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.

Soulwinning Teens and Young people


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And I've seen men take titles of honour to themselves as well - like "Reverend" which, while we are talking biblical terms, should only be applied to God.

That seems to me like a very prideful thing to do. And an unbiblical thing to do as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​Which raises the point of just where Scripture says anything even remotely related to a bus ministry.

​Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in.

He that goeth forth weeping, bearing precious seed shall doubtless come again with rejoicing bringing his sheaves with him.

Pretty much all of it related to the Lord's Command is related to the bus ministry. The bus ministry is the open door ticket into countless homes with the ice already broken.

Time is getting shorter every day folks, you may want to reevaluate sitting on laurels.

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

I don't want to be in the "dull as mud" section of Heaven with the calvin worshippers. I want to be in the shiney section thank you very much :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Potatochip and others who have offered testimony of your Biblical witness to young people, thank you. You are setting a good Christian example for the people around you and to us through your testimony.  

Also it's too bad this thread got so derailed into yet another fruitless discussion  argument about Calvinism. And I sincerely apologize for my part in it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in.

He that goeth forth weeping, bearing precious seed shall doubtless come again with rejoicing bringing his sheaves with him.

Pretty much all of it related to the Lord's Command is related to the bus ministry. The bus ministry is the open door ticket into countless homes with the ice already broken.

Time is getting shorter every day folks, you may want to reevaluate sitting on laurels.

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

I don't want to be in the "dull as mud" section of Heaven with the calvin worshippers. I want to be in the shiney section thank you very much :)

 

​This is telling them to go out and make disciples (as it were) and bring them in; not to go forth and drag the lost into the home of the saved. Notice those not properly dressed (unsaved) who showed up were kicked out.

"Church" is to be the gathering of the saints (saved folks) for edification, teaching and instruction in holy living and spreading the Gospel. The saints are then to go forth share the Gospel, bringing those who hear and receive into the gathering of believers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Li Bai Jia,  Thank you so much for the compliment.  Every once and a while in the street I get someone that compliments the work I do for the Kingdom of God.  I am so busy.  At those times.  I have to say thank you quickly and move on.  

I actually got this idea for reaching young people from a much older woman.  In her 70s I believe.  It was at lunch with 2 other ladies.  They had invited me to lunch after services.  She had said mentioned just how open that young people are.  That reaching them while they are young is a fairly easy thing to do.  I figure as a grandmother. She just might know what she is talking about.  Sure enough handing out tracts.  They were reading them.  Young people are just getting acclimated to being social in the world.  I recognized all those things and thought what a wonderful idea.  I have her to thank for it I really do.  Of course Jesus Christ who brought us together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​If this statement isn't Calvinistic, I don't know what is. <_<

​That depends upon which way one chooses to look at it. Many anti-cals say the same thing, it's just a matter of their perspective of "why" being different from the cals.

The non-cal says anyone saved is of the elect and they are elect because they chose to be born again in Christ.

While the cal says anyone saved is of the elect and they are elect because God specifically chose them to be born again at that specific time.

The saved person is viewed as one of the elect by both the cal and non-cal, but each holds a very different view as to the how and why the saved is one of the elect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​That depends upon which way one chooses to look at it. Many anti-cals say the same thing, it's just a matter of their perspective of "why" being different from the cals.

The non-cal says anyone saved is of the elect and they are elect because they chose to be born again in Christ.

While the cal says anyone saved is of the elect and they are elect because God specifically chose them to be born again at that specific time.

The saved person is viewed as one of the elect by both the cal and non-cal, but each holds a very different view as to the how and why the saved is one of the elect.

​This is pretty reasonable but misses the real point.

The biggest difference is the fruit each type bears. The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life and he that winneth souls is wise.

The calvin worshippers worship his ideas because it justifies their laziness and lack of witnessing in their own hearts. Face it folks, witnessing is the by far the hardest thing we can do and the only thing that counts in Jesus' opinion and if you want that backed by Scripture, start at Genesis and finish at Revelation.

The only reason anyone turns their ear to this calvin rubbish is because its relieves their fleshly desire to do nothing for God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​This is pretty reasonable but misses the real point.

The biggest difference is the fruit each type bears. The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life and he that winneth souls is wise.

The calvin worshippers worship his ideas because it justifies their laziness and lack of witnessing in their own hearts. Face it folks, witnessing is the by far the hardest thing we can do and the only thing that counts in Jesus' opinion and if you want that backed by Scripture, start at Genesis and finish at Revelation.

The only reason anyone turns their ear to this calvin rubbish is because its relieves their fleshly desire to do nothing for God.

 

​Actually, I made my point. You are addressing another point, which is fine too. The only point I was speaking to was that we all believe the saved are elect. It's the how and why which we differ on, which those questions are the beginning of the point you wanted to address.

To another point, I've never yet met one of these "calvin worshippers". I've also never met a cal that didn't believe in witnessing.

Previously you asked about a website for a cal Bap church I mentioned to which I have found out they have none. I was sent some recordings of a few sermons and the most recent one I listened to had the pastor, a cal, talking about how whosoever believes shall be saved and it's our (Christians) duty to take the Gospel to the lost and to witness at every opportunity. This is in line with cal preachers such as Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Mueller and others.

One of the reasons some folks don't listen to anti-cals is because of the way they deliver their arguments against cals. They hear all sorts of charges but then when they investigate in person they find so many of the charges weren't true they are more open to give the cals a more attentive ear.

This is similar to the old hype against doing marijuana when they used to warn of outrageous effects that even a puff of a joint could cause but when some tried a puff to see if it was true or not, and found out it wasn't, they determined there was nothing to worry about and smoked on.

When dealing with the cal issue it's so much better to stick with the biblical points than to use hyperbole, argue about Calvin (which many cals know little or nothing about anyway), or to try and tell them what they think. Speak the Scripture, let the Holy Ghost do His work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To another point, I've never yet met one of these "calvin worshippers".

​I have.  Had to rebuke a pastor in his own church over this.  So what?  Yes, there are those that take Calvin's writings as gospel.  That doesn't invalidate the TULIP.

Speak the Scripture, let the Holy Ghost do His work.

Indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No, what invalidates TULIP is that it is unbiblical.

It misuses and redefines biblical terms. 

Calvin was unsaved man who examined the Bible as a book of law, then created his own version of Catholicism with him as the leader,  and then ruled that religion by fear and threatenings. 

Those who follow this wicked man,  follow the ravings of a man opposed to God and opposed to God's Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​Actually, I made my point. You are addressing another point, which is fine too. The only point I was speaking to was that we all believe the saved are elect. It's the how and why which we differ on, which those questions are the beginning of the point you wanted to address.

To another point, I've never yet met one of these "calvin worshippers". I've also never met a cal that didn't believe in witnessing.

Previously you asked about a website for a cal Bap church I mentioned to which I have found out they have none. I was sent some recordings of a few sermons and the most recent one I listened to had the pastor, a cal, talking about how whosoever believes shall be saved and it's our (Christians) duty to take the Gospel to the lost and to witness at every opportunity. This is in line with cal preachers such as Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Mueller and others.

One of the reasons some folks don't listen to anti-cals is because of the way they deliver their arguments against cals. They hear all sorts of charges but then when they investigate in person they find so many of the charges weren't true they are more open to give the cals a more attentive ear.

This is similar to the old hype against doing marijuana when they used to warn of outrageous effects that even a puff of a joint could cause but when some tried a puff to see if it was true or not, and found out it wasn't, they determined there was nothing to worry about and smoked on.

When dealing with the cal issue it's so much better to stick with the biblical points than to use hyperbole, argue about Calvin (which many cals know little or nothing about anyway), or to try and tell them what they think. Speak the Scripture, let the Holy Ghost do His work.

​Interesting response John but still no website demonstrating both calvin doctrine and real soulwinning ministries. I suspect if you can't find it, it isn't out there. 

I would certainly consider your defense of calvin worship if you could find just one and post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
 

​I have.  Had to rebuke a pastor in his own church over this.  So what?  Yes, there are those that take Calvin's writings as gospel.  That doesn't invalidate the TULIP.

Indeed!

​I don't doubt such exists, I've simply never encountered any in person, only online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​Interesting response John but still no website demonstrating both calvin doctrine and real soulwinning ministries. I suspect if you can't find it, it isn't out there. 

I would certainly consider your defense of calvin worship if you could find just one and post it.

​I'm not looking for websites that defend cal or demonstrate anything. You had asked about a specific church to which I pointed out they have no website.

If you are interested in soul winning cals you can read Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon and Mueller; all of which were cals and all were soul winners.

Every call I've ever met in person looks to Scripture as their source, not Calvin. They all point to Paul as their main source for their views. As far as I can recall, they say Augustine was the first to write some about this subject and later Calvin gave attention to trying to put in writing what they claim was the view of the Apostle Paul and Christians for centuries prior to Calvin. Calvin, they will point out, didn't originate anything, he simply tried to write it out.

In any event, there are dozens of books revealing well known cals who were soul winners, as well as cal missions organizations if you wish to pursue such.

These days I only see a handful of churches of any kind doing much towards soul winning. Most Christians seem to do nothing and many of those who are more active are presenting a watered down "gospel" and/or they push people to say a "sinners prayer", then they tell them they are going to heaven, write down another mark in their record book so they can tell everyone how many souls they've saved yet neither their church nor any others around ever have these supposed new Christians entering their doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No John, you are wrong.

They SAY they don't look to Calvin,  but they reference his writings and in fact some of them "reverence" his writings.

I have had it said to me that "It is a pity that Calvin didn't write about Revelation, because then we could understand it".

These were the very words from a man in the Dutch reformed church here in my city, and they are Calvinist through and through, and hold to many other false doctrines, such as replacement  theology, infant baptism, and the like - all by the way supported from Calvin's institutes.

As well as this, many of your so called calvinists either have been wrongly claimed by the calvinist mobs to try to bolster their position, or like Spurgeon, they were schizophrenic Calvinists who held to a dual position of calvinistic election and total free will of men.

You have been told this before but still insist on adding Spurgeon's name automatically to the list at every opportunity.

It shows poor research and poor understanding of the man and his position.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No John, you are wrong.

They SAY they don't look to Calvin,  but they reference his writings and in fact some of them "reverence" his writings.

I have had it said to me that "It is a pity that Calvin didn't write about Revelation, because then we could understand it".

These were the very words from a man in the Dutch reformed church here in my city, and they are Calvinist through and through, and hold to many other false doctrines, such as replacement  theology, infant baptism, and the like - all by the way supported from Calvin's institutes.

As well as this, many of your so called calvinists either have been wrongly claimed by the calvinist mobs to try to bolster their position, or like Spurgeon, they were schizophrenic Calvinists who held to a dual position of calvinistic election and total free will of men.

You have been told this before but still insist on adding Spurgeon's name automatically to the list at every opportunity.

It shows poor research and poor understanding of the man and his position.

 

​No, in this I'm not wrong. Every cal I've met it's true what I said. I never said every cal is like those cals. I've pointed out I've encountered such cals online and I have no doubt such are out there, probably even thick in some areas. However, of the cals I've met in person, having spoken with them, they don't look to Calvin, they don't follow Calvin, they don't defend Calvin, many know little to nothing of Calvin.

Spurgeon made his position very clear that he was a cal. I've read most of what he wrote and he was consistent in his stance as a cal tho he pointed to Paul's writings in Scripture as the authority on the subject, not Calvin.

It's not just some cals that hang on the words of men, there are many out there who back their positions more on the words of Scofield, Graham, Moody, Stanley, Luther, Sproul, Osteen, and on and on. With each it's important to go to the Scripture rather than argue about the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No, what invalidates TULIP is that it is unbiblical.

It misuses and redefines biblical terms. 

Calvin was unsaved man who examined the Bible as a book of law, then created his own version of Catholicism with him as the leader,  and then ruled that religion by fear and threatenings. 

Those who follow this wicked man,  follow the ravings of a man opposed to God and opposed to God's Word.

​I wonder why someone would name a system of theology after an unsaved man who persecuted true Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​No, in this I'm not wrong. Every cal I've met it's true what I said. I never said every cal is like those cals. I've pointed out I've encountered such cals online and I have no doubt such are out there, probably even thick in some areas. However, of the cals I've met in person, having spoken with them, they don't look to Calvin, they don't follow Calvin, they don't defend Calvin, many know little to nothing of Calvin.

Spurgeon made his position very clear that he was a cal. I've read most of what he wrote and he was consistent in his stance as a cal tho he pointed to Paul's writings in Scripture as the authority on the subject, not Calvin.

It's not just some cals that hang on the words of men, there are many out there who back their positions more on the words of Scofield, Graham, Moody, Stanley, Luther, Sproul, Osteen, and on and on. With each it's important to go to the Scripture rather than argue about the man.

You say you have read most of what Spurgeon wrote and yet you still misrepresent him.......

There is something wrong with this picture.

There is no doubt that he claimed to follow Calvin, but he also opposed Calvin's  teachings.

As to your claim that you are not wrong, if you refuse to see the point I made then there is nothing I  can do to help you.

They SAY they don't  follow Calvin and obviously they deceive you with their words, because to be a calvinist or to uphold the "doctrines of grace" as they call them is to be a follower of Calvin.

The SAY they look to Paul, but they twist his words to make them fit into their philosophy.

You refuse to see this and stand there innocently saying that they have somehow found this false doctrine from the Bible......

You are deceived - they found this doctrine from Calvin and from those who follow him.

 

Just because a man claims to be a fish, that doesn't  make him a fish. Just because a claims not to follow Calvin doesn't make it so.

Open your eyes and do some proper research, and begin to compare these teachers against the Bible.

No man who does so will keep saying the things you say about these men.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​I'm not looking for websites that defend cal or demonstrate anything. You had asked about a specific church to which I pointed out they have no website.

If you are interested in soul winning cals you can read Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon and Mueller; all of which were cals and all were soul winners.

Every call I've ever met in person looks to Scripture as their source, not Calvin. They all point to Paul as their main source for their views. As far as I can recall, they say Augustine was the first to write some about this subject and later Calvin gave attention to trying to put in writing what they claim was the view of the Apostle Paul and Christians for centuries prior to Calvin. Calvin, they will point out, didn't originate anything, he simply tried to write it out.

In any event, there are dozens of books revealing well known cals who were soul winners, as well as cal missions organizations if you wish to pursue such.

These days I only see a handful of churches of any kind doing much towards soul winning. Most Christians seem to do nothing and many of those who are more active are presenting a watered down "gospel" and/or they push people to say a "sinners prayer", then they tell them they are going to heaven, write down another mark in their record book so they can tell everyone how many souls they've saved yet neither their church nor any others around ever have these supposed new Christians entering their doors.

​John,

The calvin worshippers today have zero resemblance to any of the old timers you keep referring to. Calvin worship has taken a nose dive in modern times.

IMO you seem to experience very little but read very much and that may the point of your confusion in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​John,

The calvin worshippers today have zero resemblance to any of the old timers you keep referring to. Calvin worship has taken a nose dive in modern times.

IMO you seem to experience very little but read very much and that may the point of your confusion in this.

​Just because my experiences differ from yours doesn't mean I'm not experiencing very much.

Things can be very different from one place to the next, from one area to another, State to State, country to country. Yes, I also read a lot, something only a handful of others I know do.

Most of the churches near here are relatively the same regardless of the name they go by or whether they are cal, armin, neither. They are more social and/or secular in nature and often rather dead when it comes to the things of God.

Whatever you and others have personal experience with I don't question it or think something must be wrong if it happens to differ from my own. I know brothers in Christ who would never set foot in another Baptist church again due to their past experiences in Baptist churches but that differs from my experiences in Baptist churches so I have no wall up.

If the Word can't be brought to bear on a situation and allowed to work, bringing up the things of man isn't going to get it done.

 

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, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • 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
  • 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...