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.

The Husband of One Wife


Recommended Posts

  • Members

My apologies up front for any aggravation or heartache this question poses, as it seems to evoke pretty passionate responses when brought up, but

  the only way for me to learn is to ask.

If Paul intended for "The husband of one wife" to mean never have been divorced, would that include a divorce before a man was saved?

God tells us in Hebrews 8:12, Isaiah 43:25 and Psalm 103:11-12 that He not only forgives, but that He will also forget our transgressions when we turn to Him.

One gentleman told me that sin has consequences (such as unwed pregnancy or drunk driving, etc), which I agree with, but the ones he listed are societal consequences for our sin and the penalties ensued. Are we always married in the eyes of God, even if we are divorced before we become aware of His loving grace and give ourselves to Him?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Mississippi Shepherd said:

My apologies up front for any aggravation or heartache this question poses, as it seems to evoke pretty passionate responses when brought up, but

  the only way for me to learn is to ask.

If Paul intended for "The husband of one wife" to mean never have been divorced, would that include a divorce before a man was saved?

God tells us in Hebrews 8:12, Isaiah 43:25 and Psalm 103:11-12 that He not only forgives, but that He will also forget our transgressions when we turn to Him.

One gentleman told me that sin has consequences (such as unwed pregnancy or drunk driving, etc), which I agree with, but the ones he listed are societal consequences for our sin and the penalties ensued. Are we always married in the eyes of God, even if we are divorced before we become aware of His loving grace and give ourselves to Him?

 

 

The premise of your question is a bit ill-founded. You ask if the husband of one wife were to refer to never having been divorced, then would that included before salvation in the light of forgiveness. However, if the husband of one wife does refer to remarriage (not divorce, remarriage; they're two different issues), then forgiveness would take away sin, but not marriage. The issue Paul is addressing is not sin so much as polygamy. So the real question is does the husband of one wife refer to remarriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 I've heard the side of the debate that states even after you're divorced, you are still married in the eyes of God.

Deuteronomy 24:4 lets me know exactly how God feels about divorce.

If I rephrase the question to; "Does a man who has been divorced and remarried have more than one wife?" then is there a particular verse in our bible that says, or at least points to, God still looking at you being married after the divorce?

In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul warned people not to "go beyond what is written."

In Revelation 2, Jesus rebuked a couple of churches for tolerating evil and false doctrine.

If the phrase "husband of one wife" is properly interpreted as "never divorced" then we should never go beyond what the word of God allows.

If "husband of one wife" does not refer to divorce, then those who have issued a blanket prohibition of service by divorced men have gone imposed human rules on God's Word and that is no small matter.

Has the growing prevalence of divorce made the baptist church compromise on the matter; or has the growing prevalence of divorce made the church study the subject and find out they were wrong?

One side of this debate is wrong and goes against God's Word. Being relatively new in my walk with Christ (compared to those raised in God's house), you can understand my concern about not being led off the narrow path, even by those who honestly feel they are right.

I do thank you for any input and guidance on the subject.

Edited by Mississippi Shepherd
highlight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I normally don't get involved in these, simply because it ends up being a slapping match between opposing thoughts, however, I will offer a few gentle points.

(And I am unlikely to "defend" them or enter into discussion about them.)

Matthew 5:31-32
(31)  It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
(32)  But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.


The Law is vs 31, the Lord's restating is vs 32 - note that in this brief saying it is plain that there is only one ground for divorce, and the divorced "WOMAN" is an adulterer if she remarries. Note also that the woman is an adulterer if she remarries EVEN IF the divorce fits under the "saving for the cause" phrase.

I might be inferred from this that it applies equally to men, but that is an assumption. the reader will decide if it is a reasonable assumption.

Matthew 19:3-9
(3)  The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
(4)  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(5)  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(6)  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(7)  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
(8)  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(9)  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
 

I will note regarding this passage that the Lord first states the plan for marriage, and concludes that in vs 6, stating quite clearly that "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

He then finishes His statement. This is God's plan for marriage in its entirety - it should not be broken. Argue all you like against it, but that is what it says. 

The Pharisees then press Him further with regard to the idea that Moses commanded divorce. Note here that Jesus specifically uses the term "suffered" in this instance, NOT commanded, but probably the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PASSAGE is that it was "suffered" for the hardness of their hearts. If a man is willing to admit that he has hardened his heart against God, then divorce is allowed, BUT EVEN THEN under specific circumstances: fornication.

This is a repeat of the previous, however this time is DOES INDEED refer to the man as an adulterer if he then remarries, except for fornication.

(A side note: In my studies I have not found a place where God COMMANDED divorce. Look carefully before throwing up suggestions. I could be wrong, but so far.....)

1 Corinthians 7:10-16
(10)  And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
(11)  But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
(12)  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
(13)  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
(14)  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
(15)  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
(16)  For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

A wife shouldn't divorce her husband - if she does, she should not remarry. Again, it does not specifically list the converse (husband leaving wife) - the reader will have to consider whether it is reasonable to apply it to husbands as well.

A saved man married to an unsaved woman, shall not divorce his wife. 

A saved woman married to an unsaved man, shall not divorce her husband.

BUT IF THE UNBELIEVER wants a divorce, then let him (or her) - the saved one "is not under bondage in such cases".

 

Now then, to the Question at hand:

Aside from the matter of fornication, and that allowed (NOT commanded), if a man divorces his wife for any reason, it is not a valid divorce in God's eyes. He clearly stated "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Therefore, according to the statement of God, that man IS STILL MARRIED, for it is not a legitimate divorce. In my reading, the "exception clause" was given for those who were hard hearted, and such a man (if still hard hearted) is not really qualified anyway.

The ONLY case where it clearly sets this aside is where a believer has no part in the divorce other than to let it happen.

This is the only place where we see it CLEARLY stated that he is not under bondage.

In light of these, the "husband of one wife" statement is not so much about how that phrase is understood, as it is about whether it is a legitimate divorce in God's eyes.

If it is not, and the man has divorced wrongly, and then remarried, in God's eyes he has two wives, and is therefore ineligible. 

 

 

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think that maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not saying that divorce doesn't matter, I'm saying that divorce doesn't make you the husband of more than one wife in anyone's eyes, remarriage does. Let me give you an example: A man gets married and divorced when he is lost, but he doesn't get remarried. He gets saved and says he's called to Pastor. He isn't the husband of more than one wife, because he never remarried. Now whether that divorce disqualifies him or not is a totally different subject, but he isn't the husband of more than one wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, Musician4God1611 said:

I think that maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not saying that divorce doesn't matter, I'm saying that divorce doesn't make you the husband of more than one wife in anyone's eyes, remarriage does. Let me give you an example: A man gets married and divorced when he is lost, but he doesn't get remarried. He gets saved and says he's called to Pastor. He isn't the husband of more than one wife, because he never remarried. Now whether that divorce disqualifies him or not is a totally different subject, but he isn't the husband of more than one wife.

 Applying the rules of grammar to Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2, "the husband of one wife" is present tense.

Edited by swathdiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
17 hours ago, Musician4God1611 said:

I think that maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not saying that divorce doesn't matter, I'm saying that divorce doesn't make you the husband of more than one wife in anyone's eyes, remarriage does. Let me give you an example: A man gets married and divorced when he is lost, but he doesn't get remarried. He gets saved and says he's called to Pastor. He isn't the husband of more than one wife, because he never remarried. Now whether that divorce disqualifies him or not is a totally different subject, but he isn't the husband of more than one wife.

 

6 hours ago, swathdiver said:

 Applying the rules of grammar to Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2, "the husband of one wife" is present tense.

In his example, the guy - we'll call him Bill, WAS the husband of one wife (we'll call her Sue). If he divorces Sue, he IS NOT the husband of one wife in the state's eyes. Is he NOW the husband of one wife in God's eyes? If no and he marries Frieda, he NOW has one wife. If yes, then he is STILL the husband of one wife (Sue) because he hasn't remarried. 

 

Or this, Bill and Sue marry, they divorced, Bill and Frieda marry, Sue dies --- how many wives does Bill now have (presently) -- I know such a case.

 

Blameless deserves it's own separate thread (mentioned before an 6 page sub- topic begins).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, swathdiver said:

 Applying the rules of grammar to Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2, "the husband of one wife" is present tense.

Also applying the rules of grammar, you will notice that I didn't say whether or not remarriage makes him the husband of more than one wife in God's eyes, but rather that it does in someone's eyes.

 

On ‎09‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 2:09 PM, Musician4God1611 said:

I think that maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm not saying that divorce doesn't matter, I'm saying that divorce doesn't make you the husband of more than one wife in anyone's eyes, remarriage does. Let me give you an example: A man gets married and divorced when he is lost, but he doesn't get remarried. He gets saved and says he's called to Pastor. He isn't the husband of more than one wife, because he never remarried. Now whether that divorce disqualifies him or not is a totally different subject, but he isn't the husband of more than one wife.

Emphasis on the anyone.

I know what I believe on this matter. I'm firmly planted in said belief. But I also believe that revealing what I believe will only make people argue. Therefore, I've chosen to not share my beliefs on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 Mr. DaveW got my attention with Matthew 19:6. I actually wrote it on the inside of the cover of my current bible 6 years ago as a testament to my wife. I've read that verse countless times, but you've managed to make me look at it from a wider angle.

When discussing the topic of the actual  meaning of "husband of one wife", a couple of times I've been told (and quite passionately) that a man is still married in the eyes of God even after he divorces, therefor giving credence to their side of the discussion that he would have multiple wives if he remarries. That's the first time that particular verse was used to substantiate that view of the topic, at least in a way that got my attention. Appreciate that! It's easier to comprehend when you don't feel like you're being stoned!

But if we believe 'husband of one wife" means he must always, even as an unbeliever, have had no more than one wife in his lifetime, wouldn't we also extend the same understanding to the other qualifications so they include his distant or pre-Christian past?

Randy Alcorn put it to the test by adding the same interpretive phrase to all the other qualifications;

"This would mean that any elder must:"

 Have always, even as an unbeliever, been above reproach. Have always, even as an unbeliever, been sober minded. Have always, even as an unbeliever, been self controlled. Have always, even as an unbeliever, been respectable. Have always, even as an unbeliever, been hospitable. Have always, even as an unbeliever, not been a drunkard. Have always, even as an unbeliever, not been violent or quarrelsome. Have always, even as an unbeliever, not been a lover of money. Have always, even as an unbeliever, managed his household well."

"This makes absolutely no sense. It requires the fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit in pre-Christian people who by definition did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. It also presents a pragmatic problem, since virtually no one would be elder qualified, due to past choices and lifestyles stemming from a radically different worldview and heart condition. I don’t think the passage could possibly assume one has always been elder qualified, that he has never in the past violated the character requirements of elders, only that he is presently qualified, as a result of the transforming work of God’s Spirit in the man’s life. 

So, do we believe the meaning is never having been divorced, i.e. the “husband of one wife, not just now but even as an unbeliever”? If so, what is there in the text (not just our preferential reasons of not wanting to appear to make a concession to our culture) that would cause us not to extend the same interpretive assumption to those other qualifications? " Randy Alcorn

As one man said, tongue in cheek; "Instead of divorcing her, I could have murdered my wife, got a good lawyer and got off in 5 years, repented and rededicated my life to Christ and then become a deacon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • Members

I'm not impressed by people who dismiss immoral behavior as "before"  they were saved.  In America, practically every Christian was raised as a Christian.  They didn't cease fornicating because they later accepted Christ.  The best anyone can tell, they just settled down.  

I would not be member of any church with any remarried leadership.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I'd like to know how you come to a conclusion such as this: "practically every Christian was raised as a Christian."

What of the thousands that were never exposed to Christianity saved later in life or witnessed to and saved? How are these thousands representative of "practicality every Christian"?

If they were not saved, they were not a Christian, plain and simple, they were lost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
14 hours ago, Brother D said:

  In America, practically every Christian was raised as a Christian.

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Wow, I know MANY people (myself included) who were NOT raised in a Christian home or with the Bible as the standard of right/wrong and yet were later confronted with the Biblical truth of their unregenerate state that could ONLY be remedied by grace through faith in the one who was made to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God through Him.

Curious as to your definition of : 1)"raised as a Christian" and of

                                                         2) "Christian"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Wow, I know MANY people (myself included) who were NOT raised in a Christian home or with the Bible as the standard of right/wrong and yet were later confronted with the Biblical truth of their unregenerate state that could ONLY be remedied by grace through faith in the one who was made to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God through Him.

Curious as to your definition of : 1)"raised as a Christian" and of

                                                         2) "Christian"

 

Did your parents identify as Christian?  Did you, growing up, identify as Christian?

 

I know a lot of unchristian old people who commit no violence or fornication, who were once very wild.  How do you explain that?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You completely ignored the questions I asked, so they are again:

How do you define : 1)"raised as a Christian"

                                     2) "Christian"

 

Identify as Christian makes one Christian? -- Chapter and Verse please.

I have an aunt who identifies as Scandinavia but is of Polish ancestry. Does that make her truly Scandinavian??

2 hours ago, Brother D said:

 

Did your parents identify as Christian?  Did you, growing up, identify as Christian?

I never heard my parents identify as anything, I never saw a Bible in the house, we didn't have weddings or funerals in churches, I didn't know as a child (or teen) where people obtained Bibles (nor did I care).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 7/4/2018 at 8:27 PM, Brother D said:

I'm not impressed by people who dismiss immoral behavior as "before"  they were saved.  They didn't cease fornicating because they later accepted Christ.  The best anyone can tell, they just settled down. 

 

Hmmm:

1Co 6:9-11  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (emphasis mine)

2Co 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Rom 5:20 - 6:2  Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.  What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (emphasis mine)

 

Sooooo, Are they faking it? Did they just "settle down"? Does that not happen anymore, in this time, in this country? Is God naive? Did God not have anything to do with these passages, it was all Paul?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 7/5/2018 at 6:36 PM, Brother D said:

Did your parents identify as Christian?  Did you, growing up, identify as Christian?  

The Holy Spirit restrains sin in a society.  The more christians, the higher the morality of the people in that society generally speaking.

Now as to the quote above, yes, my parents and grand-parents identified as Christian, they even went to Mass every Easter and Christmas.  What does that reveal?  

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

×
×
  • Create New...