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.

Mark And Avoid Or Spit Out The Bones?


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

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.

Yeah it does kind of sound like that.

 

NO, The point I am clumsily trying to make, is that, while adultery can be of the heart OR the flesh, then becoming fornication as well, fornication is strictly of the flesh. Now certainly, fornication dirives from adultery of the heart, but that domain is between you and the Lord, as far as the consequences are concerned, while fornication has now officially and manifestly made the breech in the marriage.

 

Like what I asid about the hate/murder thing: We can hate a brother without a cause, and be seen of God as a murderer in heart, but we can't be tried in court for that. However, when that hate breaks forth into physical assault or murder, THEN the courts can try us and find us guilty. Yes, murder is borne out of hate, generally, but hate alone cannot cause us to be judged by man, only God. So adultery which can be of the heart, while IN the heart, its still adultery, but we are judged then of God, but fornication, when it manifests in flesh, can then find physical judgment.

 

That's the best way I can explain it.

 

Also, in reference to the verse, adultery and fornication are separated, because adultery is not always fornication,  and fornication is not always adultery-sometimes adultery is only of the heart, and sometimes, fornication is done where there is no marriage involved, thus no adultery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yeah it does kind of sound like that.

NO, The point I am clumsily trying to make, is that, while adultery can be of the heart OR the flesh, then becoming fornication as well, fornication is strictly of the flesh. Now certainly, fornication dirives from adultery of the heart, but that domain is between you and the Lord, as far as the consequences are concerned, while fornication has now officially and manifestly made the breech in the marriage.

Like what I asid about the hate/murder thing: We can hate a brother without a cause, and be seen of God as a murderer in heart, but we can't be tried in court for that. However, when that hate breaks forth into physical assault or murder, THEN the courts can try us and find us guilty. Yes, murder is borne out of hate, generally, but hate alone cannot cause us to be judged by man, only God. So adultery which can be of the heart, while IN the heart, its still adultery, but we are judged then of God, but fornication, when it manifests in flesh, can then find physical judgment.

That's the best way I can explain it.

Also, in reference to the verse, adultery and fornication are separated, because adultery is not always fornication, and fornication is not always adultery-sometimes adultery is only of the heart, and sometimes, fornication is done where there is no marriage involved, thus no adultery.


Adultery, when it becomes physical, becomes fornication.
Pornography viewing is physical, and is adultery, for a married man.

We can't judge the inward thoughts of any brother, but we are to judge the outward expression of those thoughts.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Adultery, when it becomes physical, becomes fornication.
Pornography viewing is physical, and is adultery, for a married man.

We can't judge the inward thoughts of any brother, but we are to judge the outward expression of those thoughts.

Anishinaabe

Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart. Isn't this exactly what viewing pornography is? Jesus calls it of the heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The terms of Adultery and Fornication are so closely related in the Bible that one generally does not go without the other. 

 

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.
Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The terms of Adultery and Fornication are so closely related in the Bible that one generally does not go without the other. 

 

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.
Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
.

 

I disagree with not just this post but most of this thread that deals with adultery.

Adultery and fornication have almost nothing to do with each other.

The verses quoted above are completely misinterpreted by most if not all Christians IMO.

 

Hints:

Adultery is a turning of the heart away from someone

Fornication is a sin of sex only

 

Can anyone guess where I am going with this?

 

Here is another hint from your own common sense:

 

Since when has sex ever been a thing of the heart for a man?

Since when has sex NOT been a thing of the heart with a woman (unless she is a harlot (whore) or taken advantage of-doped up)?

 

Think about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I disagree with not just this post but most of this thread that deals with adultery.
Adultery and fornication have almost nothing to do with each other.
The verses quoted above are completely misinterpreted by most if not all Christians IMO.

Hints:
Adultery is a turning of the heart away from someone
Fornication is a sin of sex only

Can anyone guess where I am going with this?

Here is another hint from your own common sense:

Since when has sex ever been a thing of the heart for a man?
Since when has sex NOT been a thing of the heart with a woman (unless she is a harlot (whore) or taken advantage of-doped up)?

Think about it

Not a
100% with you, but you are closer than most to this.

Adultery has a definition : marital infidelity.

Fornication is a much broader category, it includes any sexual sin.

A man commits adultery, in his heart, when he LOOKS on a woman, to lust after her.
Pornography is adultery.

But.....

Nowhere, ever, is a woman told that she is allowed to put away her husband.



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not a
100% with you, but you are closer than most to this.

Adultery has a definition : marital infidelity.

Fornication is a much broader category, it includes any sexual sin.

A man commits adultery, in his heart, when he LOOKS on a woman, to lust after her.
Pornography is adultery.

But.....

Nowhere, ever, is a woman told that she is allowed to put away her husband.



Anishinaabe

 

Agreed,

 

I am also thinking on this line:

 

Jesus Himself expresses a distinct difference between fornication and adultery within the same verses.

 

If adultery is a sin of the heart and mind and not a sin of sex itself. Which I believe since the Bible clearly states we can commit adultery against the Lord, then consider:

 

I believe the Lord refers to the man's fornication in these verses

 

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.
Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery

 

Here is the example: Man has sex outside of marriage with harlot (s), (sex only, no heart feelings - fornication) but still loves and wants his wife: wife finds out and is inconsolable and will not stop making man's life unbearable because of it; man divorces wife because of her reaction; wife falls out of love with man (turns from man to another man in heart - adultery)

 

Reason: Why would God not have simply written "saving for the cause of adultery" if how we traditionally look at these passages is correct?

 

Reasoning: as I stated in the post above

 

Since when has sex ever been a thing of the heart for a man?
Since when has sex NOT been a thing of the heart with a woman (unless she is a harlot (whore) or taken advantage of-doped up)?

 

In conclusion:

 

I feel the Lord is referring to a triple, even quad sin on the part of the man over the man's need to have sex with various women:

1. Man fornicates with harlots

2. Man divorces wife because she is inconsolable over it

3. Man causes wife to turn her heart away from him and to another (her adultery) but MAN was the cause of it

4. Man now turns his heart away from wife to another woman and remarries (his adultery).

 

Up until 100 years ago, it was not legal or heard of for a woman to put away her husband even in this country. To this day in most of the world it is still not legal.

Certainly 2000 years ago the only recourse a spurned married woman had against a cheating husband was to react this way and force him to divorce her.
 

Admittedly, not one of my better theories but still something to think about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have heard preaching time and time again that "fornication" can only be committed before marriage. I don't think so.

I know of a man, awesome singer, beautiful family, who was asked to sing a special program at our former church, and was later put in prison for molesting his kids. A young man who once rode my church bus later married, then was sent to prison for the same. I could tell you of two others affiliated with my own church. Is molesting your kids "adultery"? I know of a man who one day told his wife that he "liked men" and that was along about the time the AIDS virus hit the headlines. Was he simply an adulterer? 

 

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

The Sodomites were not merely having premarital relations, they were depraved perverts. That's what "fornication" is. Any married man who commits perversion, not just "adultery", is committing fornication. Therefore, if "Hubby" is chasing prostitutes, homosexuals, another woman or any other dangerous behavior, the "except it be" clause protects "Mom" from STD's. If "Dad" is a child molester, it protects the children. He needs to be "put away". Actually, he would be stoned in the OT. Adultery is just a specific KIND of fornication....a perversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have heard preaching time and time again that "fornication" can only be committed before marriage. I don't think so.
I know of a man, awesome singer, beautiful family, who was asked to sing a special program at our former church, and was later put in prison for molesting his kids. A young man who once rode my church bus later married, then was sent to prison for the same. I could tell you of two others affiliated with my own church. Is molesting your kids "adultery"? I know of a man who one day told his wife that he "liked men" and that was along about the time the AIDS virus hit the headlines. Was he simply an adulterer?

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The Sodomites were not merely having premarital relations, they were depraved perverts. That's what "fornication" is. Any married man who commits perversion, not just "adultery", is committing fornication. Therefore, if "Hubby" is chasing prostitutes, homosexuals, another woman or any other dangerous behavior, the "except it be" clause protects "Mom" from STD's. If "Dad" is a child molester, it protects the children. He needs to be "put away". Actually, he would be stoned in the OT. Adultery is just a specific KIND of fornication....a perversion.

The "except it be clause" was not extended to Mom.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you study the word "fornication" in scripture you'll notice it is usually the word used associated with prostitutes. There's also a religious aspect to it in many cases. 

 

I find it interesting too, that though David had 22 wives only in the case of Bathsheba was he considered an adulterer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We should also keep in mind that in God's perfect plan, as Jesus pointed out, there should be no divorce for any reason.

Yes, if we all re-lied on the Holy Spirit to choose our spouse, and not our emotions, we would never have the need for divorce 'cause God won't make a mistake in His choosing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No one, who has never been married, can be a bishop...God's rules, deal with it. 1Ti 3:2 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sOBer, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1Ti 3:4-5 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) "Must" means "must" There are plenty of Gifts, and Calling for single men, just no Offices. Anishinaabe

I thought most in this forum believed the Bible to be the literal Word of God?  How can we say we believe it is literal and then try to find a loop hole with a word as easy to understand as "must"? 

 

As far as the arguement that there have been people saved under the preaching of divorced men, it ain't the divorced man that saves, it is the Holy Spirit convicting the person's heart.  A stopped clock is right twice aday.  There has been people saved under unsaved preachers.  That is not a good arguement for ignoring God's Word.  The church that had some saved under the divorced man, you never know, had they OBeyed God, God might have blessed that church into becoming a huge church seeing hundreds maybe thousands saved.  OBedience will bring blessings more so than disOBedience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A married person can commit fornication and adultery

 

 

I have found (over the past 40+ years) that showing people the differences in the wording between the Holy Bible and the per-versions is the most effective way to convince people who are genuinely interested in the truth that the modern bibles are corrupt and untrustworthy.

However, I believe that the definition given for the word “fornication” is in error.

According to the Holy Bible, when a married person engages in sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse they are engaged in fornication.

Matthew 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.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Since the Scriptures clearly distinguish between the words “fornication” and “adultery” [Galatians 5:19], the definition of the word “fornication” was assumed to be “Sexual intercourse between unmarried people”; but since, according to the Bible, a married person - a wife in the case of Matthew 5:32 & Matthew 19:9 - can commit fornication, the definition of fornication would have to be: “Illicit (illegal or unlawful) sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

•  When two unmarried people engage sexual intercourse they are guilty of committing the sin of “fornication”.

•  When a married person engages in sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse they are not only guilty of committing the sin of “fornication”, but they are also guilty of committing the sin of “adultery” – because they have adulterated the marriage bond or covenant.

•  Only married people can commit the sin of adultery. While anyone (single or married) who engages in “illicit (illegal or unlawful) sexual intercourse outside of marriage” is guilty of the sin of fornication.

Like I said the two terms go together.

 

But I hope this is helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Interesting point made by ROBmac.

 

So the bearing of fruit in a Bible Believing Church is directly related to their OBedience of the Scriptures?

 

If little fruit or continual trouble in the Church, then the Pastor is not Scripturally qualified to Pastor? Perhaps he has just been fooling himself all along with purposely misinterpreting the qualifications of the office. There are several quals, not just divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Interesting point made by ROBmac.

 

So the bearing of fruit in a Bible Believing Church is directly related to their OBedience of the Scriptures?

 

 

Isn't that the best measure of the health of a local church?  Your second statement which is not quoted, about "continued trouble" disqualifying the pastor, well, that has to be defined.  Pastors are always dealing with trouble, the flock is made up of sinners with all kinds of prOBlems.  But missing or misuse of funds, collapse of separation among the members, a worldly congregation, rock music, etc., yes, those are signs that the pastor has failed in his duties.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yet Jesus didn't say God allowed divorce because of those sins, but because of the hardness of hearts. Jesus also made it clear that the original model of marriage for life, no divorce, was best.

 

One of the key aspects of being a follower of Christ is forgiveness and self-sacrifice. We don't have to get a divorce because our spouse committed adultery or fornication yet that's all too often the first response rather than the last consideration.

 

Just as with the lost, many Christian divorces have nothing to do with "the exception clause". Christian couples run to a lost judge in a worldly court due to their own self-centeredness.

 

This is why we need to be teaching congregations what biblical sacrifice is all about, what putting ones spouse ahead of themselves means biblically.

 

Too often Christians follow the same pattern of courtship and marriage as the world does, and then they follow them in the same manner with divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...