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.

Official Covid Thread (Other Threads Merged in here)


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
11 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

What percentage of corvid hospital beds are filled with unvaccinated people?

What about the rights of people not to be infected by people who will not get a vaccination?

If vaccinations worked, you wouldn’t have to worry about catching anything from the unvaccinated.

if they don’t, what’s the point of taking them?

And for a disease with a 99.94% survival rate – if you catch it – and those are official gov numbers - what does it matter? It’s just a nasty flu. How do I know? I HAD IT. 

There have always been sicknesses in the world. People always pass it on to each other. People do not have the right to ‘not catch something from  someone else’, because that’s just scientifically impossible.  Neither do they have the right to force other people to live their lives differently because they are afraid. The best cure for this virus is to end the fear.

And by the way, I would like others to preserve my freedom as I fight to preserve theirs. That’s the Golden Rule I’m fighting for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Salyan said:

If vaccinations worked, you wouldn’t have to worry about catching anything from the unvaccinated.

if they don’t, what’s the point of taking them?

And for a disease with a 99.94% survival rate – if you catch it – and those are official gov numbers - what does it matter? It’s just a nasty flu. How do I know? I HAD IT. 

There have always been sicknesses in the world. People always pass it on to each other. People do not have the right to ‘not catch something from  someone else’, because that’s just scientifically impossible.  Neither do they have the right to force other people to live their lives differently because they are afraid. The best cure for this virus is to end the fear.

And by the way, I would like others to preserve my freedom as I fight to preserve theirs. That’s the Golden Rule I’m fighting for now.

So, it is ok to not get a vaccination and put other people in danger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

So, it is ok to not get a vaccination and put other people in danger?

Hard eye roll. If vaccinations worked, then vaccinated people won’t ‘be in danger.’ If they are in ‘danger’ from mr not being vaccinated, then apparently their vaccination didn’t work. So then my vaccination or lack thereof would have zero impact on them. 
 

Logic, BB. Use some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Salyan said:

Hard eye roll. If vaccinations worked, then vaccinated people won’t ‘be in danger.’ If they are in ‘danger’ from mr not being vaccinated, then apparently their vaccination didn’t work. So then my vaccination or lack thereof would have zero impact on them. 
 

Logic, BB. Use some. 

You do not understand vaccinations. You are making a common mistake. The vaccine is not necessarily to prevent a person from becoming ill, but to make the illness a slight one rather than a very serious one. And they are working. You need to do some research and learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PastorMatt said:

  

This my friend is what's call a straw man fallacy. 

Not really. The unvaccinated spread the disease when they become infected. If they had had their vaccination it is very likely they would not have caught COVID and spread it. So, the unvaccinated knowing that do not seem to care that they put others in danger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
9 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

So, it is ok to not get a vaccination and put other people in danger?

 

12 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

You do not understand vaccinations. You are making a common mistake. The vaccine is not necessarily to prevent a person from becoming ill, but to make the illness a slight one rather than a very serious one. And they are working. You need to do some research and learn.

By taking your last few reply's you are saying that you yourself are putting other peoples lives in danger. You are just saying that vaccinated are putting people in less danger, but dander is still danger. 

I have a few friends in the local hospital here that are there as a result of the vaccine. The vaccine does put a certain small percentage of people in danger. To use your logic...you wanting to put that percentage in the hospital? 

12 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

You do not understand vaccinations. You are making a common mistake. The vaccine is not necessarily to prevent a person from becoming ill, but to make the illness a slight one rather than a very serious one. And they are working. You need to do some research and learn.

 

6 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Not really. The unvaccinated spread the disease when they become infected. If they had had their vaccination it is very likely they would not have caught COVID and spread it. So, the unvaccinated knowing that do not seem to care that they put others in danger. 

This my friend is why some here cant take you seriously. You keep contradicting yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PastorMatt said:

 

By taking your last few reply's you are saying that you yourself are putting other peoples lives in danger. You are just saying that unvaccinated are putting people in less danger, but dander is still danger. 

I have a few friends in the local hospital here that are there as a result of the vaccine. The vaccine does put a certain small percentage of people in danger. To use your logic...you wanting to put that percentage in the hospital? 

I respectfully disagree.

 Did you see my question to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
6 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I respectfully disagree.

Please expound you statements then. To prove a point you said the vaccine isn't to prevent you from being ill jus the severity of it, then 5 minutes later said  "If (unvaccinated) had had their vaccination it is very likely they would not have caught COVID and spread it."

confused confusion GIF by The Bachelorette

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

Please expound you statements then. To prove a point you said the vaccine isn't to prevent you from being ill jus the severity of it, then 5 minutes later said  "If (unvaccinated) had had their vaccination it is very likely they would not have caught COVID and spread it."

 

Isn't it obvious. Very few people who have been vaccinated catch COVID. So, if the unvaccinated had gotten their vaccination they would no longer be unvaccinated. Thus, being vaccinated it is very unlikely they would have caught COVID and spread it to others. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

No Bill it's not obvious when you keep changing what you are talking about. You said the vaccine isn't to prevent you from being ill jus the severity of it, then go on to say the vaccine stops you from getting it.  The question being raised was what the vaccine does, not how covid is spread. 

What percentage would you consider "unlikely"?

I only asked because the argument of "unlikely" is the same argument that you been arguing against for those against the vaccine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

No Bill it's not obvious when you keep changing what you are talking about. You said the vaccine isn't to prevent you from being ill jus the severity of it, then go on to say the vaccine stops you from getting it.  The question being raised was what the vaccine does, not how covid is spread. 

What percentage would you consider "unlikely"?

I only asked because the argument of "unlikely" is the same argument that you been arguing against for those against the vaccine. 

It prevents many people form getting COVID. The real goal is to prevent serious illness if the vaccinated person does catch the disease. The body builds up antibodies to the disease. Side effects, such as headaches, nausea, etc. indicate that your body is building up antibodies, i.e. immunity. Hopefully the immunity will prevent a person from getting sick at all. Next best is the immunity prevents the illness from becoming serious and we see that in many vaccinated people who do become ill. The worse case is that the person's body builds up no immunity. That is often age related. That is why I was disappointed that I had no reaction. At my age I was not surprise, but disappointed as it meant in all probability I developed few antibodies and possibly none at all. I expect to be cleared for a 3rd shot before long and I will take it. It would be foolish for me not to take it. 

You asked what percentage would be unlikely to catch the disease. I would say 85% and above. That is my opinion. Data shows the Pfizer vaccine is about 95% effective. I'll take those odds. No vaccine is 100% effective. 

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration, said COVID-19 vaccines still provide strong protection against serious disease and death, even as new research shows vaccinated individuals can spread the worrying Delta variant.

 

Gottlieb noted that the COVID-19 vaccines were primarily intended to significantly reduce the risk of severe illness and hospitalization. Unvaccinated individuals account for the overwhelming majority of new hospitalizations and deaths.

"That premise is still fully intact," said Gottlieb. "We still see that these vaccines are doing a very good job preventing symptomatic disease, preventing hospitalization and death." 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-vaccines-delta-variant-effectiveness-gottlieb/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Regeneron's Anti-body therapy (REGEN-COV) for Post corvid patents (the therapy that President Trump took when he had COVID) has now been approved for those who can't take the vaccine. This means that if you took the vaccine or couldn't and for some reason you got infected, then you can be infused with antigens to help reduce or eliminate the symptoms, depending on the viral load or aggressiveness of the infection.

So if you declined the vaccine and get infected you may want to remember this drug name for later...

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-authorizes-regen-cov-monoclonal-antibody-therapy-post-exposure-prophylaxis-prevention-covid-19

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, John Young said:

Regeneron's Anti-body therapy (REGEN-COV) for Post corvid patents (the therapy that President Trump took when he had COVID) has now been approved for those who can't take the vaccine. This means that if you took the vaccine or couldn't and for some reason you got infected, then you can be infused with antigens to help reduce or eliminate the symptoms, depending on the viral load or aggressiveness of the infection.

So if you declined the vaccine and get infected you may want to remember this drug name for later...

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-authorizes-regen-cov-monoclonal-antibody-therapy-post-exposure-prophylaxis-prevention-covid-19

This is still an experimental medicine but I would trust it more than the garbage vaccines.

 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

So my sister, who recently recovered from the Wu Flu, went with her friend who got the Fauci death jab. She tried the magnet on her arm afterward and sure enough it stuck. She tested the other arm also but it did not stick. Only over the vaccine did it stick.

 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SureWord said:

So my sister, who recently recovered from the Wu Flu, went with her friend who got the Fauci death jab. She tried the magnet on her arm afterward and sure enough it stuck. She tested the other arm also but it did not stick. Only over the vaccine did it stick. You can put a key on your forehead and it will stick. 

 

It cannot be that the arm is magnetic. There are three types of magmatism, diamagnetism, Para magnetism, and ferromagnetism.   Have you ever stuck a penny on your arm and it stuck. It is an old magic trick that wows kids. What your sister experienced was adhesion, that is the magnet stuck because of the natural moisture and oils on her arm. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I hate to bring this up, but I put BB on "ignore"...yet, I get to see his inane posts in the "quotes." Sort of defeats the purpose of putting him on ignore...so, I guess I'll enjoin the battle again. If some of you find it offensive that I'm going to be direct with BB, then please, in advance, forgive me. I don't like his circular reasoning, switiching sides on what he's talking about concerning vaccines, and his continual "blame game" against the unvaccinated, refusing to tell the truth about the vaccinated spreading the virus as much, IF NOT MORE, than those who ARE unvaccinated. 

BB, I'm going to be direct here...you show little signs of honesty...in fact, you're one of the most dishonest posters I've ever come across on a Christian board. Either that or you truly suffer from some kind of deficiency in ability to reason. People who aren't vaccinated ARE NOT uncaring. That's just stupidity on your part, and on the part of those in YOUR camp that would like to divide and conquer...taking away rights of those who still believe in them and are willing to fight for them. Secondly, the vaccinated are continually getting the virus, whether mild, medium or severe cases, and are spreading the virus just as quickly as everyone else. If the vaccines were supposed to protect people from the virus, it's become quite clear that they don't. Neither do masks. You constant posting of liberal, left-wing resources isn't winning any arguments here...in fact, they lead to questions of whether or not you're actually a troll. I've come to the conclusion that you probably are. You fit the profile nearly to a "T." This is sad. At first I thought you were just an elderly man who needed an outlet for your warped ideology, or were just lonely...I no longer believe that. You ask questions, but don't like the answers you get, attacking not only posters here, but also the OWNER of the board...Not wise, especially for someone who claims to have worked in a seminary for several years. People who are what you say you are are supposed to lead by example, not intimidation...as I told you before, I don't intimidate easily, and I never will. Nobody here takes you seriously because you can't seem to keep yourself together. You don't answer questions, instead deflecting to other subject, using accusations of others not answering questions. They answer..but not on YOUR terms. Get used to it. We cannot help that you have swallowed the government Kool-Aid and eaten the poison fruit. As many of us here have stated, we trust God more than government. We care a lot about those who have been vaccinated and pray they have none of the growing number of side-effects. We also pray that they don't experience a case of the virus. We also pray that they will quit living their lives in fear. Many of us have been exposed many, MANY times, but have come up negative in tests as carriers or having the virus. You don't like that fact, so you IGNORE that fact. That again leads me to believe you're either unable to comprehend properly, or are a troll. I opt for the second, though I wish I could opt for the first. You ARE in my prayers, whether you believe it or not. I hate to see people misled like you are being misled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...