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.

MacArthur


DaveW
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Because it was asked, and it is not appropriate to further pollute that thread.

 

5 hours ago, Bob Hutton said:

 

I would be interested to know why DaveW has warned against John Macarthur.  I don't agree with everything Dr Macarthur teaches but, as a general principle, his ministry has been extremely helpful to me.

MacArthur promotes:

  • multiple bible (per)versions.
  • Calvinism (and I don't care what name you put on it).
  • Progressive worship.
  • "Elder rule".
  • Universal church.

Although I wouldn't recommend going to his site, if you do, all these things are cleatly evident.

He does get some things right, but 90% of rat poison is good food - it is the 10% that is dangerous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

I agree with the 10% rat poison and have no intentions of listening to John MacArthur. But I would point out that "elders" of New Testament churches is plural, and "elder rule" is biblical.

No argument, but they way it is presented by MacArthur is unbiblical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, fastjav390 said:

You are also wrong about the "universal church". 

No I am not. I read it this morning on their website.

They do not call it that, but they teach it.

Just like I don't think you will find the name "Calvin" on their website, they are absolutely Calvinist.

Look, I am not here to rag on MacArthur specifically, but yhe question was asked specifically of me about my general warning.

You can argue about individual points all you like, the guy needs to be taken VERY CAREFULLY, if you want to bother to listen to anything at all from him.

You do what you like.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, personally Jim I would only take MacArthur to the Rubbish bin, but some here appear determined to defend him and accept him, and hence my warning to be careful IF THEY ARE SO DETERMINED. 

Rat poison will get em if they insist on trying to eat the good bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, DaveW said:

Well, personally Jim I would only take MacArthur to the Rubbish bin, but some here appear determined to defend him and accept him, and hence my warning to be careful IF THEY ARE SO DETERMINED. 

Rat poison will get em if they insist on trying to eat the good bits.

I don't agree with Dr Macarthur on everything but to liken his ministry to "rat poison" is not only extreme but also failing to evince a Christlike spirit.  If you wish to disagree with this dear brother's ministry, and use reasoned arguments in doing so, then that is fine.  However, lashing out with vituperative abuse demeans yourself and the whole concept of the body of Christ.  It also contradicts our Saviour's command to love one another.

I look forward to a sensible and reasoned discussion of Dr Macarthur's ministry.  If you present objections in a responsible manner then I will attempt to answer them.

With sincere regards and much love in Christ,

Bob 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
53 minutes ago, Bob Hutton said:

I don't agree with Dr Macarthur on everything but to liken his ministry to "rat poison" is not only extreme but also failing to evince a Christlike spirit.  If you wish to disagree with this dear brother's ministry, and use reasoned arguments in doing so, then that is fine.  However, lashing out with vituperative abuse demeans yourself and the whole concept of the body of Christ.  It also contradicts our Saviour's command to love one another.

I look forward to a sensible and reasoned discussion of Dr Macarthur's ministry.  If you present objections in a responsible manner then I will attempt to answer them.

With sincere regards and much love in Christ,

Bob 

This is another way to put it.

Mat 7:15

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

 

2 Corinthians 11:

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

Bob, Calvinism is a doctrine of devils. It makes God out to be a selfish monster. In that sense it is blasphemy against God as it presents the nature and character of God as such. "and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man" the Bible says.  People like MacArthur present it as something glorious and good when it is really disgusting. Even LOST people can see it for what it is. So, yeah, when a man teaches all kinds of "good" stuff while pushing evil, I would compare it to rat poison. Jesus just called it being a wolf in sheep clothing.

 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Trouble reading Bob?

Or are you only interested bagging me?

16 hours ago, DaveW said:

Because it was asked, and it is not appropriate to further pollute that thread.

 

MacArthur promotes:

  • multiple bible (per)versions.
  • Calvinism (and I don't care what name you put on it).
  • Progressive worship.
  • "Elder rule".
  • Universal church.

Although I wouldn't recommend going to his site, if you do, all these things are cleatly evident.

He does get some things right, but 90% of rat poison is good food - it is the 10% that is dangerous.

 

How much false teaching warrants a warning in your eyes?

Hey, enjoy yourself, just chew carefully.

I gave my warning, noted some points - I'm done here I think.

Not interested in arguing.

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
30 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

This is another way to put it.

Mat 7:15

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

 

2 Corinthians 11:

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

Bob, Calvinism is a doctrine of devils. It makes God out to be a selfish monster. In that sense it is blasphemy against God as it presents the nature and character of God as such. "and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man" the Bible says.  People like MacArthur present it as something glorious and good when it is really disgusting. Even LOST people can see it for what it is. So, yeah, when a man teaches all kinds of "good" stuff while pushing evil, I would compare it to rat poison. Jesus just called it being a wolf in sheep clothing.

 

Whether or not Calvinism is a "doctrine of devils" is  a matter of opinion and interpretation.  There are many preachers who hold to a form of Calvinistic theology, are they all guilty of spreading poison?

I also believe that you will win more people to agree with you if you show a little more Christlikeness, and adopt a less abusive manner. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Calvinism (indeed, I did for many years until I read the Bible properly) but a little more of a reasoned attitude would be helpful to yourself and others.

With kind regards to you, dear brother,

Bob

33 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Trouble reading Bob?

Or are you only interested bagging me?

How much false teaching warrants a warning in your eyes?

Hey, enjoy yourself, just chew carefully.

I gave my warning, noted some points - I'm done here I think.

Not interested in arguing.

No, dear brother, I'm not interested in "bagging" you but simply encourage you to be a little less angry, and a little more gentle as Christ is to all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Rat poison is an apt illustration in this instance. I have used this illustration in teaching about avoiding false teaching.

 Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 
 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 
 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

The Apostle Paul had no problem addressing things of this nature.

 Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The issue of following after, or reading after men of doubtful beliefs is exactly why I warned about this practice in another thread. It is dangerous and unnecessary to expose ourselves to teaching outside of our local churches.
 1Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

As for " failing to evince a Christlike spirit ", I would submit this:  Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 

It would seem that a "Christ like spirit" would include warning against heresy. There are many times in Scripture that Christ was less than "gentle" when the issue was false teaching and teachers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
23 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Rat poison is an apt illustration in this instance. I have used this illustration in teaching about avoiding false teaching.

 Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 
 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 
 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

The Apostle Paul had no problem addressing things of this nature.

 Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The issue of following after, or reading after men of doubtful beliefs is exactly why I warned about this practice in another thread. It is dangerous and necessary to expose ourselves to teaching outside of our local churches.
 1Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

As for " failing to evince a Christlike spirit ", I would submit this:  Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 

It would seem that a "Christ like spirit" would include warning against heresy. There are many times in Scripture that Christ was less than "gentle" when the issue was false teaching and teachers.

What you describe as "false teaching" other believers would call the truth.  None of us has a monopoly on truth when it comes to secondary issues, and Calvinism comes into that category.  Over the centuries much harm has been done to the cause of Christ by believers being angry with each other, and even abusive to each other, over secondary issues.

By all means enter into meaningful debate about these matters, but please avoid descending to the level of playground name calling.  Remember we are called to love one another.

kind regards to you, dear brother,

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bro. bob, our local churches do have a monopoly on the truth as evidenced by my Scripture quote above. As for name calling, where do you see any name calling in my reply?

Jesus and Paul recorded what I quoted as Scripture, are you saying that Scripture that calls false teaching what it is, is name calling?

Another observation: in your reply you seem to be categorizing Calvinism as "the truth", since you said that it falls into the category of "the truth".

When it comes to the truth, I see no "secondary" truths, it is either truth or it is a lie, there is no middle ground between the truth and a lie.

Let's get one other thing straight, I am not angry, neither is it anger when a person calls out false teaching. It just seems to me that liberals in general, (not pointing to you) will categorize any argument against their view as "anger". This is especially true in the political realm.

You have indicated on your profile that you are Independent Baptist. Your argument in this thread in defense of MacArthur and Calvinism is not consistent with Independent Baptist belief and teaching. How do you reconcile the two opposites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bro. bob, our local churches do have a monopoly on the truth as evidence by my Scripture quote above. As for name calling, where do you see any name calling in my reply?

Jesus and Paul recorded what I quoted as Scripture, are you saying that Scripture that calls false teaching what it is, is name calling?

Another observation: in your reply you seem to be categorizing Calvinism as "the truth", since you said that it falls into the category of "the truth".

When it comes to the truth, I see no "secondary" truths, it is either truth or it is a lie, there is no middle ground between the truth and a lie.

Let's get one other thing straight, I am not angry, neither is it anger when a person calls out false teaching. It just seems to me that liberals in general, (not pointing to you) will categorize any argument against their view as "anger". This is especially true in the political realm.

You have indicated on your profile that you are Independent Baptist. Your argument in this thread in defense of MacArthur and Calvinism is not consistent with Independent Baptist belief and teaching. How do you reconcile the two opposites?

Bless you, dear brother for taking the trouble to reply.

I'm sure there are independent Baptist churches that hold to Calvinism.  It really is a secondary issue and not worth getting worked up over.

Kind regards

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Bob Hutton said:

Whether or not Calvinism is a "doctrine of devils" is  a matter of opinion and interpretation.  There are many preachers who hold to a form of Calvinistic theology, are they all guilty of spreading poison?

I also believe that you will win more people to agree with you if you show a little more Christlikeness, and adopt a less abusive manner. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Calvinism (indeed, I did for many years until I read the Bible properly) but a little more of a reasoned attitude would be helpful to yourself and others.

With kind regards to you, dear brother,

Bob

No, dear brother, I'm not interested in "bagging" you but simply encourage you to be a little less angry, and a little more gentle as Christ is to all of us.

No worries. I said my peace on this. You have a nice day, friend, and welcome to Online Baptist. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Calvinism is not a "secondary issue" at all.

In Calvinism salvation is through the choice of God - in the Bible salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is another Gospel.

And no small issue at all.

I have always found it interesting to see what other false doctrines people will accept in their zeal to follow Calvinism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, DaveW said:

Calvinism is not a "secondary issue" at all.

In Calvinism salvation is through the choice of God - in the Bible salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is another Gospel.

And no small issue at all.

I have always found it interesting to see what other false doctrines people will accept in their zeal to follow Calvinism.

 

I have a question for you: if calvinism is not a secondary issue (and I believe that it is) does that mean that C H Spurgeon was a heretic?

Come to that - was William Carey (a Baptist missionary to India) a heretic?

Was Dr D M Lloyd-Jones a heretic? (He was a Welsh preacher who ministered in London for many years, and highly respected among British evangelicals).

Are John Piper and Steve Lawson heretics?

Was B B Warfield a heretic?  Was Martin Luther (who wrote "The Bondage of the Will) a heretic?

Once you start saying that calvinism is not a secondary issue, you are on very dangerous ground.

Think very carefully, dear brother, before you make sweeping statements.

Kind regards

Bob

Edited by Bob Hutton
Spelled the word heretic wrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Bob, it's the long-stated view of DaveW, Heartstrings and probably several others on this forum that if a person comes to believe the Calvinist/reformed interpretation of scripture before they are saved, then they cannot be saved while continuing to believe it, since it is a false Gospel. Or in other words a Calvinist is not a Christian unless it so happens that the Calvinist got saved before believing in Calvinism, or they think they believe reformed doctrine but don't really. If you look back over the forum's history you will see mammoth threads discussing this.

And among those here who don't think reformed beliefs are incompatible with salvation, a large number still think that reformed beliefs are incompatible with the label 'IFB'.

This forum used to have a page called 'Doctrinal Statement of this board' with a statement of faith on it, but I can't find it anymore. That statement specifically rejected some of the reformed distinctives, including limited atonement. Even so, back when this forum was busy it used to tolerate a much more 'eclectic' mix of people who called themselves IFB. Not so among the dozen or so who still post here, or so it seems.

Those are just some of my own observations from having been on here a long time...

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   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

  • 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

  • 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...