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.

What was Jesus' mission?


MountainChristian
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, DaveW said:

I wonder if you would care to point us to the forum rules where it lays out "proper quoting proceedure".......

 

Your basic arrogance knows no bounds.

 

That's hilarious coming from someone that enters a thread with personal attacks and ignores the OP.

 

That's okay, Dave, from here on out each personal attack will be reported to Moderation, and this certainly qualifies.

 

The purpose of my statement is that I am not going to waste time trying to respond to someone that does not know basic common courtesy on a Debate Forum, but, for you...I'll make an exception.

 

God bless.

 

1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Answering within a quote is a proper and accepted practice on this forum.

If separation of such a reply is a problem, one can isolate items to quote by...

  • Locate the word, sentence, or paragraph that you want to quote.
  • Place your cursor at the beginning of what you want to quote.
  • Hold your left mouse button down, and drag the cursor over until you have highlighted all that you want to quote.
  • Release the mouse button, and a small window will pop up that says "Quote This" (or something similar).
  • Click the words "Quote This".

The quoted selection will then appear in your reply.

To my knowledge and experience, this only works on computers though...not phones...or not my phone anyway...

 

There is no appeal to the "Guidelines" of this forum, I am speaking that personally I will not respond to posts where the member posts within another member's post, which is not, on any forum, proper and accepted practice, but, leads to confusion as to who says what, and in Doctrinal Discussion and Debate, there is no reason to add to the confusion caused by some members.

 

I did find that the quote function allowed for quoting what was written in my post, however, as I said, I am not going to interact with a member that has the habit of doing this. I did respond to his initial post, but in the future, will not do so.

 

God bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

1. There is no problem with requesting someone to be a bit more selective in quoting. It does make it easier for one to read. 

2. It didn't hurt to point out that there is no forum rule regarding basic quoting procedure, and though offense might have been taken at the "arrogance" accusation, mayhap the accused needs to reconsider the attitude in which he is posting. High-hattedness does not fly here very well, although we have all at one time or another posted arrogantly. Sadly.

3. If one doesn't want to respond to someone based on the fact that they don't use the kind of quoting procedure that one demands, that's fine, too. But there's more to common courtesy than the quote button...

But this is silliness. Knock it off.  

Report problems to the moderators, please. But don't spam us on a personal vendetta. Just a forewarning.

Now, let's get back to topic. And, please - stop posting long, long posts. It is as difficult to read long, nattering posts to some as it is to read "improperly" quoted parts.

I'd sure hate to lock another thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
49 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

Under the two gospel doctrine, no sins are forgiven until AFTER Jesus has been to the cross.

 

I am not really sure what you are implying with "the Two Gospel Doctrine," because there is but One Gospel of Christ.

 

That the Kingdom Gospel is distinct from the Gospel of Jesus Christ is evident, because (1) the Gospel of Christ is a Mystery not revealed in that Age (the Age of Law) and (2) we do not see the Lord sending His disciples out to preach the Gospel, for they themselves did not know the Scripture that He should rise from the dead:

 

John 20:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

 

The passage does make the statement they believed, but, what they believed was that Christ's body was gone from the tomb. If one tries to make it say they believed on Christ, then what does one do with the very statement quoted here? It says plainly, they did not know the Scripture that He must rise from the dead...yet."

 

Secondly, sin was in fact forgiven before the Cross, but not on an eternal level:

 

Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

 

We cannot equate atonement under the provision given to men in the Ages prior to the establishment of the New Covenant on the Blood (Death) of Christ with the Atonement provided through Christ Himself.

 

Most do that, by the way, because they equate salvation prior to Eternal Redemption being obtained by Christ with atonement provided through the vicarious death of animals.

 

49 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

So did Jesus forgive sins before the cross?

 

Yes, He was God, He could do that. But every reference you can find of Christ forgiving sin cannot be equated to the remission of sins provided by His Sacrifice.

 

Christ would still need to die for those He forgave.

 

The only conclusion one could draw if they deny that is that there were people who received Atonement apart from the Work of the Cross. And I know it is popularly taught that men were "saved on credit," but, the simple truth is that the Atonement of the Cross became available when Christ actually died on the Cross. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches "salvation on credit."

 

Colossians 1:12-14

King James Version (KJV)

 

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

 

 

49 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

Matthew 9:5-6 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Mark 2:9-10 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

Luke 5:23-24 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

 

So the man sick of the palsy was eternally forgiven apart from Christ's Work? He would not have to remain obedient to the Law?

Can we overlook the rest of the voluminous testimony from Christ and the Apostles?

 

Here is another passage that makes it clear that the sins of men were forgiven at the Cross:

 

Romans 3:23-26

King James Version (KJV)

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

 

49 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

Antisemitism says Jewish people are not part of humanity.

 

How is that relevant to anything I have said?

 

49 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

Jesus came to all humanity, all need to be saved from their sins.

 

It is not me you argue with:

 

Matthew 10:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

 

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

They did not go to the Gentiles and Samaritans, and this is commanded of them by Christ, Who also stated...

 

Matthew 15:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

 

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

So, MC, what is the Lord saying here?

 

50 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

Humanity as a whole rejected Jesus, Jews and Gentiles.

 

And I agree with that, but, that does not change the fact that Messiah had a specific Role to Israel in His earthly Ministry, and a distinct Role as Savior of the World.

 

If you consider that the Gospel of Christ was a Mystery and not revealed in past Ages, and that His Ministry to Israel was within the framework of the revelation provided to them at that time (the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament), then you will have to acknowledge that Christ ministered under the Law, and did so...because He had not yet established the New Covenant as was promised in the Old Testament.

 

I am really surprised that on an Independent Fundamental Forum that the concept of the distinction between the Kingdoms is not readily known. We see a difference in the Kingdom that was Israel, the Kingdom that will come (restored Israel, in the Millennial Kingdom), the Kingdom which is the rule of God in the hearts of believers, and the Kingdom which will come, the Eternal State.

 

How do you, if you don't mind me asking, reconcile that Christ states "The Kingdom of God is within you," and Paul stating that we have been translated into the Kingdom of His dear Son? Was not Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews? Does he not distinguish the difference between being a member of Israel and being translated into the Kingdom of Christ?

 

God bless.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

That the Kingdom Gospel is distinct from the Gospel of Jesus Christ is evident, because (1) the Gospel of Christ is a Mystery not revealed in that Age (the Age of Law) and (2) we do not see the Lord sending His disciples out to preach the Gospel, for they themselves did not know the Scripture that He should rise from the dead:

So after seeing Jesus rise from the dead and spending about 40 days with Him, they did not know Jesus was going to rise from the dead. On Pentecost preaching Gospel of the Kingdom under one gospel doctrine Peter does know Jesus rose from the dead.

Act 2:23-24 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

So if Gospel of the Kingdom includes the Cross and Resurrection like Peter preached it is the Gospel of Christ. One gospel doctrine. 

Under two gospel doctrine, read the cross, then turn back towards the front of the Bible and teach Matthew 10. Yes, after the cross two gospel teaches the eleven disciples never preach the cross and resurrection. "we do not see the Lord sending His disciples out to preach the Gospel, for they themselves did not know the Scripture that He should rise from the dead" 

 

Edited by MountainChristian
spelling error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, let's see.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

So, do we all understand this first point? Good. Then lets move on to the second point.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Still with me so far?

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Sins were not washed away before the death of Christ, for anybody. Jew or Gentile.That's why paradise, or Abraham's bosom. A place to wait until those sins that were merely covered temporarily by the blood of animals could be removed permanent by the blood of the Lamb. When Christ ascended to glory to present His worthy sacrifice to the Father, and placed His blood on the mercy seat in the throne room of Heaven, paradise was emptied and all who believed in faith, from Adam to the thief on the cross, entered into their final "rest", Heaven. Their sins were now forgiven, gone, removed, not just covered. The gospel, the "good news" IS Jesus Christ and his finished work, and since there is only one Jesus Christ, there is only one gospel. The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are two different kingdoms, yes, but both are ultimately built on Christ and his finished work, so the "gospel" of each is still the same. One gospel. My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Abraham's Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. One Gospel.

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

  • Similar Content

    • By Roselove
      No matter how much of the Bible I read, how many sermons I listen to, or how much I pray, I cannot repent. 
      I cannot truly have hatred of sin. My motivation is to not go to hell and when I feel at all secure that I’m going to Heaven, I immediately don’t care about if I’m sinning or not. 
      I cannot feel bad that sin hurts God. I only care about myself. I’ve felt convicted for years that I’m unsaved for this reason. 
      I don’t know what to do. I’m scared and running out of hope. I’m worried I’m to hard spiritually to repent. 
      HOW do I settle this?? 
    • By Roselove
      I sometimes can’t quite grasp the difference between these two. 
      Jesus says to come unto Him for salvation, but He also says that if someone comes after Him, they must forsake all and pick up their cross. 
      I know it’s not a physical seperation of the world or a promise to not sin, but I feel convicted that in order to fully put yourself on Him for salvation, you must see Him as such, to where you could happily run away from everyone/everything in your life. 
      People see God in a cruel task-master sort of way and that’s why they don’t trust God enough to fully fling themselves onto Him and off their crutches of their family/friends/whatever keeps them feeling “secure”. They don’t want to forsake all and follow Christ, completely. 
      So many say that you only admit you’re a sinner/know only Jesus’s sacrifice can save you, and be willing for Christ to change you, but it appears you have to go into salvation already with the heart of a disciple. That is most definitely what I see God saying when Jesus talks about hating our life/family/etc. 
      Fully trusting Him, would mean no doubt when you come to Him for salvation. 
      I’m a bit nervous because I still see God as too scary to judt be alone with because I know my heart isn’t totally trusting Him. I feel convicted that I haven’t totally trusted Him, alone and I don’t have total faith that everyone/everything is but loss, compared to Christ. 
      People keep saying I’m wrong, but why do I hear God saying this to me?? Why do I feel like God’s saying I’m not saved because I wasn’t in this mind-set when I came to Him for salvation?? 
      Please pray and help me understand if I’m misinterpreting something. 
      I’m scared and feel helpless. I don’t want to value anything more than, God. But, my wicked heart can’t let go of all and see Him as truly a loving, so much better than anyone/anything God because I’m scared and the Bible says that people with that heart are evil and unsaved. 
      Please be honest with me and please pray for discernment on what I need to know. 
    • By Roselove
      I sometimes can’t quite grasp the difference between these two. 
      Jesus says to come unto Him for salvation, but He also says that if someone comes after Him, they must forsake all and pick up their cross. 
      I know it’s not a physical seperation of the world or a promise to not sin, but I feel convicted that in order to fully put yourself on Him for salvation, you must see Him as such, to where you could happily run away from everyone/everything in your life. 
      People see God in a cruel task-master sort of way and that’s why they don’t trust God enough to fully fling themselves onto Him and off their crutches of their family/friends/whatever keeps them feeling “secure”. They don’t want to forsake all and follow Christ, completely. 
      So many say that you only admit you’re a sinner/know only Jesus’s sacrifice can save you, and be willing for Christ to change you, but it appears you have to go into salvation already with the heart of a disciple. That is most definitely what I see God saying when Jesus talks about hating our life/family/etc. 
      Fully trusting Him, would mean no doubt when you come to Him for salvation. 
      I’m a bit nervous because I still see God as too scary to judt be alone with because I know my heart isn’t totally trusting Him. I feel convicted that I haven’t totally trusted Him, alone and I don’t have total faith that everyone/everything is but loss, compared to Christ. 
      People keep saying I’m wrong, but why do I hear God saying this to me?? Why do I feel like God’s saying I’m not saved because I wasn’t in this mind-set when I came to Him for salvation?? 
      Please pray and help me understand if I’m misinterpreting something. 
      I’m scared and feel helpless. I don’t want to value anything more than, God. But, my wicked heart can’t let go of all and see Him as truly a loving, so much better than anyone/anything God because I’m scared and the Bible says that people with that heart are evil and unsaved. 
      Please be honest with me and please pray for discernment on what I need to know. 
    • By Roselove
      I know someone that I suspect is probably not saved. He has caused me some emotional issues, he’s kind of manipulative and erratic I guess, but I won’t get into much of that. 
      He told me of how he tried to kill Himself a few years ago and just a bunch of other strange stuff. 
      I’m very concerned for this guy. From what I’ve seen on his posts years ago on Facebook, he was raised Catholic. So I assume that he might have a skewed idea of Christianity, if in fact he even considers himself one (I don’t know). 
      I would love for someone to talk to him. He lives across the country from me and I know that if someone I know locally, adds him/messages him, he would know that I was the one who got them to speak with him. There’s some reasons that I feel that would cause an issue. 
      Is there anyone that doesn’t live in Texas, that could maybe talk to him? If so, please message me on here and I will give you his Facebook info. Knowing his personality, I’m pretty sure he’d add anyone. 
    • By MrsJ88
      Hi there. I'm brand new to this wonderful page. I would like to ask for God's will to be done in this custody case. My daughter is in that delicate stage, wanting to be saved but still a little bit unclear about what it truly means. Her father is atheist, and filling her with the nonsense that he believes. He is also in the process of trying to break up my marriage and the family we have. He wants to take my daughter and have her full time. This would be detrimental to her. Both mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Please, if you would pray that he see God, and that he realizes how desperately he needs God, and the salvation he offers. Also, please let me know what I can pray for, for you. Thank you! God Bless!
      Melissa.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...