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.

Speaking In Tongues


GraceSaved

Recommended Posts

  • Lady Administrators

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/tongues_were_a_sign.html

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/tongue_speaking.html

 

GS, here are a couple of links that might help a bit. I don't know, you may already have covered some of this with her.

 

One thing that many who are in the charismatic scene don't understand is that often the "tongues" are simply noises that are hypnotically induced (years ago [and it could still be so], people were instructed to just sit and stare into space while muttering "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus" over and over and over again, until the person speaks in tongues. That is self-hypnosis). 

 

As was mentioned already, tongues is simply another word for languages.  Paul spoke a number of languages, and that is what he meant when he said he spoke tongues more than you all (see, he even spoke Southern  :nuts: ).

 

I think in the case of your sister, she will simply need time.  Time studying scripture, time discussing and praying with you, etc.  The Holy Spirit will work in her and she will soon be able to leave the desire for experience behind (soon being relative as to each individual person).  Once one "experiences" that, it is hard to leave it behind.  But it has been and can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Both are possible definitions for the Bible uses the word "perfect" in both these ways - whether you like it or not.

 

Both Possible is like saying prOBably. 

 

Why do have such a hard time with it.  I even showed you why the KJV translators didn't translate it complete as some of the New translations do, and that God wanted it to say perfect and not complete because David would not be completed until Christ return to set up the kingdom.

 

If you want to play the double meaning game.  The word Perfect here would actually be closer to the word "fulfill" than it is complete.  But God didn't want that one either because not all of David's enemies have been dealt with so fulfill would not be right either.  the last enemy being death, is not fully defeated until Rev 20 where is says death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire.

 

So in short, it could not be compete or fulfill because all concerning David is not completed and fulfilled yet.  Hence the use of perfect in Ps 138 is perfect without the meaning of complete and fulfill though it is possible but not prOBable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Had enough of several thread here where people apparently are deliberately misunderstanding what is plain.

There are a number of people here who have no right teaching on a Baptist board, who OBviously have seriously unbiblical and non - Baptist teaching who presume to do so.

There are people who often, if not constantly, post untrue information, and who deliberately misrepresent what other members say.
There are some here who apparently want to defend these too.......

You say whatever you want - I give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is a discussion forum, not a teaching academy, not a church.

 

If one person (for instance) wants to declare that Christians are commanded to tithe and another proclaims otherwise, then there is something to discuss. We are all free to participate, or not, free to read the postings, or not.

 

If this were a church or school then we might expect otherwise, but not in a discussion forum.

 

How many times have myself and others started threads in which we most all are in agreement with and that's as far as the thread goes. Nothing to discuss.

 

Pastor Markle posts some excellent material. Very much worth reading and meditating upon. Yet since there is agreement these great posts receive few comments because there is little to discuss.

 

On the other hand, let someone post saying Christian women who have their hair above shoulder length are not abiding in Scripture in that regard and there will be pages of postings because there will be a variety of opposing views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The perfect was the Word of God, the scriptures.  When the apostles passed away, the scriptures were completed and tongues ceased.  It was not until sometime later that some, the Montanists, claimed to speak in tongues and prophecy.  They also had other false teachings, one was that marriage is wrong as it consists of the same act as adultery.  They also were the first to introduce the idea that there were two types of sin, venial and mortal, and other errors later adopted by the Church of Rome.

 

Charismatic 'tongues' are not biblical tongues but are gibberish, also practiced by many pagan religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Everyone knows that a woman's hair is not to be longer than 8.3274 inches in length. 

 

 

Actually, I think it's not supposed to be shorter than 8.3274 inches in length. At least that's how "REAL" Baptists do the math!

 

 

Revelation 9:7-8
  7   And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
  8   And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

 

What we learn from this is...

  1. The Bible differentiates between men's hair and women's hair.
  2. These demonic locusts had faces "of men"...but...
  3. They had hair "of women".
  4. Therefore, men with women's hair are demonic.   :coffee2:

:scratchchin:

 

kimClement.jpg

 

:nuts:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Had enough of several thread here where people apparently are deliberately misunderstanding what is plain.

There are a number of people here who have no right teaching on a Baptist board, who OBviously have seriously unbiblical and non - Baptist teaching who presume to do so.

There are people who often, if not constantly, post untrue information, and who deliberately misrepresent what other members say.
There are some here who apparently want to defend these too.......

You say whatever you want - I give up.

good to see you have such a pure heart and focus on things that are lovely and honest,  And that you make such just accusations and that you always focus on good reports and all your words are virtuous . I am sure we all want to follow your example

 

Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
 9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I Cor. was written to: A. A New Testament Church, and therefore relevant. B. A group of Apostles, and we should ignore it. ? Pick a winner.

 

I invite you to search this site for miracles, wonders, signs, etc and I have explained thoroughly what I mean.

 

The point is this, as the Gospel spread so did the Spirit's regeneration. At the time of the Writings, the gifts like healing, prophesying, tongues, etc were relevant and of God but referred to as childish as the Spirit spread with the Gospel the months and years following Pentecost.

Noone living has witnessed any Scriptural gifts or signs or miracles apart from the greatest miracle and gift of God which is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

 

This tongues nonsense if mainly propagated by silly women laden with sins and emotional men IMO. Folks read emotional accounts or witness emotional outbursts and buy into this nonsense as signs from God or miracles, it is all rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

An interesting fact all the years I did go to AoG, I never once heard a man speak in tongues or interpret. Since women are more emotional maybe that's why they "experience" tongues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I invite you to search this site for miracles, wonders, signs, etc and I have explained thoroughly what I mean.

The point is this, as the Gospel spread so did the Spirit's regeneration. At the time of the Writings, the gifts like healing, prophesying, tongues, etc were relevant and of God but referred to as childish as the Spirit spread with the Gospel the months and years following Pentecost.
Noone living has witnessed any Scriptural gifts or signs or miracles apart from the greatest miracle and gift of God which is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

This tongues nonsense if mainly propagated by silly women laden with sins and emotional men IMO. Folks read emotional accounts or witness emotional outbursts and buy into this nonsense as signs from God or miracles, it is all rubbish.

1. The Charismatics ahould not be allowed to redefine Biblical terms.
2. ICorinthians 14, the wrap up of a 3 chapter long set of instructions on how to conduct a NT assembly, ends with this:

1Co 14:37-40
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

If you wish to remain ignorant, of God's commandments, so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What I found interesting in the AoG church I was saved in, is that during year to two years after I was saved that I attended there, not one peep of speaking in tongues, not one bit of any form of emotionalism on display, no rockin' music, no dancing in the aisles, but then...

 

Right after that conservative pastor moved to a new church and a new pastor came in (the new pastor and his wife were very Charismatic) and he and his wife started speaking in tongues, within short order several in the congregation also started speaking in tongues.

 

Within a couple weeks there was a permanent band emplaced upon the platform with players ready to "rock for the Lord" (where did they come from anyway? I don't remember seeing any of them there before). The services changed to be starting out with and back and forth between rockin' worship music, to the pastor or his wife talking, accompanied with speaking in tongues, to which a growing number in the congregation would join in with the gibberish sounds, sometimes with someone claiming to interpret some of it. Along with this some of the congregation began jumping around, dancing and making noise during this part of the service.

 

I remember sitting there rather shocked, wondering what was going on, why and how.

 

How could this church go from well ordered services, with biblically sound preaching, prayer and music, to this emotion-driven wildness, entertainment and watery preaching?

 

I left that church but I doubt they noticed because soon there were a couple hundred more attending than before.

 

It was almost like the devil slipped in the door, took over, hypnotized a large section of the congregation, changed everything for the worse and drew others in to join them. And it happened all so quick.

 

Pray for your pastors, your church leaders, your congregation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.  Much of the context of 1Cor, particularly chapters 12 and 14, concern spiritual gifts, among them being miraculous tongues speaking, knowledge and prophecying. So this verse is speaking of the gifts of these things. Thus, knowledge in general still exists, and prophecy does, in that prophecy is the giving of God's revealed will, which every godly preacher does when he preaches a scriptural sermon, and tongues, as far as human languages still exist. And as has been testified of here, and I have heard of the same thing occurring, the Lord still, from time to time, opens the ears of understanding of the lost to hear the gospel, even if spoken in a different language than they understand. But that's different than the gift spoken of in 1Cor 14. So clearly, due to context, we know that this verse is speaking of the miraculous gifts.

 

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

  We know in part and prophecy in part-this means that as the Lord gives the gifts of knowledge and prophecy, it is partial-no one person was given ALL prophecy or ALL knowledge-each prophecy was for a reason, and was a part of the totality of prophecies the Lord would give for His people, be they Israel or the churches.

 

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

This verse juxtaposes the previous verse, speaking of 'in part', thus, perfect does, indeed, mean 'complete'. In part/perfect...in part/complete. That which is perfect refers to the completion of the word of God, what we call the canon of scripture. Once that was complete, Once the Lord gave the last prophecy, the last revelation of His will and word, that which was perfect came, and thus, that which was in part was done away.

 

Tongues, generally-speaking, were given for one primary purpose: as a sign to unbelieving Jews, as a fulfillment of prophecy. 1Cor 14:21 says "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord." This prophecy is found in !saiah 28:11 & 12: "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." Tongues was given for the sake of the Jews, as a sign that their promised rest in the Messiah had come, yet, in Isaiah, they were warned that they wouldn't hear it, and so it came to pass. These are those referred to in 1Cor 14:22, :"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe."  Once they rejected completely, once the canon of scripture was completed, tongues as a GIFT ceased. It doesn't mean, again, that the Lord can't use it as He did on Pentecost, which is, as I read it, the same way it was testified here, not so much necessarily a miracle of speech, but a miracle of understanding, though that could be argued. But when you hear that someone who understands NO English, yet understands the gospel in English, it seems to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...