Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Although I have engaged in this discussion with a push toward a more precise understanding of God's Word on the matter (which causes me to appear as the "contrarian"), I have NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER AT ALL with the above posting.  Something IS wrong among believers in the matter of attire, and it is NOT just about "pants on women."

By the way, I wish to add that something is NOT just wrong with the choices that the adult women and young ladies are making for their attire; but something is also VERY wrong with husbands and fathers who are not doing anything to prevent it.  Not all may agree with me on the following, but -- I say shame on the women; and I say shame on the men much, much MORE.

''Susie'' wants to wear that form-fitting, low cut dress with the "slit" all the way up as far as she dares and Mom says it's Ok. What are you going to do if you are merely a "leader" of the home and have no authority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
46 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

''Susie'' wants to wear that form-fitting, low cut dress with the "slit" all the way up as far as she dares and Mom says it's Ok. What are you going to do if you are merely a "leader" of the home and have no authority?

"Susie" is 15 years old, so shame on me for not discipling my own wife for the past 15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And how do you "discipline" a wife?

Honey....bring me the paddle(again)....now this is going to hurt me more than it is you. No, on second thought, just go to your room. You're grounded. 😄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

And how do you "discipline" a wife?

Honey....bring me the paddle(again)....now this is going to hurt me more than it is you. No, on second thought, just go to your room. You're grounded. 😄

 

He said discipling, not disciplining :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Oh, is YOUR daughter named "Susie". My deepest apologies! I just picked a random name. 😱

No, sir.  I was simply continuing your hypothetical, and inserting myself so as NOT to confront anyone else directly.  Actually, I myself have 2 sons (a 22 year old & a 17 year old) and NO daughters.  Oh, and I DO have a wife of 25 years in marriage.
 

17 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

And how do you "discipline" a wife?

Honey....bring me the paddle(again)....now this is going to hurt me more than it is you. No, on second thought, just go to your room. You're grounded. 😄

 

Woe now!!!!  Discipline my wife - Are you CRAZY!!!  As Brother "PastorJ" pointed out above (and you acknowledged), I said DISCIPLE my wife (one of the God-give responsibilities of the godly husband).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No, sir.  I was simply continuing your hypothetical, and inserting myself so as NOT to confront anyone else directly.  Actually, I myself have 2 sons (a 22 year old & a 17 year old) and NO daughters.  Oh, and I DO have a wife of 25 years in marriage.
 

Woe now!!!!  Discipline my wife - Are you CRAZY!!!  As Brother "PastorJ" pointed out above (and you acknowledged), I said DISCIPLE my wife (one of the God-give responsibilities of the godly husband).

Yes, I already know what you said, and you already know that brother Scott, why reiterate it?   Brother "pastor j" already corrected me, and I  acknowledged my mistake..........but I'm still "crazy"   😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
25 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Yes, I already know what you said, and you already know that brother Scott, why reiterate it?   Brother "pastor j" already corrected me, and I  acknowledged my mistake..........but I'm still "crazy"   😄

Sorry for my miscommunication, Brother Wayne.  My comment was intended to come off as a JOKE, not as a rebuke.  I was trying to go for light-hearted.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I keep seeing this issue being argued as one of "modesty" when modesty has nothing to do with 

Deuteronomy 22:5 King James Version (KJV)

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Dresses can be just as immodest if not more immodest than pants.  We had one woman that wore dresses that were high necked and below the knee but were so tight and thin that if she got goosebumps you could probably see it through the material.  Another wore a dress that had a "flesh toned" panel on the front that caused every warm blooded male to do at least a double take at her chest to make sure she wasn't indeed topless.

It is an issue of women vs. men's clothing.  Nothing to do with whether either or both are immodest.  Only what is considered sex appropriate because a clear delineation between the sexes is very important to God.  God is NOT in favor of unisex and pants are unisex.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, 2bLikeJesus said:

It is an issue of women vs. men's clothing.  

Yet that is just what I am contending is not precisely accurate.  Rather, it is an issue of women's CLOTHING vs. men's SOMETHING ELSE.

Deuteronomy 22:5 -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, nether shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 1:18 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Two DIFFERENT phrases in translation:

1.  "that which pertaineth unto a man"
2.  "a woman's garment"

Two DIFFERENT Hebrew words:

1.  כְּלִי ("kaliy," Strong's #3627)
2.  
שִׂמְלָה ("simlah," Strong's #8071)

Two DIFFERENT meanings:

1.  Something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin).
2.  Something made of (woven) clothe, clothing.

Two DIFFERENT Biblical uses when applied to an individual's attire:

1.  With 325 occurrences in the Old Testament, it NEVER once refers to clothing itself, but does refer to something a man might wear - and that is . . . (yes, I have an answer).
2.  With 29 occurrences in the Old testament, it always refers to clothing (made from clothe) of some kind.

So, that which is DIFFERENT is NOT the same, right?  I did not choose these differences.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired these DIFFERENCES.  I wonder if He had a reason.  I wonder if we should consider His reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is such an old diversion, able still to get us all off track. Anything that distracts from the Holy Spirit working in hearts has to be examined carefully. If someone visits our church, don't care what they dress like as long as they stay long enough to hear the preaching and the altar call. So maybe if our group looks a little...different...from time to time, it just means we are reaching the target.  Personally I wear skirts at church just because pastor doesn't want a needless distraction in the leadership, and I'm an adult teacher, organist, etc, so visible.  He's responsible for the flock, I'm responsible to be a good team member, so there you go.  We have a clear goal, "bring them in."  Don't get side-tracked from that, and the rest will follow.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
29 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

This is such an old diversion, able still to get us all off track. Anything that distracts from the Holy Spirit working in hearts has to be examined carefully. 

Interesting that a Holy Spirit inspired command is considered "an old diversion."  Yet the Holy Spirit Himself DID indeed INSPIRE the command of Deuteronomy 22:5, which would move me to conclude that the Holy Spirit Himself DOES care about this matter and that this matter IS a part of the Holy Spirit's working in our hearts.

31 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

If someone visits our church, don't care what they dress like as long as they stay long enough to hear the preaching and the altar call. So maybe if our group looks a little...different...from time to time, it just means we are reaching the target.  

Yet this matter is NOT about the unsaved visitors or the brand new converts, but is about the obedience and spiritual growth of believers.

33 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

Personally I wear skirts at church just because pastor doesn't want a needless distraction in the leadership, and I'm an adult teacher, organist, etc, so visible.  He's responsible for the flock, I'm responsible to be a good team member, so there you go.  

Yet this matter is NOT about following the leadership of a pastor, but is about faithful submission and obedience unto the Lord our God Himself.  The command of Deuteronomy 22:5 is in GOD'S WORD.  it is not the word of a pastor.  it is the WORD OF GOD.  It supersedes the authority of ANY pastoral leadership. 

37 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

We have a clear goal, "bring them in."  Don't get side-tracked from that, and the rest will follow.  

Indeed, we DO have a clear goal; for the greatest command of all, as per the estimation of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is -- "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (See Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30)  So then, if you really feel the need to narrow all of the doctrine and instruction within God's Holy Word unto one responsibility, then THIS should be that one responsibility.  Even so, how shall we demonstrate this "all-heart," "all-soul," "all-mind" love unto the Lord our God?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 14:21, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."  

Furthermore, how can a believer be empowered to be an effective witness unto the lost world?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 15:4-5, "Abide in me, and I in you.  As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.  I am the vine, ye are the branches.  He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."  So then, how can a believer abide in Christ?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 15:10, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."  

It appears to me that understanding and obeying all of the commandments that the Lord our God has given us in His Holy Word (including the command of Deuteronomy 22:5) is SIGNIFICANTLY and SPIRITUALLY IMPORTANT, not "an old diversion" that "side-tracks" us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet that is just what I am contending is not precisely accurate.  Rather, it is an issue of women's CLOTHING vs. men's SOMETHING ELSE.

Deuteronomy 22:5 -- "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, nether shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

 

 

Graphic1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

 

Graphic1.jpg

Indeed, Brother Wayne,

The program that you are using above does claim that the Hebrew word can mean "clothing, ornaments."  Yet it provides one, and only one, example for the possible meaning of "clothing."  That example is Deuteronomy 22:5 itself, which is the VERY instance under dispute.  Furthermore, that program translates that phrase of the verse as follows, "a man's clothing."  However, the King James translation does NOT so translate that phrase of the verse.  Rather, the King James translation translates that phrase as, "that which pertaineth unto a man."  On the other hand, the modern translation DO translate it differently.  The NIV gives, "A woman must not wear men's clothing."  The ESV gives, "A woman shall not wear a man's garment."  The NASV gives, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing."  The New Living Translation gives, "A woman must not put on men's clothing."  The Good News Translation gives, "Women are not to wear men's clothing."  The Message gives, "A woman must not wear a man's clothing."  You will notice that all of these modern translations translate the Hebrew word either with the English word "garment" or with the English word "clothing."  So, now I wonder if the King James translators had a reason why they did NOT translate the Hebrew word with the English word "garment" (just as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word) or with the English word "clothing."  I wonder if we trust the King James translators more than the modern translations.  If we do trust the King James translators more, then I wonder if we should seek to discern the reason for their translation choice, and for the fact that they did not choose the word "garment" even as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word.

As for myself, having done the word study of the Hebrew word throughout the entire Old Testament, actually looking up ALL 325 occurrences, I stand with trust upon the phrase which the King James translators employed in the King James translation.  Furthermore, I believe that this full word study has granted understanding as to the reason why they chose the translational phrasing that they did.

As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in the King James translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," is used 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As such, it is translated as the following within the King James translation:

 1.  166 times - "vessel(s)"
 2.  39 times - "instrument(s)"
 3.  21 times - "weapon(s)"
 4.  21 times - "jewel(s)" (as in, jewelry)
 5.  18 times - "armourbearer" (when added with the Hebrew word for "bearing, bearer," providing the "armour" side of the meaning)
 6.  14 times - "stuff" 
 7.  11 times - "thing(s)"
 8.  10 times - "armour"
 9.  7 times - "furniture"
10.  3 times - "carriage"
11.  2 times - "bag"
12  13 times - miscellaneous phrasing (such as, "that which pertaineth unto")

It should be noted that the words for "clothe," "clothing," "garment," etc. are not on this list even a single time.  The fact is that the Hebrew word does NOT mean "that which is made of clothe, clothing."  On the other hand, Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is referencing something that a man might wear.  So then, what do we find on this list of 325 occurrences that is something which a man might wear?  We find two options, being "jewels" (jewelry) or "armour."  As such, we may understand that in the immediate context of the time wherein the Lord God gave this instruction through Moses unto the children of Israel, He was indicating that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's jewelry (wouldn't that be interesting to preach in a Fundamental Baptist church), or that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's armor.  I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.  (Please note that this conclusion is based upon an ACTUAL word study throughout the Old Testament.)  If this is correct, then this would mean that a women was NOT breaking this command if she put on a man's shirt, cloak, coat, belt, hat, etc., but only if she put on a man's ARMOR.  On the other hand, a man would be breaking his side of this command if he put on any number of clothing pieces that would be recognized as women's (feminine) clothing.

So then, with such an understanding for the MEANING of this instruction, what is the point and PRINCIPLE of this instruction whereby we may make APPLICATION of this instruction unto our present day?  (Note:  I believe that understanding the meaning of an instruction is necessary BEFORE we can discern the principle, and that understanding the principle of an instruction is necessary BEFORE we can discern correct applications.)

(Another side note:  As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," occurs 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As I have also mentioned in a previous posting, I REQUIRED my oldest son to look up ALL 325 occurrences BEFORE I would discuss this matter with him.  I wonder how many here felt any need to do the due diligence of that complete word study.  If my experience with the Fundamentalist movement is a gauge (having grown up therein from baby-hood, and being committed by conviction to the foundational principles thereof), I would guess that there were only a few.,  If I may bare one of my heart's ongoing burdens at this point - This lack of diligence in Bible study is one of the things that grieves and burdens my heart deeply about the Fundamentalist movement.)

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

(Another side note:  As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," occurs 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As I have also mentioned in a previous posting, I REQUIRED my oldest son to look up ALL 325 occurrences BEFORE I would discuss this matter with him.  I wonder how many here felt any need to do the due diligence of that complete word study.  If my experience with the Fundamentalist movement is a gauge (having grown up therein from baby-hood, and being committed by conviction to the foundational principles thereof), I would guess that there were only a few.,  If I may bare one of my heart's ongoing burdens at this point - This lack of diligence in Bible study is one of the things that grieves and burdens my heart deeply about the Fundamentalist movement.)

I agree completely with you. I grew up in the IFB and am still part of it. I am shocked at what can be said from the pulpit and everyone say Amen, when they should be saying "Heresy". I used to hold to this position and my wife and daughter wore nothing but dresses, culottes, skirts, etc until I was challenged to study it out and realized it was based on misuse of the Word of God. I applaud you for your study and challenge others to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

I agree completely with you. I grew up in the IFB and am still part of it. I am shocked at what can be said from the pulpit and everyone say Amen, when they should be saying "Heresy". I used to hold to this position and my wife and daughter wore nothing but dresses, culottes, skirts, etc until I was challenged to study it out and realized it was based on misuse of the Word of God. I applaud you for your study and challenge others to do the same.

Brother "PastorJ,"

I believe that you understood this, but your comment allows me to add a further explanation - I did not give the additional side note above about my heart's grief and burden just concerning the subject matter of this thread, but concerning so many Biblical matters of doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother Markle, If a man was not to "put on a woman's garment", that means men had to have been wearing something else, correct? Unless they were going around naked but we know that wasn't the case.. So, whatever they were wearing "pertained" to men.  The word you mention as being "something else" DOES cover a lot more than just clothing. BUT, clothing IS part of what is WORN which "pertains" to men. Today, men don't normally wear a sword, dagger, a quiver of arrows, etc. but even in our culture today there are clothes readily associated with "women" and "men".

image.jpeg.7da2a69af6b8a57accd838432caec4e7.jpeg

Both history and archaeology prove that things "which pertained to a man" covers more than just clothes, brother, and no one disputes that. There's a much longer list here for men's "wear", than for women... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_clothing  But Deuteronomy 22:5 makes it perfectly clear that there was a distinction between men's and women's clothes; otherwise it would not say "neither shall a man put on a woman's garment". 

 

 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...