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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, weary warrior said:

DaveW, if my tone in my post came off as cheeky or disrespectful, I do want to apologize. That's not how I ment it. 

Not at all - I thought it might be helpful to give some explanation. 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

weary warrior,
re:  "5  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. note  6  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." 

And again, the issues being addressed in Romans 14 have to do with dietary practices.  Nothing is said about the Sabbath. 

 

 

re:  "The early church DID worship on the first day of the week, yes."

Just so it's understood that scripture is silent with regard to saying that anyone met on the first day of the week for the purpose of weekly worship - or for that matter for a day of rest. 

 

 

With regard to your comments about calendars, I still don't see your point with regard to Sabbath observance. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 hours ago, rstrats said:

weary warrior,
re:  "5  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. note  6  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." 

And again, the issues being addressed in Romans 14 have to do with dietary practices.  Nothing is said about the Sabbath. 

 

 

re:  "The early church DID worship on the first day of the week, yes."

Just so it's understood that scripture is silent with regard to saying that anyone met on the first day of the week for the purpose of weekly worship - or for that matter for a day of rest. 

 

 

With regard to your comments about calendars, I still don't see your point with regard to Sabbath observance. 
 

If you still can't see it, there's not much I can do to help. So we'll just move along.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 11/26/2019 at 7:56 AM, weary warrior said:

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

As per the portions that I have emphasized with emboldening and underlining, it sure appears to me that these verses are talking about DAYS, not about diets.
 

On 11/27/2019 at 6:56 AM, rstrats said:

And again, the issues being addressed in Romans 14 have to do with dietary practices.  Nothing is said about the Sabbath. 

Brother "Rstrats," could you point out the particular wording in the verses above which move you to see the issue of diets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Some confusion has come from  the story of Jesus' crucufixion The self-righteous Jews who wanted Him dead asked the Romans to make sure He & the other two condemned men were dead & to remove their bodies from the crosses before sunset, as the coming day was a Sabbath.

   Now, this wasn't the regular weekly Sabbath, but was a HIGH SABBATH, the first of the two Holy Convocation days that God ordained, first in Ex. 12:16. These days could fall on any day of the week, including  Saturday. (When that occurred, the rules of the regular Sabbath were followed, as well as any special rules for that particular High Sabbath that may apply.)

  The misunderstanding led to the man-made creation of "Good Friday",  in the mistaken belief that Jesus died on a Friday. But actually, He died on a Wednesday before sunset, which began Thursday for the Jews, & was resurrected, I believe on Saturday, shortly before sunset, so by Sunday AM He had been resurrected for several hours. And "Good Friday" isn't actually a "holy day".

 

   As for the regular weekly Sabbath, God gave it only to Israel to observe for ever, so a Jew who worships on Saturday isn't wrong. However, most of the rest of Israel, whoever/wherever they may be, has gotten away from this.

 

 Col. 2: 16Let 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:

  While the Colossian Church was made up of mostly gentiles,  some Jewish Christians (or pseudo-Christians) came there, as they had done almost everywhere Christianity then-existed, & told the gentiles that, in order to be REALLY saved, they must follow the Jewish worship traditions, including Sabbath-keeping. But Paul, on authority from Jesus, told them otherwise, as we see in the above Scripture.

  My "take" is this: If you feel you should keep the Sabbath, by all means, follow your conscience, but if you believe otherwise, follow your conscience as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

"...could you point out the particular wording in the verses above which move you to see the issue of diets?"


No, not in the 2 verses when taken alone and not surrounded by the context of the chapter.    

However, the context of the chapter from beginning to end deals with the issue of the eating of animal food versus vegetables along with the related practice of fasting on certain days. 

Verse 20 sums up the intent of the chapter:  "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food."
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

No...... no it doesn't say that.

It says this:

Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
42 minutes ago, rstrats said:

No, not in the 2 verses when taken alone and not surrounded by the context of the chapter.    

However, the context of the chapter from beginning to end deals with the issue of the eating of animal food versus vegetables along with the related practice of fasting on certain days. 

Verse 20 sums up the intent of the chapter:  "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food."

Indeed, the primary issue about being a "stumbling block" in Romans 14 is that of diet (as per verses 2, 3, 6, 15, 17, 20, 21).

However, it appears to me that a secondary issue is also referenced concerning days (as per verses 5, 6).

From your comments above it appears that you are viewing this reference to days as a reference to "fasting on certain days."  However, I see NO reference to the idea of fasting in the chapter at all.  Could you point out the particular wording anywhere in the chapter which moves you to the idea of fasting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Pastor Scott Markle,
re:  "From your comments above it appears that you are viewing this reference to days as a reference to "fasting on certain days."  However, I see NO reference to the idea of fasting in the chapter at all.  Could you point out the particular wording anywhere in the chapter which moves you to the idea of fasting?" 

Verse 6 - "He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."
I take this to be saying that days are being observed for eating or not eating.  I take not eating to be refering to fasting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 minutes ago, rstrats said:

Pastor Scott Markle,
re:  "From your comments above it appears that you are viewing this reference to days as a reference to "fasting on certain days."  However, I see NO reference to the idea of fasting in the chapter at all.  Could you point out the particular wording anywhere in the chapter which moves you to the idea of fasting?" 

Verse 6 - "He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."
I take this to be saying that days are being observed for eating or not eating.  I take not eating to be refering to fasting.  

I see. So then it appears that you view the second half of the verse as contrasting those who do not fast and those who do --

1.  Those who do not fast - "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks."
2.  Those who fast from food - "And he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

On the other hand, I would view the verse as speaking concerning the SAME matter that has been within THE CONTEXT since verse 1 --

"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

For one believeth that he may eat all things [comfortable eating meat]:
another, who is weak, eateth herbs [not comfortable eating meat].

Let not him that eateth [comfortable eating meat] despise him that eateth not [not comfortable eating meat];
and let not him which eateth not [not comfortable eating meat] judge him that eateth [comfortable eating meat]: for God hath received him.

Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?  To his own master he standeth or falleth.  Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

He that eateth [comfortable eating meat], eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks;
and he that eateth not [not comfortable eating meat], to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

Consider the contextual parallels between verses 2, 3, 6.  As such, I do not see the matter of fasting anywhere at all in the context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

  God gave everyone a conscience regarding these matters.

  I useta make fun of congregations that had a "no pants on women" rule, or similar ones til I studied Scripture more closely & saw I was wrong. While I still  won't attend such congregations when I'm on a "church visit", it's because of more-serious doctrinal differences than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  As for the Sabbath, it was given to ISRAEL ONLY, & I see no Biblical requirement for all to follow it. But again, it comes down to an individual's conscience.  My church meets on Sundays, but we don't badmouth those who meet on Saturdays for that reason, although those groups often hold some actual false doctrines.

 

  We should give thanx & praise to GOD every day !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I have been recently dealing quite a bit with a fellow who is convinced that believers today must observe the whole Torah, keep the Sabbath, and that, oddly, the new covenant has not yet begun. 

Recently I gave him this, (which of course was merely scoffed at).  But for those of us here that believe the KJV Bible is written as it is for a reason, it ought to give us, at least, some pause for thought.  

We all know here, I am sure, why the KJV uses language that was already considered archaic when it was written, like the usage of Ye, You, Thee, Thy, Thou, and Thine: They indicate plural or singular language, which is plain in Hebrew and Greek, but not so much in modern English, (even 400 years ago), so these terms were used to make more plain the meanings. They become very important in such verses as, when Jesus speaks to Nicodemas and says "Verily, verily I say unto THEE, YE must be born again" In modern English, we lost the meaning completely, when Jesus says '...I say unto YOU, YOU must be born again'  Here, who is Jesus speaking to, and to whom does He refer needing to be born again? Just Nicodemas? But in the KJV it is clear, "...I say unto thee, (Nicodemas, singular), ye, (everyone, plural) must be born again"

That being said, (follow me now), read how the Lord gives the commandments at Sinai: 

20 And God spake all these words, saying,

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

13 Thou shalt not kill.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15 Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Now, notice, God is speaking to all the people: why doesn't the translator use the words 'You" or "Ye" to show a plural sense In the Lord's words? "Ye shall have no other gods before me"? Why? Because God is speaking to them as a singular people, a singular nation, meaning these laws and commands are not given for ALL nations, but for ONE nation: Israel, the children of Jacob. Period. Not even for all the children of Abraham, just Jacob. Not all the children of Isaac, just Jacob. A single people.

Therefore, NONE of it was given for those who would be believers, especially of the Gentile nations, after Christ-He is the END of the law for righteousness to them that believe. So the idea that ANY part of it, except for that repeated and carried on in the New Covenant, is silly.

As well, after the law was given, Moses took the blood of a sacrifice and sprinkled the blood upon the book of the law and upon the people, and made a covenant at Sinai between national Israel and God, to keep the law. It was between them and God, and of course we know they broke it, time and again, almost immediately! 

So we are not under any portion of that OT law of Sinai, but are under a new and better covenant, sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ, not the bull at Sinai. And that includes the Sabbath, for they are all part and parcel of the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 2/9/2018 at 6:43 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.
 

Here's another...

1 Corinthians 16:2 "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

"(1) That there is here clear proof that the first day of the week was observed by the church at Corinth as holy time. If it was not, there can have been no propriety in selecting that day in preference to any other in which to make the collection. It was the day which was set apart to the duties of religion, and therefore an appropriate day for the exercise of charity and the bestowment of alms. There can have been no reason why this day should have been designated except that it was a day set apart to religion, and therefore deemed a proper day for the exercise of benevolence toward others."

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
1 Corinthians 16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

 I think I shall simply follow what Paul wrote & observe or not observe as my beliefs & conscience tell me, and not criticize anyone who believes or observes differently. I don't hafta answer to God for THEIR actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 2/5/2014 at 9:04 PM, DaveW said:

Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Sabbath and first day are quite clearly different.

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Jesus met with the disciples who were all gathered on the first day, and did nit rebuke them for their meeting that day.

In fact....
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

now if the day spoken of before is the first day of the eight, then they were meeting the next Sunday and Jesus appeared to them again. And once again didn't rebuke them for meeting on a day other than the Sabbath.

And:

Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

It seems that in this case they met on the first day of the week for the express purpose of hearing the preaching of the Word of God.


And,
1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Without getting into what was being laid by, it is noted that again this was done on the first day, with the express purpose that there be no gathering when he came.
Written to a church, with the intent that this happen on the first day, indicating a gathering at least for that purpose.

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.

There is no biblical command for Christians to meet officially on any day, but by example we see that if a specific day of the week is nominated, it is Sunday.

Sunday worship is in the new Testament clearly.

That should be enough, but in any case historical record shows Sunday worship also occurred BEFORE the Catholic so called church existed.

Ignatius recorded "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death. "

The quote continues on, but you get the idea. Ignatius died around 107AD, Constantine didn't start the travesty of the Catholic system ill about 200 years after Ignatius died, and didn't make his decree about Sunday worship until 321AD.

So Sunday worship can't have been a Catholic invention, primarily because the New Testament records it, and history agrees......

The very first mention of God requiring anyone to observe the Sabbath was in Mosaic law given to Israel by Moses to them, so was not binding on any save those in israel under the Old Covenant!

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

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...