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.

Proof of the shrinking American brain.


ThePilgrim
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What is wrong with OB? Earlier today I typed a message in another thread and it disappeared when I clicked Submit Reply. I just spent a good bit of time typing a message here and it too disappeared when I clicked Submit Reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Last night I couldn't keep a connection to ob, if I switched my IP on my VPN I could get in briefly then shut down again. Very odd. Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Trump has name recognition on his side. I'll be watching debate tonight.

That helps, plus he stands out from the crowd because he speaks plainly rather than in rehearsed, canned sound bites like most of the candidates.

During the last two presidential elections the candidates leading the polls early on quickly faded away once the actual primaries began.

Trumps performance in the debate will be closely watched. A good showing will likely boost his poll standings. If he does very badly it's likely some of those lifting his poll numbers up now will turn to one of the other candidates which they think did well in the debates.

I watched the early debate with the 7 candidates and I plan to watch at least the first part of the prime time debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To start with, regarding the debates, I didn't care for the "gotcha" questions the moderators asked which were clearly designed to place the candidates in a bad situation. I also didn't care for the attempts to get some of the candidates to go after one another. Questions such as that seem more like the moderators attempting make news rather than get at the issues.

That said, I think Carly Fiorina did well in the early 7 candidate debate. Rick Perry often seemed stuck on rehearsed lines and had a bit of a stumble in answering a question. A few of the others had either some decent answers or some decent personality that came forth, but not really both. Fiorina may have helped her candidacy but the others might not have helped themselves too much.

In the prime time debate it was obvious the moderators were out to get Trump, and to take some digs at a couple of the other candidates as well. Trump may have done well enough to please his core supporters but likely didn't win any new ones. Cruz and Huckabee sounded good, but at least in the case of Huckabee it seemed the people responded more to his personality than substance. This has been a big problem with voters for a long time now.

Some of the pundits say they think Rubio did well. Myself, I thought he did okay, but nothing outstanding. Rand Paul had a few good points but overall I don't think he came off well. Carson seemed a little sluggish until towards the end when he got some good ones in. Jeb Bush and Christ Christie were about like always, two liberal leaning Republicans trying to sound like conservatives.

We'll have to wait and see how things play out, some potential voters won't make up their mind until they listen to their favorite talking heads tell them what to think. Most of the candidates did okay, I didn't see any total fall downs or any "this is the one" moments. A few of the candidates did stand out to one extent or another. It's possible Fiorina, Cruz and Huckabee made some gains. Some of the other did well enough they may see a bit of gains too. It might be more interesting, and telling, to see who (if anyone) loses a lot of support.

Still a long ways to go in this election cycle so a lot can happen between now and the six months leading up to the caucus in Iowa in about six months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To start with, regarding the debates, I didn't care for the "gotcha" questions the moderators asked which were clearly designed to place the candidates in a bad situation. I also didn't care for the attempts to get some of the candidates to go after one another. Questions such as that seem more like the moderators attempting make news rather than get at the issues.

That said, I think Carly Fiorina did well in the early 7 candidate debate. Rick Perry often seemed stuck on rehearsed lines and had a bit of a stumble in answering a question. A few of the others had either some decent answers or some decent personality that came forth, but not really both. Fiorina may have helped her candidacy but the others might not have helped themselves too much.

In the prime time debate it was obvious the moderators were out to get Trump, and to take some digs at a couple of the other candidates as well. Trump may have done well enough to please his core supporters but likely didn't win any new ones. Cruz and Huckabee sounded good, but at least in the case of Huckabee it seemed the people responded more to his personality than substance. This has been a big problem with voters for a long time now.

Some of the pundits say they think Rubio did well. Myself, I thought he did okay, but nothing outstanding. Rand Paul had a few good points but overall I don't think he came off well. Carson seemed a little sluggish until towards the end when he got some good ones in. Jeb Bush and Christ Christie were about like always, two liberal leaning Republicans trying to sound like conservatives.

We'll have to wait and see how things play out, some potential voters won't make up their mind until they listen to their favorite talking heads tell them what to think. Most of the candidates did okay, I didn't see any total fall downs or any "this is the one" moments. A few of the candidates did stand out to one extent or another. It's possible Fiorina, Cruz and Huckabee made some gains. Some of the other did well enough they may see a bit of gains too. It might be more interesting, and telling, to see who (if anyone) loses a lot of support.

Still a long ways to go in this election cycle so a lot can happen between now and the six months leading up to the caucus in Iowa in about six months.

Brother John have you ever though about being a reporter, this very well makes more sense then anything I've read in the news and well put together as well .thanks brother.

God bless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

very interesting about the evangelicals. I wonder if they are talking about Bobby Jindal he says his first religion was Hindu until he became a evangelical catholic ?Scott Walker on the other hand was a SB and the church turned to liberal and joined a nondenominational evangelical church for their daughters sake.? And Ben Carson says he was baptized twice into the seventh day Adventist church.while Jeb Bush ,Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, and Chris Christie are Catholics. Leaving Carly Florina as the only Episcopalian though she's not active in the church but once in a while.Jim Gilmore is a united Methodist, Rick Perry's independent Methodist. Donald Trump and Rand Paul Presbyterians, and Mike Huckabee , Ted Cruz, and Lindsey Graham are Southern Baptist, the other feller (I can't remember his name )he's Anglican.

Oh yeah Thomas Jefferson ,raised a Anglican but later had no affiliation with them and is listed only as a Christian.

 

God bless brother

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Trump seems to be an honest man ..... 

Quote:

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

BAIER: — they do?

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

TRUMP:  I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Trump seems to be an honest man ..... 

Quote:

BAIER: Mr. Trump, it’s not just your past support for single-payer health care. You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies….You’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, and Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors. And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

BAIER: — they do?

TRUMP: If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.

TRUMP:  I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why?

She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

His outspokenness is the main reason the Republican leadership, media and others want him silenced.

The head of the RNC told Trump he needed to stop talking about certain things, change his tone, and follow the guidance of the Republican leadership or the RNC would work against him.

This is also the reason the Republican leadership and many Republican politicians in DC don't like Cruz and want to see him done away with; because of his more open and honest speaking. Similar is true also of Rand Paul but in regard to other matters.

Ever since Ronald Reagan one the nomination in 1980 against the wishes of the Republican leadership, the RNC has worked very hard to make sure only candidates on their approved list might have a real shot at the nomination and presidency. They have done this to the point of willingly sacrificing any real chance to win the presidency just to have their way.

Honesty and truth, and men who can't be bought off, are not wanted by the RNC, DNC, or the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Donald Trump, can't be trusted.

He identifies his policies more as a Democrat.

He has always been pro abortion, until recently.

He says don't defund planned parenthood.

He's pro assault weapon ban.

He's for the US Army in Iraqi and for taking their oil.

He keeps all the bibles he's given in a special place outside the city ?

He only goes to church on Christmas and Easter.

He's gone bankrupt four times

He has a incoherent set of polices, which on his website is only one. immigration reform.

He's self centered, and loves bulling people by his arrogance.

He says make America great again. How could this possibly happen with immigration reform.?

He's a businessman , mm bush was the first president to have a degree in business.that worked out well.

The polls have him leading with 25% yet 53% of registered Republican voters say they would not vote for him.?

He's a progressive Republican.

Our just maybe he's wolf in sheepskin for the democratic party leading the way for Hillary.

He's not got my vote.

Ted Cruz is the only candidate that has given his testimony that he is a born again Christian, testifying that Jesus is his Lord and Savior. He's the only candidate that has stood before the government testifying that this Nation needs to turn to Jesus and repent of its sins and stood strong when he was mocked. He's the only candidate that stands for the truth and has fought to reveal the lies of the politicians to the American people . he's the only candidate that has vowed on day one as our president to resend all that Obama and Washington has done to our Nation and bring charges against them, but with the Republican party not liking him it may seem impossible, but all things are possible with God.

In Prayer Gods will be done

God bless

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

While there are some things about Cruz I like, there are also similar things to those in Trump's resume. Cruz has shifted his positions in some of those areas as well.

The sad thing is, not a person running for president right now has a totally consistent track record over the past ten or more years. They have all shifted positions. Changing positions isn't always a bad thing, but we have to dig deep to try and figure out just why they changed their position, if the reason leads us to believe it's a meaningful, lasting change, a politically expedient change, a meaningless change.

Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat and some of the things he put into effect in California as governor were of the liberal/progressive stripe. He moved away from much of that and ran for president as a conservative.

Unfortunately, the political climate in America today, and the way the election system is rigged, those who seriously want to try and win the White House have to shift positions, straddle fences, speak one way to one audience, another to the next; campaign more to the Left or Right for the primaries and then campaign more to the ever fluctuating Center for the general election.

While I oppose nearly everything about Obama, he's actually one of the few candidates who has been pretty clear about most of his positions and intentions while running for office and while in office. He's actually gone to great lengths to "fundamentally transform America" through liberalism/socialism and with actually very little opposition from the so-called GOP "opposition party".

If only we could manage to elect a true Christian who is a true traditional conservative who would actually do all they could to do what they promised during the elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I could not support any of the candidates. Due to my own reading of scriptures, I lean more heavily towards social justice. (This is gonna get me fried here, but hear me out). I find that if I must hold a pro-life position, it must be a consistent pro-life position. That means looking at EVERY person as a beloved and unique creation of God. If I am to be pro-life, it means that I believe that everyone deserves housing, food, education, clothing and medical care. If it could be accomplished through the churches, then that would be best, however, there are very few churches with the resources necessary to do this. If it can be accomplished at the local level, then that would be good. Personally, I'd prefer to see it top down coming from DC. A standard group of regulations, and a standard time-frame. 

I work at a school that does professional retraining, helping people either join or re-join the workforce. There needs to be more of what I do, We teach people marketable job skills, geared to our area. I am in favor of this...and while people are in training, providing them everything else they need to be successful. A year or two of support pays off in the long run. 

As regards healthcare, I am fully in favor of single payer, universal health care. Maybe it's because I know way too many people who are terrified that loss of a job would mean the loss of their healthcare. Also, think about this one...if you didn't have to stay saddled to a job for healthcare, would you branch out? Would you perhaps go into ministry full time or start a charity or a non-profit? How much could you do if you didn't have to worry about keeping health insurance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 hours ago, Saved41199 said:

I could not support any of the candidates. Due to my own reading of scriptures, I lean more heavily towards social justice. (This is gonna get me fried here, but hear me out). I find that if I must hold a pro-life position, it must be a consistent pro-life position. That means looking at EVERY person as a beloved and unique creation of God. If I am to be pro-life, it means that I believe that everyone deserves housing, food, education, clothing and medical care. You say you learn this from scripture, but I wonder then what scripture you speak of. None of this is to be found in scripture. The only people that God ever GAVE everything to was Israel, but that was after 40 years of obedience training in the desert and 15 years of war, (ie, taking it away) with the current residents. It also entailed obedience to God's laws, or it was taken away.  If it could be accomplished through the churches, then that would be best, however, there are very few churches with the resources necessary to do this. Again, unscriptural; churches see to the physical needs of believers, not 'the community'. This is a common flaw, based primarily out of Catholicism, who sought, like the government does now, to control every aspect of the lives of the community, and in doing so, taight them to rely on the church for everything.  The only thing we owe the community is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If it can be accomplished at the local level, then that would be good. Personally, I'd prefer to see it top down coming from DC. Again, unscriptural-even God didn't designate the seeing to all the needs of the nation to the king. The king protected through battle, not through welfare. The Lord, rather instructed EVERYONE to help their neighbor. But even here, there was a demand, expecially in the NT, that if a man wouldn't work, neither should he eat. If a man is capable of working, but refuses, there is no help for them-let them starve. Otherwise, let them work and see to their needs, and learn to help others when there is a NEED. A standard group of regulations, and a standard time-frame. 

I work at a school that does professional retraining, helping people either join or re-join the workforce. There needs to be more of what I do, We teach people marketable job skills, geared to our area. I am in favor of this...and while people are in training, providing them everything else they need to be successful. A year or two of support pays off in the long run. And this is a good thing-in fact, under Clinton, or maybe Bush, I am not sure, welfare was given a 2-year limit, and part of it was to train people in new job skills-this is great, it is a hand-up, not a hand-out. But that all kind of went away because ultimately, the government wants cradle-to-grave control.

As regards healthcare, I am fully in favor of single payer, universal health care. Maybe it's because I know way too many people who are terrified that loss of a job would mean the loss of their healthcare. Also, think about this one...if you didn't have to stay saddled to a job for healthcare, would you branch out? Would you perhaps go into ministry full time or start a charity or a non-profit? How much could you do if you didn't have to worry about keeping health insurance? I work full time and already have a fulltime ministry. Would I like it otherwise? Sure, but single-payer, ie, government insurance, has a proven record of failures, especially in thie country-read about the big problems in the VA: that is basically single-payer insurance, and people wait sometimes up to a year to be seen, even for serious things, because it is mismanaged terribly; now imagine that bad management running ALL the medical care in the country. No thanks.

Please understand, I am not frying you-you are clearly sincere, but sincerely wrong, scripturally and legally. The more the government has gotten their hands in things, the worse, ultimately, things have gotten in those areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Scripture for my social justice beliefs:

Matthew 25:31-46

Micah 6:8

James 1:27

And as one who has been greatly helped by government programs, including HUD-VASH, the VA, Medicaid, I do not want to see these programs go away. I'm sorry if you can't understand this, but without those programs, I would be homeless, my husband would be dead and I'd probably be trying to end my life on a regular basis, until I succeeded. I once thought as you do until life hit us in the face. At that point you have no idea how thankful I am for the programs that got us off the streets, got our medical needs met, We are not young, we have worked all our lives, until things came crashing down. 

You've fallen for the propaganda. It's not Christian, you've been sold a bill of goods. It started with good ol' Ronnie Reagan and the "Moral Majority" back in the late 70's, early 80's. 

The joy of being a critical thinker unwilling to walk in lockstep with anyone. 

Edited by Saved41199
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
7 minutes ago, Saved41199 said:

Scripture for my social justice beliefs:

Matthew 25:31-46 These verses have a very specific context, and that has to do with during the tribulation period, how people treated the people of God. It can't really be used in a general social justice context, and especially anything having to do with the government doing anything. It is personal.

Micah 6:8  Again, personal-we, as individuals, ought to seek to be a help to others as much as we are able, but it is neither a mandate toward government nor a church.

James 1:27 Individuals, not churches or government.

As people, as believers, we should do what we can to be good to others. But the most important thing we can give is the gospel unto salvation, otherwise all we are doing is making them comfortable in their lost state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would encourage you to read this article, if you dare...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133#.VMP8NiwrjIV

and see where you've been led down a primrose path that had it's beginnings in bigotry and hate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

As people, as believers, we should do what we can to be good to others. But the most important thing we can give is the gospel unto salvation, otherwise all we are doing is making them comfortable in their lost state.

Oh my goodness! SO, you give a homeless man a tract, tell him "be warm and well fed" and keep going? Really? How about giving him a hand up? 

Government has to do the job because it is too big a job for a single entity or group of entities. Realistically, it would be lovely if it could be a one to one deal. But, it isn't. And, your opposition to all this and the language you've used shows me that you are opposed to certain things because of reasons I don't think are quite biblical. You fell for the "welfare queen" description that has been so thoroughly debunked. As I stated above, I AM a welfare recipient who has benefitted from government programs. I wish you could see that for every bogus baloney news story you hear, there are thousands just like me who are able to get back on our feet after being kicked in the teeth. 

The strongest opposition to welfare programs comes from those who are actually the greatest recipients of them...West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, these states are "deep red" and very Christian...and take MORE welfare dollars than the inner cities of Detroit and New York. Yet, nothing is EVER said about the generations of welfare recipients in the hollers and the mountains. Why? Think about it...long and hard. See what kind of propaganda you're ingesting and then think about it again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Saved41199 said:

Oh my goodness! SO, you give a homeless man a tract, tell him "be warm and well fed" and keep going? Really? How about giving him a hand up? 

James 2:15  If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,16  And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17  Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 15 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...