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.

What would you do?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

I don't know what else to say.  That attitude is unscriptural, ungodly and completely lacking in compassion.  I'm done here.

"Unscriptural"...I quoted Galatians 5:22-23.

"Ungodly"...saying that a Christian should exhibit the fruit of the Spirit as found in Galatians 5:22-23

"Lacking in compassion"...saying a Christian should endeavor to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit as found in Galatians 5:22-23.

What I see is a bunch of men refusing to take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions...kind of like when Adam blamed Eve. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have a solution for the debate on clothing. We should all go back to wearing tunics like the bible times.   Yes Im being silly,  but honestly I would be all for it.  I wouldn't have to think about what to wear.  No one could judge another about their spiritual state based on what their wearing.   And comfortable!!  Im mean what could be more comfy.   

I understand everyones point of veiw to some extent.   As far as bikinis and Speedos go.  I personally cant see anyone entering a church wearing one,  unless their intention was to offend.   Or maybe if you decided to hold a service on the beach, then perhaps. 

I do believe that the IFB does put more pressure on women to be modest than men.   I see way to many men with their pants far to snug , And I have Never heard anything preached at them.   Alot of women now a days , (and its an awful thing) are addicted to pornography as well.   I do believe we are all accountable to one another and should help each other to not sin.   But it can go overboard,  thats why  so many of the Arab nation have their women wear burkas.    When we take all responsibility away from men for watching their eyes and controlling their thoughts, it puts a heavy burden on women and allows men to believe they are not responsible for their actions.    

So many times when a Christian man falls in adultery,   what I hear is more preaching about covering up directed toward women.  The man is talked about as a poor brother that fell.   I find it disturbing.     

 Im all for modesty ,  I believe that I do dress modest , even when I do wear pants.   I see others will disagree with me.   And I know that many in my church feel Im less sanctified and a lesser christian because I dont see things their way.   I guess that's just the way it will have to be unless the Lord tells me different.    I do understand that everyone has their own personal convictions,  and I do respect that.    

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Thief on the Cross said:

So many times when a Christian man falls in adultery,   what I hear is more preaching about covering up directed toward women.  The man is talked about as a poor brother that fell.   I find it disturbing.     

Yes! It seems that men are given a pass...they just can't help it. 

I work in a male-dominated industry. Yes, I dress fairly modestly most of the time, yet...it is not my responsibility to keep some man from losing self-control. I see many men wearing things that I might consider inappropriate...like the guys who walk home from the pool in wet swim suits that leave nothing to the imagination. I may notice it, but it doesn't cause me to "lust" after them. There's only ONE man that I go completely ga-ga over...just one. I've been married to him for a long time.

This whole thing over pornography, "modesty", etc. is just an excuse for not exercising self-control. Personally, I have NEVER had the urge to look at pornography. It's just not something I'm interested in. I don't watch "chick flicks", I don't read romance novels either. I find them a waste of my time. Now, if there's a good sci-fi movie or series on, or a good drama, or something with lots of explosions and car chases, I'm there. My reason for not being interested in those things is simple...sex is not a spectator sport. 

I spoke with my husband about this last night and read him some of the posts. Poor guy's eyes rolled so far back into his head I think he saw his own brain. Something about needing to grow up, learning respect, and yes, developing self control were in his comments. We're talking about a retired 24 year sailor here. 

So, for all you men who are so fragile that the glimpse of a shoulder or a curve can turn you into a boiling pot of lust, it's not the woman's fault, it's your own. Seeing women as human beings that are not property to control will go a long way to resolving your lust issues. 

Edited by Jim_Alaska
administrator edit for poor choice of language
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let us get this Biblically correct:

1.  If a saved man lusts after a woman (that is not his wife), it is a wicked sin against the Lord his God and Savior.  It does not matter if the woman is dressed immodestly or modestly.  That man committed sin against the Lord, and HE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would be true in reverse for a saved woman who lusts as well.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon men; therefore, I have done the same.)

2.  If a saved woman dresses immodestly within a public arena (not in the privacy of her relationship with her husband), it is a wicked sin against the Lord her God and Savior.  It does not matter if a man lusts after her or not, or even if a man is actually present who might lust after her.  That woman committed sin against the Lord, and SHE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would also be true in reverse for a saved man who dresses immodestly.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon women; therefore, I have done the same.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Let us get this Biblically correct:

1.  If a saved man lusts after a woman (that is not his wife), it is a wicked sin against the Lord his God and Savior.  It does not matter if the woman is dressed immodestly or modestly.  That man committed sin against the Lord, and HE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would be true in reverse for a saved woman who lusts as well.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon men; therefore, I have done the same.)

2.  If a saved woman dresses immodestly within a public arena (not in the privacy of her relationship with her husband), it is a wicked sin against the Lord her God and Savior.  It does not matter if a man lusts after her or not, or even if a man is actually present who might lust after her.  That woman committed sin against the Lord, and SHE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would also be true in reverse for a saved man who dresses immodestly.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon women; therefore, I have done the same.)

citations please. From the New Testament, with proper cultural and historical exegesis please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Stafford, may I ask how you would respond to the original question.  Please understand Im not trying to argue with you.  I believe by your responses that you love the church and its people.   I know we dont see some things the same,  but would like to know your opinion on what would Be the best way to deal with someone dressed like described in the OP.    If you dont want to answer thats fine.  

Also I agree completely that both saved men and women are responsible for their thoughts and actions.   But an unsaved is not in the same way.  They are in bondage held captive by the enemy.  We should first be concerned with their souls , before clothing.    I dont want to forget those the Lord used , some of them were Harlots.  Why was Mary Magdalene drawn to the Lord, because he had compasion on her , I believe.    I would have to do the same with soneone thats walked in , in the attire of a harlot.    Maybe its because Im a woman, and one that lived in the world for 36 yrs.  I would like to think as christians we woukd put aside our comfort for a while in hopes that a soul might be saved.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sin by character is wicked.  Sin by definition is any transgression against the will or Word of God.

1.  Matthew 5:27-28 -- "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery.  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in her heart."  Herein our Lord Jesus Christ was NOT cancelling the prohibition against adultery, as if it no longer applied.  Rather, herein our Lord Jesus Christ was revealing that sexual lust in one's heart is equally as offensive in the sight of God as sexual adultery in one's actions.  Clearly the emphasis that our Lord provides is upon the behavior of the male gender (although this does not exclude the application of the principle from the female gender).  Furthermore, the emphasis that our Lord provides is upon the HEART-behavior of the individual, not just upon the outward-behavior of the individual.  The specific HEART-behavior that our Lord confronts and condemns is that of lusting after a woman.  This sinful scenario begins with a look, that carries a purpose or result of lusting within after a woman.  No further action is necessary.  Our Lord clearly states that this internal lusting after the woman is in the sight of God a commission of ADULTERY with her ALREADY in his heart.  She does not have to agree.  She does not have to even know.  How she is attired does not matter.  Our Lord Jesus Christ did not grant any avenue of excuse for the man.  He has already committed a wicked sin against the Lord his God.  Culture is irrelevant; it is a matter of the heart in the sight of the Lord God.

2.  1 Timothy 2:9-10 -- "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."  Herein we find a New Testament instruction that clearly places its emphasis upon the behavior of the female gender (although this does not exclude the application of the principle from the male gender).  Furthermore, the emphasis of this instruction concerns the external apparel and attire of women professing godliness.  Women of God are required by the Lord our God to adorn themselves in a modest manner.  This is the opposite of a "show-offish" manner.  In that time the most common purpose for showing-off concerned one's material wealth or physical beauty.  Thus the passage provides such examples of showiness as "broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."  However, the precept for "modest apparel" is all inclusive, encompassing any manner of showiness.  Even so, in our time another common purpose for showing-off concerns one's sexiness and sexual attraction.  This also would be contrary to the precept for modest apparel.  Yet the passage does not emphasize only the matter of external apparel, but also indicates that a woman's choice of modest apparel should be founded upon a modest spirit, "with shamefacedness and sobriety."  Such would be equivalent to the "meek and quiet spirit" of 1 Peter 3:4, "which is in the sight OF GOD of great price."  Finally, the passage emphasizes that women of God are to pursue the spiritual adornment and attractiveness of good, godly works.  Thus a woman of God is to be filled with a Spirit-filled attitude of modesty and meekness, to be externally adorned with modest apparel and attire, and to be spiritually adorned with good works.  Certainly, the culture may change its fashions of showiness; however, the precept against showiness remains in any cultural setting.  For a woman of God to transgress any part of this instruction is for her to commit a wicked sin against the Lord her God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sin by character is wicked.  Sin by definition is any transgression against the will or Word of God.

nice try, not buying it. I specifically requested biblical support for your opinions on clothing and how a woman's "immodest dress" directly causes a man (any man) to sin. I requested citations, proper exegesis and looking at the cultural and historical context. You went off on a tangent. That doesn't work with me. Try it again. 

 

15 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Women of God are required by the Lord our God to adorn themselves in a modest manner. 

Modest how? Outwardly, or with a gentle spirit? I can dress in the most "modest" way imaginable and yet be immodest by calling attention to how modest I am. 

Also, in that quote, where's the idea that men would "stumble"? 

15 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, the emphasis that our Lord provides is upon the HEART-behavior of the individual, not just upon the outward-behavior of the individual.  The specific HEART-behavior that our Lord confronts and condemns is that of lusting after a woman.  This sinful scenario begins with a look, that carries a purpose or result of lusting within after a woman.  No further action is necessary.  Our Lord clearly states that this internal lusting after the woman is in the sight of God a commission of ADULTERY with her ALREADY in his heart.  She does not have to agree.  She does not have to even know.  How she is attired does not matter.

Hmm....there's that pesky idea of self-control again. 

I'm currently wearing a scoop neck, short-sleeved top with appropriate underthings, and a skirt that goes to mid-calf. Some random guy might get turned on by the lumps on my chest that can't be hidden unless I wear a tent. Is it my problem he goes nuts? Nope. It's not. My physical attributes do not exist just to make some guy get hormonal. 

Again, a man's reaction to my clothing is not my problem. HE needs to discover that my existence is not to blame for whatever thoughts go popping into his head. 

But...men are convinced (by the church) that they're nothing more than meat sacks of uncontrollable hormones. If you're silly enough to buy that, you've just lowered yourself to being an animal. Animals can't control their lusts. Men can. 

PS...I broke my sons of saying "I couldn't help it" very early in their lives. They were taught they were fully responsible for every word and action in their lives. I broke them of blaming someone or something else too. My response to "He/She made me...." was this: "Was someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do/say whatever it was? No? Then you did it because you wanted to do it." They take full responsibility for everything they do, even if it's something they shouldn't have done. 

Edited by Saved41199
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

2 hours ago, Thief on the Cross said:

Brother Stafford, may I ask how you would respond to the original question...

 

On 8/27/2018 at 3:44 PM, Thief on the Cross said:

Well they have this woman that attends every once in awhile.   She dresses , well like the world,  the bible would call it a harlot.   Anyway, she is unsaved as of yet.   She wears what my friend says is "cleavage first" and a short skirt... Opinions on what you might do?   

If a woman was dressed as you described, either myself or someone else given the task (preferably another woman), would speak to her in the same manner as if she entered in a bikini or her undergarments and tell her that we would love to have her attend our services but that she needs to wear something more appropriate.  If she doesn't understand what that means, the person speaking with her would give her examples of what would be acceptable.  We would make sure to repeat that we are looking forward to fellowshipping with her (or him).  This would be done with kindness.

If they are offended by that and decide not to return, like I have said before, I have no problem with that.  We are not responsible for making sure every lost person comes to Christ.  We are responsible for sharing the Gospel with them.  However, just as I would not enter a lingerie store or a strip club in order to share the Gospel, I would not allow the Lingerie store or strip club into a church. 

Jesus ate with publicans and sinners (Mark 2:13-17), but He didn't invite them to the temple.  In fact, Jesus got quite angry at the temple:

Quote

(John 2:13-17) "¶ And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, {14} And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: {15} And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; {16} And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. {17} And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up."

I wonder if that caused any of the bystanders (or , perhaps Roman or Greek visitors) to not want to return or listen to what He had to say.  He also had quite a few harsh words to say to the scribes and the Pharisees while at the temple (Mt. 23, Mt. 24:1) that I am sure may have put many visitors off.

Quote

(Luke 9:3-6) "And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. {4} And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart. {5} And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. {6} And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where."

He was telling His disciples to share the Gospel everywhere, but that if they are rejected, to not dwell on it and to move on.  This is my feeling about visitors in churches.  They are welcome, but they cannot be disruptive in dress or behavior.  If that offends them, let them go on their way.  If they can't handle being told that they need to dress appropriately, then how are they going to handle hearing some of the convicting preaching about sin and Hell?

P.S. It is my personal opinion that churches should use caution when allowing visitors to attend.  I believe that the majority of the soul-winning of the lost should be done outside of church.  I feel strongly that members should only invite guests that they have spoken with and who have shown at least some sort of interest in the things of God.  There are plenty of things that believers can hear preached and can understand, but that would confuse or put off the still lost.  There have been instances where visitors from other churches or even other denominations have caused discord among existing members.  These are a few examples why I believe we should use caution with visitors, and, as I said, it is only my opinion.

P.P.S. It just occurred to me that I can't recall guests and visitors being mentioned in the epistles.  Now I want to go see if I can find some verses about the subject.

 

Edited by Brother Stafford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
31 minutes ago, Saved41199 said:

nice try, not buying it. I specifically requested biblical support for your opinions on clothing and how a woman's "immodest dress" directly causes a man (any man) to sin. I requested citations, proper exegesis and looking at the cultural and historical context. You went off on a tangent. That doesn't work with me. Try it again. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Well, the emboldened part of your quote above is where you have your failure in relation to my earlier posting.  My earlier posting NO WHERE indicated that a woman's immodest dress CAUSES a man to sin, or that she is AT ALL responsible for his sin.  I have NO NEED to support that opinion, specifically because it is NOT my opinion.  Rather, my earlier posting indicated that a man is at fault for sin against the Lord his God through lust REGARDLESS of the woman's behavior.  You might want to read again, as follows:

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  If a saved man lusts after a woman (that is not his wife), it is a wicked sin against the Lord his God and Savior.  It does not matter if the woman is dressed immodestly or modestly.  That man committed sin against the Lord, and HE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would be true in reverse for a saved woman who lusts as well.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon men; therefore, I have done the same.) (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Furthermore, my earlier posting also indicated that a woman is at fault for sin against the Lord her God if she wears immodest apparel, REGARDLESS of whether a man chooses to lust after her or not.  You might want to read again, as follows:

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  If a saved woman dresses immodestly within a public arena (not in the privacy of her relationship with her husband), it is a wicked sin against the Lord her God and Savior.  It does not matter if a man lusts after her or not, or even if a man is actually present who might lust after her.  That woman committed sin against the Lord, and SHE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would also be true in reverse for a saved man who dresses immodestly.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon women; therefore, I have done the same.) (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

My additional posting, as per your request, provided the two Biblical passages wherein the two Biblical commands are provided for the two positions that I presented in my previous posting.  The man in point #1 has committed sin because he transgressed the command of Matthew 5:28.  The woman in point #2 has committed sin because she transgressed the command of 1 Timothy 2:9-10.  It really does not matter what any other person may or may not do.  Breaking the respective command in each case IS SIN.

By the way, in my earlier posting there was also NO hint of BLAME SHIFTING.  Each individual is responsible before the Lord God for his or her OWN behavior, whether it be obedient or disobedient to the respective command of God's Word.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Brother Stafford said:

P.S. It is my personal opinion that churches should use caution when allowing visitors to attend.  I believe that the majority of the soul-winning of the lost should be done outside of church.  I feel strongly that members should only invite guests that they have spoken with and who have shown at least some sort of interest in the things of God.  There are plenty of things that believers can hear preached and can understand, but that would confuse or put off the still lost.  There have been instances where visitors from other churches or even other denominations have caused discord among existing members.  These are a few examples why I believe we should use caution with visitors, and, as I said, it is only my opinion.

So you have to show your membership card and secret decoder ring to get in the door? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 8/9/2018 at 7:28 PM, Alan said:

I Timothy 3:15, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

The “house of God” that Paul is referring to the local assembly of the believers. The Apostle Paul is admonishing Timothy to behave himself in the local assembly of believers; the church. The local church was an assembly in an area of a community. It was the visible assembly of the saints in the New Testament. The church may be in a house, a rented building, or a building that was bought for the purpose of the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In 1 and 2 Timothy Paul the Apostle give Timothy, and every saint in the New Testament, instructions “how” to behave himself in the local assembly of believers in the church. 

 

 

All visitors are cordially welcomed to visit churches.

All of the churches that we have started we have welcomed all folks, with all types of backgrounds, with opened arms.

All people should learn "how" they should behave in the "house of God." The church is, or at least should be, "...the house of God." The invisible head of the New Testament church is the Lord Jesus Christ and the pastor is his under-shepherd. The godly Pastor (please note the word 'godly'), knows the difference between 'modest' apparel and 'immodest' apparel.  

The "Progressive" churches, liberal churches, and many other churches in our Laodicean Age, are not teaching the saints, nor the sinners, "how to behave in the house of God." Part of the reason is that they are not 'godly.'

Those saints who refuse (after careful teaching),to learn "how to behave in the house of God," should not be in a position of authority in the church nor represent the church in any fashion.

Included on "how to behave in the house of God," is: our speech, our behaviour, our dress, our actions, our doctrines, our attitudes, and our compassion shown towards others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 minutes ago, Saved41199 said:

So you have to show your membership card and secret decoder ring to get in the door? 

Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.  We're not actually a church.  We're just using that as a front to push Ovaltine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Saved41199 said:

So you have to show your membership card and secret decoder ring to get in the door? 

Sarcastic comments such as this are unbecoming to Christians. I, for one, can do without them and would encourage your future comments written in a godly manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well I guess there are differing opinions on how an unbeliever should be treated .  I guess we will all have to answer to the Lord for what we do.   

Also another thing that I wonder is are we supposed to be erecting large buildings to hold our meetings in.  Is this building the "house of God"?  Or are we the house of God.   Is God dwelling there if we are not?     Why do we put up signs, with service times,  special events and such.   Or do you have "everyone welcone" .  Is it true?    What I believe reflects how I treat unbelievers, because I was one.  

We had a man who would come in stinking of alcohol,  he was not disruptive,   but he stunk.   We were happy he was there.   He heard the gospel many times over a few months.   We bring a boy often , who also smells badly .   We pick him up and need to put the windows down he smells so awful.    His parents couldnt care less.    He never bathes or has clothing washed.   We have washed his clothing a few times  when we brought him home and given him clothing, but they quickly become like the rest, as he never takes them off.     We believe we are doing the right thing bringing him to church or including him in activities.    This would also be considered poor behavior.    Why are certain things ok or acceptable so they can be reached and not others.      I would never say to him he cant attend unless he cleans himself up first.   He doesn't know any better .    I also believe the same of the Lady who attends in what she believes is a nice outfit.   

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 minutes ago, Thief on the Cross said:

Well I guess there are differing opinions on how an unbeliever should be treated .  I guess we will all have to answer to the Lord for what we do.   

Also another thing that I wonder is are we supposed to be erecting large buildings to hold our meetings in.  Is this building the "house of God"?  Or are we the house of God.   Is God dwelling there if we are not?     Why do we put up signs, with service times,  special events and such.   Or do you have "everyone welcone" .  Is it true?    What I believe reflects how I treat unbelievers, because I was one.  

We had a man who would come in stinking of alcohol,  he was not disruptive,   but he stunk.   We were happy he was there.   He heard the gospel many times over a few months.   We bring a boy often , who also smells badly .   We pick him up and need to put the windows down he smells so awful.    His parents couldnt care less.    He never bathes or has clothing washed.   We have washed his clothing a few times  when we brought him home and given him clothing, but they quickly become like the rest, as he never takes them off.     We believe we are doing the right thing bringing him to church or including him in activities.    This would also be considered poor behavior.    Why are certain things ok or acceptable so they can be reached and not others.      I would never say to him he cant attend unless he cleans himself up first.   He doesn't know any better .    I also believe the same of the Lady who attends in what she believes is a nice outfit.   

Sister,

Please understand that I myself do NOT stand in complete agreement with Brother Stafford on this matter.  Nevertheless, I would recognize that your comparative examples above are something like comparing "apples to cucumbers."  Smelling badly is NOT a moral issue.  Dressing immodestly (toward that which God's Word defines as "nakedness") IS a moral issue.  The two issues are NOT an equivalent comparison.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 minutes ago, Thief on the Cross said:

Well I guess there are differing opinions on how an unbeliever should be treated .

No, I believe we all agree that an unbeliever  should be treated with as much dignity and respect as anyone else.  With regard to our subject of modesty in church, we can uphold standards without treating people poorly.

We had a man who would come in stinking of alcohol,  he was not disruptive, but he stunk.   We were happy he was there.   He heard the gospel many times over a few months.   We bring a boy often , who also smells badly .   We pick him up and need to put the windows down he smells so awful.    His parents couldnt care less.    He never bathes or has clothing washed.   We have washed his clothing a few times  when we brought him home and given him clothing, but they quickly become like the rest, as he never takes them off.     We believe we are doing the right thing bringing him to church or including him in activities.    This would also be considered poor behavior.    Why are certain things ok or acceptable so they can be reached and not others.      I would never say to him he cant attend unless he cleans himself up first.      

I agree with how your church is welcoming them, helping them and sharing the Gospel with them.   You mentioned that they are dirty, but made no mention of them being dressed immodestly.  One can be dirty and dressed modestly at the same time.

He doesn't know any better.  I also believe the same of the Lady who attends in what she believes is a nice outfit.   

It is true that many women, adult or youngsters, do not understand what appropriate clothing is.  That is why we teach them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 minutes ago, Thief on the Cross said:

Well I guess there are differing opinions on how an unbeliever should be treated .  I guess we will all have to answer to the Lord for what we do.   

Also another thing that I wonder is are we supposed to be erecting large buildings to hold our meetings in.  Is this building the "house of God"?  Or are we the house of God.   Is God dwelling there if we are not?     Why do we put up signs, with service times,  special events and such.   Or do you have "everyone welcone" .  Is it true?    What I believe reflects how I treat unbelievers, because I was one.  

We had a man who would come in stinking of alcohol,  he was not disruptive,   but he stunk.   We were happy he was there.   He heard the gospel many times over a few months.   We bring a boy often , who also smells badly .   We pick him up and need to put the windows down he smells so awful.    His parents couldnt care less.    He never bathes or has clothing washed.   We have washed his clothing a few times  when we brought him home and given him clothing, but they quickly become like the rest, as he never takes them off.     We believe we are doing the right thing bringing him to church or including him in activities.    This would also be considered poor behavior.    Why are certain things ok or acceptable so they can be reached and not others.      I would never say to him he cant attend unless he cleans himself up first.   He doesn't know any better .    I also believe the same of the Lady who attends in what she believes is a nice outfit.   

 

 

 

 

 

Don't stop doing what you're doing. You know, this very thing turned my son off from the last church he was a member of. My son was in charge of the bus ministry at his IFB church and had begun bringing some kids like that. But one day his pastor called him aside to tell him, during "fellowship", to have these kids sit in a separate room and bring them takeout plates AFTER everyone else had gone through the line. When my son later went to him to question him about this, the pastor began a progression of retaliation towards my son and ended up taking  him off the bus ministry. THAT is the "Behavior" which "stinks" in the nostrils of God.

James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Continue treating your lady visitor, and the rest, like honored guests. It is LOVE that draws people to Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...