth to collect their financial offering "upon the first day of the week."
5.  Remember that the New Testament church is built upon the foundation of the New Testament apostles and prophets, "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone," not upon the Old Testament law and prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan,
re:  "I beg to differ."

That of course is your prerogative.     I maintain my position, though. As I stated previously, there are only 2 times where scripture mentions anyone getting together on the 1st day of the week. And neither time is anything said about the purpose being for rest and worship.  

 

 

re:  "First, you are trying to make your own facts..."

They are not my facts.   They are the facts of scripture. See above. 

 

 

re:  "Whether or not there is a scripture verse, as you say, "rescinding" worshipping on the Sabbath day [and there isn't] is immaterial to the saints in the New Testament church."

Maybe, maybe not.   Look, I'm not saying that the moving of rest and worship from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day of the week isn't a divinely approved change.  I'm only saying that there is nothing in scripture directing such a change. 

 

 

re:  "Also, It seems to me that you are making it an issue, and judging us, to require the New Testament saint to worship on the Jewish Sabbath: Saturday, the sixth day."

Actually, the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week.  And I'm not judging or requiring anything from anyone.  I'm merely pointing out what scripture does and doesn't say.     

 

 

re:  "And, to state that the 'status quo' is still in place.

I didn't say that.  I said that based on scripture it seems that there is no scriptural reason for thinking that the status quo has changed. 

 

 

re:  "To me , this is a forced interpretation, an error, not binding on any saint, and is against the words of Paul the Apostle in Colossians 2:16." 

It appears you are interpreting Paul to fit with your preconceived position with regard to the Sabbath.   

 

 

re:  "Did not Paul plainly state, 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.' Colossians 2:16"

 With regard to what with respect of the sabbath days?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • 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...