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.

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To those who may be interested,

Thus far in this discussion I have asked various "thought-provoking" questions concerning the subject of the thread, but I have not directly expressed my position concerning that subject.  I may have already dropped enough "hints" as to my position; however, with this posting I wish to express directly that position.

I myself respect those who hold to the position (which I recognize as the common "party line" among many Fundamental Baptist circles) that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear and that therefore it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pants-wear."  I do wish that those who hold to this position would be more consistent in their application thereof.  Yet I DO respect the position itself.

On the other hand, I myself have NOT yet been convinced, either through Biblical, natural, historical, or cultural evidence, that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear.  Therefore, I am not honestly able to hold the position that it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear a form of "pants-wear."  I am compelled to acknowledge that in some cases for some historical times, the cultural argument would carry some weight in regard to the matter.  However, I do not presently believe that it carries such weight in the present case of our present time.

Since I have indicated previously in this discussion that I shall present some further thoughts on particular matters, I intend to do so with future posting.  Indeed, with such future posting I intend to communicate some Biblical reasons as to the position which I have taken on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
24 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

To those who may be interested,

Since I have indicated previously in this discussion that I shall present some further thoughts on particular matters, I intend to do so with future posting.  Indeed, with such future posting I intend to communicate some Biblical reasons as to the position which I have taken on the matter.

Brother Markle,

It's not nice to "tease", just come out and say it.  :coffee2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The armor issue is interesting and worth a look. However, in the Hebrew, the word "armor" is used only a very small amount (10) of times, whereas the term 'vessel' is the translation 166 times.  That being said, the word seems to have a pretty wide application, 'vessel', 'instrument', 'weapon', 'jewel', 'armourbearer', 'stuff', 'thing', 'furniture', etc. so it could refer to this.  The one things that makes me wonder, however, is that the context in which it is found has nothing to do with worship, and everything to do with regular, everyday life. in context it is just general life commandments, dealing with neighbors, responsibility toward one another and their possessions, and such. If this was referring to a particular activity of the pagan worshippers, I would expect to see it in that context, unless, of course, the Lord is referring to that, BUT makes it clear that it applies to ALL of life, not just worship, which would make sense as well.  But I don't disagree, just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To those who may be interested,

As I have mentioned previously, I was challenged by a comment from Brother McWhorter to consider the Hebrew construction for Deuteronomy 22:5.  In so doing, I found that the Hebrew construction for the two prohibitions of the verse are a bit different from one another.

In the prohibition against a man's putting on "a woman's garment," the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" is "simlah' ."  This Hebrew word is employed in the Old Testament 29 times, and in every case it refers to something made of cloth.  In particular it is used for a piece of cloth twice, and every other time it is used for a garment of clothes.  Yet when the word is used for a garment of clothes, it can be used equally concerning a man's or a woman's garment.  Thus the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 would indicate that a man should not put on himself a garment that is distinctly recognizable as a woman's garment.

In the prohibition against a woman's wearing "that which pertaineth unto a man," the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," is the single word "keliy."  The primary meaning for this Hebrew word is not a reference unto clothing per se.  Rather, that primary meaning for this Hebrew word refers to "something which is made or prepared."  This Hebrew word is employed in the Old Testament over 300 times.  As such, this Hebrew word is variously translated with a reference to "jewels," "weapons," [household] "stuff," [material] "stuff," "sacks," "a bag," "vessels" [of various and sundry types], "instruments" [of war], "instruments" [of work], "instruments" [of the temple], "instruments" [of music], "furniture," "a pot," [any] "thing made of" [wood], [any] "thing made of" [skin], "a thing" [sat upon], "carriages," "wares," and "armour."  Among this usage this only thing that is for wearing is that of "armour."  Even so, this Hebrew word is translated in the Old Testament as a reference unto "armour" 27 times (Judges 9:54; 1 Samuel 14:1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14; 16:21; 17:54; 31:4, 5, 6, 9, 10; 2 Samuel 18:15; 23:37; 2 Kings 20:13; 1 Chronicles 10:4, 5, 9, 10; 11:39; Isaiah 39:2).  On the other hand, this Hebrew word is never used anywhere else throughout the Old Testament for a garment of clothing.  Thus if we take the basic meaning of the Hebrew word, the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 would indicate that a woman should not wear something which is distinctly made for a man.  Furthermore, if we take the primary usage of the Hebrew word throughout the Old Testament in relation to that which is worn, the prohibition would indicate that a woman should not wear a man's armor.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

The one things that makes me wonder, however, is that the context in which it is found has nothing to do with worship, and everything to do with regular, everyday life.

I'm persuaded that this particular verse had to do with worship/service; in that, they weren't to model themselves or their worship/service after the surrounding pagans and their idolatry...

Leviticus 19:27
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Yet, it too, is surrounded by verses that have nothing to do with worship/service.

NOTE TO SELF: When combining worship/service, be sure to indicate that you are referring to worship and/or their service unto the Lord...not a "worship service". LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Personally, with issues such as "pants on women" (and others like it, drinking, smoking, movie theaters, etc) the issue on both sides center around "is it permissible?" I think the better argument would be to encourage the Christian to adopt a position that "Most glorifies God's created order" regardless of whither or not something is "permissible". In our current culture pants are an accepted form of ladies wear and have some practical applications and is certainly "permissible" if that particular family decides to let the ladies use them to the extent they decide.

However, The modest dress and skirt are still seen as more feminine than a modest pair of pants and would give more glory to the distinction between man and woman. So many, while not disallowing pants, opt to limit their uses. For example, some conservative women still use women's  pants for practical reasons, but in a modest way under a skirt combo in winter or during physical activities to ensure modesty at all times, which would be considered better then one or the other alone. 

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Personally, with issues such as "pants on women" (and others like it, drinking, smoking, movie theaters, etc) the issue on both sides center around "is it permissible?" I think the better argument would be to encourage the Christian to adopt a position that "Most glorifies God's created order" regardless of whither or not something is "permissible". In our current culture pants are an accepted form of ladies wear and have some practical applications and is certainly "permissible" if that particular family decides to let the ladies use them to the extent they decide.

However, The modest dress and skirt are still seen as more feminine than a modest pair of pants and would give more glory to the distinction between man and woman. So many, while not disallowing pants, opt to limit their uses. For example, some conservative women still use women's  pants for practical reasons, but in a modest way under a skirt combo in winter or during physical activities to ensure modesty at all times, which would be considered better then one or the other alone. 

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Having presented above my position that I do not believe "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear and thus that I do not believe it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pant-wear," I do indeed agree with the sentiment of Brother Young's posting.  As such, it is extremely rare for my own wife to wear "pants-wear" of any form in the public arena.  Furthermore, although I cannot honestly preach against "pants-wear" on women as inherently sinful, we do prohibit "pants-wear" on women for certain ministry activities and responsibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Earlier in this thread I presented three basic questions that Biblical, doctrinal integrity would compel us to consider in relation to this subject, as follows:

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 0:02 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In order to answer the issue of the question in the opening post, Biblical, doctrinal integrity compels us to answer the following three questions:

1.  Is it a spiritual abomination for a woman to wear that which is inherently man's wear?  The answer to this question is Biblically easy, since Deuteronomy 22:5 directly declares, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

(Note: Both sides of this declaration should be honestly considered.  Since God's Word indicated that it is equally a spiritual abomination for a woman to "wear that which pertaineth unto a man" and for a man to "put on a woman's garment," then this matter should not be a one sided consideration.  Thus we are moved also to ask -- What is inherently "a woman's garment," such that a man should never put it on?)

2.  Is pants-wear inherently man's wear?

(Note: If one answers to the affirmative, what Biblical evidence might be provided in order to support this answer?  Indeed, wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak negatively concerning a woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?  On the other hand, in those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?)

3.  What exactly is the definition for "pants-wear"?

(Note: A basic English dictionary definition for "pants-wear" would be "an outer garment extending from the waist to the knees or ankles and divided into separate coverings for the legs."  Within this definition culottes, although commonly accepted among Fundamental Baptists for women to wear, are indeed "pants-wear."  In fact, an English dictionary definition for "culottes" would be "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the legs to resemble a skirt."  Furthermore, wearing any form of "pants-wear" under the skirt or for bed clothes would still be wearing "pants-wear."  So then, how absolute and consistent do we believe the declaration of God's Word in Deuteronomy 22:5 actually is?)

It appears that there is no real dispute concerning the questions and thoughts of the first question and the third question.  However, there would be some level of dispute concerning the second question.  Therefore, in this posting I wish to engage with some of the sub-questions under that second question.

1.  Wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?

The only specific reference unto "pants-wear" in Scripture is that of the "breeches" for the priests of Israel who were to engage in making sacrifices. (See Exodus 28:14; 39:28; Leviticus 6:10; 16:4; Ezekiel 44:18)  The reason for these "breeches" is given in Exodus 28:14 in order to "cover their nakedness," covering "from the loins even unto the thighs."  The context for this requirement was because the priests wore a robe form of garment that possessed an open-bottomed skirt, and because the priest performed his duties on a somewhat elevated level before people.  Even so, it was possible that someone might get a glimpse up the skirt of the priest's garment, and might thereby get a glimpse of his "nakedness."  Therefore, the Lord God required that the priest wear a pair of "breeches" (shorts) as an undergarment in order to prevent this possible glimpse of his "nakedness."

So then, how might this apply unto the present day?  First, let us recognize that our Lord required this specifically for the sake of modesty.  Second, let us consider the case of our present time.  In our present culture today, our men do not generally wear garments with an open-bottomed skirt.  However, in Fundamental Baptist circles our women are strongly encouraged to wear such garments.  Furthermore, in our present culture our women do go up stairs and reside on platforms (or, bleachers) before people.  Even so, I wonder if we should encourage the principle that females should wear a form of undergarment "breeches" in order that their "nakedness" might not perchance be glimpsed.  Even more, I wonder if we should encourage this principle the more in accord with the shortening of "accepted" skirt lengths from the floor or ankles unto the knees.

2.  Wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?

Except the matter presented above concerning the priests, Scripture does not speak concerning the matter of "pants-wear" in a direct fashion.  In fact, within the culture of Israel (and much of the Middle East) throughout the time of the Old Testament and into the New Testament, neither men nor women wore "pants-wear."  Thus it would appear to be a legitimate question whether the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 had any direct meaning concerning "pants-wear" for the people unto whom it was originally delivered, that is -- the children of Israel.  Would any individual among the children of Israel have thought of "pants-wear" when that prohibition was given?  If not, then the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 must have had some other primary meaning and application for them at that time; and it would seem legitimate for us to ask what that primary meaning and application might have been.  For in the precision of "rightly dividing" God's Holy Word of truth, it is in the realm of that primary meaning and application wherein we also must primarily apply and obey the principle of the verse.

3.  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?

Although the only specific reference unto "pants-wear" in Scripture concerned the "breeches" of the priest, there is an implication of "pants-wear" which may be considered.  This implication concerns the reference unto "girding up the loins."  Wearing a robe form of garment, sometimes individuals would gird up that garment by drawing the hem from the back of the garment's skirt up between the legs and tucking it into a belt around the waist.  By so doing, a form of "pants-wear" would be created.  So then, does God's Word ever speak concerning a woman "girding the loins;" and if it does, does God's Word speak negatively, positively, or neutrally thereof?  In answer, I would present two possible cases.  First, we might consider Exodus 12:11 and whether the women of Israel were included in the instruction of the Lord to have their "loins girded."  Second, we might consider the case of the virtuous wife in Proverbs 31:17.  So then, I shall make no argument concerning these cases, but shall simply leave them for individual consideration.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/9/2016 at 2:21 PM, HappyChristian said:

NN - I began with a book titled Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman.

I finally have this installed on my Bible Software. I couldn't find it in any of the extra sources (that I'm aware of) that provide modules for theWord. However, eSword has it available for download, and I was able to convert the eSword module over so that it works on theWord. 

Thanks again HC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I finally have this installed on my Bible Software. I couldn't find it in any of the extra sources (that I'm aware of) that provide modules for theWord. However, eSword has it available for download, and I was able to convert the eSword module over so that it works on theWord. 

Thanks again HC!

You're welcome! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 10/24/2016 at 5:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

Yes. And they also create new names for themselves like Neptune or Aquarius or some other weird name (gotta quit hanging around Walmart so much...) - kinda reminds me of Hippies for some reason - and they wear make-up. Some wear it better than real women...even weirder!

So is it wrong to wear make-up too?

That might be opening another can of worms.... :D

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 10/24/2016 at 2:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

I'm not sure anyone can realistically or logically make a solid biblical argument for or against anything on the basis of 'transgender' people's ability to know what is natural.....So to answer your question....I don't know how they do it.......definitely is weird.....then again I do not spend much time reading about their transitioning habits to know.....nor to I currently care to find out. So.....

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."

Indeed.  Although I myself do NOT believe (due to my above Biblical studies) that "pants-wear" is inherently "that which pertaineth unto a man" (as per Deuteronomy 22:5), and although I do NOT therefore believe that it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pants-wear," I DO believe that cultural realities SHOULD be factored into our decision concerning the matter.  Indeed, it has been a cultural reality for a past number of centuries (at least within European and American cultures) that "pants-wear" is "man's-wear," not "women's-wear.  No, this has NOT always been the case throughout world history and within every culture of the world.  However, it HAS been the case for numbers of centuries within the cultures in which we presently live.  (Note: Although I recognize that Wikipedia cannot be absolutely trusted for information, I do believe that the Wikipedia article on "Trousers" is a worthwhile read in relation to this matter, especially the sections on "History," "Society," and "Laws.")  Therefore, I believe that we SHOULD factor this cultural reality in our practice (at least, in our public practice) on the matter, in accord with the Biblical principles concerning "not offending brethren, but seeking their edification," and concerning "not offending the lost, so as not to hinder the gospel," and concerning "maintaining a clearly and culturally recognizable distinction between male and female." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."
 

Thank you, that was pretty much my point. Though I guess it isn't that the recognize that women must ONLY wear dresses, but rather, they see and understand dresses to be particularly more feminine or female than pants. Even the lost can recognize that dresses are more feminine and female than pants. IS that a basis upon which we should base our truths? Maybe not, but it interests me that the lost often see things more biblically that Christians. An unsaved person might chide a believer for smoking or drinking as indulging in non-Christian behavior, which some Christians will fight for their absolute right to do so.Most unbelievers also clearly see the ridiculousness of CCM, and see it for what it is? Christians wanting to keep up in clearly un-Christian music, while pretending it is okay because they sometimes mention Jesus. I think Southpark, CLEARLY not a Christian program, did an entire episode about that.  Why do the lost see things that are actually correct, that we as Believers often don't, or won't?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 13 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...