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.

Donald Trumps Everyone Else . . . . Not


ThePilgrim

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The American people are so easily fooled by the rich.  Donald Trump got rich and successful by his cunning, not his wisdom.  When I contemplate his tough talk on foreign policy and his bellicosity and his lack of wisdom I fear his finger on the nuclear button.  

I think the only candidate running in either party that would not go to war with Russia (on purpose or by accident) is Bernie Sanders.  Do I think Bernie Sanders would be good for America? NO WAY!  I find myself in the same position I was in at the last election.  Ain't none of them fools gonna' buy my vote.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/donald-trump-warrior-male-extraordinaire/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Trumps a businessman and he knows war with Russia, as well as further tensions between us and them are bad for business. Trump already has somewhat of a relationship with Putin and he's made it clear he believes he could talk with Putin and make things better between Russia and America. Other than saying he would be willing to put American troops on the ground to get rid of ISIS, I've not heard anything from Trump that would sound as if he would be quick to go to war.

On the Republican side Rand Paul is probably the most "anti-war" (for lack of a better term off hand) candidate. Paul takes a more traditional conservative position in that the he believes war should be a last option and only when American interests are directly effected.

On the Republican side Lindsey Graham is the biggest war hawk who would likely be the quickest to send American troops into battle, and be willing to thrust America into two or more wars at once. His foreign policy solutions most amount to telling everyone to do as he says or he'll send in American troops. Unfortunately, several other Republican candidates are fairly close to these views themselves. Most seem to think it's a badge of honor to declare their willingness to threaten war and go to war with anyone from Iran to Russia.

Given the political climate in the Democrat Party, as well as across much of the country, I doubt Hillary would get America into a war unless such were basically forced upon her. If she doesn't hurry up and get these investigations behind her and get her campaign going the point will be moot as the Dems will put forth another candidate to take her place.

Both Parties, as well as much of the brainwashed masses, hate the idea of an America First candidate, and America First policies. The Parties want one of their accepted "go along" politicians to win the nomination, as does a large percentage of the voters. This is why the Repubs offered weak candidates for president the last two elections and why the voters voted Obama in for two terms regardless of his anti-American speech and policies (not to mention anti-Christian).

Look at the last congressional elections where Repubs promised if they were voted into control of congress they would stop Obama's excesses and fight to fix what Obama has already done. However, very shortly after the elections the Repubs were compromising and caving in to Obama just as before. No matter which Party is in power, they drive the country in the same bad, wrong direction. This isn't by accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I don't know anything about US politics so I don't usually comment on them.  But as regards ISIS I think that if we don't fight them where they are, we will one day (soon) have to fight them here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If the west would shut down the invasion from the south and send the immigrants that don't wish to assimilate back home the Muslims would not be such a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If the west would shut down the invasion from the south and send the immigrants that don't wish to assimilate back home the Muslims would not be such a threat.

Europe is being flooded with migrants at present.  Greece has had over 100,000 this year and Italy a similar amount. People traffickers are stuffing small craft full of people and giving them phones with the Italian Coast Guard number. The Italians have 'rescued' aver 4000 from such craft this weekend.  

The Muslim world is at way with itself and with these people we are inviting the war to come over here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think Trump would make a good President.  In business, the man at the top makes the decisions, passes on the decision to subordinates, and the people below him carry out the actions.  Government doesn't work that way.  (Fortunately!  I shudder to think about the mess our country would be in if the last few presidents we have had were able to exercise total control over the government.)  If Trump is elected, he will face pushback from almost everyone in the government.  I doubt politicians who have been in Washington for 20+ years are going to want to take orders from a political newcomer.  Even if Trump does get his way, he will be more concerned about what is good for businesses than for what is good for the American people.

Both Parties, as well as much of the brainwashed masses, hate the idea of an America First candidate, and America First policies. The Parties want one of their accepted "go along" politicians to win the nomination, as does a large percentage of the voters. This is why the Repubs offered weak candidates for president the last two elections and why the voters voted Obama in for two terms regardless of his anti-American speech and policies (not to mention anti-Christian).

This is by design in the education system, to force us to accept a one-world government.  Schools are teaching that we are not American citizens (or British, French, etc. citizens), we are "global" citizens who need to do what is best for the world, even if it harms us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Through use of executive orders Obama has been doing a lot of ruling like a dictator. He's been willing to push things much farther than any previous president in this area.

Trumps not likely to get elected, but if he did he not only has the "business boss" aspect, he is also an accomplished negotiator and coming to compromise solutions is something most in congress like. Sometimes those in congress can be prodded to do things they normally wouldn't when they can always point back to a strong president and blame them for pushing it. That's how Reagan and the Dem congress passed some things, and also Clinton and the Repub congress.

We need a "take charge" man for president (no, I don't think Trump is anywhere near the best for that) who will set forth a pro-America agenda and then be willing to work with congress to get such enacted.

Unfortunately, we've had several decades now of having Republican presidents, even Republican controlled congresses, and even six years of a Republican president and Republican controlled congress, and they all failed to stand on what they ran on, caved too quick and too often to the Dems and were willing to compromise away too much or drop things rather than make a stand.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We need a "take charge" man for president (no, I don't think Trump is anywhere near the best for that) who will set forth a pro-America agenda and then be willing to work with congress to get such enacted.

Unfortunately, we've had several decades now of having Republican presidents, even Republican controlled congresses, and even six years of a Republican president and Republican controlled congress, and they all failed to stand on what they ran on, caved too quick and too often to the Dems and were willing to compromise away too much or drop things rather than make a stand.

 

I agree, but I don't see that in any of the candidates right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I agree, but I don't see that in any of the candidates right now.

Agreed!

That's been one of the problems with Republicans (besides the fact the Republican Party leadership only wants liberal leaning candidates to succeed).

Republicans who run for office with some good ideas, are unable to present them well or have the charisma to promote them and themselves to the voters. Republicans with more charisma or better communication skills offer more of the same drivel as always.

If we could take a bit of Trump, Cruz, Paul and a few others and mix their best aspects together we might come up with a candidate with a good agenda, decent policy ideas, and one able to communicate them well and get the people excited using their charisma to punctuate their speaking skills.

Alas, that's not going to happen!

The best we could hope for right now would be for Christians and "conservatives" to figure out which candidate they can all accept, even if he's not their first choice, and commit to supporting them all the way. That's about the only way an establishment candidate could be prevented from getting the nomination. Alas, that's not going to happen either!

Unless something changes we'll probably see Christians and "conservatives" split their votes between a half dozen candidates while the Republican leadership gives their support to Bush or one of the other establishment candidates, and the "moderate" Republican voters play follow the leader. That's how the more conservative candidates lost out in '08 and '12 to "moderate" Republicans McCain and Romney (who might as well been Dems), thus handing the election to the Dems pride and joy, Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Setting aside politics and promises of the candidates have we taken time to look at what is really important their lives as Christians , some claim to be Christian but have they given any testimony trusting in Jesus as their Lord and Savior, have they shown any Christian virtues , have they shown any good fruit of the Christian life, and do they stand upon the truths of Gods Holly Word allowing God to lead his way.

We should search out each candidate and if ones found to be a born again Christian trusting in Jesus as there Lord and Savior we should remember they are subject to the same faults and temptations as we are and support them in prayer.

We should also seek out the Christian in congress and the senate and be in prayer for them as they fight against the evils in Washington and abroad.

Praying always for those whom have authority over us that there may be peace between us.

God bless

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Setting aside politics and promises of the candidates have we taken time to look at what is really important their lives as Christians , some claim to be Christian but have they given any testimony trusting in Jesus as their Lord and Savior, have they shown any Christian virtues , have they shown any good fruit of the Christian life, and do they stand upon the truths of Gods Holly Word allowing God to lead his way.

We should search out each candidate and if ones found to be a born again Christian trusting in Jesus as there Lord and Savior we should remember they are subject to the same faults and temptations as we are and support them in prayer.

We should also seek out the Christian in congress and the senate and be in prayer for them as they fight against the evils in Washington and abroad.

Praying always for those whom have authority over us that there may be peace between us.

God bless

 

 

 

 

 

Most, perhaps all, the Republican candidates profess some form of Christianity. Huckabee, Paul, Cruz, and Perry have been perhaps the most open about their faith. Huckabee, Cruz and Perry have a track record of involvement in Christian matters.

Perry, like G.W. Bush before him, has been heavily involved with Christians leaders such as Kenneth Copeland, John Hagee and James Robison.

Huckabee, once a Baptist pastor (SBC), has been vocal on some matters of Christian interest over the years but not always taking a solid position.

Cruz probably has the best personal testimony I've thus far read, he's open about his faith and has supported "religious rights" matters.

Even from just those three we can see their maturity level, commitment and what it means to each to be a Christian varies, and it just various greatly more when we consider all the candidates. Unfortunately, a candidate proclaiming Christ as their Saviour doesn't necessarily equate to them being a good fit for president.

Which, if any, of these candidates upon taking the oath of office before God and man will do so with a true desire and intent to abide by that oath? Which ones would only be repeating the oath as a formality with no actual intention of keeping the words of that oath?

Jimmy Carter very vocally proclaimed to be a born again Christian and what did America get from him? G.W. Bush proclaimed himself a Christian and said it was Christianity that helped him stop drinking. He credited Billy Graham for helping him turn to Christ, yet later also credited Billy Graham (and his wife and mother) with him no longer declaring Christ as the only Way, Christianity as unique. What did America get from his presidency?

Without doing refresher study on the candidates Christian statements and policy plans, I would at this point say Cruz would be the mostly likely candidate to be most positively influenced by his faith. Huckabee might be second, but he's also shown a willingness to compromise his faith, or not let it be a factor in politics, so that's not much to count on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is a look at some of the key points Trump is raising, not an endorsement of Trump himself:

 

Is Trumpism the New Nationalism?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Tuesday - August 25, 2015

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Since China devalued its currency 3 percent, global markets have gone into a tailspin. Why should this be?

After all, 3 percent devaluation in China could be countered by a U.S. tariff of 3 percent on all goods made in China, and the tariff revenue used to cut U.S. corporate taxes.

The crisis in world markets seems related not only to a sinking Chinese economy, but also to what Beijing is saying to the world; i.e., China will save herself first even if it means throwing others out of the life boat.

Disbelievers in New World Order mythology have long recognized that this new China is fiercely nationalistic. Indeed, with Marxism-Leninism dead, nationalism is the Communist Party’s fallback faith.

China has thus kept her currency cheap to hold down imports and keep exports surging. She has run $300 billion trade surpluses at the expense of the Americans. She has demanded technology transfers from firms investing in China and engaged in technology theft.

Disillusioned U.S. executives have been pulling out.

And the stronger China has grown economically, the more bellicose she has become with her neighbors from Japan to Vietnam to the Philippines. Lately, China has laid claim to virtually the entire South China Sea and all its islands and reefs as national territory.

In short, China is becoming a mortal threat to the rules-based global economy Americans have been erecting since the end of the Cold War, even as the U.S. system of alliances erected by Cold War and post-Cold War presidents seems to be unraveling.

Germany, the economic powerhouse of the European Union, was divided until recently on whether Greece should be thrown out of the eurozone. German nationalists have had enough of Club Med.

On issues from mass migrations from the Third World, to deeper political integration of Europe, to the EU’s paltry contributions to a U.S.-led NATO that defends the continent, nationalistic resistance is rising.

Enter the Donald. If there is a single theme behind his message, it would seem to be a call for a New Nationalism or New Patriotism.

He is going to “make America great again.” He is going to build a wall on the border that will make us proud, and Mexico will pay for it.

He will send all illegal aliens home and restore the traditional value of U.S. citizenship by putting an end to the scandal of “anchor babies.”

One never hears Trump discuss the architecture of our rules-based global economy.

Rather, he speaks of Mexico, China and Japan as tough rivals, not “trade partners,” smart antagonists who need to face tough American negotiators who will kick their butts.

They took our jobs and factories; now we are going to take them back. And if that Ford plant stays in Mexico, then Ford will have to climb a 35-percent tariff wall to get its trucks and cars back into the USA.

Trump to Ford: Bring that factory back to Michigan!

To Trump, the world is not Davos; it is the NFL. He is appalled at those mammoth container ships in West Coast ports bringing in Hondas and Toyotas. Those ships should be carrying American cars to Asia.

Asked by adviser Dick Allen for a summation of U.S. policy toward the Soviets, Ronald Reagan said: “We win; they lose.”

That it is not an unfair summation of what Trump is saying about Mexico, Japan and China.

While the economic nationalism here is transparent, Trump also seems to be saying that foreign regimes are freeloading off the U.S. defense budget and U.S. military.

He asks why rich Germans aren’t in the vanguard in the Ukraine crisis. Why do South Koreans, with an economy 40 times that of the North and a population twice as large, need U.S. troops on the DMZ?

“What’s in it for us?” he seems ever to be asking.

He has called Vladimir Putin a Russian patriot and nationalist with whom he can talk. He has not joined the Republican herd that says it will cancel the Iran nuclear deal the day they take office, re-impose U.S. sanctions and renegotiate the deal.

Trump says he would insure that Iran lives up to the terms.

While his foreign policy positions seem unformed, his natural reflex appears nonideological and almost wholly results-oriented. He looks on foreign trade much as did 19th-century Republicans.

They saw America as the emerging world power and Britain as the nation to beat, as China sees us today. Those Americans used tariffs, both to force foreigners to pay to build our country, and to keep British imports at a price disadvantage in the USA.

Then they exploited British free trade policy to ship as much as they could to the British Isles to take down their factories and capture their jobs for U.S. workers, as the Chinese do to us today.

Whatever becomes of Trump the candidate, Trumpism, i.e., economic and foreign policy nationalism, appears ascendant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Unless something changes we'll probably see Christians and "conservatives" split their votes between a half dozen candidates while the Republican leadership gives their support to Bush or one of the other establishment candidates, and the "moderate" Republican voters play follow the leader. That's how the more conservative candidates lost out in '08 and '12 to "moderate" Republicans McCain and Romney (who might as well been Dems), thus handing the election to the Dems pride and joy, Obama.

I used to be a contributor for a small conservative website, and in late 2011 or early 2012, I wrote a column about exactly that.  Between starting the campaign in moderate states  (of the four states holding their primary/caucus before election day, only South Carolina could be described as being anything of a Republican or conservative stronghold) and having multiple conservatives for the (usually) one establishment candidate, conservatives have virtually no voice in the process.  I will say that I was surprised by the number of establishment candidates in the field for 2016, but I expect that all but one will be out early on (or even before Iowa).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I used to be a contributor for a small conservative website, and in late 2011 or early 2012, I wrote a column about exactly that.  Between starting the campaign in moderate states  (of the four states holding their primary/caucus before election day, only South Carolina could be described as being anything of a Republican or conservative stronghold) and having multiple conservatives for the (usually) one establishment candidate, conservatives have virtually no voice in the process.  I will say that I was surprised by the number of establishment candidates in the field for 2016, but I expect that all but one will be out early on (or even before Iowa).

With so many running there is no way they can all make it for long. Perry is just barely hanging on right now and several others are only in the race so they can go around talking about their pet point of view or attempt to work a political or media commentator gig out of it.

It's funny how the media tells us conservatives rule the Republican primaries and they talk of how conservative Iowa is, and even to an extent New Hampshire. Then again, this is the same media that tried to convince everyone that both McCain and Romney were hard core conservatives!

Conservative Christians are far too fickle and the "leaders" are far too concerned with appearance to have the impact they could have in the primaries. Both denounce the media, both denounce candidates who believe the media and are driven by the media, yet they themselves allow the media to tell them who is or isn't electable, which candidate is suddenly facing trouble or made an unforgivable gag, and so they either switch giving tacit support from candidate to another based on the media wind that day, or they fail to support any until they think they are sure they know which one will be the nominee (even though by then it's going to be a mainstream, weak-tea candidate).

2008 was especially bad with Christian conservatives flocking from one candidate to another based almost entirely upon media reporting. So we saw a surge for Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and we saw Christians run from them like rats off a sinking ship as soon as the media started reporting negatively about each one. The so-called Christian leadership did even worse in that they refused to endorse any candidate until it was already too late and then they chose their idea of the least bad one of the two or three left with even a slight chance.

Thus far many are giving support for Trump but that's likely to change when we get closer to the primaries and the media and Republican Party leadership kick their campaigns in gear to steer the direction of the primaries in their preferred direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There is no one to vote for, and everyone to vote against. So how do I vote against everyone running and not vote for anyone?????

Some folks, when they come to this point, choose to vote for a third party candidate as a way of voting "none of the above" while at the same time in effect not voting for anyone.

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, 14 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...