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.

Mark And Avoid Or Spit Out The Bones?


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Jesus did say that divorce was ok if sexual immorality took place.  Mt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

 

What of a man who was married before he was saved, his wife runs off with another man, he remains faithful to her hoping for her to come back, she gets a deadly disease while off with others, and the man decides to divorce her?

 

Could he not after he got saved remarry and it not be considered he is married to two wives?

Divorce for fornication, NOT adultery, is acceptable, the difference being, adultery can be of the heart, and I believe Jesus didn't want divorce occurring every time one spouse thought the mind of the other was wandering. Had to be the physical act. Though I suspect this is what you meant, so not trying to split hairs.

 

Divorce is also acceptable if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer-we are not under bondage to such, the Bible tells us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Divorce for fornication, NOT adultery, is acceptable, the difference being, adultery can be of the heart, and I believe Jesus didn't want divorce occurring every time one spouse thought the mind of the other was wandering. Had to be the physical act. Though I suspect this is what you meant, so not trying to split hairs.

 

Divorce is also acceptable if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer-we are not under bondage to such, the Bible tells us.

I'm sorry, but you have me totally confused here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Divorce for fornication, NOT adultery, is acceptable, the difference being, adultery can be of the heart, and I believe Jesus didn't want divorce occurring every time one spouse thought the mind of the other was wandering. Had to be the physical act. Though I suspect this is what you meant, so not trying to split hairs.

 

Divorce is also acceptable if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer-we are not under bondage to such, the Bible tells us.

 

Interesting point I hadn't really considered in-depth. Would a woman whose husband is unrepentently addicted to pornography then have no grounds for divorce because it was merely mental/heart adultery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Interesting point I hadn't really considered in-depth. Would a woman whose husband is unrepentently addicted to pornography then have no grounds for divorce because it was merely mental/heart adultery?

Apparently not. Jesus specifically said 'Fornication", markedly different from Adultery, because one is physically interacting with another person, while the other is of the mind-both still sins and needing to be dealt with as such, and both, in some aspect, certainly dishonoring to the spouse, but not both a divorceable offense. Biblically-speaking.

 

Of course, we also have: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." (1Cor 7:4) and I believe THIS deals with physical, uhhh...self-satisfaction, for lack of a better, cleaner term. However, still not divorceable.

 

I am a divorced man. My foirst wife left me for another man, came back for a short time, and left again with yet another man. I gave her many years of waiting time, but after living with two other men as their wife, and then accepting a ring from one, I chose to let her go-I figure I had done all I needed to fulfil all I could in a godly manner. She has since gone off to live the life of a reprOBate from the faith in most ways. I won't elaborate any more than that.  But even having said this, I believe that we, even Christians, find way too many tings we consider worthy of divorce. I fought it tooth and nail from start to finish. But biblically, I believe I did all I could. Even in this, I submitted myself to God and repented of what I may have done to be implicit in the divorce.

 

But before I was separated, before I even knew there was a prOBlem, I was called to be a preacher. The divorce put me off the track for a time, but I believe the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. God wasn't surprised by my wife leaving me but He still called me. I tried to turn away from the call but was continually pulled back, virtually given no choice. Its hard to explain, but those who are pastors may understand better than those not. I have regularly told the Lord that if He would bring someone to take over, who was more qualified, that I would willingly step down, but not unless that occurred, because I don't believe it is His will that a church shut down if not necessary. But He knows my heart and willingness, and thus far, no one has come who is either willing, and very few qualified, to take over as pastor. So I believe it is God's will I remain until such time as He removes me.

 

Do I take my experience over His word? Of course not-from what I read and understand in His word, I am the husband of one wife, the one I am married to today. The former one left me as apparently an unbeliever and an adultress, and as such I am no longer married to her, thus, the husband of one wife. The experience just confirms it. 

 

No one here has to agree or come to my church-this is just where I am. For what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Of course there is-we are not to be tale-bearers or gossips, or bearing false witness. But that is not marking one who is truly in error or blatantly spreading false doctrines.  

 

Going strictly by your story, what she did was wrong, if she hadn't checked her facts, and she was wrong about what she said. Of course, she could have been in error and had she a right heart, upon being presented with factual information, she should have changed her story, If she did not, and in fact refuses to do so, then she is a liar and should, herself, be publicaly marked.

 

But when we have good information, facts, that one is spreading falsehoods or has removed themselves from the faith, they should be marked-not as an enemy, mind you, but as a danger, because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. As a pastor, it would be in the best interests of my church to publicly mark someone who is a fale teacher. If I am found wrong, though, I should be willing and eager to retract what I said, just as publicly, and give a public apology to the one I had inavdertently slandered.

 

But we are still to mark when the need arises.

If I handed you a telescope or microscope and you started yelling into it like it was a microphone, what would I think of you?

 

Instead of clearly understanding Romans 16:17, this "pastor's wife" (and the pastor backed her actions as well)

has committed the act of spreading false rumors and back-biting and verballying slandering a great man of God.

She clearly is blind-as-a-bat as far as understanding this scripture:

 
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark skopeō them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them
 
As a result, I have since "avoided" these "-ites".  I suspect she gets her "Hog-wash" from the "Hog-yard"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Apparently not. Jesus specifically said 'Fornication", markedly different from Adultery, because one is physically interacting with another person, while the other is of the mind-both still sins and needing to be dealt with as such, and both, in some aspect, certainly dishonoring to the spouse, but not both a divorceable offense. Biblically-speaking.

 

Of course, we also have: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." (1Cor 7:4) and I believe THIS deals with physical, uhhh...self-satisfaction, for lack of a better, cleaner term. However, still not divorceable.

 

I am a divorced man. My foirst wife left me for another man, came back for a short time, and left again with yet another man. I gave her many years of waiting time, but after living with two other men as their wife, and then accepting a ring from one, I chose to let her go-I figure I had done all I needed to fulfil all I could in a godly manner. She has since gone off to live the life of a reprOBate from the faith in most ways. I won't elaborate any more than that.  But even having said this, I believe that we, even Christians, find way too many tings we consider worthy of divorce. I fought it tooth and nail from start to finish. But biblically, I believe I did all I could. Even in this, I submitted myself to God and repented of what I may have done to be implicit in the divorce.

 

But before I was separated, before I even knew there was a prOBlem, I was called to be a preacher. The divorce put me off the track for a time, but I believe the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. God wasn't surprised by my wife leaving me but He still called me. I tried to turn away from the call but was continually pulled back, virtually given no choice. Its hard to explain, but those who are pastors may understand better than those not. I have regularly told the Lord that if He would bring someone to take over, who was more qualified, that I would willingly step down, but not unless that occurred, because I don't believe it is His will that a church shut down if not necessary. But He knows my heart and willingness, and thus far, no one has come who is either willing, and very few qualified, to take over as pastor. So I believe it is God's will I remain until such time as He removes me.

 

Do I take my experience over His word? Of course not-from what I read and understand in His word, I am the husband of one wife, the one I am married to today. The former one left me as apparently an unbeliever and an adultress, and as such I am no longer married to her, thus, the husband of one wife. The experience just confirms it. 

 

No one here has to agree or come to my church-this is just where I am. For what it's worth.

 

That's an interesting answer. I had always considered adultery as a type, or subset, of fornication. It's an intriguing thought, but I'm not yet fully on board with the idea of it being a distinction between physical and non-physical interaction. John 8:3-4 seems to describe adultery as a physical act and the adultery of the heart passage (Matt 5:28) seems to indicate that the common understanding was that adultery was physical, but Jesus extended it to non-physical. Thus, when I read Matt 5:23 I understand the provision for divorce to be all kind of sexual sin to include adultery. Thoughts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

That's an interesting answer. I had always considered adultery as a type, or subset, of fornication. It's an intriguing thought, but I'm not yet fully on board with the idea of it being a distinction between physical and non-physical interaction. John 8:3-4 seems to describe adultery as a physical act and the adultery of the heart passage (Matt 5:28) seems to indicate that the common understanding was that adultery was physical, but Jesus extended it to non-physical. Thus, when I read Matt 5:23 I understand the provision for divorce to be all kind of sexual sin to include adultery. Thoughts? 

generally, I would say nthat they are pretty much part and parcel, but it gives me pause when Jesus spoke that adultery can be committed in the heart, while fornication can't, due to the specifically physical nature of it. Thus, when He says that fornication, not adultery, is worthy of divorce, it gives me pause to think that He is speaking of acting out on the wicked thoughts.

 

A murderer in God's eyes is one who thinks hatefully about a brother without a cause, but to man, we can't convict them until they act upon those thoughts and end, or attempt to end, a life. So the same with adultery and fornication-we can commit mental adultery, but divorce cannot occur until it is acted upon in fornication, (or perhaps attempted fornication?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

generally, I would say nthat they are pretty much part and parcel, but it gives me pause when Jesus spoke that adultery can be committed in the heart, while fornication can't, due to the specifically physical nature of it. Thus, when He says that fornication, not adultery, is worthy of divorce, it gives me pause to think that He is speaking of acting out on the wicked thoughts.

 

A murderer in God's eyes is one who thinks hatefully about a brother without a cause, but to man, we can't convict them until they act upon those thoughts and end, or attempt to end, a life. So the same with adultery and fornication-we can commit mental adultery, but divorce cannot occur until it is acted upon in fornication, (or perhaps attempted fornication?).

 

Makes sense to me. I think we are on the same page here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Interesting...well I guess there's no arguing with that...your reasoning is just too solid. It's a good thing we could discuss this as adults to be sure we both had a proper understanding of Scripture...

They were spelled out as a list of requirements.
If no one meets the requirements, then no one gets installed in the office.
What is there to discuss?

You want me to agree that "no one is qualified", so we can ignore the list, or make it a suggestion , not a command, before you will discuss it.

We have to accept the Word of God, before we can discuss it.



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

If I handed you a telescope or microscope and you started yelling into it like it was a microphone, what would I think of you?

 

Instead of clearly understanding Romans 16:17, this "pastor's wife" (and the pastor backed her actions as well)

has committed the act of spreading false rumors and back-biting and verballying slandering a great man of God.

She clearly is blind-as-a-bat as far as understanding this scripture:

 
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark skopeō them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them
 
As a result, I have since "avoided" these "-ites".  I suspect she gets her "Hog-wash" from the "Hog-yard"

 

I see what you are saying, but keep in mind that we have great examples from Paul of how those he marked, he also warned about. Yes, mark them, pay attention to them, notice them and take heed to avoid them, but we also have a responsibility to warn others about them. Paul named names, gave issues, made them public-shouldn't we also, so long as we have good information?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

They were spelled out as a list of requirements.
If no one meets the requirements, then no one gets installed in the office.
What is there to discuss?

You want me to agree that "no one is qualified", so we can ignore the list, or make it a suggestion , not a command, before you will discuss it.

We have to accept the Word of God, before we can discuss it.



Anishinaabe

 

All I wanted was an honest discussion on whether or not we had an accurate understanding of what that verse says because I disagree that it's as plain as you seem to think it is; but nevermind. I truly have no interest in discussing anything with you now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I see what you are saying, but keep in mind that we have great examples from Paul of how those he marked, he also warned about. Yes, mark them, pay attention to them, notice them and take heed to avoid them, but we also have a responsibility to warn others about them. Paul named names, gave issues, made them public-shouldn't we also, so long as we have good information?  

I might also make another "OBservation" concerning this particular "congregation".  Rather than being "spiritual" and thus gentle and kind,

they seem to "focus" on having an angry spirit concerning things totally outside their control, such as certain "conspiricies" of a particular

religious order and (progressive) "liberalism" in general.  Perhaps they do not really trust the Holy Spirit... or perhaps even worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All I wanted was an honest discussion on whether or not we had an accurate understanding of what that verse says because I disagree that it's as plain as you seem to think it is; but nevermind. I truly have no interest in discussing anything with you now.

You summarily dismissed the literal interpretation.
Now you want to discuss what?

How can "must be" not mean "must be"?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

While the OP doesnt necessarily speak to this exactly. In terms of "eating meat and spitting out bones" I think personal decernment helps a lot... I personally had to stop listening to Todd friel, as the gaggle of calvinistic theology played in clips by paul washer and company just ate away at my Joy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You summarily dismissed the literal interpretation.
Now you want to discuss what?

How can "must be" not mean "must be"?

Anishinaabe

 

Didn't dismiss anything, but I don't care to dig it back up. Pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I might also make another "OBservation" concerning this particular "congregation".  Rather than being "spiritual" and thus gentle and kind,

they seem to "focus" on having an angry spirit concerning things totally outside their control, such as certain "conspiricies" of a particular

religious order and (progressive) "liberalism" in general.  Perhaps they do not really trust the Holy Spirit... or perhaps even worse...

Well, I certainly can't argue with you that there are those who allow their zeal to give them a poor spirit and attitude. These are the kinds that give other believers a bad name. I certainly have no prOBlem with warning ministries, so long as they are done with kindness and wisodm, and well-document what they are saying. After all, Jeremiah and Isaiah and Ezekiel definitely had warning ministries, particularly to israel, but much can be applied to the NT believer who takes for granted what the Lord has done for him, of those who seek to  include ungodliness and error in the work.

 

A great example would be, of course, the well-known 'god hates fags' "church", Westboro Baptist. They are just bubbling over with zeal, without an ounce of discernment or Christian love to be seen. Of course, they're an extreme example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What exactly are you confused about? I did put this out in a bit of haste, so maybe I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. Please allow me to clarify

You seem to suggest that only adultery can be committed in the heart and/or that married men can only commit adultery but not fornicate.

 

Matt. 15:19-  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

 

It all comes from the heart and thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's an interesting answer. I had always considered adultery as a type, or subset, of fornication. It's an intriguing thought, but I'm not yet fully on board with the idea of it being a distinction between physical and non-physical interaction. John 8:3-4 seems to describe adultery as a physical act and the adultery of the heart passage (Matt 5:28) seems to indicate that the common understanding was that adultery was physical, but Jesus extended it to non-physical. Thus, when I read Matt 5:23 I understand the provision for divorce to be all kind of sexual sin to include adultery. Thoughts? 

I'm sure there's a Greek word somewhere to explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • 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...