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.

Baptist?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Personally, I have just about had enough.

Being a Baptist doesn't make you saved, nor does it automatically make you 100% right doctrinally.

But Baptist have traditional positions on doctrines.
Yes, I used that word - traditional.
But that doesn't make those positions wrong.

Baptists are traditionally not Calvinistic.
Baptists are traditionally premillenial.
Baptists traditionally hold to a literal reading of God's Word.
Baptists traditionally use the KJV in English speaking nations.
Baptists traditionally do not hold to double inspiration.
Baptists traditionally are not hyper dispensational.

I am sure there are other things that Baptists traditionally hold to that do not come quickly to mind at this moment.

Traditional they may be, but these positions endure mainly because they are Biblical.

I am disgusted that there are so many presently allowed to dwell not only on this site, but particularly within the IFB section, when they defy the traditional, biblical models.

I fully expect to viciously attacked over this post, but you will have noticed that I am posting less and less anyway, so I don't care.
This needs to be said.

And no, I will not nominate those to whom I am referring - everyone knows who they are, including themselves.

Finally, there is no point discussing with these people, for ridicule and verbal Belittlement is what results.
Time and again discussion has degenerated in this manner due to an unwillingness to discuss and a propensity to push their own positions.
And these positions are not Baptist no matter how much they twist history.
And they are not Bible no matter how much they twist Scripture.

Unlike a previous thread of mine, I will not hide this one no matter how much abuse is directed at me.
I will leave any decision on that to the mods.

I don't even care if the mods immediately lock, hide, or delete this as soon as it is posted.

I have said my piece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here's an excerpt from Laurence Vance's book "The Other Side of Calvinism".  It's a portion of the chapter called "Calvinism and the Baptists"....

 

Calvinism and the Baptists

 

The following is from Dr. Laurence M. Vance's excellent recently updated and revised work entitled, "The Other Side of Calvinism." This definitive work is a 800-page treatment of the theological system known as Calvinism. It is extensively footnoted. Please direct any questions or comments for the author to Vance Publications. Placed on the Internet by permission of the author. Dr. Laurence M. Vance's e-mail address is: vancepub@vancepublications.com

 

The controversy over Calvinism among the Baptists calls for special attention. Not only has this debate raged among the Baptists for hundreds of years, the greatest exponents of Calvinism today are not the Presbyterian or Reformed but the Baptists. The fact that a Baptist says he is not a Calvinist means nothing, for the Baptists, more than any other Calvinists, when seeking to draw attention away from the name of Calvin, use the phrase "Doctrines of Grace" as a metaphor for Calvinism.105 Another term used by Baptists is "Sovereign Grace."106 The term "grace" by itself is also used to stand for the doctrines of Calvinism.107 One Calvinistic Baptist even wrote a book called Grace Not Calvinism.108 But just as was pointed out previously, if Calvinism is the doctrine of grace found in the Bible then this implies that if you disagree with Calvinism then you are denying salvation by grace. Some Calvinistic Baptists get downright offended when they are accused of being Calvinists. Joseph Wilson, the former editor of a Calvinistic Baptist newspaper, went on record as saying:

 

    We are Sovereign Grace Landmark Missionary Baptists. That's what we are. That's how we advertise ourselves. That's what we desire to be known as, and to be called by others. Call us this, and you will get no argument. We are not ashamed of this. We are glad to wear this label. Call us "Calvinists" and you offend us.109

 

The attempt of these "Sovereign Grace Baptists" to distance themselves from John Calvin by claiming to maintain the "Doctrines of Grace" and denying that they are Calvinists is not only insulting to all adherents and recipients of the doctrine of God's free grace in salvation, but has further OBscured their true identity and therefore made necessary more diligent study of Calvinism and the Baptists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here's an excerpt from Laurence Vance's book "The Other Side of Calvinism".  It's a portion of the chapter called "Calvinism and the Baptists"....

You better stay away from Vance! He's a Ruckmanite  (yes, he's a graduate from Ruckman's bible institute and a friend of his) and that's not traditional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How dare we go against tradition!

 

DaveW. Personally, I'm tired of hearing your whine about things. Man up, brother!

 Maybe, DaveW is one of many of us who is tired of the apostasy spilled forth daily on OB.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You better stay away from Vance! He's a Ruckmanite  (yes, he's a graduate from Ruckman's bible institute and a friend of his) and that's not traditional.

Laurence Vance is not pushing Ruckmanism in his book "The Other Side of Calvinism".  The topic of this thread is not about Peter S. Ruckman....so why bring him up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How dare we go against tradition!

DaveW. Personally, I'm tired of hearing your whine about things. Man up, brother!


Thank you for your valuable contribution.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The truth is: Baptists are not traditionally anything, except a number of independent local bodies of Christ, with a myriad of diverse beliefs and practices. Read Rev.2 & 3 again. 7 churches started by the same apostle, with differing doctrines. Tradition in your Ind. B.C. may not be tradition in mine. Saved, Baptized church membership... Yeah, that one is universal. Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Ruckman is dispy. Rice thought the KJV was flawed. Hyles was gonna save America...epic fail. Truth is, none of these men agreed on doctrine, yet we all agree they are famous Baptists, with much influence. So, calm back down, and debate the doctrine, and earnestly contend for the faith, to defend from the evil ones crept in unawares ( like Calvin the persecutor). Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I like your list, and think it agrees well with OB, but I personally think that Baptists are traditionally immersionists. Oh, and hold to the literal reading of the Bible. And premillenial. There are, unfortunately, Baptist lines that have been Calvinistic for a long time. This site, thankfully, is not.  

 

 

How dare we go against tradition!

 

DaveW. Personally, I'm tired of hearing your whine about things. Man up, brother!

 

Song, such personal attacks are neither necessary nor appropriate. You've done a few of this sort recently, and they need to cease. It is possible to disagree kindly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

They would have to ban me as well Dave because I am 100% behind you on those points.  I would add a couple "Baptist distinctives" to the list though since they tend to be the most divisive.  Eternal Security of the believer, and baptism is not a requirement for salvation.  I don't post nearly as much here any more but I check the site daily.  I am just so incredibly busy this term at school now that my veterans school benefits have been exhausted.  I have to replace $2300 a month I was getting that allowed me to focus entirely on school without needing full time employment. 

 

Bro. Garry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

While I agree with the gist of what you're saying DaveW, I wouldn't say the list is traditionally accurate. There is a reason when IFBs were first forming about a century and some ago, there were basically five fundamentals that was agreed upon as being the foundation of IFBs and their view of traditional Christianity.

 

The virgin birth and deity of Jesus

The substitutionary death of Jesus

The resurrection of Jesus Christ

The inspiration of Scripture

The second coming of Christ

 

Those five matters were fully agreed upon while there were varying degrees of difference concerning other points.

 

That's not to say any of the points listed above are bad ones, only that they were part of the traditional IFB fundamentals. Much of what many IFB churches have in their much longer list of fundamentals today actually were added in the last half of the 20th century.

 

To be fair, when it comes to the matter of things such as KJO, at one point it was basically a non-issue. By default, the KJB was the Bible in use by Baptists and most other Christians in America. MVs didn't really become a major issue until later in the 20th century. As pointed out above, even then we had some who began moving toward a KJO position while others, such as the well known IFB man, John R. Rice, didn't.

 

In any event, I do agree that the constant name calling, disparaging those who don't agree with a position by saying they aren't wise, don't rightly study the Word and such, and those who post topic after topic for the sole purpose of promoting their pet view, is not only annoying, most of it's unchristian according to Scripture.

 

Having been on this site for many years now, I can say that OB has always had IFBs with differing views as well as non-IFBs posting here. For the most part, so long as civility was maintained, they have all been welcome here. Those that become seriously OBnoxious and/or push CLEARLY unbiblical stances as fact, eventually find themselves banned.

 

Unless Bro Matt were to make the site very restrictive, it's likely OB will continue as it has as long as I've been here. I will note that during the times when only those of us who were near 100% in agreement were posting, the posts became very few and far between. Then there is the other extreme when the place seems almost overrun by trash talkers and/or false religionists and/or odd ball theorists. The best of times land somewhere between those two extremes and they seem to last only briefly.

 

So anyway, DaveW, I have appreciated your contributions to this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The real prOBlem on a forum is the attitude folks approach it with.

 

If you take it too seriously or yourself too seriously on it...you really should give it up.

 

If you want fellowship, don't attempt it virtually because you will certainly be offended in debate with people you cannot see and know nothing about.

 

Remember, if you look at this site as anything more than a passtime and entertainment, you need more real fellowship in your life.

 

In other words, if the only folks allowed to post on here are those that agree with this davew member or any other member on every part of every topic, it would be a one man thread real quick.

 

Keep it in perspective and lighten up

 

I enjoy the debates on here but with a grain of salt (that is the key).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thanks Brother Dave , I always thought that fellowship was when Christians shared their walk with God in an atmosphere of love and respect, when everyone communicates in love with other believers then everyone becomes strengthened. striving together to develop a unity of spirit and mind,

 

But those who work to hinder the fellowship of the brothers and sisters practice a sin that God hates ( Prov.6:19)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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...