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.

The Widow's Mites


Standing Firm In Christ

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

None for you 

27 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

There are no verses to support the tithing of one's gross income to the Church.  

 

None for you, we know.  For me and my house we happily give of our tithes and offerings; our substance, the firstfruits of all our increase.  

Back to MrKrishna, Proverbs 3:9 is a bible reference to tithing one's gross income.  You earned it all even though you do not get to see what was taken by the government.  It's the Lord's money anyways, not yours.  He let you have it.  Funny thing though, Hillary and Obama and Nancy and Harry say the same thing all the time too!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

None for you 

None for you, we know.  For me and my house we happily give of our tithes and offerings; our substance, the firstfruits of all our increase.  

Back to MrKrishna, Proverbs 3:9 is a bible reference to tithing one's gross income.  You earned it all even though you do not get to see what was taken by the government.  It's the Lord's money anyways, not yours.  He let you have it.  Funny thing though, Hillary and Obama and Nancy and Harry say the same thing all the time too!  

Proverbs 3:9 is NOT about tithing monetary income, gross or net.

 

Solomon was living in the dispensation of the Law.  The Law stated that God's holy tithe was agricultural, NOT monetary.  Solomon was NOT saying to tithe money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

SFIC, the tithe applies today as it did in the Garden of Eden.  I live it, my church teaches it and our prayers have not been hindered.  We have not been thrown out of church and we do not subsist on ramen noodles.  We cheerfully give and the Lord provides, despite the tremendous hardships we've endured as of late.

I consider you a brother in Christ and know you love the Lord and also know that this is your pet project in life.  I'm not going to play the greek game or debate the subject.  

Abraham gave through Melchisedec to Christ, Israel gave through the Levites to Christ, the church members give through their local churches to Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, swathdiver said:

SFIC, the tithe applies today as it did in the Garden of Eden.  I live it, my church teaches it and our prayers have not been hindered.  We have not been thrown out of church and we do not subsist on ramen noodles.  We cheerfully give and the Lord provides, despite the tremendous hardships we've endured as of late.

I consider you a brother in Christ and know you love the Lord and also know that this is your pet project in life.  I'm not going to play the greek game or debate the subject.  

Abraham gave through Melchisedec to Christ, Israel gave through the Levites to Christ, the church members give through their local churches to Christ.

In the Bible, the tithe is not even mentioned in the account of the Garden of Eden.  To teach that it was in the Garden of Eden is to add to the Word of God.

What Abram tithed to Melchizedek was spoils of war.  The Bible nowhere says he gave his own household monetary income to Melchizedek.  To teach that Abram either gave his household monetary income to Melchizedek, or that he tithed his household monetary income to Melchizedek, is to add to the Word of God.

Israel tithed agricultural produce and livestock to the Levites,... not their household monetary income.  To teach that they tithed their monetary income to the Levites, is to add to the Word of God.

I'll continue to preach what the Bible says concerning God's holy tithe.  If your Church chooses to add to the Biblical text, and to teach for doctrine the commandment of men, that's their error.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/9/2015 at 3:09 AM, swathdiver said:

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?

Titus 2 -

3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brethren,

I will also add a very short word of testimony. I give my of my treasures to the church, willingly, purposely, and cheerfully, because I love the Lord and His work. To me, the widow is an example for me to do more than I do. And, more than likely, I do not measure up to the commendation that Lord Jesus gave to the poor widow.

It is a blessing to be able to give to the Lord through His church.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Alan said:

Brethren,

I will also add a very short word of testimony. I give my of my treasures to the church, willingly, purposely, and cheerfully, because I love the Lord and His work. To me, the widow is an example for me to do more than I do. And, more than likely, I do not measure up to the commendation that Lord Jesus gave to the poor widow.

It is a blessing to be able to give to the Lord through His church.

Alan

Yes, the Lord Jesus purposely commended the widow.

Tthe Lord Jesus commended the widow and the giving of her mites. The widow purposely, cheerfully, and lovingly gave of her funds, yea, all of her funds, to the Lord God in heaven through the Temple as the Old Testament directed. And the saints who love the Lord Jesus give willingly, cheerfully, and purposely through the New Testament, Independent, Bible believing Baptist church for the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The idea that the widow did not give wilingly, but through, what you say, through 'coerceon,' or 'robbery' is a  perversion of the very words of the Lord Jesus.

SFIC, why don't you just stick to your own blog (and your own book on tithing), and promote your own interpretation of the words of the Lord Jesus, and the other scriptures on your own blog, to those who are likeminded instead of forcing your teachings on us. Your teaching is repugnant.

Alan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You are adding to the text, Alan.  

 

The Scripture shows no commendation in that passage.  But it does show condemnation.

 

The Lord had just warned of the scribes robbing widiw's houses, condemning the ones doing the robbing.  Keeping the passage in context, the Lord was demonstrating how the widows were being robbed... By having to give money to the Temple that was not required by God.  By having to give what she needed to sustain her life.

 

God's requirement, as far as the poor were concerned in giving money to the Temple, was that males twenty years old and up give half a shekel a year.  

Jesus pointed out that the widow was poor.  And that she gave all that she had to live on.  Why would He commend her for putting all she had to live on in the coffers of the thieves in the Temple?

 

Your theory that the widow was being commended makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when the account is read in context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 9/25/2015 at 10:10 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

SFIC...speaking of reading in context, it would seem that the widow was not the only one that thought giving money to the temple was required.

You conveniently leave out the part of this Scripture that I quoted, and that is because it doesn't fit your vendetta against any sort of giving to the work of The Lord. This may sound harsh, but it is the way I see it in all of your posts regarding giving to God's work.

 I don't see Jesus rebuking all the other people who cast money into the treasury, which he surely would have done if it was not required or wrong. So, are we to believe what the Bible says these people were doing, or your wrongful assertions of what Scripture plainly says?

Your assertion that she was coerced into giving is a private interpretation that is not warranted by the context in question. Even reading in an elementary manner reveals that the Lord was commending her for her unselfish, and sacrificial giving to the work of God.

Just to be clear and honest, your interpretation of this passage is one I have never heard from any other source and I don't believe it is correct, nor is it found in any IFB expositions pertaining to this passage that I have ever seen.
 Rom. 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 
 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

SFIC...speaking of reading in context, it would seem that the widow was not the only one that thought giving money to the temple was required.

You conveniently leave out the part of this Scripture that I quoted, and that is because it doesn't fit your vendetta against any sort of giving to the work of The Lord. This may sound harsh, but it is the way I see it in all of your posts regarding giving to God's work.

 I don't see Jesus rebuking all the other people who cast money into the treasury, which he surely would have done if it was not required or wrong. So, are we to believe what the Bible says these people were doing, or your wrongful assertions of what Scripture plainly says?

Your assertion that she was coerced into giving is a private interpretation that is not warranted by the context in question. Even reading in an elementary manner reveals that the Lord was commending her for her unselfish, and sacrificial giving to the work of God.

Just to be clear and honest, your interpretation of this passage is one I have never heard from any other source and I don't believe it is correct, nor is it found in any IFB expositions pertaining to this passage that I have ever seen.
 Rom. 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 
 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

My "assertions" are not wrong at all.

 

The scribes were the interpreters of the Law, much like our SCOTUS Justices are.  

 

Context shows how the widows were being robbed.  They were made to give to the Temple where it was detrimental to their welfare.  Sure, the rich were made to give as well.  But two mites is far more needful to a poor widow than two mites would be to the affluent.  

 

What she had to give was unjust, because it robbed her of her living.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 9/25/2015 at 10:10 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:
18 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

My "assertions" are not wrong at all.

 

The scribes were the interpreters of the Law, much like our SCOTUS Justices are.  

 

Context shows how the widows were being robbed.  They were made to give to the Temple where it was detrimental to their welfare.  Sure, the rich were made to give as well.  But two mites is far more needful to a poor widow than two mites would be to the affluent.  

 

What she had to give was unjust, because it robbed her of her living.  

Your private assertions are wrong SFIC. While this passage does say that widows were being robbed, it does not say that this window was being robbed by her giving. One of the rules of Bible study is that we go by what the Scripture says, not what it doesn't say. You have to torture the Scripture to make it say what you want it to say, not what it actually says. Nowhere in this Scripture does it say that she "had" to give what she did, you just assume it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

 

Read this passage along with the delivery Jesus gave in Matthew 23.    Jesus was pronouncing judgment against the religious leaders.  And when He walked out of the Temple, He pronounced judgment against the Temple itself.

 

Jesus was angry at what the leaders of Israel had become, robbers of the poor.  He was angry at what they had done to the House of God.  It had become a place filled with extortion.  

 

It is both disgusting and ridiculous to think that Jesus would be commending a poor widow who made herself destitute by giving all she had to live on to a religious system that He had just exposed as thieves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jesus said in Matthew 23:15 that the scribes and Pharisees were children of hell.

 

Tell me Jim, why would Jesus commend a poor widow for funding unsaved children of hell, or for funding a corrupt religious system with all she had to live on?

 

it is not my doctrine that is a "torture to Scripture".  Rather, it is the doctrine that claims Jesus was commending the widow.  That doctrine that has Jesus commending the funding of a corrupt religious system is the doctrine that is a "torture to Scripture".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You are adding to the text, Alan.  

 

The Scripture shows no commendation in that passage.  But it does show condemnation.

 

In the context, the Lord Jesus is plainly showing the heart difference from the Scribes, Mark 12:38-40, and the widow in Mark 12:41-44.

Both Pastor Markle and I had brought out this contrast very clearly and concisely and you just ignored both our posts. As you have also ignored and condemned the other fine posts of the brethren. In fact, you have condemned ( On OnlIne Baptist, on your blog, in your book, and on your forum), anybody who decides to give a tithe and offering to the church. This includes pastors who pastor churches. You have called these men of God, 'thieves," and "robbers."

Your condemnation of the widow for giving thorugh coercion and 'robbbery' is not correct. No, SFIC, I am not adding to the text: you are perverting the very words of the Lord Jesus.

Alan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
35 minutes ago, Alan said:

In the context, the Lord Jesus is plainly showing the heart difference from the Scribes, Mark 12:38-40, and the widow in Mark 12:41-44.

Both Pastor Markle and I had brought out this contrast very clearly and concisely and you just ignored both our posts. As you have also ignored and condemned the other fine posts of the brethren. In fact, you have condemned ( On OnlIne Baptist, on your blog, in your book, and on your forum), anybody who decides to give a tithe and offering to the church. This includes pastors who pastor churches. You have called these men of God, 'thieves," and "robbers."

Your condemnation of the widow for giving thorugh coercion and 'robbbery' is not correct. No, SFIC, I am not adding to the text: you are perverting the very words of the Lord Jesus.

Alan

 

 

There is no "heart difference" demonstrated in the passage whatsoever.  

Jesus doesn't say, "Look what a great thing this widow has done!"  The widow casting in the mites, and His subsequent statement that she had cast in more than all the others was smack-dab in the middle of His condemnation of the actions of the religious leaders and His judgment against the Temple itself.  

The account of the widow was all part of that big picture,... A piece of the puzzle.  It was the actions of the religious leaders in that corrupt system that placed that widow in the destitute position she went home in.  She was poor when she arrived at the Temple.  She was even poorer when she left.

True religion is visiting the widows in their affliction,... not to rob them of the only means they had to survive on.

I am not "perverting the words of Jesus" at all.  I have exegeted the passage, reading verses 41-44 in their proper context.  You and Scott have eisegeted one verse, tking it out of its context, adding some imaginary heart condition of the widow and alleged commendation by Jesus.  In doing so, it is you who has "perverted the Words of the Lord Jesus," not I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

It would seem, SFIC, that you are the only one holding to this private interpretation of yours. Can you come up with anyone else that holds to this position? I am not talking about just here at Online Baptist, but anywhere that Bible believing Independent Baptists are?

You claim to be an IFB, but how you can claim that and be so at odds with our fundamental teachings is unfathomable. So it would seem that arguing with you on this issue will remain unproductive since you are convinced in your own mind that your view is correct against all attempts to show you your error. I guess it's a case of SFIC standing alone against historically accurate Scripture interpretations. So be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
46 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

It would seem, SFIC, that you are the only one holding to this private interpretation of yours. Can you come up with anyone else that holds to this position? I am not talking about just here at Online Baptist, but anywhere that Bible believing Independent Baptists are?

You claim to be an IFB, but how you can claim that and be so at odds with our fundamental teachings is unfathomable. So it would seem that arguing with you on this issue will remain unproductive since you are convinced in your own mind that your view is correct against all attempts to show you your error. I guess it's a case of SFIC standing alone against historically accurate Scripture interpretations. So be it.

Funny you would ask that.  I googled the widow's mite just a little over two hours ago and found a very popular preacher teaching the widow was being robbed.  

 

I do not listen to him normally because he does not use the King James Bible.  His name?  John MacArthur.  The sermon is Titled, "Abusing the Poor".

 

what is that first word that the "I" in IFB stands for?  Oh yeah,... Independent.  That could answer the question as to why I don't agree with you on tithing or the widow's mite account.

 

as to tithing being a "Baptist Fundamental", that is debateable since monetary tithing among Baptists is relatively young.  John Harvey Grime wrote in 1932 that should a Baptist Church ever begin to teach the monetary tithe doctrine, it would cease to be Baptist.  

 

Leaning on what JHG stated, this would mean that I am more "Baptist" than you or Alan.  LoL

 

by the way,... I am not in error.

 

 

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.
  • Recent Achievements

  • 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...