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.

Why are Christians voting for Donald Trump?


John Young

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I get that we are not voting for "Pastor in Chief" but with more viable christian, moral, ethical, politically savvy, etc, candidates. Why are preachers and other Christians backing Trump? At first I could not wrap my mind around it but when you realize the majority of these "pastors and Christians" are "Business Christians" who sell christian products and build big christian buildings and run churches as a business; It makes sense that they would chose a depraved business man over the ethical, moral, christian statesman.

I think their justification for this is From the Religious business 101 handbook; 2 Corporations 3:17 Where the spirit of Business practices is, then it must needs trump over religious, moral, and ethical practices.

Is my assessment accurate? If you are a christian and support Trump, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 331
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are many reasons, some of which do touch upon the "we are not voting for Pastor in Chief" arguments. In this, we must realize how many times Christians have been told this by so many Christian leaders and pastors as they tried to get Christians to vote for non-Christian and liberal Republicans. If millions of Christians could be told to vote for the Mormon (non-Christian), liberal Romney is it any stretch for millions of Christians to vote for Trump who calls himself a Christian (who has no testimony of being a born again Christian but then so have many other "Christian Republican" candidates Christians have been told to vote for over the years).

There are also many problems with the other candidates too, ranging from them not being moral Christians, doctrinally sound Christians or even Christian at all. Is it better to vote for those who are good at talking the talk but yet when they are looked at closely they fail the test of walking in true Christianity? Are we to now accept Seventh Day Adventists as being true, good Christians as we were told to accept the Mormon Romney as such?

Support for some candidates by the likes of off-the-wall Mormon Beck, the fraudulent Barton, various Charismatic preachers and others of shady character have turned some Christians away from those candidates.

Some Christians can't in good conscience vote for a woman for president (which is moot at this point for Republicans since Fiorina dropped out). Others can't in good conscience vote for those they firmly believe don't meet the qualifications for president. There are also those who opposed Obama based upon him being a freshman senator with too little experience to be Commander in Chief and they hold the same standard for Republican candidates as well.

Some polls and surveys of Christians (usually called "evangelical Christians") indicate those voting for Trump are doing so because they believe he will stand by his promises to build a wall on the southern border, stand against illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals, work for better international trade deals that would benefit America, that he will build up the American economy, that he will stand strong for the 1st and 2nd Amendments, he will strive to keep us out of foreign wars, etc.

We should consider the broader picture and realize this isn't the first time Christians have voted for a Republican who wasn't a born again Christian, who was Christian in name only, who didn't hold to every view we wished they did.

As with each candidate, there are a variety of reasons why some support and some oppose them.

Knowing that Jesus is Lord, our God works all things together for good, whether Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Hillary or Bernie is the next president, we can rest assured God's will shall be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hmmm? Let me put on my thinking cap, get a cup of coffee (actually, since I drink tea all the time), get a cup of tea, and ponder over this and how to answer. :coffee2:

First, and foremost on my mind, is that maybe I need to ask the moderators to add a emoticon that is drinking tea. :sign0200:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 minutes ago, Alan said:

Hmmm? Let me put on my thinking cap, get a cup of coffee (actually, since I drink tea all the time), get a cup of tea, and ponder over this and how to answer. :coffee2:

First, and foremost on my mind, is that maybe I need to ask the moderators to add a emoticon that is drinking tea. :sign0200:

Hot tea or cold? This could be a cup of hot coffee or hot tea:coffee2: It's it's cold we need a different emoticon.

There are many points we could look at in regards to why Christians vote for Trump or any other candidate. Many on Fox News have spent countless hours trying to given an answer for this.

It might help if we narrowed the focus down to specific Christians rather than Christians in general. As we know, today just about anyone claiming to be Christian is counted as such; including Mormons, JWs, Seventh Day Adventists, and openly homosexual "Christians".

Enjoy your tea and I'll look forward to reading how your pondering turns out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
55 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Many Christians will vote for Trump for the same reason they voted for Obama...

...to please their flesh.

That is also a factor. I don't know how big a factor among Christians, but among a certain percentage of others they are attracted to Trump's "celebrity". Some are also attracted to the idea of voting for someone they know the elites don't like so they vote for Trump just to thumb their nose at the establishment. Again, how many Christians fall into that category is hard to say.

Much of the electorate, even among many Christians, base their votes upon emotions, feelings, following the crowd, the appeal of being seen as a rebel, the looks of the candidate, and other points which fail to address at all anything of substance with regards to the candidates.

There were very good reasons the Founders rejected democracy and chose to limit who could vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The way things are looking, I may vote Trump if only to keep Hillary out. But that is of course my flesh speaking.

Rubio and Cruz, the only two who might have a chance against Trump, are both ineligible to run for president-Cruz held a dual citizenship until two years ago, and that makes him ineligible. Rubio, I believe has somewhat the same issue, though now its coming out the he was apparently pretty involved in a lot of homosexual activities and events in the 90's.

The one thing with Trump is that, not being a politician, though he's wealthy, he is still a guy who has worked for a living and been in the civilian world-and as a businessman, he has greater understanding of the real world than politicians who have forgotten anything but government. He is going to do not just what is good for America, but what will be good for him, as a businessman when he gets out, not just what is going to continue to feed him in politics. That means he is going to be pro-business and certain capitalist freedoms, which is good for the country.

These days I have stopped hoping for a good Christian to run the country-honestly I'd be worried about getting a dominionist-type in office, and would rather see who will be best to follow the constitution. Trump may not be a Christian, but I suspect he will be less aggressive against us than any of the other options. However, if he gets the nomination, then he needs to begin to put up some real ideas and plans, not just rhetoric. There are still Libertarian candidates to consider, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

He is going to do not just what is good for America, but what will be good for him, as a businessman when he gets out, not just what is going to continue to feed him in politics. That means he is going to be pro-business and certain capitalist freedoms, which is good for the country.

These days I have stopped hoping for a good Christian to run the country-honestly I'd be worried about getting a dominionist-type in office, and would rather see who will be best to follow the constitution.

Brethren,

I agree with Ukelelemike on this issue. If there was a strong candidate, who was a  mature, and honest, Christian (not only in word but in deed), that had a chance of defeating Hillary, or the Socialist Sanders, than I would vote for that person.

I personnally cannot stand Donald Trump. I despise him, his attitude, his overbearing nature, his lack of salvation, and his lack of any fear of God.  He loves money, women, and power. Trump uses whatever means that is availible to do what he wants to do. But, and this is an important but, Trump will help our country. Hillary, or Sanders, will either make this country a Socialist country or destroy it.  They will destroy any religious freedom we have left.

In this election I am voting on my patriotism for my country. I love America and the values (what is left of the values), it holds as a country. I feel that the only way to keep America with any sense of freedom (what is left of our freedom), is to keep the Democrats out of the Presidential office and put Donald Trump in the Presidential office.

There is one thing that I discovered in time of war. That there are a lot of men who were not Christian in any sense of the word, be willing to die, and to die, for the the defense of the United States of America. America is one of the last bastions for Freedom left in this world. At least Donald Trump will keep it free (at least partially), and close our borders to illegals, counter the evil deeds of Communist China, keep what religious freedom we have left, and bring back some jobs for Americans.

John Young,

By the way, this is one of the hardest posts I had to post on OnLine Baptist. I do agree with you wholeheartedly. We should vote for a solid, mature, bible believing Christian. But, at this juncture, I cannot see an honest and devout Christian, that has a chance of getting the Presidency, running for the office.

Alan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If all those liberals who claim they would leave America if Trump is elected would actually do so that in itself might be a good reason to vote Trump!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I hate politics, but unfortunately I had to dive into that cesspool to learn about the candidates who wish to be the leader of my country. Why are so many people wanting to vote for Trump? Besides the reasons listed, I think it's also because his ugly mug is everywhere. Whether someone is plastering his face on the news, web page, blog page, baptist forum, etc, it doesn't matter if they hate him or support him, they are promoting him. All I see are articles/posts/memes about why Trump is going to destroy America or save America. Where are the posts about all the other candidates to balance this out? I rarely hear about the other Republican/Other candidates, for or against, where are their ugly mugs, where are their articles, where are their forum/blog posts?   There is no balance on these candidates, anywhere. Not just in the media, but everywhere. People complain about bias in the media, but then turn around and do the same things. When I first started doing research into the candidates, I was honestly shocked that there were so many people running for President, I hadn't even heard of most of them.  Just out of curiosity, I just now checked my facebook home page and looked at the first five political posts that popped up, whether article, personal feelings, or meme.

1. Trump vs. Hilary - article, only two candidates mentioned

2. Marco Rubio vs Trump - article only two candidates mentioned

3. Meme "If you don't vote, don't complain" - doesn't count, no candidate mentioned

3. Trump - Meme, how evil Trump is, no mention of other candidates

4. Trump - personal post, how evil he is, no mention of other candidates

5. Trump vs Cruz - Meme, compared the two, no mention of other candidates

I almost made the mistake of listing some dude because I was surprised to read a politics article that wasn't about a big-name candidate, but it turned out to be a sports  article, good thing I read it first! ha! But seriously that was only the first five that popped up in my feed...whether people realize they're doing so or not, if they post articles or memes about the candidate they hate and rarely or never mention the candidate they endorse, they are helping to spread the unwanted candidates name/infamy.

Well, since I mentioned Trump, and went on a rant about equality, the other lesser/equal/greater jerks have to be listed, but since February 1st, a bunch of people have dropped out of the race, but these are the candidates that are still running that I know of:

Republicans: John Kasich, Trump, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz

Democrats: Hilary and Sanders

Other: Jill Stein and Gary Johnson

:runforhills:

 

okay, just checked my facebook again, and had to share this latest one (are the other candidates undeserving of their own sockets in which to insert a knife? I think not!):bonk:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Rebecca, your post helps to also point out how easily swayed the electorate is. Simply seeing a candidates face a lot shouldn't impact a voters decision to a great extent but it does. When Trump and Sanders both entered the race each was considered a joke, a side show, a temporary distraction before Bush and Clinton dominated in their own good time. Both Trump and Sanders appealed to certain groups which flocked to him and brought much attention to them. This drew more people to them, the crowd joiners, which eventually led to others taking notice and deciding they better get on board too.

It's great when reporters actually go out among the public and ask them why they are supporting this or that candidate and listen to their emotion-based, what's-in-it-for-me responses, or outright deer in the headlights look they get. We saw this very much when Obama first ran for president. People flocking to his popular campaign with no clue as to what he actually stood for or proposed.

Whether Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Hillary or previously one of the others, most supporters I've personally spoken with give feel good slogans and emotion-based reasons for supporting them. Ask them for something of substance to support their slogan or emotions and they simply give more of the same.

According to Fox News Ben Carson is out of the race now. Meanwhile, the GOP establishment is trotting out two-time loser and liberal Mormon Romney. While they demanded Trump say he would support whoever the GOP nominee would be if it wasn't him, many are now unwilling to support Trump if he turns out to be the nominee. How interesting that some Republicans in office say they either won't vote for Trump if he's the nominee or they will actually cast a vote for Hillary rather than vote for Trump!

So much theatrics, platitudes, slogans and emotions but no real substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Trump has no chance of winning against Clinton. Trump is a profane narcissist who has no fear of God. He wouldn't make a good leader just like Clinton won't make a good leader. The "Republicans" voting for him right now are foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, Alan said:

In this election I am voting on my patriotism for my country. I love America and the values (what is left of the values), it holds as a country. I feel that the only way to keep America with any sense of freedom (what is left of our freedom), is to keep the Democrats out of the Presidential office and put Donald Trump in the Presidential office.

There is one thing that I discovered in time of war. That there are a lot of men who were not Christian in any sense of the word, be willing to die, and to die, for the the defense of the United States of America. America is one of the last bastions for Freedom left in this world. At least Donald Trump will keep it free (at least partially), and close our borders to illegals, counter the evil deeds of Communist China, keep what religious freedom we have left, and bring back some jobs for Americans.

John Young,

By the way, this is one of the hardest posts I had to post on OnLine Baptist. I do agree with you wholeheartedly. We should vote for a solid, mature, bible believing Christian. But, at this juncture, I cannot see an honest and devout Christian, that has a chance of getting the Presidency, running for the office.

I agree that if it came down to the Socialist democrats pick verses Trump then he would be the clear patriotic option but even before the earlier candidates such as Huckabee went out many "preachers" were still flocking to Trump all the while promoting their christian ties and not necessarily their Patriotic Idealism to do so. It seems that even before Trump was the clear lead and before the majority of christian statesmen were narrowed to the current selection they chose the option that was best for their business vs their moral or patriotic values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, MatthewDiscipleOfGod said:

Trump has no chance of winning against Clinton. Trump is a profane narcissist who has no fear of God. He wouldn't make a good leader just like Clinton won't make a good leader. The "Republicans" voting for him right now are foolish.

This is no defense of Trump, just observation...the political pundits all said the same with regard to Trump and the primaries. They all said once the voting actually began Trump would fade away and Bush would become the nominee.

Similar, when Reagan ran in 1980 the establishment said he couldn't win in the primaries and would be handily tossed aside. They all claimed Reagan couldn't win the general election and even polls typically showed Reagan down by 20% yet he won.

Trump has about as good a chance against Hillary as any other Republican, more than some. Hillary is not drawing out the crowds to vote but Trump is. Hillary isn't drawing votes from Republicans but Trump is drawing some blue collar Democrats to vote for him.

As Mike pointed out, we have two Republicans running who aren't even constitutionally qualified to run. We also have one running who is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal", and then we have Trump.

I can't help but think about the Lord pointing out that when we turn from Him he turns us over to the consequences of our sinfulness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
47 minutes ago, John81 said:

Trump has about as good a chance against Hillary as any other Republican, more than some. Hillary is not drawing out the crowds to vote but Trump is. Hillary isn't drawing votes from Republicans but Trump is drawing some blue collar Democrats to vote for him.

As Mike pointed out, we have two Republicans running who aren't even constitutionally qualified to run. We also have one running who is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal", and then we have Trump.

I'm pretty sure Trump will do well with the democrat voters in the overall election. I think the only reason Hillary is doing so well is because she is going up against a socialist whom many democrats won't vote for and on the flip side Bernie seems to be doing well only because many democrats don't want Hillary. There was a token third democrat candidate, O' something or another that may have had a chance but the media ignored him to the point of censor.

I'm not surprised most people in both parties will vote for him. The only thing I was really surprised with was how well he did with "men of God" early on and even now. I thought Cruz or Huckabee would do much better with them even though they would do much worse with democrats then Trump would.

I would argue that Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally qualified but its not really a point I care to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

God will give America the President she deserves.  He'll either raise a man up or let old satan do it.  Ted Cruz is the only one with a testimony of salvation and who is not afraid to talk bible on the campaign trail.  

As some of you have said, my mind also echos the sentiment that only Trump can defeat Hillary, but God can defeat Hillary too if Christians back the Christian running for POTUS!

So, as for me, my support is for the Christian, Cruz, but it sure is fun watching Trump's campaign.  Surrounding himself with all manner of christians, maybe he can get saved, hopefully sooner than later.  Have y'all prayed for his salvation?  I've been praying for Obama's conversion for years as well.

I do not believe the scriptures teach that we're to vote for the lessor of two evils, to vote for lost people.  We're to come out from them, not to yoke with them.  If we apply the principal's of separation to government politics then a Christian can only vote for a Christian or stay home.  We are told to occupy until He comes, not leave the governing of society to the heathen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How Christian is Ted Cruz? Have you seen the main Christians he's aligned with? His stance as a Dominionist raises questions. Dominionism, which Ted and his dad follow is not in line with Scripture.

 

A WORKING DEFINITION of DOMINIONISM (Sarah Leslie)

The belief that we (mankind) have a mandate to build the “kingdom of God” on earth, restoring paradise, by progressively and supernaturally transforming ourselves and all societal institutions, through subduing and ruling the earth by whatever means possible, including using technology, science and psycho-social engineering; and then and only then will a “Christ” manifest his presence on earth.

Al Dager in his book VENGEANCE IS OURS: The Church In Dominion (Sword 1990) lists two further definitions of Dominionism:

A basic premise of dominion theology is that when Adam sinned, not only did man lose dominion over the earth, but God also lost control of the earth to Satan. Since that time, some say, God has been on the outside looking in, searching for a “covenant people” who will be His “extension” or “expression” in the earth to take dominion back from Satan. According to the dominionist interpretation, this is the meaning of the Great Commission.

Some teach that this is to be accomplished through certain “overcomers” who, by yielding themselves to the authority of latter-day apostles and prophets, will take control of the kingdoms of this world. These kingdoms are defined as the various social institutions, such as the “kingdom” of education, the “kingdom” of science, the “kingdom” of the arts, and so on. Most especially there is the “kingdom” of politics and government. (Dager, p. 44)

THE DOMINION MANDATE

Dominion theology is predicated upon three basic beliefs:

1) Satan usurped man’s dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve;

2) The Church is God’s instrument to take dominion back from Satan;

3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth’s government and social institutions. (Dager, p. 87)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, John Young said:

I'm pretty sure Trump will do well with the democrat voters in the overall election. I think the only reason Hillary is doing so well is because she is going up against a socialist whom many democrats won't vote for and on the flip side Bernie seems to be doing well only because many democrats don't want Hillary. There was a token third democrat candidate, O' something or another that may have had a chance but the media ignored him to the point of censor.

I'm not surprised most people in both parties will vote for him. The only thing I was really surprised with was how well he did with "men of God" early on and even now. I thought Cruz or Huckabee would do much better with them even though they would do much worse with democrats then Trump would.

I would argue that Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally qualified but its not really a point I care to argue.

I replied to your other post early this morning but I see it's not here so I don't know what happened to that.

Anyway, Trump is gathering some of what was called the "Reagan Democrats" into his fold which could really hurt Hillary, especially if Democrat voter turnout remains low.

From what I've read and heard many were disillusioned with Huckabee due to part of his record as Arkansas governor and his less than Christian or conservative positions he's espoused previously. Cruz, which has been discussed elsewhere, has turned off some Christians who don't believe he's qualified (either constitutionally and/or experience-wise), some can't overlook his Dominionist views, some disilike his argumentative nature, some have pointed out many lies from Cruz and his campaign as reasons they don't support him.

Even with all that, Cruz has a sizable percentage of Christians who do support him.

One of the problems is over the past several election cycles it's been drilled into voters they should vote for who they think can win regardless of whether they agree with or like the candidate. This was the tactic used to try and get Christian support for McCain and Romney in the last two presidential elections. Now this is backfiring on the establishment as many voters believe Trump has the best chance of winning over any of the other candidates. That's why the Republican establishment and their supporters have been trying to declare Trump can't win the general election (even after being proven wrong when they initially said Trump wouldn't win anything in the primaries).

Most Christians don't cast their vote based upon much time spent in prayer and fasting seeking the Lord's leading. Most Christians either vote however they feel like it or they decide which candidate they like and then ask God to back their choice. It's little wonder we have had such a string of bad presidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, John81 said:

How Christian is Ted Cruz? Have you seen the main Christians he's aligned with? His stance as a Dominionist raises questions. Dominionism, which Ted and his dad follow is not in line with Scripture.

 

A WORKING DEFINITION of DOMINIONISM (Sarah Leslie)

The belief that we (mankind) have a mandate to build the “kingdom of God” on earth, restoring paradise, by progressively and supernaturally transforming ourselves and all societal institutions, through subduing and ruling the earth by whatever means possible, including using technology, science and psycho-social engineering; and then and only then will a “Christ” manifest his presence on earth.

Al Dager in his book VENGEANCE IS OURS: The Church In Dominion (Sword 1990) lists two further definitions of Dominionism:

A basic premise of dominion theology is that when Adam sinned, not only did man lose dominion over the earth, but God also lost control of the earth to Satan. Since that time, some say, God has been on the outside looking in, searching for a “covenant people” who will be His “extension” or “expression” in the earth to take dominion back from Satan. According to the dominionist interpretation, this is the meaning of the Great Commission.

Some teach that this is to be accomplished through certain “overcomers” who, by yielding themselves to the authority of latter-day apostles and prophets, will take control of the kingdoms of this world. These kingdoms are defined as the various social institutions, such as the “kingdom” of education, the “kingdom” of science, the “kingdom” of the arts, and so on. Most especially there is the “kingdom” of politics and government. (Dager, p. 44)

THE DOMINION MANDATE

Dominion theology is predicated upon three basic beliefs:

1) Satan usurped man’s dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve;

2) The Church is God’s instrument to take dominion back from Satan;

3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth’s government and social institutions. (Dager, p. 87)

 

And this is exactly part of my earlier point I made: Too often, "Christians" who run for president are either outright false Christians, (Mormon Romney, SDA Carson, Catholic Kennedy), or they are dominionist in their doctrine, (Pat Robinson, Cruz), which is very dangerous. Most TRUE Christians who are of the leadership type are already preachers and missionaries and can't be bothered to cease in the work of God to step down for the presidency. And a TRUE believer would never be considered for such an office anyways. Not today. So really, even an atheist who holds to the constitution is better than cultists and dominionists, at least in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Not sure what Dominionism is but it sounds as if it might be similar to the Fifth Monarchists which we had at the time of Cromwell in the 1650s and Charles II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • 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...