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

  • Moderators

America's founders had the benefit of the principle of human dignity and worth as found in the Bible, and many were also fighting for true freedom of religion (individual soul liberty). The Afghanis don't have that, and their religion teaches much of what the Taliban represents. I wonder if without that Biblical basis, they'll ever have the real impetus to fight. 

I should talk... look at Canada and the western nations, and how our societies are so freely giving up their liberties for some supposed safety from a nasty flu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, SureWord said:

I see where the leader of the Taliban was released by Obama in 2014 in a prisoner exchange deal.

This would not a be anything surprising. Many who were let go have returned to fighting the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
On 8/15/2021 at 11:18 AM, 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.

Unfortunately the reality is that Afghanistan was never going to be a democracy without US troops present.

I think we have stop looking at the middle east through a "American"  or western perspective. I'm sure there are a minority of liberal Afghans who admire and want to live in a free country like we do here, but for the most part the Afghans are deeply rooted in Islam and various forms of tribalism. 

The United States was never going to take over the country and make it some kind of proxy state under the US government so once we finally left SOMEONE inevitably was going to take control. While the Taliban may not be much better they have been effective in defeating ISIS fighters who want to make Afghanistan a part of their new "Caliphate".

Like SureWord said - the Afghans are Muslims and WANT to live under Islamic laws. While Muslims believe Sharia is "Allah's" blueprint for a government I think MOST are afraid and are against the very strict interpretation and enforcement of used by the previous Taliban rule and places like Saudi Arabia.

It's my understanding that one of the reasons Mohammed Omar  formed the Taliban was to combat local powerful warlords who were practicing "Bacha bazi " which is the practice of having naked young boys dressed like females dance for them like strippers, and the sexual activity associated with it. Omar assembled and armed his "students" after a warlord kidnapped and raped two young girls and rescued them. Bach bazi was made illegal by the Tabliban and was punishable by death when they came to power. I'm sure the men in Afghanistan today who have been practicing these kind of sex acts while the Taliban were out of power are among the ones in the Kabul airport praying for a way to get out of the country.

The Taliban couldve easily overlooked parts of Islamic law and turned those poppy fields into a cash machine for  the manufacturing of heroin but Omar and the other Taliban leaders rightfully concluded that it was unislamic and burned the fields while making it illegal.

There is simply no good solution when it comes to who controls the Afghanistan government. Because of Islam alone no matter who ends up in power it's going to upset outsiders and draw criticism from Western countries. 

I don't feel like a Taliban government is a good thing, but like I said there is no perfect solution or substitute that is a realistic option for the future there. I only pray that the Taliban truly mean what they say about changing their views on women's rights and the way they ruled before. 

 

Edited by Disciple.Luke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
39 minutes ago, Disciple.Luke said:

Unfortunately the reality is that Afghanistan was never going to be a democracy without US troops present.

I think we have stop looking at the middle east through a "American"  or western perspective. I'm sure there are a minority of liberal Afghans who admire and want to live in a free country like we do here, but for the most part the Afghans are deeply rooted in Islam and various forms of tribalism. 

The United States was never going to take over the country and make it some kind of proxy state under the US government so once we finally left SOMEONE inevitably was going to take control. While the Taliban may not be much better they have been effective in defeating ISIS fighters who want to make Afghanistan a part of their new "Caliphate".

Like SureWord said - the Afghans are Muslims and WANT to live under Islamic laws. While Muslims believe Sharia is "Allah's" blueprint for a government I think MOST are afraid and are against the very strict interpretation and enforcement of used by the previous Taliban rule and places like Saudi Arabia.

It's my understanding that one of the reasons Mohammed Omar  formed the Taliban was to combat local powerful warlords who were practicing "Bacha bazi " which is the practice of having naked young boys dressed like females dance for them like strippers, and the sexual activity associated with it. Omar assembled and armed his "students" after a warlord kidnapped and raped two young girls and rescued them. Bach bazi was made illegal by the Tabliban and was punishable by death when they came to power. I'm sure the men in Afghanistan today who have been practicing these kind of sex acts while the Taliban were out of power are among the ones in the Kabul airport praying for a way to get out of the country.

The Taliban couldve easily overlooked parts of Islamic law and turned those poppy fields into a cash machine for  the manufacturing of heroin but Omar and the other Taliban leaders rightfully concluded that it was unislamic and burned the fields while making it illegal.

There is simply no good solution when it comes to who controls the Afghanistan government. Because of Islam alone no matter who ends up in power it's going to upset outsiders and draw criticism from Western countries. 

I don't feel like a Taliban government is a good thing, but like I said there is no perfect solution or substitute that is a realistic option for the future there. I only pray that the Taliban truly mean what they say about changing their views on women's rights and the way they ruled before. 

 

Yes, the Taliban was actually an improvement over the Mujahideen who was a creation of the CIA in our proxy war against the Soviet Union. Nothing but drug Lords, rapists and pedophiles. The Taliban was burning the opium fields. IMO, that's the main reason we went in.  Apparently, it turned into a giant money laundering campaign also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, SureWord said:

Yes, the Taliban was actually an improvement over the Mujahideen who was a creation of the CIA in our proxy war against the Soviet Union. Nothing but drug Lords, rapists and pedophiles. The Taliban was burning the opium fields. IMO, that's the main reason we went in.  Apparently, it turned into a giant money laundering campaign also.

Agreed.

 

I also agree with your comment about how we never should've been in Afghanistan in the first place.

 

When the US threatened the Afghans if they did not hand over Osama Bin Laden I am not completely convinced that Mohammad Omar refused because he agreed with the 9/11 attacks. Of course once we invaded then the Taliban hit the green light on jihad against us.

 

I think to understand why Omar refused to cooperate with the US you have to consider the Islamic teaching on giving asylum to another Muslim when asked but in Mohammed Omar's case you also have to factor in the local Pushtun tribal traditions that are a part of the Afghan culture.

 

In places like Afghanistan those traditions and rules are taken very seriously and in many cases they would rather die than break an oath or promise, and I believe this is why the Taliban refused to hand bin Laden over. Well or at least part of the reason. Anyone who has seen the movie based on the true story Lone Survivor has seen a portrayal of this. When the US soldier makes it to the village and the jihadist come looking for him the villagers refused to hand him over risking their lives because their tradition compelled them to protect him regardless of personal feelings.

 

In the end we invaded and went to war with an entire country to find one person who was living in PAKISTAN when we found him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
On 8/15/2021 at 8:05 PM, HappyChristian said:

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.
 
 

I watched as Obama eliminated the best military tactical minds and leaders in favor of generals and admirals skilled in social engineering and expert in maintaining their retirement pensions. Biden was just as much at fault as Obama and is complicit in the deterioration of our military. Now there are no active generals or admirals who will stand up and tell Biden he was wrong nor were there any tactical-leaders to advise him his course of action (full retreat) was wrong and sent the wrong message. I imagine none of the Obama-Biden generals will even be asked to resign.

Sadly, President Trump was stuck with these same mealy-mouthed no account generals and admirals during his first four years. I have a feeling that will change during Trump's next four years.

Edited by 1Timothy115
Add comment...Yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
2 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I watched as Obama eliminated the best military tactical minds and leaders in favor of generals and admirals skilled in social engineering and expert in maintaining their retirement pensions. Biden was just as much at fault as Obama and is complicit in the deterioration of our military. Now there are no active generals or admirals who will stand up and tell Biden he was wrong nor were there any tactical-leaders to advise him his course of action (full retreat) was wrong and sent the wrong message. I imagine none of the Obama-Biden generals will even be asked to resign.

Sadly, President Trump was stuck with these same mealy-mouthed no account generals and admirals during his first four years. I have a feeling that will change during Trump's next four years.

A former UK general who was in Afghanistan came out and said Biden should be court-martialed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

A former UK general who was in Afghanistan came out and said Biden should be court-martialed.

Nice, but the condemnation needs to come from our own. More evidence of the insignificance of the USA in God's eternal plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Nice, but the condemnation needs to come from our own. More evidence of the insignificance of the USA in God's eternal plan.

If we followed God's play we would have promoted peace and not war. 

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

Matthew 5:9 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

If we followed God's play we would have promoted peace and not war. 

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

Matthew 5:9 

 

Oh, so you agree with the attacks on 9/11, eh, BB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What's gonna be interesting is there's a good chance this fall that unvaccinated citizens will be interned in detention camps while the Afghans and illegals pouring over the border, unvaxxed and placed around the country, will be roaming free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
36 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Your reply makes no sense. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

My reply makes perfect sense..and I AM on topic...If it hadn't been for the attacks, we would never have gone to Afghanistan...If we hadn't gone to Afghanistan, the your president, Jivin' Joey wouldn't be making the mistakes he's made and laving the Taliban to take over the whole of Afghanistan again...Maybe you need a refresher in how to tell the truth??? Eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

My reply makes perfect sense..and I AM on topic...If it hadn't been for the attacks, we would never have gone to Afghanistan...If we hadn't gone to Afghanistan, the your president, Jivin' Joey wouldn't be making the mistakes he's made and laving the Taliban to take over the whole of Afghanistan again...Maybe you need a refresher in how to tell the truth??? Eh?

Bush made the mistake of going in. All the presidents since have made mistakes. We should never have gone in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Bush made the mistake of going in. All the presidents since have made mistakes. We should never have gone in.

20-20 is perfect. Really, it's not that we shouldn't have gone in its we shouldn't have stayed for 20 years. Probably a year or two.

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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...