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.

Romney's Out, Who Is In?


ThePilgrim

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That time that comes every four years when the powerful allow the little people to vote into office the leader whom the powerful have chosen is fast coming upon us again.  Will it be the chosen Democrat or the chosen Republican?  Only time will tell.  :bored:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html?_r=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

(Some interesting thoughts on the GOP side of the race)

 

 

Money, infrastructure and perception. Three absolutely critical components of a national election. And based on these three, I believe there are only four candidates who can survive the first few state primary/caucuses come 2016. Five if Romney jumps in.

 

The Non-Romney Four:

  • Jeb Bush
  • Rand Paul
  • Scott Walker
  • Ted Cruz

OBviously if Romney jumps in there will be five as Romney would be able to work through to Florida.

 

I’ve written about this before, but I’ll touch on it again here. On the money front a candidate is going to need between $250 and $300 MILLION to win the primary in 2016. The 2012 election provides significant data on this front and it isn’t pretty. By the time we got to Florida in 2012, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were the only two remaining viable candidates. Gingrich was barely hanging on, riding the coat tails of a win in South Carolina, which helped him raise a couple million to go into Florida with. Unfortunately, a couple million was meaningless when it came to the big money machine of Mitt Romney.

 

There are conflicting numbers depending on which source you use, but the consensus seems to be that Romney spent around $10,000,000 in Florida on TV ads alone. Another $5,000,000 million was spent by pro-Romney Super PAC groups. This compared to about $2 million spent by the Gingrich campaign and another $2.2 million spent by PACs supporting Gingrich.

 

When you take into account the physical campaign infrastructure (offices, canvassing team vans, travel, etc), collateral materials and political mail and other marketing campaigns, the Romney machine prOBably spent some $30 MILLION+ in Florida alone!

 

Gingrich had a ground presence in Florida, but comparatively speaking it was insignificant and made little difference on primary day.

 

When it comes to running an election statewide, Florida is a beast. If you ever driven from Tallahassee to Miami (I have) you’ll get a sense of what kind of ground you have to cover and saturate to win statewide. Doing so is much easier said than done. And far more expensive than anyone might want to admit.

 

Do I wish sheer will, principles and grassroots work could do it alone? Absolutely. But I don’t believe it can. Not in a 3 second world where each and every voter is trained to see 50+ TV ads, youtube commercials, mail pieces, yard signs and someone at their front door.

 

So when I look at the current crop of candidates on the GOP side, I only see four who I believe can make it to Florida and beyond. Five if you count Romney.

 

-Jeb Bush

 

Bush is going to take a Romney path. He’ll struggle in Iowa, potentially win New Hampshire, lose South Carolina and command a huge outcome in Florida. Unlike Romney, Bush has the added benefit of extreme name recognition in Florida. From there it’s game on for Bush. He’ll have big money in the bank, big money Super PACs following his every step, massive campaign operations and the media giving him all the perception of winning that he’ll need. It doesn’t matter how well the other candidates are able to define Bush during the campaign, Bush will survive it all simply because he’ll have the money, organization and media all working in his favor.

 

-Rand Paul

 

Rand Paul will lose the perception war, no doubt. The media, GOP establishment and more traditional conservative wing won’t give Paul the fair shake he’ll deserve. That said, Paul will raise a ton of cash via a grassroots army that would crawl over glass to champion his cause. I think Paul will give Bush a run for his money in states like New Hampshire and I believe he’ll be able to survive beyond Florida whether he wins it or not. Additionally, because of how dedicated and energized Paul supporters are, the Paul campaign should be able to establish enough ground organization to help remain competitive beyond the first few weeks of primaries and caucuses.

 

-Scott Walker

 

I won’t hide the fact that I’m a Walker voter. I wrote about my support for Walker here and will be working to help his candidacy in any way I can. Setting that aside for a moment and putting my blogger hat back on, I believe Walker is the 900 pound guerrilla in the 2016 primary. Walker is a warrior when it comes to elections. He has won three elections in the past four years, one a recall bankrolled by powerful unions and OBama-friendly special interests. He’s a Governor of a Midwestern/Northern state that took over when his state was damn near bankrupt and against all odds turned it all around. Walker will gain huge Super PAC support from various free-market political spending groups and he’ll pull significant money from the big donors who have supported his campaigns for the past four years. Walker should do well in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but will prOBably have a tough run in Florida. That said, I think he’ll have enough steam to make it beyond Florida once his campaign begins running at full speed.

 

-Ted Cruz

 

Ted Cruz is going to struggle in two areas. Money and perception. The media hates Cruz and loves to mock, demean and insult him at every turn. The perception will be that he’s a far right wing candidate and will not be able to outlast the Bush machine much less win the general election. I disagree with this narrative, but I believe this is a narrative that will plague him from day one. On the money front, Cruz won’t be able to capture much of the big donor attention that will be consumed by Bush and Walker. He will, however, raise enormous cash via grassroots conservatives and may end up raising the most through small donations of all the candidates (He and Paul might split this trophy). If Cruz can get through Florida he’ll be a hefty challenger when states like Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and the rest of the south come around.

 

If these four candidates all survive Florida, I believe the 2016 primary is open for the taking. Bush will struggle in the midwest and west, Cruz will dominate the south, Walker will be poised well in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc., and Paul will be solid in Nevada, Colorado, Kentucky, Virginia and several others.

 

Again, it all comes down to money, infrastructure and perception. Grassroots power is the cherry on top and will be absolutely necessary, but without the ability to also master the first three components, a candidate is going to have a VERY difficult time when Florida voters go to the polls to see who survives.

 

Thoughts On Other Candidates

 

-Ben Carson

 

On most points I’m a fan of Carson and I think he commands a decent following. I do, however, believe his past comments against the 2nd Amendment and a few other issues primary voters will take offense to will be a crutch he won’t be able to overcome. Yes, I know Carson has changed his position on those issues, but don’t for a second think his new positions will make it in the big money TV ads that will slam him if/when he ever gains serious traction. The same happened to Gingrich back in 2012. Gingrich had a very good grassroots organization that was carrying him through to Florida, but the Romney Super PACs devastated him with constant TV ads that he just couldn’t overcome.

 

-Mike Huckabee

 

Huckabee, in my view, is in a situation where his best shot at winning the primary came and went. In 2016 the vote that Huckabee would need to win will be split in far too many directions via Paul, Walker, Carson and Cruz. Could Huckabee compete in Iowa? Sure. But as 2008 and 2012 showed us, Iowa doesn’t necessarily pick the candidate that makes it beyond Florida. Mike Huckabee won in 2008, for example, and Rick Santorum won in 2012. Huckabee will appeal to social conservatives, but in my opinions won’t get far without a significant bump in the three key components listed above.

Marco Rubio could be interesting, but his past support of an amnesty bill will cripple him and Bush should be able to oust him with the Florida vote. Chris Christie and Rick Perry are both going to be non-starters, contrary to what the media would have you believe, and I don’t think Sarah Palin or Donald Trump will actually run.

 

So again, in my opinion the following four are the candidates with the most potential to survive beyond Florida.

 

The Non-Romney Four:

  • Jeb Bush
  • Rand Paul
  • Scott Walker
  • Ted Cruz

Entire article here:

http://ericodom.com/2015/01/the-only-four-gop-2016-potus-candidates-who-can-make-it-through-the-first-few-primary-states-are/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This was January....do you have an update?   I believe Rand Paul can hang it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let's hope Mitt Romney (of the false religion of Mormonism) doesn't get back in an split up the support for the other possible republican contenders. I sure don't want to end up with the voting choice (presidential) between an extreme liberal dem and extreme false religion rep.  That left no "lesser of 2 evils" since they were both so wickedly evil I wouldn't vote for either one.  I believe that's why the "Obam-ination" won last time, because conservative Christians wouldn't vote for a Mormon, leaving no choices on the table at all.  (Which is exactly what liberals want... wouldn't surprise me if they funded Romney in part because of that).   Just one more reason why I can't see our once great country coming out of this spiral down the tubes. Makes me stop and pray... "even so, come, Lord Jesus", and might I also pray "soon".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It seems possible the powers that be are using the idea of Romney entering the race as a scare tactic to get more people supporting Bush. The Repub leadership desperately wants to make sure one of their liberal leaning, play the game as usual, good 'ol boys club men gets the nomination. The Repub leadership has proven many times over the past few decades they would rather lose to the Dems than to have a non-establishment Repub win. So, if they think a late Romney run might accomplish that, they will prod him to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

He is against Nato and for unlimited immigration as far as I can judge.  Even with Cameron's offer to take 20,000 immigrants in 5 years.  Our local authority will have to house a share of them and don't have enough community housing now,  He has one good point though, he is against the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Rick Perry and Scott Walker have both dropped from the race. That's two governors who were both expected to be among the front runners out early.

It was discouraging today to hear some of the Christian candidates, including Ted Cruz, come out in support of the idea of America having a Muslim president and there being nothing wrong with such. This stems from a question asked of Ben Carson regarding the religion of presidential candidates and the presidency in which he said he didn't believe a Muslim should be president because their religion is opposed to much of the American Constitution and American values.

Not only the Dems, and media, but several Republican candidates were quick to come out and pounce on Carson (who is nominally SDA) over this. With some it's no big surprise because they would say almost anything right now to try and get some attention. However those like Cruz should know better and I'm very disappointed in his response to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It goes back to the castigation of those who were opposed to having a Catholic president and "see, nothing bad happened" (yeah, right)

 

That's a good point. While many back then were actually willing to stand against the idea of a Catholic in the White House, today most "conservative Christians" would support a Catholic or Mormon, and even a Muslim if they spoke the right words.

Never mind that most often when the Founders used the term "religion" they meant Christianity and they made it clear the Constitution could only serve a Christian people and would fail to work for any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just found out that Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist...

Ouch...I think I will still vote for him.  It's not like an IFB has a chance at the office and SDA while still a false religion is better than the Muslim we have in there now or some of the Mormons trying to get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ouch...I think I will still vote for him.  It's not like an IFB has a chance at the office and SDA while still a false religion is better than the Muslim we have in there now or some of the Mormons trying to get in.

You make a good point; it is a secular office anyway.

I'll admit that I haven't really followed anything very closely at this point. Like most people, I thought he was a Christian, because that's what the media says he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, Carson is SDA, doesn't really have a salvation testimony, doesn't seem to be very active with regards to church, but credits Christianity with changing his life.

From what I've read so far, Ted Cruz has the best salvation testimony and record of church activity and taking a stand for the faith.

The other candidates, all of which claim to be Christian, have varying degrees of positions; most not sound.

Party leadership (for both parties) and the media are working overtime to make sure an establishment candidate will win the nomination and election. Christians and the few remaining real conservatives waste their opportunity to shape the election by not coming together early on to support the best possible candidate. Instead they divide their vote between several candidates, and worst of all they have the bad habit of giving support to candidate "A" but as soon as something comes up or someone else says the right word they jump to another candidate...then another...then another...until eventually the nominee has been decided by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Actually, Ted did not come out in favor of having a Muslim POTUS. That is absolutely NOT what he said, and his further comments later are proof of that. He was completely correct when he said that the Constitution forbids having a religious test for POTUS. That means that we don't use that as a litmus test and say, "No, you can't run." But that doesn't mean the American people can't vote against one. Cruz did not support the idea of a Muslim POTUS. He supported the Constitution.

The day after Carson made his comment, he furthered clarified. Something he constantly does. He supported bans on certain types of weapons...until he began the run for POTUS, then he "clarified" what he meant.  He said vaccinations should be mandatory and a different time said people should not be allowed exemptions for vaccinations for religious or philosophical reasons (now, not to get into a vaccine discussion, my point is that making vaccination mandatory is an expansion of governmental "authority" and control). But after he began his run, and people were coming out against his vaccine statements, he explained what he "really" meant. 

I'm tired of politicians (and Carson is one, regardless of his "outsider" status) who make statements and then backpedal, or who've had certain policies or beliefs for years and then all-of-a-sudden change their minds. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people changing and growing. But when it's a sudden change and it's accompanied by excuses rather than admitting having been wrong about something, I don't trust it. That is why I don't trust Carson or Trump. I trust, rather, the man who admits that he was wrong or mistaken about something (example would be Cruz admitting he was mistaken about John Roberts during the debate...no excuses, just an admission of having been wrong). 

Bush was the establishment first choice. He may be bowing out soon, though, because his campaign is hurting. Fiorina and Rubio are, IMO, the next choices of the establishment. Paul has lost a lot of support because of his aligning with the establishment (beginning with his endorsement of McConnell during the primary over the constitutional opponent [who later became governor of KY, so I'm thinking he'd have had no problem winning the general] and continuing  on to other issues). Trump has seemingly blamed 9/11 on W (he didn't really, but he did say over and over that it happened on W's watch [he used the word "reign" once, which tells me a lot about his view of what he expects if he gets in...] which is true, but students of history know that it was not due to W but rather policies from past administrations) and that could potentially hurt him. I don't think Trump is going to get the nomination, and I certainly hope not.

Cruz is not perfect, but he is the best one running. A constitutionalist is what we need in there. A Christian one is icing on the cake.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Just an FWIW article. It could be that Carson will be the establishment pick.

http://www.lifefaithpolitics.com/ted-cruz-vs-ben-carson-where-they-stand-on-guns-abortion-immigration-parental-rights-and-more/

 

(I realize that some members here favor Carson. I am not trying to start an argument. I may be, as I've been accused of before, nitpicking, but I'd rather nitpick and have a constitutionalist win than just accept the status quo. We are completely on board for Ted Cruz. If he does not win the nomination, we will likely hold our noses and vote anyway...depending on who is the nominee.)

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, 10 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...