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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  So, you simply ignore Zechariah?

No, not at all, I simply point out that you have changed your "point" every time your error has been pointed out and not admitted that you were wrong - you are just moving a bit to try to get out of it.

4 hours ago, Invicta said:

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."

No one is denying the name itself - the discussion was based around the purpose for the renaming, where Roby said it was because Hadrian wanted to give it to the Palestinians, who at the time of Hadrian were no longer in existence, so his statement was totally impossible.

Your normal link of the name "Palestine" to the people who now claim that name is irrelevant to the discussion and in any case they are not and never were Palestiniains. The majority are in fact of Jordanian heritage, and not Palestinian at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, DaveW said:

No one is denying the name itself - the discussion was based around the purpose for the renaming, where Roby said it was because Hadrian wanted to give it to the Palestinians, who at the time of Hadrian were no longer in existence, so his statement was totally impossible.

Yes I agree with you there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, DaveW said:

Your normal link of the name "Palestine" to the people who now claim that name is irrelevant to the discussion and in any case they are not and never were Palestiniains. The majority are in fact of Jordanian heritage, and not Palestinian at all.

I didn't intend to link the name to the current people.  Before 1948 the Jews in the country were called Palestinians as they were living in a land called Palestine.  

However I think there is something wrong with your reasoning.  According to your reasoning, you are not Australian because you are (prbably) of European origim, or I am not English as thr original inhabitants were Britons, and so on.   .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not at all. The overwhelming majority of these people were moved into the are during the various land grabs since the establishment of the modern nation of Israel.

Prior to the return of Jews to that area around the beginning of the 1900's (yes there were a small number of people including Jews in the region prior to that time) there was hardly anyone in the land and pretty much nobody wanted it as it was mostly barren.

It was the returning Israelites that greened the land, and since they made it green the Arabs in the surrounding areas decided it was worth having. 

So by fact of position they are today Israelie because that is where they live, but today the area is not officially called Palestine. And their heritage is largely Jordanian, Lebanese, etc.

They are Israelie. They pay taxes to the Israelie government. They get financial support from the Israelie government. Their fire service is provided by the Israelie government. Their hospitals are provided for by the Israelie government. Their schools are supported by the Israelie government. They vote in Israelie elections.

They are not Palestinian at all. They are Israelie of various Arab backgrounds. And most have been in the land for no more than two generations. The oldest among them would remember coming into the land since 1948.

The problems stem from one simple fact: the Muslim Arabs as a group want Israel to cease to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
22 hours ago, DaveW said:

Not at all. The overwhelming majority of these people were moved into the are during the various land grabs since the establishment of the modern nation of Israel.

Prior to the return of Jews to that area around the beginning of the 1900's (yes there were a small number of people including Jews in the region prior to that time) there was hardly anyone in the land and pretty much nobody wanted it as it was mostly barren.

It was the returning Israelites that greened the land, and since they made it green the Arabs in the surrounding areas decided it was worth having. 

So by fact of position they are today Israelie because that is where they live, but today the area is not officially called Palestine. And their heritage is largely Jordanian, Lebanese, etc.

They are Israelie. They pay taxes to the Israelie government. They get financial support from the Israelie government. Their fire service is provided by the Israelie government. Their hospitals are provided for by the Israelie government. Their schools are supported by the Israelie government. They vote in Israelie elections.

They are not Palestinian at all. They are Israelie of various Arab backgrounds. And most have been in the land for no more than two generations. The oldest among them would remember coming into the land since 1948.

The problems stem from one simple fact: the Muslim Arabs as a group want Israel to cease to exist.

Thank you I agree with that, but that doesn't address the point that before 1948 the land was called Palestine.  After 1917 when Allenby led his horse into Jerusalem the British ruled Palestine and Jordan, then called Trans Jordan. Before  December 1917  the whole area was ruled by the Turks and the Sultan (aka The Sublime Porte) was also Sultan of Egypt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, but as you point out, it was called transjordan, not actually Palestine.

Palestine was regional name, not a national name.  The region was under control of various Arab nations of the area, but none of them were all that interested because the land was barren and wasted -until the Jewish people started returning and bringing the place  back to life. Now they all want it.

And the people there were called Palestinians, but not the people who currently call themselves Palestinians.

If you check the names in the Palestine Orchestra of the early 1900's for inastance, the names are almost exclusively Jewish. (I can't remember the full name right now).

There were Jews and Arabs and even "Christians" in the area all in small numbers compared to today.

The people currently claiming the name were not there.......

The funniest thing about the whole matter is that of the modern people in the land, the ones with the strongest continuous connection are in fact the Bedouin, but they don't want to claim it. They don't want to claim any national association. They want to be left alone to live as they please.

And of course the Bible says that God gave it to the Israelites as an everlasting covenant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, DaveW said:

Palestine was regional name, not a national name. 

Correct. Palestine was just a regional name. The biblical name for the country is 'Israel,' not 'Palestine.' Among other aspects of the 'Palestine' issue, is that the countries that despise Israel, the religious denominations that are against Israel, and the preterists, and many others, are trying to take away the name, the country of Israel and replace it with the name 'Palestine.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  We see, in the fulfillment of parts of Isaiah 19 that "the land of Judah" became a terror to the Egyptians.

  Now, since God finished giving His word to man before Hadrian kicked the Jews outta their land, the name "Palestine" doesn't appear in Scripture.

  Did a little digging on the name "Palestine". It comes from the Egyptian "peleset", C. 1150 BC, a name given to the area that included Philistia after those people had migrated from Caphtor. The Arabs called the area "Filastin".

  The Greex began calling the area "Palestaena" & the Romans got "Palestina" from that. This included the Philistines, but not ONLY them. There were Bedouins & other Ishmaelites among them.

  So, I was a little wrong. After the Neo-Assyrian empire conquered the Philistines, they mixed with those other people & lost their national ID, fulfilling the prophecy they'd vanish. But their posterity remains among the peoples of the land who call themselves "Palestinians" today. I believe that's why God mentioned them to Zechariah, their DNA is still present in many of today's Pals, including those who've betrayed their people to the Jews, & who will do so in the future, & will be honored by the Jews as God told Zechariah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Still rubbish.

Those claiming the name "Palestinian" today are of mixed Arab heritage with no real connection to the land and no known heritage to the people called Philistines.

The overwhelming majority of them are of Jordanian heritage and Syrian heritage.

There is no known link today of anyone to the Philistines of the Bible, and until the Jews returning from the late 1800's through to the establishment of the modern nation of Israel no one wanted the land nor claimed the land except the Jews. 

The only link in any way is the name of the REGION not through any people now existing.

As I already mentioned, the Bedouin are in fact the current people that have the most continuous link and they do not claim philistine heritage and they do not claim the land for themselves. The land was given to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob in the Bible of course.

No matter what sort of false facts you want to make up, you cannot link the land to any group now calling themselves "Palestinian", and you cannot make a solid link to of any people today with the Philistines.

And I will point out to you that the Philistines are not even of Arab heritage, but were a sea ranging people until the hit the shores of Israel. No one really even knows their full heritage before that, but they are not as far as anyone knows any relation to Abraham and his children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, robycop3 said:

outta

Neat'o!

15 hours ago, robycop3 said:

Greex

Double neat'o!

15 hours ago, robycop3 said:

their DNA is still present in many of today's Pals

...and you've performed the DNA tests yourself to prove this statement?

15 hours ago, robycop3 said:

Pals,

...super-duper neat'o superifico!

15 hours ago, robycop3 said:

So, I was a little wrong

mmm-hmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Revelation 12:6

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

 

Israel will flee at the middle of the tribulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 4/17/2019 at 9:10 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

Neat'o!

Double neat'o!

...and you've performed the DNA tests yourself to prove this statement?

...super-duper neat'o superifico!

mmm-hmmm.

Neato is a robot vacuum cleaner, I ordered one today from Amazon.

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, 10 Guests (See full list)

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