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.

Calvinism


Recommended Posts

  • Members
16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

False.  My questions are assuming no such things.  They say nothing about "deserving" grace, nor do they say anything whatsoever at all about fairness.  In fact, you have already asked me questions about God's fairness and about whether anyone "deserves" God's grace.  And I have directly answered your questions.  What I desire is for you as a Calvinist to acknowledge the doctrinal realities of your own system of belief, NOT to try to tell me what I assume in my system of belief.  If you want to ask me direct questions about my system of belief, I will answer them and will even present Scriptural support for my answers.  However, what I have found is that when I ask you direct questions about your system of belief, you avoid giving direct answers to my questions, and then respond with Calvinistic rhetoric without providing any Scriptural support for your answers.  

Certainly this is correct, but it is NOT actual reality; for the Lord our God and Savior HAS chosen to save sinners, AND He has directly revealed His specific plan on the matter through His Holy Word.  The issue is NOT, and NEVER has been, what God COULD have done.  The issue IS what God HAS done, and what He has REVEALED about what He has done.  If a system of belief is not accurate according to God's own revealed Word, then it is false.  It is that simple.  Support your system of belief from the actual, grammatical, contextual doctrine of God's Holy Word; or you have NO authoritative ground for your system of belief.

Thus, not only do my questions remain before you, but also my challenge remains before you --

 

Are you then a classical Arminian in  salvation theology then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 minutes ago, Yeshuafan said:

Are you then a classical Arminian in  salvation theology then?

No, sir.  I would NOT hold with classical Arminianism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "prevenient grace," nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "regenerating grace."  Rather, I would hold that the manner of God's intervention is Biblically and very strictly "drawing grace."  Furthermore, I would NOT hold with Arminianism concerning any ability to lose or willfully depart from eternal salvation once the gift has been applied by God, nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning "perseverance of the saints."  Rather, I would hold to a Biblical view of eternal security, while also holding to a Biblical view of "carnal believers" and "backslidden believers."

On the other hand, I would hold with Arminianism on the three other "traditional" points of the five, since those three other points are mutually exclusive, possessing no third option.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "limited atonement," but would hold that Christ died for EVERY member of sinful humanity.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "unconditional election," but would hold that God's work of election/predestination concerns all of the blessings that are involved in the "package" of eternal salvation, and that God predetermined to give these blessings unto those whom He foreknew would be in Christ through faith.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "irresistible grace" (since in the Calvinistic system of belief "irresistible grace" is equivalent to "pre-regenerating grace"), but would hold that God's gracious work of "drawing" most certainly CAN be willfully resisted and rejected by lost sinners (and indeed is so rejected by a great majority of them).  However, I do NOT necessarily hold with classical Arminianism concerning all of the various "details" that they may include within their teaching of these three points.  

You see, I do not really care overall what is taught within either the Calvinistic system or the Arminian system, per se (except wherein they may present falsehood in contradiction with God's Holy Word).  Rather, I care what God's Holy Word precisely teaches on any given subject.  Thus also I am willing to confront ANY group wherein I believe they have departed from that precise teaching (even as I have demonstrated in this very thread discussion, by confronting you concerning your Calvinistic system of belief and by confronting my fellow Fundamental Baptists concerning their "non-accountability of babies" system of belief).

__________________________________________

Now, let it be once again noted that I have provided a direct answer to your direct question.  Yet I am still waiting for you to provide a direct answer to my direct questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No, sir.  I would NOT hold with classical Arminianism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "prevenient grace," nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "regenerating grace."  Rather, I would hold that the manner of God's intervention is Biblically and very strictly "drawing grace."  Furthermore, I would NOT hold with Arminianism concerning any ability to lose or willfully depart from eternal salvation once the gift has been applied by God, nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning "perseverance of the saints."  Rather, I would hold to a Biblical view of eternal security, while also holding to a Biblical view of "carnal believers" and "backslidden believers."

On the other hand, I would hold with Arminianism on the three other "traditional" points of the five, since those three other points are mutually exclusive, possessing no third option.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "limited atonement," but would hold that Christ died for EVERY member of sinful humanity.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "unconditional election," but would hold that God's work of election/predestination concerns all of the blessings that are involved in the "package" of eternal salvation, and that God predetermined to give these blessings unto those whom He foreknew would be in Christ through faith.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "irresistible grace" (since in the Calvinistic system of belief "irresistible grace" is equivalent to "pre-regenerating grace"), but would hold that God's gracious work of "drawing" most certainly CAN be willfully resisted and rejected by lost sinners (and indeed is so rejected by a great majority of them).  However, I do NOT necessarily hold with classical Arminianism concerning all of the various "details" that they may include within their teaching of these three points.  

You see, I do not really care overall what is taught within either the Calvinistic system or the Arminian system, per se (except wherein they may present falsehood in contradiction with God's Holy Word).  Rather, I care what God's Holy Word precisely teaches on any given subject.  Thus also I am willing to confront ANY group wherein I believe they have departed from that precise teaching (even as I have demonstrated in this very thread discussion, by confronting you concerning your Calvinistic system of belief and by confronting my fellow Fundamental Baptists concerning their "non-accountability of babies" system of belief).

__________________________________________

Now, let it be once again noted that I have provided a direct answer to your direct question.  Yet I am still waiting for you to provide a direct answer to my direct questions.

Your questions seem to be though assuming that somehow God would not be fair nor gracious if not all were saved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

Your questions seem to be though assuming that somehow God would not be fair nor gracious if not all were saved?

Nope. My questions are assuming nothing. They are worded precisely as they are intended, asking whether certain characteristics are accurate to your Calvinistic system of belief. They are asking nothing more, and nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Someone once said they were "an Arminian before the cross and a Calvinist after the cross". What the were implying is there is freewill in accepting the free gift of salvation but after getting saved there was no freewill to reject your salvation. You are eternally preserved whether you like it or not. 

8 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No, sir.  I would NOT hold with classical Arminianism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "prevenient grace," nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "regenerating grace."  Rather, I would hold that the manner of God's intervention is Biblically and very strictly "drawing grace."  Furthermore, I would NOT hold with Arminianism concerning any ability to lose or willfully depart from eternal salvation once the gift has been applied by God, nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning "perseverance of the saints."  Rather, I would hold to a Biblical view of eternal security, while also holding to a Biblical view of "carnal believers" and "backslidden believers."

On the other hand, I would hold with Arminianism on the three other "traditional" points of the five, since those three other points are mutually exclusive, possessing no third option.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "limited atonement," but would hold that Christ died for EVERY member of sinful humanity.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "unconditional election," but would hold that God's work of election/predestination concerns all of the blessings that are involved in the "package" of eternal salvation, and that God predetermined to give these blessings unto those whom He foreknew would be in Christ through faith.  Thus I would NOT hold with Calvinism on "irresistible grace" (since in the Calvinistic system of belief "irresistible grace" is equivalent to "pre-regenerating grace"), but would hold that God's gracious work of "drawing" most certainly CAN be willfully resisted and rejected by lost sinners (and indeed is so rejected by a great majority of them).  However, I do NOT necessarily hold with classical Arminianism concerning all of the various "details" that they may include within their teaching of these three points.  

You see, I do not really care overall what is taught within either the Calvinistic system or the Arminian system, per se (except wherein they may present falsehood in contradiction with God's Holy Word).  Rather, I care what God's Holy Word precisely teaches on any given subject.  Thus also I am willing to confront ANY group wherein I believe they have departed from that precise teaching (even as I have demonstrated in this very thread discussion, by confronting you concerning your Calvinistic system of belief and by confronting my fellow Fundamental Baptists concerning their "non-accountability of babies" system of belief).

__________________________________________

Now, let it be once again noted that I have provided a direct answer to your direct question.  Yet I am still waiting for you to provide a direct answer to my direct questions.

It's ironic, but to me the teaching of "perseverance of the saints" always sounded like an Arminian doctrine and if you followed it to its logical conclusion it is such because it is centered on the believer's works. "Preservation of the Saints" is a much more scriptural term.

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Someone once said they were "an Arminian before the cross and a Calvinist after the cross". What the were implying is there is freewill in accepting the free gift of salvation but after getting saved there was no freewill to reject your salvation. You are eternally preserved whether you like it or not. 

It's ironic, but to me the teaching of "perseverance of the saints" always sounded like an Arminian doctrine and if you followed it to its logical conclusion it is such because it is centered on the believer's works. "Preservation of the Saints" is a much more scriptural term.

Indeed, "preservation of the saints" certainly would be a better phrase; for it sets its focus on the promise and faithfulness of God our Savior just as God's Word does, rather than on our behavior.  However, that phrase would not at all be accurate in relation to the Calvinistic system of belief, since that system of belief denies the existence of "carnal believers" and/or "backslidden believers" for any habitual length of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Just now, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, "preservation of the saints" certainly would be a better phrase; for it sets its focus on the promise and faithfulness of God our Savior just as God's Word does, rather than on our behavior.  However, that phrase would not at all be accurate in relation to the Calvinistic system of belief, since that system of belief denies the existence of "carnal believers" and/or "backslidden believers" for any habitual length of time.

Yes, I know. Years ago I was a resident counsellor on a Christian camp that dealt with troubled teens from Christian families. Sort of like Lestor Roloff's ministry. I don't know how many times I dealt with teens who suffered greatly from fears that they may have "lost it" because they were backslidden or must have never been saved to begin with because "If Jesus isn't Lord of all, he isn't Lord at all". They would constantly be asking Jesus to save them until the point of almost going bonkers or wondering if they were even one of the "elect".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Yes, I know. Years ago I was a resident counsellor on a Christian camp that dealt with troubled teens from Christian families. Sort of like Lestor Roloff's ministry. I don't know how many times I dealt with teens who suffered greatly from fears that they may have "lost it" because they were backslidden or must have never been saved to begin with because "If Jesus isn't Lord of all, he isn't Lord at all". They would constantly be asking Jesus to save them until the point of almost going bonkers or wondering if they were even one of the "elect".

Indeed, it is a shame, because getting "saved again" can NEVER be the solution to their fleshly/carnal character (since it is impossible to get "saved again").  Rather, the solution for victory in the believer's life, no matter how overcome by the flesh, is the process of broken-hearted repentance, humility before the Lord, dependence upon the Lord's grace, submission to the Lord, and walking in the Spirit.  By confusing them with false teaching, in one form or another, the devil keeps them from finding the path to true victory.  (And it saddens me how much of this is found within Fundamental Baptist circles.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 12/30/2020 at 1:54 PM, Yeshuafan said:

God could havce cosen that none of us were to be saved, and he would have been totally within his rights to do such!

Absolutely, because none of us deserve it. However, He has not, as Calvinism believes and teaches, secured some for salvation and secured some for damnation. Again, if God "commands all men, everywhere to repent", while not allowing a majority to obey that command, then He is, indeed, unjust. To dangle eternal life before those that he has willingly assured cannot have it, would be cruel and wicked. That is not the God I serve. If He tells all men everywhere to repent, He gives all men everywhere the ability to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 12/31/2020 at 7:11 PM, SureWord said:

Someone once said they were "an Arminian before the cross and a Calvinist after the cross". What the were implying is there is freewill in accepting the free gift of salvation but after getting saved there was no freewill to reject your salvation. You are eternally preserved whether you like it or not. 

It's ironic, but to me the teaching of "perseverance of the saints" always sounded like an Arminian doctrine and if you followed it to its logical conclusion it is such because it is centered on the believer's works. "Preservation of the Saints" is a much more scriptural term.

Our free will though was greatly affected by the Fall, so we would not even desire to get saved apart from the working of the Holy Spirit towards us!

14 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Absolutely, because none of us deserve it. However, He has not, as Calvinism believes and teaches, secured some for salvation and secured some for damnation. Again, if God "commands all men, everywhere to repent", while not allowing a majority to obey that command, then He is, indeed, unjust. To dangle eternal life before those that he has willingly assured cannot have it, would be cruel and wicked. That is not the God I serve. If He tells all men everywhere to repent, He gives all men everywhere the ability to do so. 

You are assuming here that gain, it would be unfair and cruel that God did not send same saving grace towards all lost sinners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Posted (edited)

So, you say that Brother Mike Is "assuming". Let's look at that God's Holy Spirit actually says.

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Based on this Scripture I would have to conclude that it is indeed you who are doing the "assuming". After all, what you said is only your opinion, not Scripture.

Edited by Jim_Alaska
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, Yeshuafan said:

Our free will though was greatly affected by the Fall, so we would not even desire to get saved apart from the working of the Holy Spirit towards us!

You are assuming here that gain, it would be unfair and cruel that God did not send same saving grace towards all lost sinners.

On your first point, let me say this: 

Jn 1:9 "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. "

Jn 3:14, 15 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. "

Jn 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

Jesus lights every man that comes into the world, and from Calvary, He drew ALL men to Himself, giving ALL men the ability to believe on Him unto eternal life. No possibility that Jesus' death was only sufficient for some. It is sufficient for all, efficacious for those who believe.

On your second point, the death of Jesus Christ paid the price for all sin, period. Not only some sin, ALL sin. Not 'sins', but "sin". All was paid for. Jesus is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the WORLD. No qualifying additions to make it only the elect of the world. And no, I said it would be cruel of God to demand anyone do something, but not make it possible for them to obey. If we MUST believe unto salvation, then God makes it possible for ALL to believe. If God says, "If you do not believe, then you will go to Hell!" But then, knowingly has made it impossible for most of humanity to believe, THAT is cruel and that is not the God of the Bible, though it surely IS the god of Calvinism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

So, you say that Brother Mike Is "assuming". Let's look at that God's Holy Spirit actually says.

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Based on this Scripture I would have to conclude that it is indeed you who are doing the "assuming". After all, what you said is only your opinion, not Scripture.

Hebrews said to us that Jesus for the sake of the some, but not for the all, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Yeshuafan said:

Hebrews said to us that Jesus for the sake of the some, but not for the all, correct?

Hebrews 2:9 -- "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man."

Furthermore, logic requires that you provide a passage which teaches that God the Son, Jesus the Christ, died ONLY for some.  It is correct that some Biblical contexts focus upon a "subset" of all mankind. (See for example Acts 20:17-35)  Thus in those contexts we may find statements that God the Son, Jesus the Christ, died for that particular "subset." (See for example Acts 20:28)  However, statements to that effect (that Christ died for a particular "subset" of all mankind) do not of themselves indicate that He did not also die for a different "subset" as well.  On the other hand, a statement to the effect that Christ died ONLY for a particular "subset" would indeed indicate that He did not also die for any other possible "subset."  The Calvinistic system of belief teaches that Christ's death was limited ONLY to a particular "subset" of mankind (that is - "the elect").  Thus, in order to stand upon Biblical authority, the Calvinistic system of belief must present at least one passage of Scripture that teaches this "ONLY" principle.  (A passage which teaches that Christ died ONLY for the church, or ONLY for Israel, or ONLY for believers, or ONLY for the elect, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Jesus came for all, but only some accept. None were condemned before their birth.

This is two points correct, and one point incorrect.

Correct - Jesus came for all. (See 1 Timothy 2:3-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2)

Correct - Only some accept. (See Revelation 19:11-15)

Incorrect - None were condemned before their birth. 

Truth - All are under judgment to condemnation through and in Adam (not by their own first act of sinful offense, but by Adam's first act of sinful offense, indeed long before they ever even existed). (See Romans 5:18)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 1/5/2021 at 11:04 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

This is two points correct, and one point incorrect.

Correct - Jesus came for all. (See 1 Timothy 2:3-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2)

Correct - Only some accept. (See Revelation 19:11-15)

Incorrect - None were condemned before their birth. 

Truth - All are under judgment to condemnation through and in Adam (not by their own first act of sinful offense, but by Adam's first act of sinful offense, indeed long before they ever even existed). (See Romans 5:18)

Indeed. for all have sinned in Adam and are guilty before God!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 12/20/2020 at 7:11 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Psalm 58:3 -- "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

________________________________________

Roman 3:10-12 -- "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Romans 3:23 -- "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Romans 3:19 -- "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every  mouth may be stopped, and ALL the world may become guilty before God."

So, here is a question that we non-Calvinists commonly ask in opposition to Calvinism, being turned back at us --

Does "ALL" actually mean "ALL;" and does "NONE" actually mean "NONE"?

You are using the natural ambiguity of language to "force" the Bible to say things it clearly does not say. God told Adam and Eve that on the day they ate the fruit they would die. On that day the process of death began. Often the initiation, the process and the conclusion are referred to by the same noun or verb. Since we understand what is sin, yet do not have the capacity to resist it the curse of sin inhabits us all from birth, but does not actually become sin until we make the choice to sin. The Bible was intended to be read with common sense, not blind devotion to vague concepts that defy logic. God is the God of logic, not the God of confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, Danny Carlton said:

but does not actually become sin until we make the choice to sin.

1 Corinthians 15:22 (KJV) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

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...