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.

Errors of Calvanism


Shadowfeathers
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Alan said:

Here is, American Heritage Dictionary meaning of, 'detract.' "To take away (from); divert:" And, that was the meaning that I had in my post. 'Detract does not mean to belittle or denigrate, nor did I have that meaning in my post. Nor did I mention you, nor mention anything that belittled you. I really think you misunderstood the meaning and my usage of the word detract. I cannot stop what you think, but, I want to clarify what the word 'detract' means and how I used it.

OED says it means to diminish the worth of, and the top synonym is 'belittle'. You know what you meant by it, of course, but I'm highly skeptical that you only meant the equivalent of 'distract' because of the way you used the term:

"... a futile effort to detract..."

"Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points."

You don't have to say my name to mention me. Arguments and 'methods' don't have motives. People do. By saying things like "futile attempt" and "throw doubt", you are accusing someone of acting improperly, since that's exactly what those phrases mean. And since I'm the one who wrote the post you're talking about, then it's obvious you mean me.

It's equivalent to me making some statement about a certain someone who's username refers to an instrument and has a picture of a goat for their avatar, but when challenged insisting that I wasn't talking about Ukelemike because I hadn't actually said his name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎2015‎年‎11‎月‎5‎日‎ ‎上午‎, Shadowfeathers said:

The Contrasts

Armenian = A, Calvanism = C

Depravity: A – Man is depraved, lost, guilty, but has been helped so that he can believe if he will.

Depravity: C – Man is totally depraved. He is dead. Depravity indicates inability.

Man's will is not free, but enslaved by sin.

 

I am a Biblicist, not Calvanist or Arminian. I believe the Bible as Authority, Not John Calvin or Jacobus Arminus.

I really appreciate point # 5, 'The Contrasts."

Especially when it was mentioned, "I am  a biblicast, not Calvinist or Arminian. I believe the Bible as Authority, Not John Calvin or Jacobus Arminus."

This is a good, biblical postion and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Alan said:

I guess we both have our opinions on the matter. As I stated before, let us move on to the other points in this fine lesson.

Whatever you meant by detract, that you accused me of improper conduct with my original post is a fact, not an opinion:

"Permit me to explain my motives. The method of using one small section of a lesson to throw doubt on the whole lesson is a common practice to detract from the main points. That is a common practice."

You're saying my original post was a deliberate smokescreen to stop people from reading the rest of the article. That's completely untrue, but since you don't withrdraw it then that means you stand by it.

For any others reading: I've been very happy to get UkeleMike's response to my response, I consider that exhange a constructive contribution to the OP and I'm looking forward to reading comments on the rest of the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎2015‎年‎11‎月‎5‎日‎ ‎上午‎, Shadowfeathers said:

Election

  • A – God elected those whom He foresaw would believe.

  • C – God's election rested solely in His own sovereign will. It is not based on anything foreseen in man.

This point is very important to properly understand the true doctrine of election and to uncover the errors of Calvinism. Election is based on the 'foreknowledge of God,' and not on the understanding, or knowledge, of man.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29

 

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In the spirit of getting some more fruitful contributions on this thread:

On 05/11/2015, 00:45:47, Shadowfeathers said:

Questions of Mystery!

  • How can God be sovereign and how can man be responsible?

  • How can there be responsibility without ability?

  • How can limits be placed on an infinite sacrifice?

  • Great preachers have strongly emphasized both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

  • You might be surprised that C. H. Spurgeon leaned toward Calvanism, although he strongly disagreed with the doctrine of limited atonement.

I particularly like this assertion that there are questions of mystery. Trying to comprehend God's plan and will does lead to some tricky philosophical questions, which preachers and theologans have been speaking on and writing about since the early church. I don't know what else the preacher said about the questions listed but I tend to think it's fine to say that they are indeed mysteries--things we may not have satisfactory answers for on this earth. There are examples in God's Word, e.g. Job and Romans, where God chooses not to answer direct questions about His workings. Perhaps systems like Calvinism are an attempt to answer absolutely everything, and in doing so they over-reach.

On 05/11/2015, 00:45:47, Shadowfeathers said:

Most Calvanist are probably saved, but just confused on the Scriptures.

This is what I've always believed, since the Calvinists I've spoken to proclaim the Gospel that I acknowledge, though I think they're wrong in many areas. But there are many on this forum who believe the opposite: that a Calvinist is very unlikely to be a Christian and that a Calvinist is really equivalent to, say, a muslim or a mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Alan said:

This point is very important to properly understand the true doctrine of election and to uncover the errors of Calvinism. Election is based on the 'foreknowledge of God,' and not on the understanding, or knowledge, of man.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29

 

Sounds to me like a person is predestined to look like Jesus one day, nothing about being saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Sounds to me like a person is predestined to look like Jesus one day, nothing about being saved.

That is correct. Part of the doctrine of election and predestination, is that after salvation, every saint is predestioned, "... to be conformed to the image of his Son..." Unffortunately, you may not understand that Paul is directly talking to, and about, the saints.

Let us take a closer look at the context.

The whole context of Romans 8:1-39 is only applicable to someone who is saved, redeemed, has the Spirit, is a brother, and is called a saint. To say paul is saying nothing about salvation is not correct. Verse 9, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Let us start from verse 27, "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit [only the saints have the Spirit] because he maketh intercession to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God [only a saint can love God], to them who are the called [the saved, the redeemed] according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also [also: in addition too after salvation: after being redeemed; after the Spirit enters the saint] did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Please also take careful note Paul stated, "among the brethren."

"Also" is the key word. After salvation, also, in addition to, the saint is predestined to "be conformed to the image of his Son," and the other gifts of salvation from verse 30-39

From verse 30 to 39 there are other blessings every saint has after salvation.

I hope the above study helped.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

We also remember that, if we are to be comformed to the image of His Son, well, the Son is the express image of the Father, sooooo...

As for the mystery of how God can be sovereign, and man responsible, this has never been a stretch for me: If God is sovereign, which He surely is, then is does not that sovereignty expand to ALLOWING man, IN His  sovereignty, the ability and responsibility to make a choice to follow or reject? Apparently, even the angels have some amount of free will is a third of them followed Lucifer in his rebellion, surely an act of free will-else God willed evil, willed rebellion against Himself, willed that man would fall to sin, etc...See the mess we get without free will?

Of course, there are those instances where clearly the Lord has prepared someone to do something to show forth His glory. For instance:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth." (Ex 9:13-16)

  In this instance, it seems the Lord specifically set Pharaoh to reject His commands to let them go, for the purpose of showing His power, not just to Egypt, but to all the nations that would later hear of it. We see that 40 years later those of Jericho knew of it, and feared them because of it. So it had a more lasting effect than just then and there. We also have the example of Cyrus being called by name as the king who would release the Jews from captivity and make possible the rebuilding of the temple in the book of Isaiah, long before it happened.

So it makes me wonder, perhaps those who would be in power don't have the same amount of free will that others do-those who wield power and earthly authority seem to be more directed by God in various ways, or God just gives us the rulers we deserve, who will bring about the expected end. After all the Proverbs 21:1 tells us "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Would this not extend to ALL earthly rulers, be they kings, emperors, pharaohs and presidents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

We also remember that, if we are to be comformed to the image of His Son, well, the Son is the express image of the Father, sooooo...

As for the mystery of how God can be sovereign, and man responsible, this has never been a stretch for me: If God is sovereign, which He surely is, then is does not that sovereignty expand to ALLOWING man, IN His  sovereignty, the ability and responsibility to make a choice to follow or reject? Apparently, even the angels have some amount of free will is a third of them followed Lucifer in his rebellion, surely an act of free will-else God willed evil, willed rebellion against Himself, willed that man would fall to sin, etc...See the mess we get without free will?

Of course God allowed Free Will.  He gave Adam Free Will and he used it to sin.  On the day that Adam sinned, he died, He begat sons in his own image,  Since then his descendants have been born dead and dead men don't have free will.  Consider the following verses.

John 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39  And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.41  The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42  And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43  Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44  No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


Q. Who will He raise on the Last Day?  A Those who the Father gave him.

Q.  Who can come to Jesus? A.  Only those who the father draws to him.

6:65  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66  From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67  Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

As you can see from verse 26, that teaching was not popular with many of His disciples, any more than it is with many of his disciples today.  Can you walk with Him and yet reject His teaching?

 

 

 

Edited by Invicta
Added text
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 minutes ago, Invicta said:

 dead men don't have free will.  

 

Interesting passages Invicta. Sadly though you pre-text them with this little quote that cannot be found in Scripture anywhere. This is the issue with all false teaching. It is based on a predisposed notion APART from Scripture and then Scripture is twisted around to conform to the predisposed false notion.

You have heard the term cart before the horse. Your adopted idea in this post places the horse in the cart, therefore the cart goes nowhere.

Sorry dude, you are false in this.

Edited by wretched
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, wretched said:

Interesting passages Invicta. Sadly though you pre-text them with this little quote that cannot be found in Scripture anywhere. This is the issue with all false teaching. It is based on a predisposed notion APART from Scripture and then Scripture is twisted around to conform to the predisposed false notion.

You have hear the term cart before the horse. Your adopted idea in this post places the horse in the cart, therefore the cart goes nowhere.

Sorry dude, you are false in this.

 

Well you would say that wouldn't you? I edited the previous post

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
33 minutes ago, wretched said:

Interesting passages Invicta. Sadly though you pre-text them with this little quote that cannot be found in Scripture anywhere. This is the issue with all false teaching. It is based on a predisposed notion APART from Scripture and then Scripture is twisted around to conform to the predisposed false notion.

You have heard the term cart before the horse. Your adopted idea in this post places the horse in the cart, therefore the cart goes nowhere.

Sorry dude, you are false in this.

Amen. It is not talking about physical death. If we use the same false logic, we should not preach the gospel to the unsaved, since dead men cannot hear either. Dead men cannot sin either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

16 ¶  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam ate and died spiritually.  His offspring were born spiritually dead.

Eph 2:1  And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph 2:5  Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Col 2:13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

 

50 minutes ago, mkrishna said:

Amen. It is not talking about physical death. If we use the same false logic, we should not preach the gospel to the unsaved, since dead men cannot hear either. Dead men cannot sin either.

Nonesense.  It is by the foolishness of preaching that men are saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

As for the mystery of how God can be sovereign, and man responsible, this has never been a stretch for me: If God is sovereign, which He surely is, then is does not that sovereignty expand to ALLOWING man, IN His  sovereignty, the ability and responsibility to make a choice to follow or reject? Apparently, even the angels have some amount of free will is a third of them followed Lucifer in his rebellion, surely an act of free will-else God willed evil, willed rebellion against Himself, willed that man would fall to sin, etc...See the mess we get without free will?

Regarding God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, what I've always considered a philosophical puzzle is the nature of choices. Part of the explanation for choices is free will: no choice, no free will. If I pushed you off a cliff, we could easily explain why you went over. But if you jumped, we might ask why you jumped, and the answer could not be 'free will', because free will only explains the existence of a choice, not why a particular option is chosen.

Why do we make the choices we do? Do we make them because of our wills and desires? If so, where do those wills and desires come from? Do they come from our characters and constitutions? If so, where do those characters/constitutions come from? If we are created beings, does that mean our characters are created? And if our characters are created, does the creator decide what kinds of characters we have? And if the creator decides, and the creator has foreknowledge of exactly what we'll do with our lives if given a certain character, isn't it ultimately the creator who consciously determines our choices by determining our characters?

To me, the big question that Calvinism attempts to answer that other systems don't is why people make the choices they do. Calvinism's answer is that it is God who determines our choices. I think this is wrong, but I admit I don't have an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, Invicta said:

Of course God allowed Free Will.  He gave Adam Free Will and he used it to sin.  On the day that Adam sinned, he died, He begat sons in his own image,  Since then his descendants have been born dead and dead men don't have free will.  Consider the following verses.

John 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39  And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.41  The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42  And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43  Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44  No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


Q. Who will He raise on the Last Day?  A Those who the Father gave him.

Q.  Who can come to Jesus? A.  Only those who the father draws to him.

6:65  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66  From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67  Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

As you can see from verse 26, that teaching was not popular with many of His disciples, any more than it is with many of his disciples today.  Can you walk with Him and yet reject His teaching?

 

 

 

Good verses, however you are making a philosophical leap here. It is true that only those the Father has given to Jesus will come to Him. However, that doesn't discount that ALL are drawn and ALL are lightened by Christ, thus ALL have an opportunity to come. But, the Lord knows from the beginning who WILL, and as such, they are them which the Father giveth to the Son.  We are ALL given of the Father, but some choose not to answer.  Jesus died for the sin of the WORLD-that's the same world that the Father so loved that He gave His only begotten Son for. The world is the lost system-that incorporates everyone. That they are dead in sin does not take away the ability to choose to follow or not, nor does the Bible say as much-it is an assumption, a leap that is not in scripture; dead just means without Christ. Every single person on earth who is not born again is dead, and they make choices every day, some even to follow Christ unto eternal life.

"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

By the way, they didn't leave Christ because He said the Father would draw them, they left because of misunderstanding His doctrine on the His being the Bread of life, and their need to eat His flesh and drink His blood. That's why they left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2015, 1:23:22, Alan said:

That is correct. Part of the doctrine of election and predestination, is that after salvation, every saint is predestioned, "... to be conformed to the image of his Son..." Unffortunately, you may not understand that Paul is directly talking to, and about, the saints.

Let us take a closer look at the context.

The whole context of Romans 8:1-39 is only applicable to someone who is saved, redeemed, has the Spirit, is a brother, and is called a saint. To say paul is saying nothing about salvation is not correct. Verse 9, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Let us start from verse 27, "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit [only the saints have the Spirit] because he maketh intercession to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God [only a saint can love God], to them who are the called [the saved, the redeemed] according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also [also: in addition too after salvation: after being redeemed; after the Spirit enters the saint] did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Please also take careful note Paul stated, "among the brethren."

"Also" is the key word. After salvation, also, in addition to, the saint is predestined to "be conformed to the image of his Son," and the other gifts of salvation from verse 30-39

From verse 30 to 39 there are other blessings every saint has after salvation.

I hope the above study helped.

Alan

The passage does seem to suggest that only the predestined are called. To me this is the most difficult thing in the passage. Yet Paul says somewhere else that Christ "is the Savior of all men" indicating everyone has a chance. So, even though there's only an elect who are predestined there's seem to be a chance for everyone to be part of that elect. It's not a locked out predestination that most would never have a chance to be part of.  A man can make himself part of that predestination if he simply believes on Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I don't think so.  

Eph 1:4  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Before the foundation of the world, not after we were saved.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Predestination is about two things:

 

1)  God has pre-set His system of churches for believers to join after they are saved.. (and after baptism).  These churches also have a pre-set destiny in the church age

2) God has pre-set the place of heaven for anyone who entrusts their salvation with Jesus... anyone who receives Him as their Saviour.

This is what pre-destination is about.  It isn't about God pre-setting those who will believe and those who don't.  Or pre-setting some to heaven and some to hell.. regardless of what they do with their will.

pre-destination in Ephesians is about the local New Testament assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
  • 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...