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.

How about discussing protestant churches that confuse politics with Christianity?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Seems to me there are churches who confuse both their culture and politics with Christianity. What do you think?

I think that you have not provided enough information for us to understand the primary point or contextual purpose of your question. 

Do I think that such confusion sometimes occurs?  Yes.  Do I think that such confusion necessarily occurs?  No.  Do I think that some might accuse others of such confusion, but actually be wrong in their accusation?  Yes.  Do I think that my "politics" should be completely separated somehow from my Biblical Christianity?  NO, GOD FORBID!!!!  In fact, I would forcefully contend that my "politics" and my discernment of "politics" should EVER AND ALWAYS be submitted to my Biblical Christianity.

In truth, BIBLICAL Christianity IS my culture (since, as a child of God, I am NOT of this world, even as my Savior is not of this world); and the culture of this present, evil world around me is by foundational nature in OPPOSITION to my BIBLICAL Christianity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If a church isn't holding a campaign from it's pulpit or pressuring members to vote a certsin way then I don't see a problem. But with the obsession with politics today I would prefer to not hear about it when I go to church. Church should be a time to focus on the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I can't reply to this myself. I am an Independent Baptist, so I don't visit "Protestant Churches".

I was using 'protestant' as a generic term. Thus, I consider independent churches, not Catholic or Orthodix, of any strip protest protestant in this discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I do understand that the word "Protestant" is used as a generic term by many. Personally I object to it simply because it implies that anything not Roman Catholic is Protestant. This is probably true for most, if not all Protestant Christian churches, but is definitely not true for Baptist churches.

The world wants to lump Baptists in with Protestants, which they are not and never have been. So, I am very cautious when someone tries to teach that Baptists are Protestants.

But I don't want to drag your thread off topic, so I will leave it with these two quotes showing why I object to the term "Protestant" in regard to Baptists.

John Clark Ridpath, Methodist, author of that monumental work Ridpath’s History of the World, in a letter to Dr. W.A. Jarrell (Baptist Church Perpetuity, pg. 59) says: “I should not readily admit that there were Baptist churches as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were Baptists.”

Professor Wm. C. Duncan, of the Department of Greek and Latin, University of Louisiana: “Baptists do not, as most Protestant denominations, date their origin from the Reformation of 1520. By means of that great movement they were brought out of comparative obscurity into prominent notice. They did not, however, originate with the Reformation; for long before Luther lived; yea, long before the Catholic Church itself was known, Baptist and Baptist churches flourished in Europe, Asia and Africa.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I do understand that the word "Protestant" is used as a generic term by many. Personally I object to it simply because it implies that anything not Roman Catholic is Protestant. This is probably true for most, if not all Protestant Christian churches, but is definitely not true for Baptist churches.

The world wants to lump Baptists in with Protestants, which they are not and never have been. So, I am very cautious when someone tries to teach that Baptists are Protestants.

But I don't want to drag your thread off topic, so I will leave it with these two quotes showing why I object to the term "Protestant" in regard to Baptists.

John Clark Ridpath, Methodist, author of that monumental work Ridpath’s History of the World, in a letter to Dr. W.A. Jarrell (Baptist Church Perpetuity, pg. 59) says: “I should not readily admit that there were Baptist churches as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were Baptists.”

Professor Wm. C. Duncan, of the Department of Greek and Latin, University of Louisiana: “Baptists do not, as most Protestant denominations, date their origin from the Reformation of 1520. By means of that great movement they were brought out of comparative obscurity into prominent notice. They did not, however, originate with the Reformation; for long before Luther lived; yea, long before the Catholic Church itself was known, Baptist and Baptist churches flourished in Europe, Asia and Africa.”

Yes, I understand that historically Baptist and Anabaptist were established as a protest that Luther and others did not go far enough. You are right, most people lump Baptist's and Anabaptist's  into the Protestant Camp. Most people lump all Orthodox churches into either the Greek or Russian Orthodox church. That is also inaccurate. Most folk know little or nothing about the violence of early Baptist's and Anabaptist's, such as the Münster rebellion. More know about the violence in Geneva when Calvin was 'in charge'. 

I believe throughout history people have confused their culture with Christianity and politicians have used Christians, manipulated them is probably more accurate, To me this has been very evident in our country throughout our history and especially recently. And teachings and emphasis changes as time goes by. 

I grew up in a rural Southern Baptist Church. We were taught tolerance of others even to the point of defending another right to be wrong. But we expected the same tolerance in return. That certainly has changed during my lifetime to intolerance of others. Looking back I can see that the southern culture I grew up in was confused with Christianity. While Roman Catholics were look down upon the worst person, in religious terms, was a Norther Baptist. Also, when I was a kid a Black person would not have been welcomed into that little rural church. The older generation were people of their time just as we are people of our time. But, they were basically good people and they laid the foundation on which I stand today ... even thought many would no longer agree with my beliefs. One of the greatest gifts they gave me was their unconditional love as I grew up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Yes, I understand that historically Baptist and Anabaptist were established as a protest that Luther and others did not go far enough. You are right, most people lump Baptist's and Anabaptist's  into the Protestant Camp. Most people lump all Orthodox churches into either the Greek or Russian Orthodox church. That is also inaccurate. Most folk know little or nothing about the violence of early Baptist's and Anabaptist's, such as the Münster rebellion. More know about the violence in Geneva when Calvin was 'in charge'. 

I believe throughout history people have confused their culture with Christianity and politicians have used Christians, manipulated them is probably more accurate, To me this has been very evident in our country throughout our history and especially recently. And teachings and emphasis changes as time goes by. 

I grew up in a rural Southern Baptist Church. We were taught tolerance of others even to the point of defending another right to be wrong. But we expected the same tolerance in return. That certainly has changed during my lifetime to intolerance of others. Looking back I can see that the southern culture I grew up in was confused with Christianity. While Roman Catholics were look down upon the worst person, in religious terms, was a Norther Baptist. Also, when I was a kid a Black person would not have been welcomed into that little rural church. The older generation were people of their time just as we are people of our time. But, they were basically good people and they laid the foundation on which I stand today ... even thought many would no longer agree with my beliefs. One of the greatest gifts they gave me was their unconditional love as I grew up. 

I agree somewhat with you. While I'm disgusted with all the monument destruction going on and oppose the removal of them unless there can be a consensus I did recently hear a preacher say that an attack on a Confederate memorial is an attack on Christianity which baffled me. Does he even know that Robert E. Lee opposed these things (at least statues of himself) on the basis that they would be divisive? I understand pride in your heritage (though pride goes before a fall) but that was a ridiculous statement, IMO. Incidentally, the "Christian monument" was an obelisk and we all know what that represents.

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SureWord said:

I agree somewhat with you. While I'm disgusted with all the monument destruction going on and oppose the removal of them unless there can be a consensus I did recently hear a preacher say that an attack on a Confederate memorial is an attack on Christianity which baffled me. Does he even know that Robert E. Lee opposed these things (at least statues of himself) on the basis that they would be divisive? I understand pride in your heritage (though pride goes before a fall) but that was a ridiculous statement, IMO. Incidentally, the "Christian monument" was an obelisk and we all know what that represents.

I certainly think the preacher you mentioned was incorrect in comparing a statue of Lee with Christianity. That is a good example of confusing culture/history with Christianity. He probably would not appreciate my saying that Christ, while on earth, was neither White nor an American from the South. I can speak more about the southern culture being confused as being Christian as I grew up in the South. I can't speak about the North or West. Surely they have their own problems.

I was in the same platoon at Ft. Gordon, GA with a full blooded Nez Perce Indian. He told me of the white prejudice against Native Americans and the discrimination they suffered in Idaho. I've lived long enough and traveled enough to know there is no region in our country that does not have such problems in one way or another. 

I have traveled enough to know there are similar problems in every country. For instance I was in Europe, I won't say which country as it is very widespread, and heard a person say, "Hitler did not do a good enough job killing the Roma, (gypsies). In that country I came to believe that if a train hit a chicken a Roma would be accused of killing the chicken. 

I look at history and around the world and cannot fathom how people who call themselves Christian can defend and support exceedingly immoral people as their leader. 

On statues, they have never bothered me one way or the other. I did not view them as celebrating but as remembering. Perhaps I have had a blind spot. To me the statues and buildings commemorating Woodrow Wilson should be removed. He was a complete racist. When he went into office the Civil Service was integrated. He had all the African Americans fired and made it illegal for the Civil Service to hire any person of color. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
19 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Yes, I understand that historically Baptist and Anabaptist were established as a protest that Luther and others did not go far enough.

Baptist and Anabaptist were well established long before Luther and the reformation. They were certainly not established as a protest to Luther. They preached against Luther because his movement retained most of the Roman Catholic heresy; but they predated Luther by 1520 years.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Baptist and Anabaptist were well established long before Luther and the reformation. They were certainly not established as a protest to Luther. They preached against Luther because his movement retained most of the Roman Catholic heresy; but they predated Luther by 1520 years.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Just curious. Where do you put Jan Huss on the theological spectrum?

 

1 minute ago, Bouncing Bill said:
7 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Baptist and Anabaptist were well established long before Luther and the reformation. They were certainly not established as a protest to Luther. They preached against Luther because his movement retained most of the Roman Catholic heresy; but they predated Luther by 1520 years.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

In your view, where and when did the Baptist and Anabaptist begin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
6 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Just curious. Where do you put Jan Huss on the theological spectrum?

 

In your view, where and when did the Baptist and Anabaptist begin?

I was not familiar with Jan Hus, so had to look him up. It would seem that he was an 'early" reformer and as such was not associated with what we know as "The Reformation of 1520' led by Matrin Luther. In doing some brief research concerning him, it would seem that he, just like the later reformers, held to most Catholic dogma, while refuting certain other Catholic beliefs and practices. As such I could never consider him in any line of Baptists. It seems as though he remained a Priest for the rest of his days.

Baptists began with John the Baptist, so proclaimed by inspiration of the God, The Holy Spirit. Baptist was his title, not his name, so he was named by God Himself.

Matthew 3:1 (KJV) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

The name Anabaptist was given to certain people and churches by their enemies, namely The Roman Catholic Church. They were so called because of their firm belief that anyone that came to them after first having been baptised in the Roman church, or not Scripturally baptised must then be rebaptised.
Ana = re, so then "baptized". Anabaptist, or rebaptiser.

Anabaptist is a generic term that was applied to any and all who would not recognise the baptism of the Roman Church as valid. Many times they were called by the names of their leaders, such as, Waldenses, Bogomils, Donatists, But the Roman authorities categorized then all as Anbaptists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I was not familiar with Jan Hus, so had to look him up. It would seem that he was an 'early" reformer and as such was not associated with what we know as "The Reformation of 1520' led by Matrin Luther. In doing some brief research concerning him, it would seem that he, just like the later reformers, held to most Catholic dogma, while refuting certain other Catholic beliefs and practices. As such I could never consider him in any line of Baptists. It seems as though he remained a Priest for the rest of his days.

Baptists began with John the Baptist, so proclaimed by inspiration of the God, The Holy Spirit. Baptist was his title, not his name.

Matthew 3:1 (KJV) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

The name Anabaptist was given to certain people and churches by their enemies. They were so called because of their firm belief that anyone that came to them after first having been baptised in the Roman church, or not Scripturally baptised must then be rebaptised.
Ana = re, so then "baptized". Anabaptist, or rebaptiser.

Well, I respectfully disagree with your history on John the Baptist being the first "Baptist." Many believe he was an Essene. The Essene's practiced baptism. He did baptize and that is why he was call the baptist. Probably a better translation would be "John the Baptizer." I am not a Greek scholar, so I am surmising this. Indeed I have read that some traditions call him by that term. Also he has been called John the Immerser.  John is revered by Christians, Muslims, the Bahai and the Mandaeisms. The Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions him. I wish the Bible had more about him. Indeed, there are many people, areas, and occurrences that I wish the Bible have more about. There is nothing that I know of in any literature about any group called Baptists or Anabaptistsfrom that era until the 16th century. 

Jan Huss was a powerful preacher. Unfortunately he trusted the Pope's promise of safe passage to the Council of Constance to defend his beliefs. He was, in my opinion, murdered in Konstanz, Germany by his Catholic opponents. This led to the horrible Hussite wars. There is more, but I don't want to bore you. 

I do not consider myself an expert historian. I do find history interesting and usually am reading a book on some era in the past, sometimes religious history, and sometimes secular. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2020 at 1:49 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

John was named The Baptist, by  God before he ever baptized anyone. He was not named such because of what he did.

Regarding Jan Hus and his unfortunate life and demise, he was never a Baptist by any stretch of the imagination.

I respectfully disagree. I do not know of any reference to John being a Baptist, a baptizer, yes. Yes he did baptize people. Yes, he preached that someone greater was coming and that he was not the messiah.  

In what way was he a Baptist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

This is not difficult to understand, John was the first Baptist, so named by God, The Holy Spirit and affirmed by Jesus Himself.

Matthew 3:1 (KJV) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

Matthew 11:11 (KJV) Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 17:13 (KJV) Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

So then, John was the first Baptist; he baptised Jesus, making Jesus a Baptist; Jesus started the first church; making the first church a Baptist Church.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Administrators
On 7/14/2020 at 4:51 AM, Bouncing Bill said:

I respectfully disagree. I do not know of any reference to John being a Baptist, a baptizer, yes. Yes he did baptize people. Yes, he preached that someone greater was coming and that he was not the messiah.  

In what way was he a Baptist?

Bill, he was named "The Baptist" by God, The Hoy Spirit before he ever baptized anyone. It is a title, not a name. anyone he baptized after this, including Jesus, made them a Baptist also. If you have John's baptism or are baptized by a Baptist, this makes you a Baptist.

So, you stated that you did not know of any reference to John being a Baptist, I think this qualifies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bill, he was named "The Baptist" by God, The Holy Spirit before he ever baptized anyone. It is a title, not a name. anyone he baptized after this, including Jesus, made them a Baptist also. If you have John's baptism or are baptized by a Baptist, this makes you a Baptist.

So, you stated that you did not know of any reference to John being a Baptist, I think this qualifies.

It is a matter of interpretation.

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   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 5 Guests (See full list)

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