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.

Are There Any Catholics On Here?


John Yurich
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members
20 hours ago, Alimantado said:

If you thought your pastor's knowledge of your Catholic church membership would affect his decision to let you become a member of this baptist church, would you tell him?

And as for the Catholic church you attend, at some point you went through a fairly lengthy process of becoming a member that involved signing up to a load of doctrines, yes? If the vicar/head priest--whatever his title is--found out that you have since rejected half those doctrines, would that affect your membership and freedom to take communion in that Catholic church?

Obviously the main thing I'm asking is, do you believe you're keeping information from the heads of your respective churches that they would want to know? Regardless of the reason--I get it you've said you're a private person--but would they want to know in your opinion?

I would not tell my Baptist pastor of my membership in the Catholic Church. And I was Baptized and raised Catholic from the time I was born and thus I am not a Catholic convert. I don't believe that if the priest found out that I reject some Catholic doctrines that I would be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. I do not know if the priest and pastor would want to know certain information about my beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, John Yurich said:

I would not tell my Baptist pastor of my membership in the Catholic Church. And I was Baptized and raised Catholic from the time I was born and thus I am not a Catholic convert. I don't believe that if the priest found out that I reject some Catholic doctrines that I would be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. I do not know if the priest and pastor would want to know certain information about my beliefs.

So you partake of their 'holy communion', knowing full well it represents a false Jesus, and in fact, the very wafer you eat is a false idol, dedicated to a false idol?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

So you partake of their 'holy communion', knowing full well it represents a false Jesus, and in fact, the very wafer you eat is a false idol, dedicated to a false idol?

 

How many times does this have to be stated? The Jesus the Catholic Church believes in and worships is not a false Jesus but is the biblical and historical Jesus. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds state "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God". Does that sound like a false Jesus? And when I receive the bread and the chalice of wine during Mass I do not believe  the Catholic doctrine of Holy Communion. I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion instead. And when I receive the bread and  the chalice of wine during Mass I believe I am receiving Holy Communion the way the Lutheran Church teaches and not the way the Catholic Church teaches. I also accept the Baptist teaching on the Holy Communion. I have received Holy Communion about 5 times at River of Life Church since I started attending there last September.

Edited by John Yurich
Addition of 2 more sentences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
7 minutes ago, John Yurich said:

How many times does this have to be stated? The Jesus the Catholic Church believes in and worships is not a false Jesus but is the biblical and historical Jesus. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds state "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God". Does that sound like a false Jesus? And when I receive the bread and the chalice of wine during Mass I do not believe  the Catholic doctrine of Holy Communion. I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion instead. And when I receive the bread and  the chalice of wine during Mass I believe I am receiving Holy Communion the way the Lutheran Church teaches and not the way the Catholic Church teaches. I also accept the Baptist teaching on the Holy Communion. I have received Holy Communion about 5 times at River of Life Church since I started attending there last September.

Regardless of what YOU believe, their table is a table of devils. Their Jesus is that little wafer-and that is not the Jesus of the Bible. What part of that do you not understand? How long will you remain willingly blind and ignorant of the truth that is so clearly laid before you? To partake of the Lord's Supper unworthily is to be gullty of the body and the blood of the Lord, and this, sir, is taking it unworthily. If you believe the Catholic 'Jesus" is the Jesus of the Bible, even as they uphold a wafer in a monstrance and declare it to the Lord Jesus Christ, you, sir, are ignorant as to who Jesus really is. "Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified..." (Lev 10:3). God is to be approached and worshipped in a sanctified manner: the worship of the RCC is false worship, idolatry, paganism, and a true Christian will be repelled by it.

You need to repent of your rebellion against God, "for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 8:53 PM, OLD fashioned preacher said:

You "gave your life to Christ" 20 yrs ago. 10 people might define that 6-10 different ways. What do you mean? How does that work? If someone came to you and said, "Hey how can I get all my sins forgiven?", what would you tell them?

 

Yes, I asked 3 separate questions.

I mean by that I gave my life to Christ that I prayed to Him and asked Him to come into my heart and become my Savior, Lord and King. If I was asked by someone "Hey how can I get all my sins forgiven?" I would respond to pray to Jesus and ask Him to come into your heart and become your Savior, Lord and King and then to ask Jesus for forgiveness of sins.

 

6 minutes ago, Invicta said:

I ask again.

Which do you consider to be a fale religion?

I only put this thread under false religion because there was no section titled "other denominations" to put this thread under. I consider the Catholic Church to be partially false and not entirely false since there are some scriptural Catholic doctrines and scriptural parts of the Mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As far as the Eucharist is concerned, Catholics believe that, with the consecration by a validly ordained priest (Lutherans do not believe in sacramental ordination that confers an ontological character – rather, every man is his own priest), bread and wine are changed in their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ even though the outward appearance and characteristic accidents of bread and wine remain for our human senses. After this change of substance, trans-substantiation, Christ is truly present in the Eucharistic species, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. So long as the outward accidents remain and the species are recognizable as, in their accidents, being bread and wine, they are still the Eucharist and Christ is truly present in them, even in very small quantities of the Eucharistic Body and Blood. When the Eucharistic species are destroyed or significantly altered in their outward accidents, they cease being the Eucharist and Christ is no longer present in them. Furthermore, we Catholic believe that the celebration of the Eucharist represents and renews and makes present again both the Last Supper of the Lord during His Passion as well as the Sacrifice of Cross on Calvary. The celebration of the Eucharist is Christ’s atoning, propitiatory Sacrifice, which, though it occurred at one fixed point in time, is renewed and made present again through the actions of the priest, who acts as alter Christus. Mass is the true, real, renewal of the Sacrifice in an unbloody way that once took place in a bloody way, historically, on Calvary. This is done through the actions and words of the ordained priest.

Lutherans believe that anyone can celebrate the “Lord’s Supper” (some few Lutherans call it “Mass”) though some are called by the community to preside in the central role. The Lord’s Supper is not the Sacrifice renewed. Lutherans do not believe that the substance of bread and wine change, transubstantiation. They think that Christ is present together with the bread and wine for as long as Christ is needed to be there, a kind of “consubstantiation”. (Some Lutherans don’t like that term, but I’m not getting into that fight.) That is to say, that for Christ to be present, there must be institution, distribution and reception.  If it is not received, Christ isn’t present. Once no longer needed there for reception, Christ is no longer present and there is left merely bread and wine. They believe Christ is truly present, when required for reception, but not in an enduring way. Luther used the image an iron that is heated and then it cools again: the iron and the heat are there together and then only the iron is there.  However, some Lutheran churches are starting to reserve their eucharistic species and even to adore what they reserve, even kneeling outside their eucharistic communion services.  An interesting development as they become more “sacramental”.  Furthermore, the Lord’s Supper is a memorial merely. It does not renew the Sacrifice of Calvary or the Last Supper, but rather commemorates them. Lutherans believe in a priesthood of all believers. There is no sacramental priesthood or consecration of the Eucharist or sacramental absolution of sins or conferral of confirmation. Matrimony is not a sacrament, nor is anointing. Lutherans have two sacraments, Baptism and “Eucharist”. Their baptism is valid because water is poured on the skin while the Trinitarian form is pronounced. Their “Eucharist” is not the Eucharist. They do not believe it is a sacrament in the sense we do and there is no valid priesthood to confect it, etc. They do not believe, as Catholics do, that sacraments are outward signs instituted by Christ Himself that confer grace. For Lutherans, they are outward signs of realities that are taking place.

John,

You really need to rethink what you're arguing for. I still haven't made my mind up as to whether you're sincere or not. At times, you seem sincere and searching. At other times...well...

(Luke 22:19) And he took bread, and gave thanks , and brake it, and gave unto them, saying , This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The Lord's Supper is a REMEMBRANCE of what Christ did; it's not a RENEWAL in any way whatsoever...whether it be the Catholic's trans-substantiation or the Lutheran's consubstantiation. Christ is not present; it merely represents him.

When you partake of the Catholic eucharist under Lutheran pretenses, do you perceive that it is Christ...whether literally or in presence?

Edited by No Nicolaitans
separated words that were running together
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 2017-6-22 at 6:53 PM, John Yurich said:

I only put this thread under false religion because there was no section titled "other denominations" to put this thread under. I consider the Catholic Church to be partially false and not entirely false since there are some scriptural Catholic doctrines and scriptural parts of the Mass.

Thank you for clarifying that. 

Remember that a little leaven leaven's th whole lump.

Remember that the Jews tried to worship God and Baal at times.  Also they worshipped in the temple but held sunrise services facing east towards the rising sun.  All are condemned as false religion.

The mass is NOT Holy Communion or the Lord's supper.  It is the worship of a wafer.  A man made god.  When the priest raises the wafer, the host, the people worship it.  You will probably say you don't, but then you are differing from Roman doctrine.

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

As far as the Eucharist is concerned, Catholics believe that, with the consecration by a validly ordained priest (Lutherans do not believe in sacramental ordination that confers an ontological character – rather, every man is his own priest), bread and wine are changed in their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ even though the outward appearance and characteristic accidents of bread and wine remain for our human senses. After this change of substance, trans-substantiation, Christ is truly present in the Eucharistic species, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. So long as the outward accidents remain and the species are recognizable as, in their accidents, being bread and wine, they are still the Eucharist and Christ is truly present in them, even in very small quantities of the Eucharistic Body and Blood. When the Eucharistic species are destroyed or significantly altered in their outward accidents, they cease being the Eucharist and Christ is no longer present in them. Furthermore, we Catholic believe that the celebration of the Eucharist represents and renews and makes present again both the Last Supper of the Lord during His Passion as well as the Sacrifice of Cross on Calvary. The celebration of the Eucharist is Christ’s atoning, propitiatory Sacrifice, which, though it occurred at one fixed point in time, is renewed and made present again through the actions of the priest, who acts as alter Christus. Mass is the true, real, renewal of the Sacrifice in an unbloody way that once took place in a bloody way, historically, on Calvary. This is done through the actions and words of the ordained priest.

Lutherans believe that anyone can celebrate the “Lord’s Supper” (some few Lutherans call it “Mass”) though some are called by the community to preside in the central role. The Lord’s Supper is not the Sacrifice renewed. Lutherans do not believe that the substance of bread and wine change, transubstantiation. They think that Christ is present together with the bread and wine for as long as Christ is needed to be there, a kind of “consubstantiation”. (Some Lutherans don’t like that term, but I’m not getting into that fight.) That is to say, that for Christ to be present, there must be institution, distribution and reception.  If it is not received, Christ isn’t present. Once no longer needed there for reception, Christ is no longer present and there is left merely bread and wine. They believe Christ is truly present, when required for reception, but not in an enduring way. Luther used the image an iron that is heated and then it cools again: the iron and the heat are there together and then only the iron is there.  However, some Lutheran churches are starting to reserve their eucharistic species and even to adore what they reserve, even kneeling outside their eucharistic communion services.  An interesting development as they become more “sacramental”.  Furthermore, the Lord’s Supper is a memorial merely. It does not renew the Sacrifice of Calvary or the Last Supper, but rather commemorates them. Lutherans believe in a priesthood of all believers. There is no sacramental priesthood or consecration of the Eucharist or sacramental absolution of sins or conferral of confirmation. Matrimony is not a sacrament, nor is anointing. Lutherans have two sacraments, Baptism and “Eucharist”. Their baptism is valid because water is poured on the skin while the Trinitarian form is pronounced. Their “Eucharist” is not the Eucharist. They do not believe it is a sacrament in the sense we do and there is no valid priesthood to confect it, etc. They do not believe, as Catholics do, that sacraments are outward signs instituted by Christ Himself that confer grace. For Lutherans, they are outward signs of realities that are taking place.

John,

You really need to rethink what you're arguing for. I still haven't made my mind up as to whether you're sincere or not. At times, you seem sincere and searching. At other times...well...

(Luke 22:19) And he tookbread, and gave thanks , and brake it, andgave unto them, saying , Thisismybodywhich is givenforyou: this do in remembrance of me.

The Lord's Supper is a REMEMBRANCE of what Christ did; it's not a RENEWAL in any way whatsoever...whether it be the Catholic's trans-substantiation or the Lutheran's consubstantiation. Christ is not present; it merely represents him.

When you partake of the Catholic eucharist under Lutheran pretenses, do you perceive that it is Christ...whether literally or in presence?

When Luther held a conference with the Swiss reformers, Zwingle etc, he came into the room and wrote on the table "This is my body"  and would not budge from that.  Think!  was Jesus actually holding hie body in his hand when he said that?  He followed by saying "Do this in remembrace of me.

Jesus also said of the cup. "This is my blood"  One of the martyrs to the Catholic Church, Nicholas Shetterton, had long discussions with the bishops over this.  He said If the bread was the Lord's body then the cup, not the contents were his blood. He was burnt to death in Canterbury only about 8 miles from here.

I am going to ask two you more questions

Do you  believe the Catholic teaching that Christ is present in the conscrated wafer, (the good god) in body soul and spirit? or do you beleive the Christian teaching that, as Jesus said ,"Do this inremembrace of me."?

You know, we forget so soon.  The Jews were given the passover meal to remind them what God had done for them,  Christians were given the Lord's Supper to remind us what God, in Christ has done for us.

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On June 20, 2017 at 11:00 AM, John Yurich said:

Of course I did not make my Baptist pastor cognizant that I attend both the Catholic and Baptist Churches as it is none of his business. I don't like to discuss my beliefs that much with clergy. I am growing in Christ at that Baptist Church that I attend on Sunday mornings because I attend Adult Sunday School before worship, I fellowship with the congregation before worship and I am friends with half of the congregation. And I am very involved in various church activities at that Baptist Church from attending Adult Sunday School before worship to going to soup lunches and other meals after worship. Before I started attending that Baptist Church I was not that social and did not make friends easily. It is a lie that every Catholic doctrine is diametrically opposed to Biblical and Baptist doctrines as there are some biblical Catholic doctrines. And Catholics are not unbelievers since they worship Jesus as God. Unbelievers do not worship Jesus as God. Stating that 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 is required for salvation and entering Heaven is adding another requirement onto salvation.

You said you are growing in Christ at the Baptist church, which (correct me if I'm wrong) suggests you were not growing in Christ at the RCC. 

So why not just leave the RCC altogether & make the Baptist church your church home?

Do you tithe at both?

Do you believe the King James Bible is the Word of God?

Does your church go soul winning, and if so, do you go knock doors with them?

i apologize for all the questions, I just do not understand how you can tolerate the unscriptural teachings that confront you at the RCC.

Finally, please explain exactly WHICH teachings of the RCC do you believe are biblical? Because certainly, if the RCC actually BELIEVED in the sinless life, death, burial AND bodily ressurrection of Christ Jesus, they would NOT attempt to bring Him back down in Mass.

it just doesn't add up.

My take on the RCC is that it is an idolatrous, works-based, man-made false religion with its OWN scriptures(not based on the Word of God) it's OWN head(the pope), its OWN rules & bizarre rituals that resemble witchcraft & center eerily around death, as evidenced by their worship of dead body parts (relics):

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, John Yurich said:

I mean by that I gave my life to Christ that I prayed to Him and asked Him to come into my heart and become my Savior, Lord and King. If I was asked by someone "Hey how can I get all my sins forgiven?" I would respond to pray to Jesus and ask Him to come into your heart and become your Savior, Lord and King and then to ask Jesus for forgiveness of sins.

 

I only put this thread under false religion because there was no section titled "other denominations" to put this thread under. I consider the Catholic Church to be partially false and not entirely false since there are some scriptural Catholic doctrines and scriptural parts of the Mass.

John,

 

Lordship salvation is a works-based false Gospel that CANNOT save.

the ONLY way you can be saved is to BELIEVE on Jesus Christ; salvation is a free GIFT, you cannot earn it or pay for it.

To sum it up:

Salvation is a FREE GIFT, given by the grace (because we don't deserve it) of God, paid for by the Blood of Jesus Christ, received the MOMENT you BELIEVE the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and once you receive it you will KNOW that you have just passed from death to life everlasting, and once you have it you can never lose it.

Ask yourself -- Do you KNOW that if you died today, would you would go to Heaven?

If you cannot immediately respond with an emphatic, "Yes!" It is because you are NOT saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, BabeinChrist said:

John,

 

Lordship salvation is a works-based false Gospel that CANNOT save.

the ONLY way you can be saved is to BELIEVE on Jesus Christ; salvation is a free GIFT, you cannot earn it or pay for it.

To sum it up:

Salvation is a FREE GIFT, given by the grace (because we don't deserve it) of God, paid for by the Blood of Jesus Christ, received the MOMENT you BELIEVE the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and once you receive it you will KNOW that you have just passed from death to life everlasting, and once you have it you can never lose it.

Ask yourself -- Do you KNOW that if you died today, would you would go to Heaven?

If you cannot immediately respond with an emphatic, "Yes!" It is because you are NOT saved.

River of Life Church(where I attend on Sunday morning) and Pastor Steve teach the biblical doctrine of salvation by stating that salvation comes by accepting Jesus as ones Savior and Lord and putting ones trust entirely in Him alone for salvation. Listen to some of  Pastor Steve's sermons on the website for River of Life Church(www.rolchastings.org) to find out that that Pastor Steve preaches the biblical doctrine of salvation in his sermons. I know if I died today I would go to Heaven because I accepted Jesus as my Savior and Lord and I put my trust entirely in Him alone for salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
19 hours ago, BabeinChrist said:

You said you are growing in Christ at the Baptist church, which (correct me if I'm wrong) suggests you were not growing in Christ at the RCC. 

So why not just leave the RCC altogether & make the Baptist church your church home?

Do you tithe at both?

Do you believe the King James Bible is the Word of God?

Does your church go soul winning, and if so, do you go knock doors with them?

i apologize for all the questions, I just do not understand how you can tolerate the unscriptural teachings that confront you at the RCC.

Finally, please explain exactly WHICH teachings of the RCC do you believe are biblical? Because certainly, if the RCC actually BELIEVED in the sinless life, death, burial AND bodily ressurrection of Christ Jesus, they would NOT attempt to bring Him back down in Mass.

it just doesn't add up.

My take on the RCC is that it is an idolatrous, works-based, man-made false religion with its OWN scriptures(not based on the Word of God) it's OWN head(the pope), its OWN rules & bizarre rituals that resemble witchcraft & center eerily around death, as evidenced by their worship of dead body parts (relics):

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

I was not growing in Christ but remaining still in Christ at the local Catholic parish because I chose not to get involved in any church activities at the local Catholic parish. But when I started to attend River of Life Church I started to grow in Christ because I like the Adult Sunday School before worship, the fellowship before worship, the worship service and the sermons of Pastor Steve and the lunches from time to time after worship. I am choosing to remain in the Catholic Church because I like the liturgical worship. I also like the non liturgical worship of River of Life Church I attend on Sunday mornings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, John Yurich said:

I would not tell my Baptist pastor of my membership in the Catholic Church. And I was Baptized and raised Catholic from the time I was born and thus I am not a Catholic convert.

Okay, well the lengthy process I was thinking of is called in the Anglican church 'confirmation' and it applies to folk born into the Anglican church as well as newcomers and it involves attending lessons about the creeds and, eventually, stating that you believe them. I assumed pretty much the same thing happened in Catholic churches.

23 hours ago, John Yurich said:

I don't believe that if the priest found out that I reject some Catholic doctrines that I would be prohibited from receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

I'm surprised to hear that. I know that some churches, even some Baptist churches, let people partake in the Lord's supper member or not and no questions asked. I thought the Catholic Church was the opposite. Do you think there would be any grounds, for example if you told them you didn't believe in God?

23 hours ago, John Yurich said:

I do not know if the priest and pastor would want to know certain information about my beliefs.

Well, maybe we can say that they don't want to know enough to ask. If that's so, perhaps all your joint membership means is that it's possible to find churches that aren't rigorous about membership.

Edited by Alimantado
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
46 minutes ago, Alimantado said:

Okay, well the lengthy process I was thinking of is called in the Anglican church 'confirmation' and it applies to folk born into the Anglican church as well as newcomers and it involves attending lessons about the creeds and, eventually, stating that you believe them. I assumed pretty much the same thing happened in Catholic churches.

I'm surprised to hear that. I know that some churches, even some Baptist churches, let people partake in the Lord's supper member or not and no questions asked. I thought the Catholic Church was the opposite. Do you think there would be any grounds, for example if you told them you didn't believe in God?

Well, maybe we can say that they don't want to know enough to ask. If that's so, perhaps all your joint membership means is that it's possible to find churches that aren't rigorous about membership.

I was not Confirmed in the Catholic Church when I was a teenager because I chose not to be Confirmed as a teenager as I was too busy with homework to take the required lessons to be Confirmed in the Catholic Church. I waited until I was almost 24 years old to be Confirmed. And I had to take lessons for several weeks once a week after I came home from working half days. The lessons were given at the local Catholic parish in the previous town I resided in and were given by a nun since I was the only adult getting Confirmed. At that Baptist church I attend on Sunday mornings anybody who has accepted Jesus as their Savior and Lord is permitted to receive the Lord's Supper. The Pastor just states that if anybody knows they have some sin that they have not confessed to Jesus to do so before receiving the Lord's Supper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, John Yurich said:

I waited until I was almost 24 years old to be Confirmed. And I had to take lessons for several weeks once a week after I came home from working half days. The lessons were given at the local Catholic parish in the previous town I resided in and were given by a nun since I was the only adult getting Confirmed.

Ok, so going back to what I said earlier then:

"And as for the Catholic church you attend, at some point you went through a fairly lengthy process of becoming a member that involved signing up to a load of doctrines, yes?"

You addressed this question by saying you weren't a convert, but can we now say that yes you did go through a process of learning and then professing belief in various creeds/doctrinal statements? And that your being confirmed as a member was conditional on professing those beliefs? Now you say you don't know whether the chief priest or whatever would question your membership of the church if he knew you've since ditched some of those beliefs that were a condition of your being confirmed as a member. I suggest maybe he would.

As for the Baptist church you go to, it sounds like folk 'self certify' and then they ask as few questions as possible. But I do wonder, if I asked to joined that church and I did as you did--told them that Jesus was my Lord and Saviour and made a public profession of it--and then it came out later, let's say over a cup of coffee with Pastor Steve, that when I'd said 'Jesus' I'd been referring to a giraffe at London zoo called 'Jesus', whether that would cause Pastor Steve to question my being a member of that church. And if the answer to that is yes, I wonder if other things, like being a member of a second church with very different doctrines, would be cause for concern in Steve's mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, John Yurich said:

I was not growing in Christ but remaining still in Christ at the local Catholic parish because I chose not to get involved in any church activities at the local Catholic parish. But when I started to attend River of Life Church I started to grow in Christ because I like the Adult Sunday School before worship, the fellowship before worship, the worship service and the sermons of Pastor Steve and the lunches from time to time after worship. I am choosing to remain in the Catholic Church because I like the liturgical worship. I also like the non liturgical worship of River of Life Church I attend on Sunday mornings.

No, Pastor Steve teaches the false gospel of Lordship salvation(works).

I went to the website & I have concerns...

1. You claim it is Baptist, but "Baptist" is NOWHERE in the title. It is obviously non-denominational, ecumenical.

2. The statement of faith is that of a non-denominational church. Watered down, cookie cutter & not firm in beliefs.

3. They believe Hell is "eternal separation from God", but the Bible says it is a real, physical place of eternal torment in fire, where the unsaved go:

"So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.".......Matthew 13:49-50

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, John Yurich said:

I was not Confirmed in the Catholic Church when I was a teenager because I chose not to be Confirmed as a teenager as I was too busy with homework to take the required lessons to be Confirmed in the Catholic Church. I waited until I was almost 24 years old to be Confirmed. And I had to take lessons for several weeks once a week after I came home from working half days. The lessons were given at the local Catholic parish in the previous town I resided in and were given by a nun since I was the only adult getting Confirmed. At that Baptist church I attend on Sunday mornings anybody who has accepted Jesus as their Savior and Lord is permitted to receive the Lord's Supper. The Pastor just states that if anybody knows they have some sin that they have not confessed to Jesus to do so before receiving the Lord's Supper.

As a born and raised catholic, I was confirmed too and had 1st Communion as well. All those classes, and to this day I can't remember what went on or was said in any of them. It's just more man made traditions which has nothing to do with God or our eternal salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I have just been watching a prgramme on yesterday channel called Forbidden History, about the vatican archives. They have 52miles of shelves of documents.  The Vatican is built on on pagan temples.  Osiris and Isis are integrated into Catholic saints.  Well we knew that, but I have not seen it said on TV before.  Some anti christians on there.  THey refer to Christians, not realising the the RCC church is not Christian, but pagan with and very thin Christian veneer.  Very interesting I don't know if you can get it oversseas but it is on  Uktvplay https://uktvplay.uktv.co.uk/shows/forbidden-history/watch-online/?video=5453746319001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 minutes ago, Invicta said:

I have just been watching a prgramme on yesterday channel called Forbidden History, about the vatican archives. They have 52miles of shelves of documents.  The Vatican is built on on pagan temples.  Osiris and Isis are integrated into Catholic saints.  Well we knew that, but I have not seen it said on TV before.  Some anti christians on there.  THey refer to Christians, not realising the the RCC church is not Christian, but pagan with and very thin Christian veneer.  Very interesting I don't know if you can get it oversseas but it is on  Uktvplay https://uktvplay.uktv.co.uk/shows/forbidden-history/watch-online/?video=5453746319001

Yes, Roman Catholicism adopted many pagan beliefs from places like Egypt and later "christianized them.
 
The skull cap that the pope wears came from the ones that the sun priests of Egypt would wear.
 
I even read that back in the early days of the RCC priests and monks  all had the same hair style with the bald patch on the top which symbolized worship of the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 11 Guests (See full list)

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