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.

Church Mempership


Salyan

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 Steve, my Bible does say, "Buy the truth and sell it not".  To me, that means not to compromise my convictions.

The only Church in our area that preaches from the KJV just happens to be the only IFB Church in our area,... which has told us we are not welcome there unless we repent of teaching this truth.  As I said before, I will not repent of preaching truth,... as many here on OB should know by now.

I still get fed, despite not being in a brick and mortar building with fifty or more people.  If I could return without compromising my convictions, I would be back amongst them.  But their stand is that I cannot speak this truth; not just in the Church, but also not on the street, nor on my Facebook page, nor on my blog.  

When church leadership denies its members the freedom to speak or walk in truth, telling them to "keep a lid on it," they cease to be a Church.  They have, at that point, moved into a cult mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, technically in the specific post, no, but I guess the overall content points to that, so I withdraw my question.

But I guess one of my points would be, what points are worthy of living and dying for? I understand the issue you generally speak of, and as you note, I agree with you. However, depending on the way it is taught and pushed, ie, do they act like it is a LAW and MUST be fulfilled in a very legalistic manner, I am surely against that, like coming to your house to collect, or calling you out in service if you haven't done 'your duty', but honestly I have not, myself been to one of those, and generally haven't found it worth fighting over, if all else is well. But you need to do as you believe right. I just pray you CAN get into a good fellowship, because I believe one misses so much when out. My dad, who was a chaplain, involved for many years in good ministries, got hurt and got out, and the longer he was out, the more his doctrines began to skew into some weird areas. I believe a good fellowship is extremely important to the spiritual health of a child of God. Seen it too often, godly men getting out, for whatever reasons, and over time going into weird areas doctrinally.

Yes, they do teach it as Law.  They teach it must be done or one is a thief and is cursed by God.

Funny thing though, the pastor who was teaching it at the time we were told not to come back said it would keep you out of the hospital, protect your finances, etc..  Yet, his wife developed a brain tumor, had to have surgery, deteriorated for the next six years and eventually died.  Must not have been doing it himself, or it proves he was wrong all along.

Yes, I know many are the afflictions of the righteous, something he never preached in the seven years I was in membership there.  But the point is, he taught that this certain thing would keep the very things from happening that were happening in his own family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

For the record, just so others don't think I am not doing something.  I have invited many in my community to participate in a study of the Word of God.  I witness to neighbors whenever am out and about in our community as well.

Don't get me wrong.  I do yearn the fellowship that I once experienced.  But it is just not plausible at this juncture in time.  Let me ask those who know my stance and disagree with me,...
Would you consider me as a possible member of your congregation, knowing my stance?  Knowing my zeal for truth on the street and on the internet?  or would you insist that I "keep a lid on it" if I wanted to be a member of your congregation?
Quite sure most would not want me to be in their congregation unles I agreed to be silent.  So, that takes me back to my original post in this particular thread...

It would be wrong for anyone to say I am wrong for not being in fellowship with other Believers in a local brick and mortar building if they themselves would not want me as a member of their congregation unless I was willing to compromise truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Methinks thou dost protest too much...  I have the feeling, SFIC, that you were a trouble-maker in that church who was not willing to be under your pastor's authority. If so, regardless of your reason for doing so, you were in the wrong, and no amount of excuses (or rephrasing the issue to make yourself sound better) will make it right. And no, we are not wrong to remind people what the Bible clearly says (in much clearer terms than the ambiguity concerning giving) about joining together with other believers in a church - not merely a Bible study. 

Man, am I in a frank mood tonight! Maybe it's time to get some sleep. 

-------

Edited to add: Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair. I have formed an opinion based on many references,  but have never asked what actually happened. So, SFIC, I'm asking now. Did your last pastor ask you to stop teaching against the tithe in your last church, and did you honor that request?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You are incorrect, Salyan.  I was never a troublemaker in the Church.  We agreed on every subject but the one.  And my views on that subject were always expressed miles away from the Church.

 

I was asked to minister in the Church many times through the seven years I was a member.  Preached on many topics, yet not once did I minister there on the topic of tithing.

 

edited to add:  No, the pastor never told me to stop teaching the truth about tithing the entire time I was a member.  It was in the email I received that they said I should stop teaching and repent.  The email was sent two days after my excommunication from that assembly.    As I said previously I cannot, and will not repent of teaching what the Bible says concerning the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here is the link to the email we received AFTER we were voted out of the church fellowship via a secret meeting....it was secret due to the fact that we, as members of that fellowship for almost 7 years, were not informed of the meeting and we had NO "say so" in our defense.  Even criminals on trial fare better than we did.

"The Much Requested E-mail"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sorry to hear this has happened Linda and SFIC. What I find interesting about their letter and your accompanying comments on the blog post is that you reject various allegations about your conduct and complain that you weren't given a hearing at the meeting. Yet you also say that if you had been allowed to attend the meeting, you would have gone not to address the allegations of misconduct but instead to debate the church over their position on tithing:

Had we been informed, we would have attended and presented Scripture that proves our stance.

And when you did reply to their letter, you chose to focus on the issue of tithing itself, rather than whether you and the church could agree to disagree on it:

We replied to the email with our defense, giving every Scripture that had to do with tithing.  Keith Kendall, the man who sent us the excommunication email, rejected those Scriptures, writing back his argument which basically put the New Testament Church in ancient Israel and under the Mosaic Law of tithing.  Funny thing, he had no valid explanation as to when God gave permission for anyone to take a tithe of money to a fellowship of Gentile Believers.

So after all it does sound like you weren't prepared to remain at the church unless they changed their understanding of tithing to match yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First off, there was no "misconduct" on our behalf.  My teaching was never in the Church building, nor on the Church property.  And it was always miles away from the Church, or on the world wide web.  I thought I had made that clear in a previous post?

Second, had we been informed of the meeting, we would have gone and defended out teaching using the Word of God as our support.  Call it debate if you will, we call it defense. 

Agree to disagree?  I find no support for such in the Word of God.  One is either in agreement, or not.  Yes, our focus would have been on the issue of what the Scripture says.  Why wouldn't it be?  Are we to compromise the truth and walk in a lie? 

Actually, the beginning paragraph of the email we received clearly acknowledged that we had written them and told them our intentions to return to the Church.    By the way, we had written the email to them informing them that we would be back PRIOR to their scheduling of their secret meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

First off, there was no "misconduct" on our behalf.  My teaching was never in the Church building, nor on the Church property.  And it was always miles away from the Church, or on the world wide web.  I thought I had made that clear in a previous post?

I didn't say there had been any misconduct at all, I just referred to the letter's allegations of misconduct since that's what the letter was about--and I was careful to call them that both times I mentioned them. I didn't say you did or didn't do a thing (how would I know?) so you making it clear in a previous post that the allegations are untrue isn't relevant to my comments.

Second, had we been informed of the meeting, we would have gone and defended out teaching using the Word of God as our support.  Call it debate if you will, we call it defense.

Exactly my point. The letter and the meeting weren't about whose stance on tithing was correct--that you and they thought the other was wrong was already a given. The meeting and letter were about whether you had been openly putting down the church's position, the broad question being whether you could be part of the church despite disagreeing with them on tithing. Yet had you been allowed to attend the meeting,  you say you would have used it to reopen the debate between you and them about tithing itself, i.e. defending your position and rejecting theirs. Ok, so what if you had defended your view on tithing and the other people in the room had said "we still disagree"? You've just said that agreeing to disagree is out of the question for you, so what option would you have had left?


Agree to disagree?  I find no support for such in the Word of God.  One is either in agreement, or not.  Yes, our focus would have been on the issue of what the Scripture says.  Why wouldn't it be?  Are we to compromise the truth and walk in a lie? 



Actually, the beginning paragraph of the email we received clearly acknowledged that we had written them and told them our intentions to return to the Church.    By the way, we had written the email to them informing them that we would be back PRIOR to their scheduling of their secret meeting.

Well, the phrase "agree to disagree", in my part of the world at least, means that the parties mutually understand that they can live together with that point of contention; it isn't a 'deal breaker' to their associating in other regards. It doesn't mean one accepts the view of the other--quite the opposite. So the reason your focus "wouldn't be" on who's correct about tithing (in our hypothetical scenario where you are attending the meeting) would be if you wanted to settle the question of whether you could be part of the church despite disagreement in that area. But it sounds like you weren't at all interested in that question. Ok, so you told them you were coming back--that doesn't mean anything by itself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother SFIC,

Clearly you and apparently your wife have been hurt by the actions of this church. Furthermore, you both appear to believe you are completely innocent of all wrong doing. I have misgivings if this forum is the place to resolve this issue. Not that any one of the posters are unwilling individually (or in private) to talk it through, but that this medium (a public forum) does not seem to be the best place for it (Matthew 18:16ff; Romans 16:17-19; 1 Corinthians 6:1-8; Ephesians 4:29; Titus 3:1-8; 1 Peter 2:1, 11-12; etc.).

The Bible is clear on the matter of Christ's church being a priority to us. You have expressed mixed responses (willingness, but a sense of hopelessness) to re-connecting with a church. In my estimation, we have established enough Biblical data on the priority of church, but if not more could be said. Your situation is not an exception to the truths of Scripture. It may be that you situation makes it exceptionally difficult to practice the truths of Scripture, but it does not negate them. Exceptionally difficult situations require faith in an exceptionally powerful, holy, righteous, and good God. Our earlier statements about the church are rooted in this God's revelation. We who are believers have already seen Him accomplish the most exceptionally difficult thing in rescuing our depraved souls from His righteous wrath through the blood of His dear Son. Surely we can trust in His timing that he will provide both the personal growth and change that he is working in you through this trial and a good church for you to fellowship.

For His glory,

Christian Markle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't say there had been any misconduct at all, I just referred to the letter's allegations of misconduct since that's what the letter was about--and I was careful to call them that both times I mentioned them. I didn't say you did or didn't do a thing (how would I know?) so you making it clear in a previous post that the allegations are untrue isn't relevant to my comments.

Exactly my point. The letter and the meeting weren't about whose stance on tithing was correct--that you and they thought the other was wrong was already a given. The meeting and letter were about whether you had been openly putting down the church's position, the broad question being whether you could be part of the church despite disagreeing with them on tithing. Yet had you been allowed to attend the meeting,  you say you would have used it to reopen the debate between you and them about tithing itself, i.e. defending your position and rejecting theirs. Ok, so what if you had defended your view on tithing and the other people in the room had said "we still disagree"? You've just said that agreeing to disagree is out of the question for you, so what option would you have had left?

Well, the phrase "agree to disagree", in my part of the world at least, means that the parties mutually understand that they can live together with that point of contention; it isn't a 'deal breaker' to their associating in other regards. It doesn't mean one accepts the view of the other--quite the opposite. So the reason your focus "wouldn't be" on who's correct about tithing (in our hypothetical scenario where you are attending the meeting) would be if you wanted to settle the question of whether you could be part of the church despite disagreement in that area. But it sounds like you weren't at all interested in that question. Ok, so you told them you were coming back--that doesn't mean anything by itself.

 

 

Obviously, as the letter clearly shows, there was no option to mutually understand that we could live together.  They wanted us gone.   Remember, I had been a member of the Church for seven years, so obviously I was associating with them despite the clash in that particular doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother SFIC,

Clearly you and apparently your wife have been hurt by the actions of this church. Furthermore, you both appear to believe you are completely innocent of all wrong doing. I have misgivings if this forum is the place to resolve this issue. Not that any one of the posters are unwilling individually (or in private) to talk it through, but that this medium (a public forum) does not seem to be the best place for it (Matthew 18:16ff; Romans 16:17-19; 1 Corinthians 6:1-8; Ephesians 4:29; Titus 3:1-8; 1 Peter 2:1, 11-12; etc.).

The Bible is clear on the matter of Christ's church being a priority to us. You have expressed mixed responses (willingness, but a sense of hopelessness) to re-connecting with a church. In my estimation, we have established enough Biblical data on the priority of church, but if not more could be said. Your situation is not an exception to the truths of Scripture. It may be that you situation makes it exceptionally difficult to practice the truths of Scripture, but it does not negate them. Exceptionally difficult situations require faith in an exceptionally powerful, holy, righteous, and good God. Our earlier statements about the church are rooted in this God's revelation. We who are believers have already seen Him accomplish the most exceptionally difficult thing in rescuing our depraved souls from His righteous wrath through the blood of His dear Son. Surely we can trust in His timing that he will provide both the personal growth and change that he is working in you through this trial and a good church for you to fellowship.

For His glory,

Christian Markle

Regardless whether I am in that asembly or not, I am a member of Christ's Body, the Ekklesia; the Body in which every joint supplieth.  They don't want my ministry, that much is obvious.  And, at this point, if they would rather walk in, and teach false doctrine, I really don't need theirs as well. 

I will remain IFB, as the fundamentals of the Faith are embraced by the IFB more than any other Baptist Church or Protestant Church out there today, to the best of my knowledge.  I will continue in my studies until such time that the Lord either opens doors for me to start another Church, (I have pastored two in the past) or He convicts the only IFB assembly in town of their error, or until HIs return for His Bride.

Tell me, Christian, if I were able to travel, and came to your town, knowing my stance on the Biblical tithe, would you want me as a member of your congregation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Regardless whether I am in that asembly or not, I am a member of Christ's Body, the Ekklesia; the Body in which every joint supplieth.  They don't want my ministry, that much is obvious.  And, at this point, if they would rather walk in, and teach false doctrine, I really don't need theirs as well. 
I will remain IFB, as the fundamentals of the Faith are embraced by the IFB more than any other Baptist Church or Protestant Church out there today, to the best of my knowledge.  I will continue in my studies until such time that the Lord either opens doors for me to start another Church, (I have pastored two in the past) or He convicts the only IFB assembly in town of their error, or until HIs return for His Bride.

Tell me, Christian, if I were able to travel, and came to your town, knowing my stance on the Biblical tithe, would you want me as a member of your congregation?

I am a member of a church where I disagree with their stand on tithe, but believe in giving from your heart, but do not make it a matter of contention. The general qualifications of the church I am a part of is being saved and scripturally baptized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Tell me, Christian, if I were able to travel, and came to your town, knowing my stance on the Biblical tithe, would you want me as a member of your congregation?

My views of tithing appear to be closer to yours than your previous church. My problem would not then be of your view of tithing. I perceive that we might find conflict elsewhere though...seems to be a human thing :-) How we would deal with it would either demonstrate our love for God, His truth on conflict resolution, and the Gospel or not!

For His glory,

Christian Markle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My views of tithing appear to be closer to yours than your previous church. My problem would not then be of your view of tithing. I perceive that we might find conflict elsewhere though...seems to be a human thing :-) How we would deal with it would either demonstrate our love for God, His truth on conflict resolution, and the Gospel or not!

For His glory,

Christian Markle

not too sure we would disagree on other things or not.  It appears you, at least would be willing to reason together, and be diligent in searching the Scriptures to see if it is so.  Much unlike most who disagree with me.

 

to display some modicum of willingness to see what the Scriptures say reveals the heart indeed has a love for God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

According to Jesus the tithe was for the religious lost (pharisees). He commended the widow who gave all she had. The tithe has nothing to do with us at all; we should be giving far more, our all in fact. (I typed this while my flesh was asleep so keep it down please)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

According to Jesus the tithe was for the religious lost (pharisees). He commended the widow who gave all she had. The tithe has nothing to do with us at all; we should be giving far more, our all in fact. (I typed this while my flesh was asleep so keep it down please)

I am not so sure that Jesus was commending the widow of Mark 12.  If one reads the text in context, (beginning at verse 39) one will see Jesus was warning of religious leaders who, "rob widow's houses".  Then, He sits against a wall across from the Treasury.  Lo and behold, a widow comes and drops all her living into the Treasury. 

What I see in that text is Jesus pointing out a widow has just been robbed, not that He was commending her.

But that is another topic for another thread, I guess.  LoL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • 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
  • 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...