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.

Mid Tribulation fleeing of Israel


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Eric Stahl said:

Israel will not give up her nukes. She will blow away Syria Isaiah 17 and Egypt Isaiah19.And all her neighbors Psalm 83. Israel 's glory will be made thin also Isaiah17  so the antichrist will come to help Daniel 11:36-45.

 

Obadiah :18

18 And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it.

I doubt if Israel would escape from damaging herfself if she used nuclear bombs on her neighbours, from radiation and electrical failure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Invicta said:

I doubt if Israel would escape from damaging herfself if she used nuclear bombs on her neighbours, from radiation and electrical failure.

 

 

11 hours ago, Invicta said:

I doubt if Israel would escape from damaging herfself if she used nuclear bombs on her neighbours, from radiation and electrical failure.

 

  The House of Esau was the nation of Edom, which was in what's now the nation of Jordan. But I don't believe the antichrist will be involved in the Gog-Magog war; it'll catch him by surprise & will be over before he can act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 

  The House of Esau was the nation of Edom, which was in what's now the nation of Jordan. But I don't believe the antichrist will be involved in the Gog-Magog war; it'll catch him by surprise & will be over before he can act.

The Idumeans in the first century were the Edomites. They were incorporated in the Jewish religion.  Herod was an Idumean, possibly part Jewiah,  I don't know. The Idumeans took part in the Jewish revolt against the Romans in AD 66-70.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 

  The House of Esau was the nation of Edom, which was in what's now the nation of Jordan. But I don't believe the antichrist will be involved in the Gog-Magog war; it'll catch him by surprise & will be over before he can act.

Antichrist will come to help Israel after the Psalm 83 war, and will move from Egypt to Israel to set up his camp when he hears the Russians and Persians are coming.

Daniel 11:42-45

42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Invicta said:

The Idumeans in the first century were the Edomites. They were incorporated in the Jewish religion.  Herod was an Idumean, possibly part Jewiah,  I don't know. The Idumeans took part in the Jewish revolt against the Romans in AD 66-70.  

 

 

Esau or the Palistians helped the Babylonians and will all die for it.

Obadiah 1:9-11

9 And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.

10 For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.

11 In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Eric Stahl said:

Esau or the Palistians helped the Babylonians and will all die for it.

Obadiah 1:9-11

9 And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.

10 For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.

11 In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them.

  Well, ACTUALLY, the Palestinians are the descendants of the old Philistines, Israel & Judah's ancient enemy. "Palestinian" is Latin for "Philistine".

 

   I don't know if any descendants of the Edomites are left in Jordan today or not. Jordan was one of the first Arab states to make peace with Israel, and there hasn't been any problem with Israel since the 1967 war, when Israel took back the West Bank from Jordan, which renounced all claims for it in 1988. There's no sign of trouble developing between Jordan & Israel, so the Edomites may already be extinct. (As well as the Moabites & Ammonites)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually, while some claim heritage from the Philistines there is no proof of such. The Palestinians are of mixed Arab heritage.

The name Palestinian was a Roman invention to try to suggest the land was linked to the Philistines, and thereby break the Hebrew link to the land.

It didn't work, but they are still trying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As for the Nation of Jordan, it has the mountains of Edom, and the city of Amman which gets its name from the Ammonites, and the signs of the Kingdom of Jordan have written on them "the Hashemite kingdom".

That is today.... make of that what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 4/6/2019 at 12:05 PM, robycop3 said:

 

  The House of Esau was the nation of Edom, which was in what's now the nation of Jordan. But I don't believe the antichrist will be involved in the Gog-Magog war; it'll catch him by surprise & will be over before he can act.

The Idumeans in the first century were the Edomites. They were incorporated in the Jewish religion.  Herod was an Idumean, possibly part Jewiah,  I don't know. The Idumeans took part in the Jewish revolt against the Romans in AD 66-70.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think it was Mark Twain who wrote when  he visited the land, that it was barren and devoid of inhabitants.  William Whiston  who translated Josephus in the 1700's wrote that the land was practically empty, awaiting the return of its people.. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, DaveW said:

As for the Nation of Jordan, it has the mountains of Edom, and the city of Amman which gets its name from the Ammonites, and the signs of the Kingdom of Jordan have written on them "the Hashemite kingdom".

That is today.... make of that what you will.

I couldn't make anything of it as I had always wondered why it was Hashemite, so I searched and found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites

It seems Saudi was Hashemite till the Saud family overthrew them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2019 at 11:22 PM, DaveW said:

Actually, while some claim heritage from the Philistines there is no proof of such. The Palestinians are of mixed Arab heritage.

The name Palestinian was a Roman invention to try to suggest the land was linked to the Philistines, and thereby break the Hebrew link to the land.

It didn't work, but they are still trying it.

  "Palestinians" was what Hadrian called the Philistines when he gave them the Jews' land, and today's Pals are trying to use that as their claim to that land today, while the Jews use the promises of God that He had given them that land.  From these comes the conflict.

  Seems Jordan welcomes friendship with Israel for protection. While Jordan has a population of over 10 million, its military isn't nearly as strong as Israel's, and Jordan has many Shia Muslim enemies, with Jordan's being almost-entirely Sunni. Whether or not Jordan participates in the Gog-Magog war remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/8/2019 at 9:40 AM, robycop3 said:

  "Palestinians" was what Hadrian called the Philistines when he gave them the Jews' land, and today's Pals are trying to use that as their claim to that land today, while the Jews use the promises of God that He had given them that land.  From these comes the conflict.

  Seems Jordan welcomes friendship with Israel for protection. While Jordan has a population of over 10 million, its military isn't nearly as strong as Israel's, and Jordan has many Shia Muslim enemies, with Jordan's being almost-entirely Sunni. Whether or not Jordan participates in the Gog-Magog war remains to be seen.

This is just wrong for the plain reason that in the time of Hadrian (2nd century) there were NO philistines. The nation had been long gone by this time. The Palestinians CLAIM heritage but there is no evidence as to which people today came from the philistines.

Hadrian named the place Palestina in order to break the Israeli link with the land, not to give it to anyone else.

 

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, DaveW said:

This is just wrong for the plain reason that in the time of Hadrian (2nd century) there were NO philistines. The nation had been long gone by this time. The Palestinians CLAIM heritage but there is no evidence as to which people today came from the philistines.

Hadrian named the place Palestina in order to break the Israeli link with the land, not to give it to anyone else.

 

DaveW is correct.

The word 'Palestina,' and its modern day equivalent, 'Palestine' and 'the Palestinians' are all political in an effort to force the Jews off their land.

Furthermore, if you read the modern Replacement Theology writers, and men like Philip Mauro and Steven Anderson, they also refer to the land of Israel as Palestine in an effort to say the land belongs to the 'Palestinians' and not to the Jews.                                                                     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Well, ACTUALLY, with all due respect, gentlemen, the Philistines became part of the Achaemenid (Old Persian)m empire & were still around while the Jews were still in exile in  Babylon. many of them were still skilled metal workers as they'd been while Israel and Judah were free. As they believed themselves of Mycenaean descent, they helped the Greex & Macedonians against the Persians, but later some of them began to identify themselves as Persians.

   And we see in Zech. 9:6 there were still Philistines, but their pride has been cut off as God said. The "bastard" in that verse means a mixed people or race, and that has come to pass, as Israel now rules Ashhdod, and it's inhabited by Jews, Palestinians, & Arabs.

 

  But God DID say in Amos 1:8 that the Philistines would be wiped out. So, WHO inhabited Judea after Hadrian expelled the Jews? The Palmyrene empire, a branch of Persians centered in Palmyra, took control of the area til they rebelled against Rome & the Romans re-conquered it in 273 AD. That's  likely where "Palestine" came from, as some of the old Philistines were among them.

 

   But I agree 100% that the modern Pals' claims are bogus, as GOD gave that land to Israel,  a fact that renders all man-made claims null & void. (As we know, that land, & Jerusalem, changed hands many times til WW1 ended & the British took over.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So your "proof" that your original statement is correct is that Zechariah mentions Philistines 600 years before Hadrian was around??????

Historians largely agree that there is now no sign of the lineage of the Philistines. There are some theories, but there is no evidence, and Hadrian had nothing to do with the Philistines.

So you "ACTUALLY" is simply total and utter rubbish.

You were wrong about Hadrian with regard to the Philistines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2019 at 2:09 PM, DaveW said:

So your "proof" that your original statement is correct is that Zechariah mentions Philistines 600 years before Hadrian was around??????

Historians largely agree that there is now no sign of the lineage of the Philistines. There are some theories, but there is no evidence, and Hadrian had nothing to do with the Philistines.

So you "ACTUALLY" is simply total and utter rubbish.

You were wrong about Hadrian with regard to the Philistines.

  Well, we don't know who the other Israelis are today, but GOD does. And hadrian wasn't stupid; he didn't just pick "Palestine" outta thin air. After all, "Palestine" is still Latin for "Philistia". Since we're not privy to what Hadrian was thinking, we can't just dismiss the idea.

  Much of my idea is based upon Zech. 9: And I will take away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth: but he that remaineth, even he, shall be for our God, and he shall be as a governor in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite.

  Now, Ekron is but an archaeological dig today. But what happened to the Jebusites who were left after david captured Jerusalem from them? Evidently, at least some of them, such as Araunah, their king, & his family, began to worship God, & their posterity was absorbed into the Jews over time, so, according to that Scripture, some Philistines were also absorbed into the Jews,  but they were mostly enemies of the Jews, long as they were a distinct people. But according to Zechariah, a few of them remained, as we can see..

  Among the Pals the Jews have greatly honored is Kamil Hamad, who was instrumental in the cell phone bomb assassination of Pal bombmaker Yahya Ayyash in 1996. While his current ID & location are secret, part of Israel's "witness relocation" plan, he's certainly not living in poverty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Trying to confuse the issue with all sorts of extraneous information and changing the subject, but your statement about Hadrian was absolutely wrong, no matter what twist you put on it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DaveW said:

Trying to confuse the issue with all sorts of extraneous information and changing the subject, but your statement about Hadrian was absolutely wrong, no matter what twist you put on it.

 

  So, you simply ignore Zechariah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 4/10/2019 at 11:07 PM, Alan said:

 DaveW is correct.

The word 'Palestina,' and its modern day equivalent, 'Palestine' and 'the Palestinians' are all political in an effort to force the Jews off their land.

Furthermore, if you read the modern Replacement Theology writers, and men like Philip Mauro and Steven Anderson, they also refer to the land of Israel as Palestine in an effort to say the land belongs to the 'Palestinians' and not to the Jews.                                                                     

Before 1948 the land was called Palestine.  The British mandate was over the land of Palestine, so Philip Mauro and others were correct in calling it that. I know that Philip was one of the early dispensationalists in New York, but later rejected it as "Dispensational Error."

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   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 17 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...