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.

The Widow's Mites


Standing Firm In Christ

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
28 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

You Bible nowhere says we are to give a monetary tithe.  Yet you add to the Bible in order to preach one.

the passage about the widow indicates the widow was being robbed by the scribes through the taking of her needed money.  Yet you deny it.

First, I have made no reference to "tithing" in my comments, because Mark 12:38-44 makes no reference to the matter of "tithing."  Even in the event of the passage, there is no indication from the passage that either the other people or the poor widow were giving any form of tithe.  Therefore, bringing the matter of "tithing" into the passage is an assumption, not a matter of Biblical revelation.  No, whether this passage has any value for your position against "tithing" is specifically rooted to whether this passage deals with the matter of compulsion for giving.

Second, I do not at all deny that widows were being robbed of their material welfare by the scribes (although there is no specific indication from the passage that the poor widow of Mark 12:41-44 was one of those widows who had been so robbed).  Furthermore, I do not at all deny that the scribes were robbing widows by "taking" from them (since by definition the idea of "taking" is a very part of "robbing"). 

However, I do certainly deny that the passage makes any indication that the scribes were "devouring widows' houses" specifically by compelling them to give unto the temple treasury.  In fact, the passage does not reveal anything about the manner by which the scribes were "devouring widows' houses."  Therefore, making any statement as to the manner by which the scribes were accomplishing this is formulated by human assumption, not by Biblical revelation.

Now, claiming that the context reveals this is not valid - because the passage does NOT indicate that Jesus was watching how the people were giving by compulsion, because the passage does NOT indicate that either the other people or the poor widow gave what they gave by compulsion, and because in Jesus' comments of comparison between the other givers and the poor widow, He did NOT declare that any single one of them had given by compulsion.

The idea of giving by compulsion is NOT found in a single word of the passage, even including the statement that the scribes were "devouring widows' houses," because the manner by which they did this devouring is not revealed in the statements of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

It is not slanderous to say many are coerced to tithe their money through guilt or fear tactics.

 

I have been in many services in many different denominations that teach tithing through fear and guiltw.  The church that kicked me out was one such church.  There are also many Baptist videos on youtube, sermonaudio, sermonindex, et. Al.; that manipulate the congregations giving through those very same tactics.

 

 

Again, as Pastor Markle aptly noted the passage never says she gave a 'tithe' that is you assumption. And, you use that assumption to say she was 'robbed' and whoever gives a tithe or offering is doing so through coercion. It is so slanderous to say the widow was coerced. "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

And, what bad experience in the area of tithing that you had is no reason to say that this is as wide spread in independant baptist churches as you presume. "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

Some people are tired of hearing slander in this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

What I see in the text of Mark 12:38-44 is a bankrupt religion bankrupting widows.

And what I see in the text of Mark 12:38-44 is a contrast between selfish scribes and a sacrificial widow.

Indeed, what I see is a contrast between the greediness of the scribes in selfishly taking for their own sake (even at the expense of helpless widows) and the generosity of the widow in sacrificially giving for the Lord's sake (unto the treasury of the Lord's temple).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Alan said:

Again, as Pastor Markle aptly noted the passage never says she gave a 'tithe' that is you assumption. And, you use that assumption to say she was 'robbed' and whoever gives a tithe or offering is doing so through coercion. It is so slanderous to say the widow was coerced. "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

And, what bad experience in the area of tithing that you had is no reason to say that this is as wide spread in independant baptist churches as you presume. "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

Some people are tired of hearing slander in this forum.

I never said the widow of Mark 12 was tithing.  You are attempting to twist my words to something I never said.  Read my post again.  I said my mother was robbed by her pastors through the tithe lie just as the widow was being robbed by the demands of the religious leaders of her day.

 

What I see in the text of Mark 12:38-44 is a bankrupt religion bankrupting widows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

And, you use that assumption to say she was 'robbed' and whoever gives a tithe or offering is doing so through coercion.

Read the whole sentence instead of just part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2015‎ ‎11‎:‎20‎:‎40‎, Pastor Scott Markle said:

And what I see in the text of Mark 12:38-44 is a contrast between selfish scribes and a sacrificial widow.

Indeed, what I see is a contrast between the greediness of the scribes in selfishly taking for their own sake (even at the expense of helpless widows) and the generosity of the widow in sacrificially giving for the Lord's sake (unto the treasury of the Lord's temple).

 

Concerning Mark 12:38-44

1.  The Caution to the People

     Mark 12:38 – “And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes . . . .”

     a.  To avoid fellowshipping with them.

     b.  To avoid following their ways.

2.  The Character of the Scribes

     a.  Arrogant superiority.  Mark 12:38-39 – “Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts.”

     b.  Oppressing selfishness.   Mark 12:40 – “Which devour widows’ houses . . . .”

     c.  Pretentious spirituality.  Mark 12:40 – “. . . And for a pretence make long prayers. . . .”

3.  The Condemnation of the Scribes

     Mark 12:40 – “. . . These shall receive greater damnation.”

4.  The Consideration of the Givers

     Mark 12:41 – “And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury . . . .”

      a.  Consideration of the many rich.  Mark 12:41 – “. . .  And many that were rich cast in much.”

      b.  Consideration of the poor widow.  Mark 12:42 – “And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.”

5.  The Commendation of the Widow

     Mark 12:43 – “And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury.”

     a.  Because she gave out of her want.  Mark 12:43 – “For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want . . . .”

     b.  Because she gave a higher percentage, even 100%.  Mark 12:43 – “. . .  But she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know technically that the "tithe" was 10% of a man's agricultural abundance (it was an agrarian society they lived in unlike our consumer/monetary based society of today) but a lot of people use the term when referring to giving in general. "Did you tithe at church today?" can simply mean , "Did you give at church today?" IMO.  It's like how "the house of the Lord" in the OT was historically and doctrinally the tabernacle\temple but Christians spiritually apply those verses to the local church ("I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord" i.e. "let's go to church). I realize you need to get the OT doctrine down straight but you can become so rigid in doctrine you can forget any devotional application to a Christian today. Remember, all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness. It's not some dead book relegated to the past.

This is why I say that the "tithe" is not wrong for today if you teach it in a devotional sense. I see nothing wrong with a man using the OT tithe as a principle for giving 10% of his earnings each week or month. How much a preacher should force the issue is up to debate.  I do have a pastor friend who never passes a plate around but has a box in the back of his church that you put money in if you want to give. He has now moved into his third building because the church keeps growing. I will say though that I do believe that a Christian, even though he may be under grace giving, can still rob God. 

At the heart of this issue, IMO, is that some don't want to be brow beaten into a guilt trip or have another legalistic burden placed upon them. Or perhaps they have been robbed by a greedy pastor or crooked missionary in the past like my brother was who now refuses to give anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There was no commendation in the text of Mark 12:41ff. The immediate preceding text reveals that widows were being robbed. The immediate text after shows Jesus' anger at the unjust oppression of the widows... He states that the Temple will be destroyed. Why make the statement that the Temple would be destroyed at all, if not because of the unjust actions of its leaders? The prophecy of the Temple's destruction is made due to the actions Christ and His Apostles had just witnessed inside,... a widow being robbed. Context shows no commendation whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

I know technically that the "tithe" was 10% of a man's agricultural abundance (it was an agrarian society they lived in unlike our consumer/monetary based society of today) but a lot of people use the term when referring to giving in general. "Did you tithe at church today?" can simply mean , "Did you give at church today?" IMO.  It's like how "the house of the Lord" in the OT was historically and doctrinally the tabernacle\temple but Christians spiritually apply those verses to the local church ("I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord" i.e. "let's go to church). I realize you need to get the OT doctrine down straight but you can become so rigid in doctrine you can forget any devotional application to a Christian today. Remember, all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness. It's not some dead book relegated to the past.

This is why I say that the "tithe" is not wrong for today if you teach it in a devotional sense. I see nothing wrong with a man using the OT tithe as a principle for giving 10% of his earnings each week or month. How much a preacher should force the issue is up to debate.  I do have a pastor friend who never passes a plate around but has a box in the back of his church that you put money in if you want to give. He has now moved into his third building because the church keeps growing. I will say though that I do believe that a Christian, even though he may be under grace giving, can still rob God. 

At the heart of this issue, IMO, is that some don't want to be brow beaten into a guilt trip or have another legalistic burden placed upon them. Or perhaps they have been robbed by a greedy pastor or crooked missionary in the past like my brother was who now refuses to give anything.

If your brother's pastor is using the Word of God to preach the lie that God requires your brother to give 10% of his income to the Church, then your brother is right not to give anything.  A pastor that handles the Word of God deceitfully should not be supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

I know technically that the "tithe" was 10% of a man's agricultural abundance (it was an agrarian society they lived in unlike our consumer/monetary based society of today) but a lot of people use the term when referring to giving in general. "Did you tithe at church today?" can simply mean , "Did you give at church today?" IMO.  It's like how "the house of the Lord" in the OT was historically and doctrinally the tabernacle\temple but Christians spiritually apply those verses to the local church ("I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord" i.e. "let's go to church). I realize you need to get the OT doctrine down straight but you can become so rigid in doctrine you can forget any devotional application to a Christian today. Remember, all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness. It's not some dead book relegated to the past.

This is why I say that the "tithe" is not wrong for today if you teach it in a devotional sense. I see nothing wrong with a man using the OT tithe as a principle for giving 10% of his earnings each week or month. How much a preacher should force the issue is up to debate.  I do have a pastor friend who never passes a plate around but has a box in the back of his church that you put money in if you want to give. He has now moved into his third building because the church keeps growing. I will say though that I do believe that a Christian, even though he may be under grace giving, can still rob God. 

At the heart of this issue, IMO, is that some don't want to be brow beaten into a guilt trip or have another legalistic burden placed upon them. Or perhaps they have been robbed by a greedy pastor or crooked missionary in the past like my brother was who now refuses to give anything.

Our church has a box at the back. Well two actually, one on each side.  When it was decided that the plate would no longer be passed around, some said the giving would drop.  In fact it increased. That was more than 20 years ago and we have never had need to reconsider the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015‎ ‎5‎:‎37‎:‎52‎, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

Concerning Mark 12:38-44

1.  The Caution to the People

     Mark 12:38 – “And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes . . . .”

     a.  To avoid fellowshipping with them.

     b.  To avoid following their ways.

2.  The Character of the Scribes

     a.  Arrogant superiority.  Mark 12:38-39 – “Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts.”

     b.  Oppressing selfishness.   Mark 12:40 – “Which devour widows’ houses . . . .”

     c.  Pretentious spirituality.  Mark 12:40 – “. . . And for a pretence make long prayers. . . .”

3.  The Condemnation of the Scribes

     Mark 12:40 – “. . . These shall receive greater damnation.”

4.  The Consideration of the Givers

     Mark 12:41 – “And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury . . . .”

      a.  Consideration of the many rich.  Mark 12:41 – “. . .  And many that were rich cast in much.”

      b.  Consideration of the poor widow.  Mark 12:42 – “And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.”

5.  The Commendation of the Widow

     Mark 12:43 – “And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury.”

     a.  Because she gave out of her want.  Mark 12:43 – “For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want . . . .”

     b.  Because she gave a higher percentage, even 100%.  Mark 12:43 – “. . .  But she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”

Pastor Markle,

Thank you for the excellent study and observations on the commendation of the Lord Jesus towards the widow and the hypocitical giving of the Scribes. The Lord Jesus is plainly showing us the contrast between the Scribes and the widow and her mites.

The Lord Jesus knows the heart attitude of all those who give. The Lord Jesus is giving us the start contrast of those who give 'grudgingly' and those who give 'cheerfully and purposely' out of a heart of love. The widow who gave her all is our example to follow as we give our time, talents, and treasures.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is no indication of willful giving in Mark 12:38ff.

There is no indication of commendation in Mark 12:38ff.

 

context shows robbery was being witnessed right before the eyes of the Lord and His Apostles.

 

Why anyone would think that Jesus would commend someone for being robbed by thieves is beyond incredible,... especially in view of the fact that He warns us to beware of thieves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Lord Jesus commended the widow and condemned the scribes. The widow was not robbed in any sense of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mark 12:40a "Which devour widows houses,..."

 

devour - Greek 'katesthio'

Outline of Biblical Usage:
to consume by eating, to eat up, devour
of birds
of a dragon
of a man eating up the little book
metaph.
to devour i.e. squander, waste: substance
to devour i.e. forcibly appropriate: widows' property
to strip one of his goods
to ruin (by the infliction of injuries)
by fire, to devour i.e. to utterly consume, destroy
of the consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions

 

the whole purpose of Jesus sitting against the wall was to demonstrate to His followers how the widow's living was being "forcibly appropriated."  She was forced to give all her living by the scribes of the Law, just as we are forced to pay taxes by the scribes of our laws.

 

Jesus was not commending the widow on her giving at all.  He was pointing out to His followers that she gave all her living because she was being forced to do so.

The forced taxation did little to hurt the rich, yet it oppressed the poor greatly, taking away from that which they needed to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are a lot of rules oftentimes that Baptist churches add outside of the Bible. If I had a family, with my income, which is above average, I don't know how I would obey some of the added Independent Baptist rules like being obligated to send all the children to a Christian school, tithing the gross income all to the church, and not allowing the wife to work outside the home in any circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, mkrishna said:

There are a lot of rules oftentimes that Baptist churches add outside of the Bible. If I had a family, with my income, which is above average, I don't know how I would obey some of the added Independent Baptist rules like being obligated to send all the children to a Christian school, tithing the gross income all to the church, and not allowing the wife to work outside the home in any circumstances.

Hmmmm, I wonder what you might consider an "above average" income.  As for myself, I, my wife, and my two children have lived for many years on less than $30,000 per year.  Yet my wife does not work outside the home; my children are homeschooled (was - for the oldest, since he is now in Bible college training for the ministry); and we (my wife and I) have given (because we purposed in our hearts to do so) 20% of all our increase unto the work of the Lord in honor unto our Lord.  In addition, I believe that we as a family have lived quite joyfully and comfortably in so doing. 

"But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully." (2 Corinthians 9:6 - a New Testament promise)

"And God is able to make all grace abound toward you: that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God." (2 Corinthians 9:8 & 11, with the parenthetical of verses 9-10 removed - another New Testament promise)

"Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for you food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness." (2 Corinthians 9:10 - a New Testament prayer)

"Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift." (2 Corinthians 9:15 - a New Testament motivation for bountiful giving)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, mkrishna said:

There are a lot of rules oftentimes that Baptist churches add outside of the Bible. If I had a family, with my income, which is above average, I don't know how I would obey some of the added Independent Baptist rules like being obligated to send all the children to a Christian school, tithing the gross income all to the church, and not allowing the wife to work outside the home in any circumstances.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with a set list of rules in the IFB.  Established rules in any organization is a must if that organization is to run effectively.  One has the choice to become a member or not.

 

However, when any denomination, IFB or otherwise, invents rules such as the monetary tithe and claims that the Bible teaches said rule, (using Leviticus 27:30; Malachi 3:8-10; Matthew 23:23, or any other verse in the Bible as their "proof-text") that denomination is clearly handling the Word of God deceitfully..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, mkrishna said:

There are a lot of rules oftentimes that Baptist churches add outside of the Bible. If I had a family, with my income, which is above average, I don't know how I would obey some of the added Independent Baptist rules like being obligated to send all the children to a Christian school, tithing the gross income all to the church, and not allowing the wife to work outside the home in any circumstances.

Rules or biblical principles?  Off the top of my head I can think of verses which support the first two but what about the third?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...