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.

KJV vs. the 1611 edition


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I have a Cambridge, wide margin, 1769 KJV, commonly more commonly referred to as the AV. Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge.

So the edition you have is not actually a KJV edition printed in 1769 at Cambridge by John Archdeacon, and it is instead one of the post-1900 KJV editions presently printed by Cambridge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

This is my KJV, it can be bought in many Walmart stores and many book stores.

 411+gcVdUiL.jpgbible.jpg

 

 

KJV editions printed by the same publishers with the same copyright can sometimes have a few differences or variations when those editions are printed in different years.

I have several KJV editions printed by Holman and other publishers.  Some of the differences seem to have been introduced when some Bible publishers switched to a computer-based text, and the publishers may have been unaware that this computer-typed edition of the KJV differed from what was in the earlier edition with the same copyright.  At some unknown date likely after 1980, someone typed up a KJV on a computer, and that person introduced some likely unintentional changes or differences in its KJV text.  A larger number of differences were evidently in the first edition of this computer-based KJV text, and someone noticed and corrected some of them in a later edition of this computer-based text.  Different publishers have printed this same KJV text.  Sometimes the variation introduced by the typist involved only spelling while a few times a word was added or omitted.

Here are some examples of some changes that were evidently introduced in a computer-based KJV text used in some Holman KJV editions and some editions by other publishers including Thomas Nelson, World, and Barbour.

At Genesis 5:3, an extra "and" was introduced--"and after his image" instead of "after his image."

At Genesis 14:5, "Emims" in most KJV editions was typed as "Emins" in the computer-based text.

At Genesis 29:33, "that" is omitted in the computer-based edition--"heard I" instead of "heard that I."

At Leviticus 24:11, "of the LORD" in many KJV editions was typed as "of the Lord."

At Deuteronomy 2:11, "call them" was typed as "called them."

At Joshua 13:14, "the tribe of Levi" was typed as "the tribes of Levi" in the computer-based text.

At Joshua 24:11, "And ye" was typed as "And you" in the computer-based text.

Holman's KJV Study Bible introduced and printed first in 2012 used this computer-based KJV text, but editions of it printed at some point in 2014 have corrected them back to the typical KJV text.  I do not know if Holman has changed them in all its other editions printed in 2014 and afterwards.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

So the edition you have is not actually a KJV edition printed in 1769 at Cambridge by John Archdeacon, and it is instead one of the post-1900 KJV editions presently printed by Cambridge. 

The version I have is a Cambridge, wide margin, 1769 KJV, more commonly referred to as the AV. Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge. No I did NOT buy the original Cambridge of 1769, I'm not rich outside the riches of my Lord Jesus. As I said before I bought my first in 1982. I diligently compare any I buy with that one which I still have. If its important to you to have editions, I'm O.K. with that, I'll try to help you out with more info. on mine. But I won't be available for a week. Please remind me next time you see me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The version I have is a Cambridge, wide margin, 1769 KJV, more commonly referred to as the AV. Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge. As I said before I bought my first in 1982. I diligently compare any I buy with that one which I still have.

In 1982, the two main KJV editions printed by Cambridge University Press were likely its Concord edition and its Pitt Minion edition.

Some places were the Concord edition of the KJV printed by Cambridge University Press may differ from its Pitt Minion edition are the following:

Exodus 23:23

and the Hivites [Pitt Minion]   the Hivites [Concord]

2 Samuel 15:12

counseller [Pitt Minion]  counsellor [Concord]

1 Chronicles 2:55

Hammath [Pitt Minion] Hemath [Concord]

1 Chronicles 13:5

Hamath [Pitt Minion] Hemath [Concord]

Ezra 7:14

counsellers [Pitt Minion] counsellors [Concord]

Amos 6:14

Hamath [Pitt Minion] Hemath [Concord]

Acts 3:7

ancle [Pitt Minion] ankle [Concord]

Acts 11:12

the spirit [Pitt Minion] the Spirit [Concord]

Acts 11:28

the spirit [Pitt Minion] the Spirit [Concord]

Acts 19:30

inquire [Pitt Minion] enquire [Concord]

I have seen one Pitt Minion edition printed by Cambridge that seems to have the Concord KJV text instead of its typical Pitt Minion edition so these variations may not be always found between the two editions.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 0:44 PM, Tyndale said:

In 1982, the two main KJV editions printed by Cambridge University Press were likely its Concord edition and its Pitt Minion edition.

Appears to be a Pitt Minion and I found...Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Pres
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP
Bently House, 200 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB (this all was in small print further inside and just before the dedicatory to James.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 6:06 PM, 1Timothy115 said:

Appears to be a Pitt Minion and I found...Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Pres
 

Thanks for providing more information to identify the Cambridge edition that you have.

I have compared a post-1900 Pitt Minion Cambridge edition with a 1769 Cambridge edition, and there are over 400 differences between them if spelling is included.

Two reasons for some of the more significant differences are the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition did not have all the changes found in a 1769 Oxford edition that are found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions and that a 1769 Cambridge had many of the renderings typical of a 1743/1762 Cambridge edition that are not found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In 2017, a large reprint edition of an actual 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV was produced by the Bible Museum. 

It was available at Bible Museum's greatsite web site and at E-bay.

This 1769 KJV reprint would demonstrate that today's KJV editions are not the 1769.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:53 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

 

Here's an interesting article that may help in showing the differences...

https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/changes_to_kjv_since_1611.html

After being mailed a list with over 2,000 differences that would affect the sound between the 1611 edition and a post-1900 KJV edition, D. A. Waite changed his earlier inaccurate count of only 421 such differences to 1,095.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:19 AM, Disciple.Luke said:

 what is the difference between today's common KJV and the 1611?

D. A. Waite claimed that “only 136 of these [changes to the ear] were of any consequence” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 53).  When his inaccurate 421 count of differences that affect the sound was revised up to 1095, why was the inaccurate 136 count also not revised?  Out of the additional 674 changes that Waite now acknowledged in his new count of 1095, were there none that would be considered to belong to the categories that Waite himself identified as substantial? 

In his 1985 booklet, Waite himself had listed and identified the following categories as substantial or changes of substance:  “adding a word,” “omitting a word,” “changing a tense,” “changing a word,” “changing number [plural/singular],” and “changing a case” (AV1611 Compared, pp. 4-5, 20-23). 

Clearly and justly, some of the changes that Waite had not listed in 1985 belonged to those categories of changes of substance. 

There were over 170 whole words added to the 1611 edition in most post-1900 editions.  Over 45 whole words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in the post-1900 KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible if the 21 words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included in the count.  Over 65 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns or pronouns is changed from what it was in the 1611 edition.  Twenty or more times the tense of a verb is changed.  Sixty, seventy, or more changes would belong to the category of changing a word.  Under his category of substantial changes described as “changing the case,” Waite listed the examples of “who” to “whom” at Acts 21:16 and “him” to “he” at Proverbs 6:19 (pp. 21, 22).  Other examples of changing the case of pronouns would be “who” to “whom” at Genesis 24:44, Psalm 69:26, Acts 22:8, and Hebrews 7:4 and the changing of “it” to “its” at Leviticus 25:5.  If all the changes of “you” to the nominative case “ye” were included in this category of changing the case of pronouns, it would add over 200 to the count of substantial changes. 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/12/2020 at 10:24 PM, Tyndale said:

Thanks for providing more information to identify the Cambridge edition that you have.

I have compared a post-1900 Pitt Minion Cambridge edition with a 1769 Cambridge edition, and there are over 400 differences between them if spelling is included.

Two reasons for some of the more significant differences are the fact that a 1769 Cambridge edition did not have all the changes found in a 1769 Oxford edition that are found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions and that a 1769 Cambridge had many of the renderings typical of a 1743/1762 Cambridge edition that are not found in typical post-1900 Cambridge editions.

I appreciate your concern, but I'm still using it and will continue to as long as it lasts. I trust God preserved what I need to know in the one I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...