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.

Taliban Fighters Enter Kabul


Recommended Posts

We never learn from history.

We spent 88 Billion and got nothing. It was so predictable.

Taliban fighters entered the outskirts of the Afghan capital on Sunday and said they were awaiting a "peaceful transfer" of the city after promising not to take it by force, but panicked residents raced to the leave, with workers fleeing government offices and helicopters landing at the U.S. Embassy.

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/15/1027806863/the-taliban-seize-jalalabad-cutting-off-kabul-to-the-east

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We shouldn't have been there to begin with. Those people do not want a democracy because it's an abomination to Islam. 

Just another war to make a few rich at the top even richer (hundreds of millions of dollars have disappeared without a trace).

They'll have to find their opium from somewhere else now. Maybe big Pharma can buy it from China.

Incidentally, Vietnam was the #1 producer of opium in the world before fall of Saigon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SureWord said:

We shouldn't have been there to begin with. Those people do not want a democracy because it's an abomination to Islam. 

Just another war to make a few rich at the top even richer (hundreds of millions of dollars have disappeared without a trace).

They'll have to find their opium from somewhere else now. Maybe big Pharma can buy it from China.

Incidentally, Vietnam was the #1 producer of opium in the world before fall of Saigon.

You are right, we should never have been there. You can thank Rumsfeld for our going there. He convinced G. Bush. Bush was unfortunate in that he had bad advisors. I am not sure why or how that happened. Regardless we have paid a terrible price for his following their bad advice. I said when we went in it was a mistake, like getting your fist stuck in a tar baby. You do not get out easily or clean. This was obvious if you knew the history of Afghanistan. 

They do not need to find opium. They grow it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

You are right, we should never have been there. You can thank Rumsfeld for our going there. He convinced G. Bush. Bush was unfortunate in that he had bad advisors. I am not sure why or how that happened. Regardless we have paid a terrible price for his following their bad advice. I said when we went in it was a mistake, like getting your fist stuck in a tar baby. You do not get out easily or clean. This was obvious if you knew the history of Afghanistan. 

They do not need to find opium. They grow it.

 

Maybe the US government secretly grows it but not like Aghanistan. They produce 80% of the worlds opium. At least they did. The Taliban will burn the fields as was happening before we invaded.

Any nation that produces that much opium America will either seek to control it or to keep others from controlling it.

This is the main reason we went into Iraq. Not to take control of the oil fields but prevent China from striking a deal with Saddam's government which was about to happen. 

China, by the way, is the largest producer of illegal fentanyl that enters the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I agree we should have never been there in the first place, but leaving the way we did was just horrible and caused more deaths than needed. The exit was not thought out or planned well at all. Previous administrations handled this wrong, and our current administration did the same thing in record time. It seems it may have been done to check of the list for his legacy.

In July, Biden said that "the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely." I think he's the only one in this country that did not see this happening, of course he's not even sure he's president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

I agree we should have never been there in the first place, but leaving the way we did was just horrible and caused more deaths than needed. The exit was not thought out or planned well at all. Previous administrations handled this wrong, and our current administration did the same thing in record time. It seems it may have been done to check of the list for his legacy.

In July, Biden said that "the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely." I think he's the only one in this country that did not see this happening, of course he's not even sure he's president. 

Yes, they left a lot of people who helped us high n' dry without a way out. No doubt they will be slaughtered now.

I would never trust the American government.

I just heard that China, Russia, Pakistan and India have already recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

From Ted Cruz:

It is now clear there has been a disastrous breakdown across the political, military, and intelligence leadership of the Biden-Harris administration, culminating in the catastrophe for American national security we are now witnessing. This debacle should never have happened—and, indeed, we were assured it would not happen. In just the last few weeks, top officials from the administration, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley and President Biden himself, stood in front of cameras and told Americans their plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan was sound, the country's military was capable of defending the country, and a Taliban onslaught could not succeed.
 
We now know those assurances were disastrously wrong, if not outright false.
I have long called for the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan. Wars must have ends. The Trump administration had negotiated the basis for an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. But this White House tore up that deal and instead pursued an incoherent and precipitous abandonment that subordinated realistic planning and military necessity to wishful thinking and political ideology.
 
Our men and women in uniform have fought heroically for decades, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and it is impossible to adequately express the gratitude Americans feel and the immense debt we owe them. Their leaders have too often let them down and did here again. They and other brave Americans in Afghanistan are in precisely the acute danger President Biden assured the American public would not happen.
 
Our first priority must be to secure the safety of Americans still in Afghanistan. Then Congress must demand a thorough accounting both of what is happening in Afghanistan and why Biden-Harris officials have been consistently issuing assessments that were at best, misleading, and at worst, false. Either there was a complete collapse of American intelligence collecting in the region, President Biden was deliberately misled by his hand-picked national security team, or he knowingly issued statements he knew to be false. The American people deserve to know the truth and hold our leaders accountable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
4 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

The Trump administration had negotiated the basis for an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. But this White House tore up that deal and instead pursued an incoherent and precipitous abandonment that subordinated realistic planning and military necessity to wishful thinking and political ideology.

I'll have to do some research on this. I do remember Trump started negotiating the exit plan, but I don't remember what happened after that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Apparently, Trump negotiated a "conditional withdrawal". Not sure what that exactly means but I believe it left the door open for us to return if they went too far not respecting the puppet government we installed. 

Bottom line is most Afghans want the Taliban just like most Palestinians want Hezbollah. These people are not Americans nor do they want our cesspool culture.

No more foreign wars. Bring all the troops home and put them on the southern border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

I agree we should have never been there in the first place, but leaving the way we did was just horrible and caused more deaths than needed. The exit was not thought out or planned well at all. Previous administrations handled this wrong, and our current administration did the same thing in record time. It seems it may have been done to check of the list for his legacy.

In July, Biden said that "the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely." I think he's the only one in this country that did not see this happening, of course he's not even sure he's president. 

And, he doesn't know how many live here in this country...he stated that over 385 million people had been vaccinated...there are only about 335 million in this country...ugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

I agree we should have never been there in the first place, but leaving the way we did was just horrible and caused more deaths than needed. The exit was not thought out or planned well at all. Previous administrations handled this wrong, and our current administration did the same thing in record time. It seems it may have been done to check of the list for his legacy.

In July, Biden said that "the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely." I think he's the only one in this country that did not see this happening, of course he's not even sure he's president. 

I feel Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all are responsible. I am sure that Bush followed the advice of Rumsfeld, a real hawk who was itching for war. I believe Bush was a decent person who ended up with bad advisors. Following him, I believe the Pentagon hid many problems and were overly optimistic. I now believe Obama was mislead and probably he (Obama) mislead the American people. I believe Trump made a serious strategic mistake when he entered and signed an agreement with the Taliban agreeing on a date to begin our military withdrawal without allowing the Afghan government a say in the negotiations. The Taliban knew all they had to do was bide their time until we left. Biden was saying what he was told. I believe the Pentagon mislead him also. We threw 88 billion into Afghanistan.  The corruption there misused much of the money, make many very rich, and produced no effective military. 

I cannot imagine the bitterness of many families knowing they lost fathers, sons, and daughters all for nothing. I am sick over this dark chapter in our history. 

I am sure that Happy is correct and that the majority of the Afghan people do not want the Taliban. Sadly, for them, we abandoned them and they are stuck with the Taliban and we know how terrible the Taliban treated people when they were in power before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I've read they have the majority support of the people. The streets were full of celebrations in many cities when they would arrive. They were able to take over an entire nation essentially within a week. That wouldn't happen if they didn't have the support of the people.

Again, this is the mistake of thinking these people want to be American. Same mistake in Vietnam.

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
58 minutes ago, SureWord said:

I've read they have the majority support of the people. The streets were full of celebrations in many cities when they would arrive. They were able to take over an entire nation essentially within a week. That wouldn't happen if they didn't have the support of the people.

Again, this is the mistake of thinking these people want to be American. Same mistake in Vietnam.

I fully agree. I've read the same thing, and many of the servicemen  and women who served in Afghanistan have told me that the people there didn't want Western styled Democracy. It is against their Quran and their prophet. I also agree that there would have been better ways to handle the terrorists in Afghanistan other than invading the country. There was sufficient intelligence and sufficient sources inside the country that could have led us to those who were responbile for the attacks of 9/11. Afghanistan was only a part of the problem anyhow. Pakistan and Iraq were involved to some degree as well. Yet, we avoided Pakistan for the most part. Yes, we had some small incursions there, but Bush, who led us into Afghanistan to help appease the anger of Americans who lost loved one in the attacks of 9/11, led us into two failed wars. His pop should have finished off Saddam Hussein back in the first Gulf War instead of following the mandate of the United Nations. I never was a fan of the Bush family, and my reasons were borne out in this last election. They are more Nationalist Democrats that they are Republicans. The only reason that Bush 41 was added to the ticket was that this was the only way the Ronald Reagan was going to win the nomination. He had to gain the liberal 1/2 of the Republicans, and Bush was the overwhelming choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
15 hours ago, SureWord said:

I've read they have the majority support of the people. The streets were full of celebrations in many cities when they would arrive. They were able to take over an entire nation essentially within a week. That wouldn't happen if they didn't have the support of the people.

Again, this is the mistake of thinking these people want to be American. Same mistake in Vietnam.

Not wanting to be "American" or westernized is far different from preferring the Taliban.  Although BEFORE the Taliban took over, in the 60s, they were actually very "westernized." Pictures of people back then look very much like American pictures from back then. 99% muslim country gave women "equality." But then the king was removed (1973). Then Russia came in (1979 - and interestingly enough, it was referred to as the USSR's Vietnam). The US supported the anti-soviet Afghans...giving them weaponry, which I think was wrong. But they got rid of Russia in 1989, but 3 years later the Taliban took over. And set up the Islamic Emirate. I guess the 2 million that died in the 10-year war wasn't enough. The Taliban's strict adherence to Sharia caused women to be tortured, maimed, and killed if a man desired (or felt "honor" bound). (and their culture is wicked as well...although they will kill gays who are "out," a great many of the Shariah-pushing men are pedophiles [anyone who marries a child is a pedophile] and closet perverts in other ways)

I'm sure everyone knows the history, so I won't go on. I just wanted to stress that the rank-and-file Afghani does not support nor want the Taliban. Mayhap they want the Americans gone - and I couldn't blame them. I wouldn't want to live in an occupied country, either. 

I'm not going to get into whether or not we were right to go in there (we each have our opinions, and I'm sure they are strong, whatever they are). But this mess is not only being referred to as another Saigon, but Biden's Bay of Pigs. IMO, it's purposeful, as is all the garbage about CoV, mandates, v*xx, letting Antifa off virtually scot-free, the ridiculous "investigation" into the Jan 6 "capitol riots," and on and on ad nauseum. Fracture a society into segments and they will not come together in unity to fight the bigger evil that is the take-over of our country.

We need revival. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No doubt these helicopters and other abandoned equipment will be handed over to China and Russia so they can reverse engineer them.

But, as Bro. Matt said, no more mean tweets.

2 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

FB_IMG_1629195674156.jpg

I read yesterday where one of Trump's lawyers was banned from Twitter, as Trump has been, but the head of the Taliban has not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

There could never be a peaceful transition or removal of US forces, unless the Afghani people are willing to stand and fight. They're conditioned to either being cowed by fear of the Taliban, or protected by America. And when the chips fell and the time came to stand, having been armed and trained, they dropped everything and ran. 

Our own founding in America is a good example: we had to reach a point where we we so tired of being trod upon, we were willing to die to make a change. Until the people of Afghanistan are willing to do the same, nothing will change. Get our people out and let them receive the recompense due for their unwillingness to stand. When they're tired enough, they'll stand for themselves. Or die trying.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 1 Anonymous, 13 Guests (See full list)

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