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.

How Old Is The Earth


AVBibleBeliever
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Before I go to the trouble of explaining in detail why I believe the Gap Theory and all permutations of it are completely inconsistent with the Bible, I would like to first ask a question:

 

Why do you believe, or need to believe, that there was gap?

 

I ask because the view that the earth was only a few thousands years old was nearly universal until the 18th century (when evolutionary theory and uniformitarian geology began to seek ways to explain existence without God)? Is it to harmonize Scripture with current scientific theory on origins and age of the earth? Or because you disagree with the historical/traditional interpretation of Scripture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How old the the earth? 6,842 years. How do I know this? My guess is as good as any other!!!! :bleh:

Close, but no cigar.
The age of the earth is calculable, due to the Scriptures.
We are right around 6,240, now.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I know that this is a heated debate for some of you but please try and remain civil. and remember this is not an issue that affects our salvation if we agree or disagree.

 

That depends (the salvation bit, I mean). A gap theory that allows for death before sin (which some believe - don't know if you do, but that is the classic theory) completely negates the physical penalty for sin and plays havoc with the whole need for salvation. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That depends (the salvation bit, I mean). A gap theory that allows for death before sin (which some believe - don't know if you do, but that is the classic theory) completes negates the physical penalty for sin and plays havoc with the whole need for salvation. 
 

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Peter 2:4....remember, the "serpent" lied on God and lied to eve.....he was ALREADY a liar.

 

Who was "the serpent" in Genesis 3:1-14?

Is he the same person/entity/being as in Revelation 12:9?

If he is "the devil" "satan", spoken of in Revelation 12:9, then "Sin" had already been committed before Adam and Eve because Lucifer/Satan/the serpent had already done it.
 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If the whole of creation is subject to corruption, then light is as well, and "light years" are not a reliable measure of the age of the universe.

Even "carbon 14" dating is corrupt.  Entropy is decay, decay is death, albeit a slow death.

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Peter 2:4....remember, the "serpent" lied on God and lied to eve.....he was ALREADY a liar.

 

Who was "the serpent" in Genesis 3:1-14?

Is he the same person/entity/being as in Revelation 12:9?

If he is "the devil" "satan", spoken of in Revelation 12:9, then "Sin" had already been committed before Adam and Eve because Lucifer/Satan/the serpent had already done it.
 

 

Yes, but....the salvation of man is tied to the sin of man, not the sin of angels. That Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve who subsequently introduced sin to mankind, has really no bearing on our doctrine of salvation. There is also no need to insert the fall of Satan into the Creation week. Gen 3 does not specify any period of time between the creation of man and the Fall of man. All that can be definitively said is that there was no sin in the first 6 days (Gen 1:31) and that the Fall happened in the first 130 years after Creation because the first length of time mentioned is that Adam was 130 yrs old when Seth was born (Gen 5:3). Therefore, the events of Gen 3-4 (the Fall and Cain & Abel) took place sometime in the first 130 years after God finished creating. We're not told how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden nor how much time passed between the expulsion and the births of Cain and Abel. The Fall could have happned on Day 8 of Year 1 or it could have happned on Day 245 of Year 54 or maybe Day 37 of Year 32. There is plenty of time for Satan to have fallen between Creation week and the Fall of man without reading it into any part of Genesis 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Before I go to the trouble of explaining in detail why I believe the Gap Theory and all permutations of it are completely inconsistent with the Bible, I would like to first ask a question:

 

Why do you believe, or need to believe, that there was gap?

 

I ask because the view that the earth was only a few thousands years old was nearly universal until the 18th century (when evolutionary theory and uniformitarian geology began to seek ways to explain existence without God)? Is it to harmonize Scripture with current scientific theory on origins and age of the earth? Or because you disagree with the historical/traditional interpretation of Scripture?

Simple, I believe it's because of people's need to explain the "dinosaurs". Just last weekend, in Sunday School class, our teacher brought up the question about the dinosaurs. One man spoke up and explained that "Leviathan" was a dinosaur. Another man, looked at me and nodded, to which I only responded by saying "I'm not getting into this one". But I will here. We don't know what "Leviathan" or even "Behemoth" were, and while I believe that entertaining a theory of a "gap" could be wrong, stating as fact that Leviathan was a dinosaur, to me is just plain dishonest; because we don't know.what it was. An old IFB pastor of mine called the "gap theory" the "gap fact". That's just a s wrong unless he had scripture to back it up.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, but....the salvation of man is tied to the sin of man, not the sin of angels.  Yes, true That Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve who subsequently introduced sin to mankind, has really no bearing on our doctrine of salvation.  Yes, no one said it did. There is also no need to insert the fall of Satan into the Creation week. Gen 3 does not specify any period of time between the creation of man and the Fall of man. All that can be definitively said is that there was no sin in the first 6 days (Gen 1:31) and that the Fall happened in the first 130 years after Creation because the first length of time mentioned is that Adam was 130 yrs old when Seth was born (Gen 5:3). Therefore, the events of Gen 3-4 (the Fall and Cain & Abel) took place sometime in the first 130 years after God finished creating. We're not told how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden nor how much time passed between the expulsion and the births of Cain and Abel. The Fall could have happned on Day 8 of Year 1 or it could have happned on Day 245 of Year 54 or maybe Day 37 of Year 32. There is plenty of time for Satan to have fallen between Creation week and the Fall of man without reading it into any part of Genesis 1. Possible, I suppose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Simple, I believe it's because of people's need to explain the "dinosaurs". Just last weekend, in Sunday School class, our teacher brought up the question about the dinosaurs. One man spoke up and explained that "Leviathan" was a dinosaur. Another man, looked at me and nodded, to which I only responded by saying "I'm not getting into this one". But I will here. We don't know what "Leviathan" or even "Behemoth" were, and while I believe that entertaining a theory of a "gap" could be wrong, stating as fact that Leviathan was a dinosaur, to me is just plain dishonest; because we don't know.what it was. An old IFB pastor of mine called the "gap theory" the "gap fact". That's just a s wrong unless he had scripture to back it up.

 

I concur. While I think a dinosaur is a better explanation for behemoth than an elephant, it can't be stated definitively one way or another. The question was more directed toward AVBB on why he personally embraces the gap theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Would someone please define "entropy" in understandable terms?

 

1ST LAW of Thermodynamics:
 
The first law says that although matter and energy can be changed in form, the total quantity of mass/energy is always the same.
 
2ND LAW of Thermodynamics:
 
The second law says the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, which is sometimes called entropy.
 
Henry Morris says, "We can see from every day experience the 2nd law functions in various ways: energy becomes less available, systems become disorganized, information becomes garbled, matter disintegrates, stars burn out or explode, organisms become extinct, environments decay, comets disintegrate, and people get old and die."
 
 
Of course America's Marxist loving scientists have given a new definition to entropy which suits their religion of evolution and it is the opposite of truth and reality.  Imagine that?
 
 

the issue of a Gap is a non-essential issue and is of no cause to divide or hurt our relationship as Christians.

 

Where in the Bible does the Lord list all these non-essentials?  Or, who gets to determine such?  I thought we're supposed to stand for the whole counsel of God?

 

The belief in the Gap theory is like using marijuana, it's a gateway to a host of other unbiblical positions such as baptism, the Holy Spirit, the nature of the church and the Lord's Supper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Simple, I believe it's because of people's need to explain the "dinosaurs". Just last weekend, in Sunday School class, our teacher brought up the question about the dinosaurs. One man spoke up and explained that "Leviathan" was a dinosaur. Another man, looked at me and nodded, to which I only responded by saying "I'm not getting into this one". But I will here. We don't know what "Leviathan" or even "Behemoth" were, and while I believe that entertaining a theory of a "gap" could be wrong, stating as fact that Leviathan was a dinosaur, to me is just plain dishonest; because we don't know.what it was. An old IFB pastor of mine called the "gap theory" the "gap fact". That's just a s wrong unless he had scripture to back it up.

 

Technically, leviathan is a sea creature and dinosaurs were land animals. So the leviathan wasn't a dinosaur. Although I think the behemoth was. :frog: Why wouldn't you consider those great creatures to be dinosaurs, though? There's nothing else (that we know of) that better matches the description of the behemoth. People do use the gap theory as a way of explaining dinosaurs, because they think somehow the fossil record of dinosaurs negates the Flood. So what better way of showing them that God created dinosaurs with the other creatures, and they were contemporaries of man, then to show them those descriptions? Personally I think the attempts to explain behemoths as being elephants or hippos are a result of evolutionary thinking entering the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Technically, leviathan is a sea creature and dinosaurs were land animals. So the leviathan wasn't a dinosaur. Although I think the behemoth was. :frog: Why wouldn't you consider those great creatures to be dinosaurs, though? There's nothing else (that we know of) that better matches the description of the behemoth. People do use the gap theory as a way of explaining dinosaurs, because they think somehow the fossil record of dinosaurs negates the Flood. So what better way of showing them that God created dinosaurs with the other creatures, and they were contemporaries of man, then to show them those descriptions? Personally I think the attempts to explain behemoths as being elephants or hippos are a result of evolutionary thinking entering the church.

Whoops, all Dinosaurs were not land animals.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosauria

 

God bless,

Larry

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Man walked with dinosaurs since the day Adam named them all until only recently.  Around the world their is evidence of this in writings and artwork and pictures and paintings.  In the 1500s there was still a T-Rex terrorizing indians along the Penobscot.  It stands to reason then that Noah even brought them aboard the ark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Man walked with dinosaurs since the day Adam named them all until only recently.  Around the world their is evidence of this in writings and artwork and pictures and paintings.  In the 1500s there was still a T-Rex terrorizing indians along the Penobscot.  It stands to reason then that Noah even brought them aboard the ark.

Interesting. I googled that; didn't find anything. Could you show me some info on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Technically, leviathan is a sea creature and dinosaurs were land animals. So the leviathan wasn't a dinosaur. Although I think the behemoth was. :frog:Why wouldn't you consider those great creatures to be dinosaurs, though? They could be, but the Bible doesn't say. There's nothing else (that we know of) that better matches the description of the behemoth. It also could be describing an elephant.     People do use the gap theory as a way of explaining dinosaurs, because they think somehow the fossil record of dinosaurs negates the Flood.  I don't   So what better way of showing them that God created dinosaurs with the other creatures, and they were contemporaries of man, then to show them those descriptions? Personally I think the attempts to explain behemoths as being elephants or hippos are a result of evolutionary thinking entering the church.  What did people think they were  from the first century onward to the time that "dinosaurs" began being excavated and classified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

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