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

we know it 2014 yr in the new testamant and we know that jOB live between 1485 and 1445 and that the oldest book in the bible and their was 77 generation between adam and christ that would make it about 4000 yrs i hope that helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I do not believe in a 'Lucifer', as pertaining to some 'high angelic being' over one third of the angels.

I know I will get opposition on this, but to 'create' an existence of a creature that man has added

the attributes and 'honor' that only our Lord should have, but from the opposite view of course, in my opinion

is just wrong.

Historically the name Lucifer, in whatever language spoken, was meant to name the planet we call Venus. I do not get this from modern sources.

The notes alone in my bible explain this name as meaning "the morning star, that goeth before the sun, is called lucifer to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared"

I go to work at 5:30 am everyday, and most days I get to see that morning star: Venus. By the way, sometimes it is the 'evening star' too. 

Yes, some 'non-Baptists' in centuries of old, did refer Lucifer's one verse in Isaiah as an example of the devil we call Satan.

But their thoughtline was based on and in their other 'doctrines'. Which we know as unbiblical. Why Baptists have taken this up I do not know

But I do know that, as a bible believing Baptist, and I am one, that no matter what any other 'baptist' teacher or preacher says,

you go on scripture, and the scripture does not teach Lucifer as the Head Devil of biblical teaching. It is a made up doctrine using other verses

that appear to support it yet don't clearly.

Jesus Christ never once named the devil Lucifer. He referred him to other names, of which we all know.

I have received plenty of 'flack' concerning this thought, yet is it destructive to our beliefs at all?

I don't think so.

 

.....cut......

 

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (The remaining paragraph.) 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. 21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (The remaining paragraph.) 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. 19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. 20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. 21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

 

 

So, what's your point here. You quoted, now explain why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think the passage is pretty clear myself..........

 

Especially in reference to your previous words that he quoted.

 

The Bible certainly seems to disagree with you - and that is without any reference to any other doctrines from any other source.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think the passage is pretty clear myself..........

 

Especially in reference to your previous words that he quoted.

 

The Bible certainly seems to disagree with you - and that is without any reference to any other doctrines from any other source.........

 

Once again, there is no Biblical proof at all that this is referring to a 'head devil'. The subject of this section of scripture is Nebuchadnezzar, not Satan.

People wanna lift up "Lucifer" to the point that he has prophetic verses 'talking' about him, like people can read about the prophetic verses about the Lord Jesus in O.T., and 'add'

to Satan's abilities Godlike references as to his 'power' before he was Satan.

The only way to 'prove' Satan was an angelic being called Lucifer is to add to God's word a 'gap theory'.

Hence, false teaching.

 

Where is any other record in scripture that Lucifer was/is/ever shall be a devil at all?

 

I don't think this is an important 'doctrine' that we should focus our beliefs around, yet the minds of Baptists looking for 'exciting things' hidden in scripture

love this kinda stuff, and miss out on the facts of scripture. Conspiracy theorists do the same thing.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...
  • Members
On 2/18/2014 at 9:45 AM, Salyan said:

 

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. 
 

The knowledge of the world, the science of the world and the wisdom of the world is foolishness as revealed by what is written in the Bible.

To deceive babies, little children, young children,  adolescents, teens, young adults, and others 

just set them in a classroom and let the teacher tell them "millions of years ago" .

People are and have been deceived and brainwashed so easily,   even way too many in churches.

On 11/17/2014 at 11:21 AM, Ukulelemike said:

ALL of Genesis 1, into Genesis 2, as taken at face value, disproves a gap. Seven days, six of creation from "God created the heaven and the earth", to "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." 

 

I also provide, at the giving of the Sabbath, in Ex 20, one reason for the Sabbath was the creation week: "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."   Ex 31: 17: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."  

 

In SIX days, the earth, the heaven, specifically meaning not just heaven as we think it, but literally the space to put eveything in, and the sea. Six days, no room for anything before it.

 

I left off/edited out "for proof against (ungodly science) " as 

it is not really necessary to prove ungodly science is wrong - it is wrong by default , continually,  being always opposed to the Creator as well as denying all Truth.

Wrangling over words is not a good thing to do ,  as some on this forum have attempted to entangle the threads in ungodly sources and ungodly ideas for a long time,  to no one's benefit directly.  (God does cause those errors posted to work out to the good of those who love God and who are called according to HIs Purpose, as He Says in His Word).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW IS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE

Biblicists believe that the biblical worldview best explains the world in which we live. It is scientific in that it fits the facts of observation."

Many proofs , all of the proof agrees with all of the observations ever,  the Bible is true.

Science and medicine experienced, learned, and posted about by those in favor of the carnal world is opposed to Godliness and contradicts God's Word directly and all the time,  every day.  

www.wayoflife.org/database/creation_museum.html

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Bro. West went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Nathan Mosel earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Bro. West earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Bro. West went up a rank
      Rookie
    • SureWord went up a rank
      Experienced
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Bro. West  »  BrotherTony

      The original question by Brother Tony was about Peter being wrong in Acts two. Peter is responsible only for the light God gave him at that point. Later God gave him more light as in Acts 10. He is not the only one to have this happen Apollos (Acts 19:1-7) He was re baptized, why because he did not reject more light given to him.
      Cornelius was another who went by the light that he had, but when Peter spoke to him he received that light, in fact Peter may have received light himself not only about the gentiles, but that the Holy Spirit was given before baptism. (Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act 10:47) This is different than Acts 2:38.
      My main point is that the book of Acts is a book of progressive revelation and to rest your doctrine now on Acts two will produce damnable heresies. I know this first hand as being a member of the “Church of Christ” in good old Tennessee as a youth. I could of died and went to hell. Here in Indiana we have plenty that place the plan of salvation in Acts two. No, I am your Brother and not a MR. West, that is if you believe what Peter said again: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1Pe 3:18. This is the ministry of reconciliation spoke by Paul.
      So let me “TROLL” on out of here. Yours Brother West.
       
       
      · 5 replies
    • farouk  »  Rebecca

      Hi Ms @RebeccaGreat new avatar; so does the rabbit have a name?
      · 1 reply
    • farouk  »  Salyan

      Hi @SalyanInteresting avatar picture there; so does it refer to the Shield of Faith (Ephesians 6), perhaps?
      · 2 replies
    • farouk  »  trapperhoney

      Hi @trapperhoney; great header verse from Acts 20.24! I've thought a lot about that verse in the past...
      · 2 replies
    • farouk  »  John Young

      Hi @John Young Great photo of you guys! (your wife?) I've been away a long while from this site but came back recently...
      · 1 reply
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...