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.

The Scandal Rocking the Evangelical World


Recommended Posts

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/russell-moore-sbc/619122/

After posting this I decided that I probably selected the wrong subject. If so, I apologize. 

The article begins:

This is an earthquake,” a prominent Christian writer told me.

The publication of an extraordinary February 24, 2020, letter by Russell Moore, one of the most influential and respected evangelicals in America (and a friend), has shaken the Christian world.

When the letter was written, Moore was the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. The letter, sent to the ERLC’s board of trustees, offers a devastating indictment of the denomination’s executive committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Disturbing article, though I must admit I am not surprised. I'll leave it at that. 

 

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Felt I stopped too soon. Perhaps an administrator can move this to a more appropriate subject..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
24 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/russell-moore-sbc/619122/

After posting this I decided that I probably selected the wrong subject. If so, I apologize. 

The article begins:

This is an earthquake,” a prominent Christian writer told me.

The publication of an extraordinary February 24, 2020, letter by Russell Moore, one of the most influential and respected evangelicals in America (and a friend), has shaken the Christian world.

When the letter was written, Moore was the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. The letter, sent to the ERLC’s board of trustees, offers a devastating indictment of the denomination’s executive committee.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Disturbing article, though I must admit I am not surprised. I'll leave it at that. 

 

 

I hate to say it, but I wouldn't take everything that Moore says at face value. Even the leaked letter seems suspicious to me, especially the timing of it's release. I know there is abuse in the SBC, mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually, and we know of it in Catholicism as well. I believe you'll find these abuses in EVERY denomination. When I was in IFB churches, there were large numbers of churches that were facing this, and at least one IFB college in Indiana with a pastor who had somewhat of a "cult" following. I'm sure those of you who are IFB can figure it out. I have NEVER supported Moore in the position he held with the ERLC. Moore has a history of talking out of both sides of his mouth, and it's made things hard within the convention. That's one reason he's gone! Should Randy Adams be voted in as president of the SBC, he would be pressing for major changes and more transparency, not only the ERLC, but the NAMB and other things the SBC supports through the cooperative. Mike Stone, having been on one of the boards of the ERLC, won't effect this kind of change. He was "buddy, buddy" with Moore for years, and, from what I've read, is part of an underlying problem within the SBC. I'm waiting to see who is nominated for SBC president. I know there are going to be at least four, with Randy Adams and Mike Stone being among them. I believe two others will be Al Mohler and possibly Litton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

 

I hate to say it, but I wouldn't take everything that Moore says at face value. Even the leaked letter seems suspicious to me, especially the timing of it's release. I know there is abuse in the SBC, mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually, and we know of it in Catholicism as well. I believe you'll find these abuses in EVERY denomination. When I was in IFB churches, there were large numbers of churches that were facing this, and at least one IFB college in Indiana with a pastor who had somewhat of a "cult" following. I'm sure those of you who are IFB can figure it out. I have NEVER supported Moore in the position he held with the ERLC. Moore has a history of talking out of both sides of his mouth, and it's made things hard within the convention. That's one reason he's gone! Should Randy Adams be voted in as president of the SBC, he would be pressing for major changes and more transparency, not only the ERLC, but the NAMB and other things the SBC supports through the cooperative. Mike Stone, having been on one of the boards of the ERLC, won't effect this kind of change. He was "buddy, buddy" with Moore for years, and, from what I've read, is part of an underlying problem within the SBC. I'm waiting to see who is nominated for SBC president. I know there are going to be at least four, with Randy Adams and Mike Stone being among them. I believe two others will be Al Mohler and possibly Litton. 

Your reply is interesting, but I feel you missed the main topic of the article. I do think there are issues in the SBC that desperately need to be addressed but probably will not. They have been swept under the rug in the past. My understanding is that the SBC has lost many members, near 300,000 in 2019 and over 400,000 in 2020. I believe this trend will continue. If they do not address the issues I am think of membership will drop. If they do address the issues membership will drop. It all depends on which group the mind loosing the least ... IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Your reply is interesting, but I feel you missed the main topic of the article. I do think there are issues in the SBC that desperately need to be addressed but probably will not. They have been swept under the rug in the past. My understanding is that the SBC has lost many members, near 300,000 in 2019 and over 400,000 in 2020. I believe this trend will continue. If they do not address the issues I am think of membership will drop. If they do address the issues membership will drop. It all depends on which group the mind loosing the least ... IMHO.

I didn't miss the main topic of the article, believe me. I've got many friends who are SBC pastors and many who aren't. I also know most of the issues facing the SBC. I believe that the SBC could possibly fracture because of the loss of members, but I'm just not sure when. with over 17K messengers going to the Convention just up the road in Nashville (that's over double the number from previous years) I think there may actually be willing to fight against some of the things going on in the organizations that the SBC churches support through the cooperative. I'm not sure your #'s are correct on how many were lost each of the past two years, but, I won't dispute them without hard evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

I didn't miss the main topic of the article, believe me. I've got many friends who are SBC pastors and many who aren't. I also know most of the issues facing the SBC. I believe that the SBC could possibly fracture because of the loss of members, but I'm just not sure when. with over 17K messengers going to the Convention just up the road in Nashville (that's over double the number from previous years) I think there may actually be willing to fight against some of the things going on in the organizations that the SBC churches support through the cooperative. I'm not sure your #'s are correct on how many were lost each of the past two years, but, I won't dispute them without hard evidence. 

Three issues come to mind.

Sexual misbehavior by clergy.

History of being on the wrong side of social issues in the last 150 years. Racism for one.

Taking seriously and addressing the concerns of Black Southern Baptist. 

I am not sure how or if IFBs can address such issues other than individual church by individual church. I do not know if IFB's are gaining or loosing members. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Three issues come to mind.

Sexual misbehavior by clergy.

History of being on the wrong side of social issues in the last 150 years. Racism for one.

Taking seriously and addressing the concerns of Black Southern Baptist. 

I am not sure how or if IFBs can address such issues other than individual church by individual church. I do not know if IFB's are gaining or loosing members. 

You forgot a few issues that are in need of being addressed in the SBC. One is the lack of transparency in many areas, including finances (payouts to people like the former President of Lifeway Resources, payments by the ERLC to parties within the SBC for help cover-up some of the misdeeds of itself and the NAMB (Kevin Ezell), and other entities supported by the SBC) and the ethics that led to one of the former directors of a State Missionary Board in Delaware leading to court filings, cases and the whole thing now being moved to the SCOTUS to decide. As far as the SBC churches, as I've stated, they're just as autonomous as the IFB churches. The only difference is that they have decided to participate in the financial support of the SBC cooperative program. They can pay whatever percentage they wish from their churches tithes for missions support. I don't in particular like this way of supporting missionaries, because it doesn't really give the people in the churches the TRUE scope of what the missionaries are teaching. Many have "alternative" views these days, and it's not conducive to Biblical preaching. They also don't have to go to the churches to give an update of their activities. I like the way missionaries in the IFB churches come in to raise the money for their support. Wish they did this in the SBC as well.  On the attendance/membership in the IFB churches, many of the ones I know of and still have friends and relative in have lost members, especially since the pandemic came on. But, there are many who are actively going out and trying to reclaim members and restore people to the fold. I have several friends who are still street preaching, going out door to door, and still witnessing nearly everywhere they go. Wish we could find more SBC churches doing this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

You forgot a few issues that are in need of being addressed in the SBC. One is the lack of transparency in many areas, including finances (payouts to people like the former President of Lifeway Resources, payments by the ERLC to parties within the SBC for help cover-up some of the misdeeds of itself and the NAMB (Kevin Ezell), and other entities supported by the SBC) and the ethics that led to one of the former directors of a State Missionary Board in Delaware leading to court filings, cases and the whole thing now being moved to the SCOTUS to decide. As far as the SBC churches, as I've stated, they're just as autonomous as the IFB churches. The only difference is that they have decided to participate in the financial support of the SBC cooperative program. They can pay whatever percentage they wish from their churches tithes for missions support. I don't in particular like this way of supporting missionaries, because it doesn't really give the people in the churches the TRUE scope of what the missionaries are teaching. Many have "alternative" views these days, and it's not conducive to Biblical preaching. They also don't have to go to the churches to give an update of their activities. I like the way missionaries in the IFB churches come in to raise the money for their support. Wish they did this in the SBC as well.  On the attendance/membership in the IFB churches, many of the ones I know of and still have friends and relative in have lost members, especially since the pandemic came on. But, there are many who are actively going out and trying to reclaim members and restore people to the fold. I have several friends who are still street preaching, going out door to door, and still witnessing nearly everywhere they go. Wish we could find more SBC churches doing this. 

I am sure there are many problems I am unaware exist and should be addressed. The ones you mention surely should be addressed. These are internal problems.

I was thinking more of problems affecting their witness for Christ. It seems to me the SBC needs to determine if they are going to be a convention of the gospel or a convention of Southern Republicanism. The two are not compatible, IMHO. When  individuals, churches, or conventions mix politics into their message the message gets muddied and ineffective in bringing Christ to people. 

A short story on missionary efforts. In 2007 my wife and I worked at the Baptist Moscow Theological Seminary in Russia. We were cataloging their books written in English. Talking with a Russian Baptist minister one morning he said, "My church has just about recovered from the last missionary youth group who came for several weeks. They caused a number of problems."

"What as the problem?" I was curious. 

He smiled, "They and their leaders kept wanting to solve problems we do not have. They could not understand their problems are different from ours."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I am sure there are many problems I am unaware exist and should be addressed. The ones you mention surely should be addressed. These are internal problems.

I was thinking more of problems affecting their witness for Christ. It seems to me the SBC needs to determine if they are going to be a convention of the gospel or a convention of Southern Republicanism. The two are not compatible, IMHO. When  individuals, churches, or conventions mix politics into their message the message gets muddied and ineffective in bringing Christ to people. 

A short story on missionary efforts. In 2007 my wife and I worked at the Baptist Moscow Theological Seminary in Russia. We were cataloging their books written in English. Talking with a Russian Baptist minister one morning he said, "My church has just about recovered from the last missionary youth group who came for several weeks. They caused a number of problems."

"What as the problem?" I was curious. 

He smiled, "They and their leaders kept wanting to solve problems we do not have. They could not understand their problems are different from ours."

 

All of the problems I mentioned DO affect the way the Gospel goes out. Most of the people within the SBC churches seem to be Republicans, and there are also a number of Democrats who don't vote solely Socialist Democrat because the party has moved so far left in recent years. Some have crossed over into the Libertarian group, and others have voted Republican as protest of what their party is coming to be. Having a case before the SCOTUS, the justices decision could reshape the SBC and turn it into a hierarchy like the RCC and other denominations with Kevin Ezell as it's "Pope." This would surely be the death knell of the SBC as people know it today, and probably of much of the missions program within the SBC. This is one reason my wife and I are considering a change back to the IFB sect of Baptists, or possibly to a Bible church group. Both of us, having been raised in IFB churches, but having attended SBC churches as well, especially over the last 21 years, we feel more comfortable in the IFB church circle. But, we also know of the patterns of abuse in them. As far as Russia...good for you. I used to work in Canada with the Indians in Ontario during the summers. But, of course, that was 40 years ago. Most of these problems didn't exist in the Baptist circles back then...at least, not to this degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

All of the problems I mentioned DO affect the way the Gospel goes out. Most of the people within the SBC churches seem to be Republicans, and there are also a number of Democrats who don't vote solely Socialist Democrat because the party has moved so far left in recent years. Some have crossed over into the Libertarian group, and others have voted Republican as protest of what their party is coming to be. Having a case before the SCOTUS, the justices decision could reshape the SBC and turn it into a hierarchy like the RCC and other denominations with Kevin Ezell as it's "Pope." This would surely be the death knell of the SBC as people know it today, and probably of much of the missions program within the SBC. This is one reason my wife and I are considering a change back to the IFB sect of Baptists, or possibly to a Bible church group. Both of us, having been raised in IFB churches, but having attended SBC churches as well, especially over the last 21 years, we feel more comfortable in the IFB church circle. But, we also know of the patterns of abuse in them. As far as Russia...good for you. I used to work in Canada with the Indians in Ontario during the summers. But, of course, that was 40 years ago. Most of these problems didn't exist in the Baptist circles back then...at least, not to this degree.

The SBC became too creedal for me some years ago with the Baptist Faith and Message becoming a litmus test for being Christian ... as least that is how I saw it. I am sure there are many who would disagree with me there. It is a short step from creeds to hierarchy. I grew up in a SBC, but I could not join a Southern Baptist Church at this stage in my life. What I was taught as a child is not what is taught in Southern Baptist Churches now. I call myself a traditional orthodox Baptist.

I go to a small church that tries to follow Christ's teachings on how we treat others and accept others seriously. This makes many Baptists consider us liberal at best and heretics at worst. Though other consider us liberal on social issues I do not as our beliefs and actions are our attempting to approach people as Christ approached people. Politics does not enter into our decision making, scripture does. Also, I believe our theology is conservative. We welcome all, and I mean all, some that others reject, as everyone needs Christ.

We have been called a MASH unit. God brings bleeding, hurting people to us. They are accepted, provided healing and God moves them on. This has been the story of the church since it began in 1983. We will never be large. God does not seem to want us to be large. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
30 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

The SBC became too creedal for me some years ago with the Baptist Faith and Message becoming a litmus test for being Christian ... as least that is how I saw it. I am sure there are many who would disagree with me there. It is a short step from creeds to hierarchy. I grew up in a SBC, but I could not join a Southern Baptist Church at this stage in my life. What I was taught as a child is not what is taught in Southern Baptist Churches now. I call myself a traditional orthodox Baptist.

I go to a small church that tries to follow Christ's teachings on how we treat others and accept others seriously. This makes many Baptists consider us liberal at best and heretics at worst. Though other consider us liberal on social issues I do not as our beliefs and actions are our attempting to approach people as Christ approached people. Politics does not enter into our decision making, scripture does. Also, I believe our theology is conservative. We welcome all, and I mean all, some that others reject, as everyone needs Christ.

We have been called a MASH unit. God brings bleeding, hurting people to us. They are accepted, provided healing and God moves them on. This has been the story of the church since it began in 1983. We will never be large. God does not seem to want us to be large. 

Believe me, being a large church/mega church isn't anything to try to become. I've been a member in several mega-churches, and I hated it. TOO large, and not much real contact with the average member. Also, I don't believe the BF&M doesn't decide who is Christian, and I don't believe ANYONE holds that as a litmus test for being one. I believe that's an unfair characterization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Believe me, being a large church/mega church isn't anything to try to become. I've been a member in several mega-churches, and I hated it. TOO large, and not much real contact with the average member. Also, I don't believe the BF&M doesn't decide who is Christian, and I don't believe ANYONE holds that as a litmus test for being one. I believe that's an unfair characterization. 

Yes, I do not want to be part of a large church, much less a megachurch. Too easy for people to hide in large church. The lack of fellowship would be a problem for me. 

In a small church, and I mean less than 50, it is more like family. People know each other and have a personal interest in each person, including children. Every person is needed to fulfill the duties of the church. 

Here is another article on the infighting within the SBC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/06/12/southern-baptist-convention-secret-infighting-meeting/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F338baa4%2F60c4d6db9d2fdae3027b44db%2F59876e1cae7e8a681613bd00%2F10%2F72%2F60c4d6db9d2fdae3027b44db

 

The article begins:

Demands for political loyalty. Disputes about racism. A fight between conservatives and ultraconservatives. It sounds like current debates within the Republican Party, but on Tuesday, thousands of Southern Baptists will gather in Nashville to vote on issues that will shape the massive denomination’s future, including the choice of its next president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Yes, I do not want to be part of a large church, much less a megachurch. Too easy for people to hide in large church. The lack of fellowship would be a problem for me. 

In a small church, and I mean less than 50, it is more like family. People know each other and have a personal interest in each person, including children. Every person is needed to fulfill the duties of the church. 

Here is another article on the infighting within the SBC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/06/12/southern-baptist-convention-secret-infighting-meeting/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F338baa4%2F60c4d6db9d2fdae3027b44db%2F59876e1cae7e8a681613bd00%2F10%2F72%2F60c4d6db9d2fdae3027b44db

 

The article begins:

Demands for political loyalty. Disputes about racism. A fight between conservatives and ultraconservatives. It sounds like current debates within the Republican Party, but on Tuesday, thousands of Southern Baptists will gather in Nashville to vote on issues that will shape the massive denomination’s future, including the choice of its next president.

In spite of "demands for party loyalty" I know of several SBC pastors and members in churches throughout the country who DO NOT vote Republican. I know I'm not a Republican, but I'm not a Socialist Democrat, either. We're moderate Independents who are probably more right of center than most. We didn't leave the Republican Party, it left us in the 1980s. In local elections, we still will vote for a Democrat if it's apparent that he/she can do a better job than the Republican nominee. They can't do anything about the abortion issue, nor about several other issues facing Christians and humanity as a whole. I don't like to do it, but I will if necessary. I WON'T, however, vote for a Socialist Democrat in a national election just because they CAN and most likely WOULD support those things mentioned previously. Personally, I don't care whom the President of these organizations votes for as long as they follow their responsibility given them, and represent the people, the people's point of view and not their own (Russell Moore never did this), and won't bring themselves into question as both the former president of Lifeway did, and Russell Moore has done. Kevin Ezell and Ronnie Floyd should go as well. They tarnished their names and the SBC organizations they represent or have represented. Ready for them all to resign and NEW BLOOD to be installed...hopefully, more conservative people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

In spite of "demands for party loyalty" I know of several SBC pastors and members in churches throughout the country who DO NOT vote Republican. I know I'm not a Republican, but I'm not a Socialist Democrat, either. We're moderate Independents who are probably more right of center than most. We didn't leave the Republican Party, it left us in the 1980s. In local elections, we still will vote for a Democrat if it's apparent that he/she can do a better job than the Republican nominee. They can't do anything about the abortion issue, nor about several other issues facing Christians and humanity as a whole. I don't like to do it, but I will if necessary. I WON'T, however, vote for a Socialist Democrat in a national election just because they CAN and most likely WOULD support those things mentioned previously. Personally, I don't care whom the President of these organizations votes for as long as they follow their responsibility given them, and represent the people, the people's point of view and not their own (Russell Moore never did this), and won't bring themselves into question as both the former president of Lifeway did, and Russell Moore has done. Kevin Ezell and Ronnie Floyd should go as well. They tarnished their names and the SBC organizations they represent or have represented. Ready for them all to resign and NEW BLOOD to be installed...hopefully, more conservative people.

I am sure there are Southern Baptists who are nor Republican or Trump supporters. They are in the minority. 

I agree with you. I did not leave the Republican Party. It left me. The same with the Southern Baptist Convention. This happened after the conservative takeover and they abandoned, IMHO, traditional Baptist stances on tolerance and how we treat others. To my mind, they also abandoned many of the teachings of Christ in favor of intolerance for others. To me the words in the final judgment convict many in the SBC. [Sorry about the change in size. I made a mistake when I was enlarging the font size.]

I have not kept up on the internal politics of the SBC. I defer to you on that. What you wrote is interesting.

I do not know what you mean when you use the word democratic socialism. I see them as abiding more closely to the commands in the final judgment. I do not see them pursuing the tenets of Socialism. 

The tenets of Socialism are:

  • The main features of socialist economy are as follows:
  • (i) Collective Ownership:
  • (ii) Economic, Social and Political Equality:
  • (iii) Economic Planning:
  • (iv) No Competition:
  • (v) Positive Role of Government:
  • (vi) Work and Wages According to Ability and Needs.

These are different than the tenets of Communism. The tenets of Communism are:

  • Abolition of Private Property.
  • Collective Ownership of Means of Production.
  • Central Planning.
  • Elimination of Unfair Gaps in Incomes.
  • Provision of Necessaries of Life.

I believe Republican politicians use the word Socialism to instill fear. I am sure some know what they are saying is not correct and know what the philosophy of Socialism. I am also sure many GOP politicians do not know or understand that philosophy. 

I am skeptical of all politicians regardless of party. 

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I am sure there are Southern Baptists who are nor Republican or Trump supporters. They are in the minority. 

I agree with you. I did not leave the Republican Party. It left me. The same with the Southern Baptist Convention. This happened after the conservative takeover and they abandoned, IMHO, traditional Baptist stances on tolerance and how we treat others. To my mind, they also abandoned many of the teachings of Christ in favor of intolerance for others. To me the words in the final judgment convict many in the SBC. [Sorry about the change in size. I made a mistake when I was enlarging the font size.]

I have not kept up on the internal politics of the SBC. I defer to you on that. What you wrote is interesting.

I do not know what you mean when you use the word democratic socialism. I see them as abiding more closely to the commands in the final judgment. I do not see them pursuing the tenets of Socialism. 

The tenets of Socialism are:

  • The main features of socialist economy are as follows:
  • (i) Collective Ownership:
  • (ii) Economic, Social and Political Equality:
  • (iii) Economic Planning:
  • (iv) No Competition:
  • (v) Positive Role of Government:
  • (vi) Work and Wages According to Ability and Needs.

These are different than the tenets of Communism. The tenets of Communism are:

  • Abolition of Private Property.
  • Collective Ownership of Means of Production.
  • Central Planning.
  • Elimination of Unfair Gaps in Incomes.
  • Provision of Necessaries of Life.

I believe Republican politicians use the word Socialism to instill fear. I am sure some know what they are saying is not correct and know what the philosophy of Socialism. I am also sure many GOP politicians do not know or understand that philosophy. 

I am skeptical of all politicians regardless of party. 

The Socialist Democrat party (DEMOCRAT), has over the past 50 years continued to strive towards making this country Socialist in nature. They are doing exactly what the Socialists' who took over Russia back in the 20th century did, employing many of the same tactics that helped Russia to be toppled. You can't just look at the definition in the dictionary. You have to look at historical context, application, and results. Besides, I'm not a fan of ANY of the present parties in the American political system. None of them accurately represents what many people believe.

Edited by BrotherTony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

The Socialist Democrat party (DEMOCRAT), has over the past 50 years continued to strive towards making this country Socialist in nature. They are doing exactly what the Socialists' who took over Russia back in the 20th century did, employing many of the same tactics that helped Russia to be toppled. You can't just look at the definition in the dictionary. You have to look at historical context, application, and results. Besides, I'm not a fan of ANY of the present parties in the American political system. None of them accurately represents what many people believe.

I see no parallel between the Russian revolution leading up to their take over in 1922. I see no armed revolutionists, no purging, no violence. Indeed, the only violence I've see was that of the Trump backers on January 6th. I see no reign of "Red Terror", in November 1917. There has been no execution of Republican legislators. I see no deportation of Americans to labor camps, etc., etc., etc.

What tactics are you speaking of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
49 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I see no parallel between the Russian revolution leading up to their take over in 1922. I see no armed revolutionists, no purging, no violence. Indeed, the only violence I've see was that of the Trump backers on January 6th. I see no reign of "Red Terror", in November 1917. There has been no execution of Republican legislators. I see no deportation of Americans to labor camps, etc., etc., etc.

What tactics are you speaking of?

You must be quite blind. Apparently you don't know much about world history.  Besides, this ISN'T a thread about politics in the world. It's about the SBC. Let's try to keep it there. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

You must be quite blind. Apparently you don't know much about world history.  Besides, this ISN'T a thread about politics in the world. It's about the SBC. Let's try to keep it there. Thanks.

Sorry, you are becoming upset and posting implied insults. I showed examples from history and would like for you to do the same.

You are right, this is about the SBC. You brought history into it with your post about the Socialist Democratic party. Let's go back to the SBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

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