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

  • 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.

can you find a Biblical pattern for courtship and marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 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.

John,

If you remember, the OT law allowed a man to divorce his wife simply if she "found no favor in his eyes" (Deuteronomy 24:1-3). That truly qualifies as "hardness if heart". But the thing Jesus spoke of, "Fornication", was punishable by death. So was adultery. Like I said, if Dad or Mom is molesting the kids or some other perversion, that qualifies as fornication. Jesus said "except it be for fornication". That is not hardness of heart or failure to forgive: that is for safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John,

If you remember, the OT law allowed a man to divorce his wife simply if she "found no favor in his eyes" (Deuteronomy 24:1-3). That truly qualifies as "hardness if heart". But the thing Jesus spoke of, "Fornication", was punishable by death. So was adultery. Like I said, if Dad or Mom is molesting the kids or some other perversion, that qualifies as fornication. Jesus said "except it be for fornication". That is not hardness of heart or failure to forgive: that is for safety.

 

When Jesus spoke about divorce, he did not change the rules at all, he merely brought them back to the Old Testament.  Paul gave us the doctrine of marriage and divorce.  Which means, there is to be no divorce for any reason at all in this age.  Choose wisely.

 

Now as for biblical examples of courtship I think it went like this:  A young man eyes a lady, finds her Dad and offers him camels for his daughter.  They negotiate and an agreement is reached and the daughter marries the young man.  If they both love the Lord, they'll soon fall in love.  I've got on daughter available now for 300 camels.  They price will be 500 head after college.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All the camels on earth wouldn't be a fraction of the worth of my daughter. Only a godly young man could even come close to having enough 'camels' to suit me.

 

Jesus wants us to marry for life. My one and only Wife and I have been married 29 years and we're going for 29 more, at least. But if a spouse is a fornicator, Jesus said "except it be for fornication". Stay away from fornication and we'll all be just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

All the camels on earth wouldn't be a fraction of the worth of my daughter. Only a godly young man could even come close to having enough 'camels' to suit me.

 

All that camel stuff is a joke Wayne!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

When Jesus spoke about divorce, he did not change the rules at all, he merely brought them back to the Old Testament.  Paul gave us the doctrine of marriage and divorce.  Which means, there is to be no divorce for any reason at all in this age.  Choose wisely.

 

Now as for biblical examples of courtship I think it went like this:  A young man eyes a lady, finds her Dad and offers him camels for his daughter.  They negotiate and an agreement is reached and the daughter marries the young man.  If they both love the Lord, they'll soon fall in love.  I've got on daughter available now for 300 camels.  They price will be 500 head after college.  

So basically you just disregard the words of Jesus when He said, "Except it be for fornication". When Jesus said that, He wasn't saying actually saying this was an acceptable reason for divorce, He was actually saying you CAN'T get divorced for it. That's silly and putting man's spin on it.

 

Now understand, I am not saying that He meant you MUST get divorced for it-certainly reconciliation and repentance would be the preferred route, but Jesus clearly DID say that for fornication, a man could divorce his wife. AND Paul added, through direction of the Spirit, that a believer who is abandoned by an unbeliving spouse was not under bondage to that person, and thus was free to let them go and remarry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When Jesus spoke about divorce, he did not change the rules at all, he merely brought them back to the Old Testament.  Paul gave us the doctrine of marriage and divorce.  Which means, there is to be no divorce for any reason at all in this age.  Choose wisely.

 

Now as for biblical examples of courtship I think it went like this:  A young man eyes a lady, finds her Dad and offers him camels for his daughter.  They negotiate and an agreement is reached and the daughter marries the young man.  If they both love the Lord, they'll soon fall in love.  I've got on daughter available now for 300 camels.  They price will be 500 head after college.  

Ok so who do you follow Moses, Jesus or Paul?

 

How do you make the distinction?

 

And why do you  follow the one you chose too over the others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So basically you just disregard the words of Jesus when He said, "Except it be for fornication". When Jesus said that, He wasn't saying actually saying this was an acceptable reason for divorce, He was actually saying you CAN'T get divorced for it. That's silly and putting man's spin on it.

 

Now understand, I am not saying that He meant you MUST get divorced for it-certainly reconciliation and repentance would be the preferred route, but Jesus clearly DID say that for fornication, a man could divorce his wife. AND Paul added, through direction of the Spirit, that a believer who is abandoned by an unbeliving spouse was not under bondage to that person, and thus was free to let them go and remarry.

 

Ohh goodness.  Jesus never allowed for divorce for the church age believers.  He brought the Pharisees back to the beginning when there was no divorce.  God allowed divorce from Moses' time until the church age only for fornication because of the hardness of men's hearts.   
 
Paul reaffirms the original plan, no divorce.  
 
Here's what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:
 
"10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
 
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
 
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
 
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
 
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
 
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
 
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife."
 
If verse 15 meant that one is free to remarry, then Paul is a fool and by extension the Lord for contradicting themselves here when in verse 10 Paul tells us there is to be no divorce.  In addition, if verse 15 again means one is free to remarry, why bother giving us verse 11 and 27?  Remain unmarried or be reconciled.  God is not the author of confusion folks.
 

 

Ok so who do you follow Moses, Jesus or Paul?

 

How do you make the distinction?

 

And why do you  follow the one you chose too over the others?

 

Easy, Paul because I'm in the church age.

 

Jesus gave us no new doctrine, he just reiterated the original plan and what God permitted through Moses because of man's hardened heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Ohh goodness.  Jesus never allowed for divorce for the church age believers.  He brought the Pharisees back to the beginning when there was no divorce.  God allowed divorce from Moses' time until the church age only for fornication because of the hardness of men's hearts.   
 
Paul reaffirms the original plan, no divorce.  
 
Here's what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:
 
"10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
 
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
 
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
 
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
 
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
 
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
 
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife."
 
If verse 15 meant that one is free to remarry, then Paul is a fool and by extension the Lord for contradicting themselves here when in verse 10 Paul tells us there is to be no divorce.  In addition, if verse 15 again means one is free to remarry, why bother giving us verse 11 and 27?  Remain unmarried or be reconciled.  God is not the author of confusion folks.
 

 

 

Easy, Paul because I'm in the church age.

 

Jesus gave us no new doctrine, he just reiterated the original plan and what God permitted through Moses because of man's hardened heart.

 

Then what does Paul mean when he says,15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:"?

 

Under bondage to what? It means we are not under bondage to that unbelieving spouse that has left-its abandonment. If my unbelieving wife left me, walked out, wanted a divorce, Paul is saying that I am not under bondage to that person-thus, if we dvorce and I remarry, I am free to do so. Not under bondage means not bound to them.

 

Jesus' comment on fornication has nothing to do with the hardness of heart issue, and He makes it clear in the context. The hardness of heart issue had to do with divorce for any reason. Then He says that the way it was meant to be was one man, one woman, and there should be no divorce, save for the cause of fornication.  So here He gives one good cause for divorce. And of course, the believer/unbeliever issue isn't brought yet into play because as yet there are no believers/unbelievers, per se, or no saved/unsaved-He is dealing with the people of Israel, God's people still at the time.  Paul deals with the church, regenerate married to unregenerate, which the Bible makes clear is not God's will in the first place, unless two are married as both unsaved, then one is saved.

 

To try and explain away the clear words of Jesus and Paul is why so many divorced people are thrown away by churches. It has been my experience in some IFB churches who see it that way, that a divorced person is good for two things only: to fill a seat and to pay a tithe. Otherwise sit down and shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ohh goodness. Jesus never allowed for divorce for the church age believers. He brought the Pharisees back to the beginning when there was no divorce. God allowed divorce from Moses' time until the church age only for fornication because of the hardness of men's hearts.

Paul reaffirms the original plan, no divorce.

Here's what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:

"10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:


11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.


12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.


13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.


14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.


15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.


27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife."


If verse 15 meant that one is free to remarry, then Paul is a fool and by extension the Lord for contradicting themselves here when in verse 10 Paul tells us there is to be no divorce. In addition, if verse 15 again means one is free to remarry, why bother giving us verse 11 and 27? Remain unmarried or be reconciled. God is not the author of confusion folks.



Easy, Paul because I'm in the church age.

Jesus gave us no new doctrine, he just reiterated the original plan and what God permitted through Moses because of man's hardened heart.
Tis true, that Jesus gave us no new commandment, neither did He seek to undo the Law.
This would happen at His Death, God would rend the Veil.

Paul was given instructions for the Church that were different. Why?
Because they were people who werent raised under The National Jewish Law. This is of utmost importance, as some of the Epistles of the Apostles were written to Christians converted from Judaism, who still lived in an area that enforced Mosaic/ pharisaic law, until 70 A.D.

The Gentiles, having not known the Law, were instructed not to hold their spouses who would not be converted, if they wanted to leave.

Any Gentile , no matter what their Marital status before their new birth,
was only held to what they did afterwards.
So, yeah, there is a whole lot of divorce, when married people get saved, and it is to be expected, it is dealt with.
Let them go, or let them stay, it's the choice of there Free Will, and is a picture, once again, of our Free Will choice to choose our brideGroom, Christ.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1Co 7:12-16
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John,

If you remember, the OT law allowed a man to divorce his wife simply if she "found no favor in his eyes" (Deuteronomy 24:1-3). That truly qualifies as "hardness if heart". But the thing Jesus spoke of, "Fornication", was punishable by death. So was adultery. Like I said, if Dad or Mom is molesting the kids or some other perversion, that qualifies as fornication. Jesus said "except it be for fornication". That is not hardness of heart or failure to forgive: that is for safety.

 

Wow, I think Heartstrings is definitely onto something important here. I have never thought of it in this way and IMO, this makes very good sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Tis true, that Jesus gave us no new commandment, neither did He seek to undo the Law.
This would happen at His Death, God would rend the Veil.

Paul was given instructions for the Church that were different. Why?
Because they were people who werent raised under The National Jewish Law. This is of utmost importance, as some of the Epistles of the Apostles were written to Christians converted from Judaism, who still lived in an area that enforced Mosaic/ pharisaic law, until 70 A.D.

The Gentiles, having not known the Law, were instructed not to hold their spouses who would not be converted, if they wanted to leave.

Any Gentile , no matter what their Marital status before their new birth,
was only held to what they did afterwards.
So, yeah, there is a whole lot of divorce, when married people get saved, and it is to be expected, it is dealt with.
Let them go, or let them stay, it's the choice of there Free Will, and is a picture, once again, of our Free Will choice to choose our brideGroom, Christ.

Anishinaabe

 

Well, well, looky here. I we got us a closet dispensationalist.

 

Bible becomes oh so much clearer when the Spirit shows you where God changes His dealings with us or the Jews, don't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Easy, Paul because I'm in the church age.

 

Jesus gave us no new doctrine, he just reiterated the original plan and what God permitted through Moses because of man's hardened heart.

 

 

So you rightly divide between church age and Moses.

 

What about between Jesus and Paul?

 

Do you believe the church age started before Christ went to the cross?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Then what does Paul mean when he says,15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:"?

 

Under bondage to what? It means we are not under bondage to that unbelieving spouse that has left-its abandonment. If my unbelieving wife left me, walked out, wanted a divorce, Paul is saying that I am not under bondage to that person-thus, if we dvorce and I remarry, I am free to do so. Not under bondage means not bound to them.

 

Jesus' comment on fornication has nothing to do with the hardness of heart issue, and He makes it clear in the context. The hardness of heart issue had to do with divorce for any reason. Then He says that the way it was meant to be was one man, one woman, and there should be no divorce, save for the cause of fornication.  So here He gives one good cause for divorce. And of course, the believer/unbeliever issue isn't brought yet into play because as yet there are no believers/unbelievers, per se, or no saved/unsaved-He is dealing with the people of Israel, God's people still at the time.  Paul deals with the church, regenerate married to unregenerate, which the Bible makes clear is not God's will in the first place, unless two are married as both unsaved, then one is saved.

 

To try and explain away the clear words of Jesus and Paul is why so many divorced people are thrown away by churches. It has been my experience in some IFB churches who see it that way, that a divorced person is good for two things only: to fill a seat and to pay a tithe. Otherwise sit down and shut up.

I see UKU, you rightly divide between Israel and the church.  I am glad to see you had a understanding of pre cross and post cross.  Many don't see it that is why they blend the gospel of the Kingdom and the gospel of Grace into one gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, well, looky here. I we got us a closet dispensationalist.

Bible becomes oh so much clearer when the Spirit shows you where God changes His dealings with us or the Jews, don't it?

Well, Jesus kinda gave us the Intro...

Mat 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Gal 3:24-25
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


Jesus, until His death, was the fulfillment of the Schoolmaster, always showing us that we can't possibly work our way in.

Jn 5:39
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:and they are they which testify of me.

Where we disagree, is in division of Matthew.
Where Jesus said this :

Mat 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And this:

Mat 18:17
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church:but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Before this:

Mat 24:4
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

To these, who he had begun to call the church:

Mat 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

After saying, to Israel, this:

Mat 23:37-39
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Signifying that their restoration would not begin until His second Coming, which happens ...

Mat 24:29-31
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

"After the Tribulation".


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Then what does Paul mean when he says,15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:"?

 

Under bondage to what? It means we are not under bondage to that unbelieving spouse that has left-its abandonment. If my unbelieving wife left me, walked out, wanted a divorce, Paul is saying that I am not under bondage to that person-thus, if we dvorce and I remarry, I am free to do so. Not under bondage means not bound to them.

 

No, such a meaning makes Paul look silly, for just seconds ago he said remain unmarried or be reconciled.  He says the same thing in verse 28.

 

Verse 15 means that the unbeliever is not entitled to come back and spend the night, expect to be cared for, etc.  Unless of course, they reconcile.  

 

That's the only way that whole passage makes sense.

 

Same with Christ, again he was talking about what God permitted under Moses which was still in effect.  They were only allowed to divorce for the cause of fornication and that was because their hearts were hardened.  See?  They didn't have enough grace in them to be like Hosea with Gomer.  

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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 11 Guests (See full list)

  • 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

  • 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...