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

1 hour ago, SureWord said:

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.

I agree we should not have stayed 20 years. I do agree with Biden, if we waited 5 or more years before we pulled out the result would be the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
11 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 

 

Do you always attempt to antagonize? I suppose someone has to do it.

God doesn't 'play' I'm sure you meant 'plan' not play.  Matthew 10:34   "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Romans 12:18   "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." 

We (USA) had no intention of involving ourselves in a protracted war with the Taliban or any of the terrorist groups given haven  there. We were living peaceably with them. However, from that haven, the USA was attacked. The government of the USA is a secular entity and is subject to passions of any lost unsaved folks. They are also subject (or should be) to the passions of citizens of the USA and many of them are lost. The citizens were enraged and the government responded with a search and destroy mission for Osama Bin Laden. The remainder of the mission suffered 'mission creep' and resulted in 20 years of war over there with prevention of other terrorist attacks as justification. Sadly, Obama and Biden could have pulled us out after they killed Osama and his family but they chose instead to relieve every general and admiral who advised them to get out. Back to my comments its Obama and Biden's fault we have no military leadership remaining.

Edited by 1Timothy115
Pressed the 'save' button too soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

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

So, instead of going after the Taliban, Isis and Al Quada we should have just let the attacks on 9/11 go....I see. We should have gone in with the ONE objective of ending these groups permanently and finding Osama Bin Laden and taking him out, then getting out. We shouldn't be nation building. Seems like lately we can't take care of our own nation, and allowing the Taliban to take back over in the capital of Afghanistan is just more proof of this administrations failed policies...At least the previous admiistration had a more measured response to leaving on a timely basis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

So, instead of going after the Taliban, Isis and Al Quada we should have just let the attacks on 9/11 go....I see. We should have gone in with the ONE objective of ending these groups permanently and finding Osama Bin Laden and taking him out, then getting out. We shouldn't be nation building. Seems like lately we can't take care of our own nation, and allowing the Taliban to take back over in the capital of Afghanistan is just more proof of this administrations failed policies...At least the previous admiistration had a more measured response to leaving on a timely basis. 

Did any of the terrorists on 9/11 come from Afghanistan? 

Why didn't we go after the country where the majority were from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Did any of the terrorists on 9/11 come from Afghanistan? 

Why didn't we go after the country where the majority were from?

Afghanistan was harboring Osama Bin Laden...all intelligence reported for over 18 months pointed to them. Pakistan, too, was hiding hiim. Where the attackers came from in unimportant...where the mastermind and money trail led to was far more important. You should know that by now...but again, why should I expect you to use deductive reasoning? You've done so little of it in the past communications I've had with you. I see you're still trying to deflect and introduce irrelevant, leftist theories. You'll never learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Afghanistan was harboring Osama Bin Laden...all intelligence reported for over 18 months pointed to them. Pakistan, too, was hiding hiim. Where the attackers came from in unimportant...where the mastermind and money trail led to was far more important. You should know that by now...but again, why should I expect you to use deductive reasoning? You've done so little of it in the past communications I've had with you. I see you're still trying to deflect and introduce irrelevant, leftist theories. You'll never learn.

And where did the money come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
10 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I agree we should not have stayed 20 years. I do agree with Biden, if we waited 5 or more years before we pulled out the result would be the same. 

That's the argument that Biden keeps having with himself. It's NOT that we pulled out of Afghanistan, its HOW we pulled out. That is the part Biden will not talk about. He just deflects back to the we should never have been there which he is correct, but nobody is arguing that part lol).  How this for a plan, evacuate people BEFORE the military pulls out. 

The blood of many is on his hands. Executed correctly, many lives could have been saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
20 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 

 

Would you be willing to discus this topic of Matt 5:9 in another thread? Christ, the Prince of Peace, realized there must at times be conflict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, PastorMatt said:

That's the argument that Biden keeps having with himself. It's NOT that we pulled out of Afghanistan, its HOW we pulled out. That is the part Biden will not talk about. He just deflects back to the we should never have been there which he is correct, but nobody is arguing that part lol).  How this for a plan, evacuate people BEFORE the military pulls out. 

The blood of many is on his hands. Executed correctly, many lives could have been saved.

How about we actually have a commander-in-chief who's got brains enough to remove military ordinants before leaving the country so that there's nothing left for the enemy to use against their citizens or their neighboring countries? Biden's been a miserable failure and has given the Taliban all it needs to continue just as strong as it was before!

1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

And where did the money come from?

Seems like you can't think for yourself, BB...I'm NOT doing your homework for you! You know for sure that much of the money came from Osama, and some may have come from his family....But, you wouldn't want to have him take responsibility for that, now, would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PastorMatt said:

Would you be willing to discus this topic of Matt 5:9 in another thread? Christ, the Prince of Peace, realized there must at times be conflict. 

Sure, start a thread. 

36 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

How about we actually have a commander-in-chief who's got brains enough to remove military ordinants before leaving the country so that there's nothing left for the enemy to use against their citizens or their neighboring countries? Biden's been a miserable failure and has given the Taliban all it needs to continue just as strong as it was before!

Seems like you can't think for yourself, BB...I'm NOT doing your homework for you! You know for sure that much of the money came from Osama, and some may have come from his family....But, you wouldn't want to have him take responsibility for that, now, would you?

First paragraph.

Most of the ordnance was what we had given the Afghani military so they could defend the country. Too  bad they simply ran away, leaving the ordnance behind and giving the Taliban a free gift.

 

Second paragraph. You are admitting you do not know who supplied the money. I know who supplied it. It was and is common knowledge. So, you need to do a bit of research so you will know.

Should we have gone after the country that supplied the money?

 

 

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

 

 

Second paragraph. You are admitting you do not know who supplied the money. I know who supplied it. It was and is common knowledge. So, you need to do a bit of research so you will know.

Should we have gone after the country that supplied the money?

 

 

I don't know what you're trying to push over on me, BB...but it's not going to work. I haven't admitted anything...All I said was that I wasn't going to do your homework for you. You keep answering questions with questions...typical of someone who has NO ANSWERS...which apparently, you don't! Go figure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I don't know what you're trying to push over on me, BB...but it's not going to work. I haven't admitted anything...All I said was that I wasn't going to do your homework for you. You keep answering questions with questions...typical of someone who has NO ANSWERS...which apparently, you don't! Go figure!

I've  done my homework. I seriously doubt you have as you dodged the question.

Now, an easier question. Should we have gone after the country that supplied the money?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I've  done my homework. I seriously doubt you have as you dodged the question.

Now, an easier question. Should we have gone after the country that supplied the money?"

I've not dodged anything...and you're pulling the same thing you did before you 'took a vacation." Remember, BB, I'm NOT going to be intimidated by you. You've got little sway over anything I do or feel. You've been trying to get me to answer your inane questions for several weeks now, and I thought you'd have learned...you answer a question with a question like you're still doing, and you'll not get an answer from me. I don't play those games. You apparently don't know who supplied the money, as you're still iem-hawing around looking for an answer. I've told you where the money came from...accept it and move on. 

Now, back to the Taliban...which apparently BB wants to avoid since he's trying to derail his own thread again! 

Edited by BrotherTony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The execution of leaving had no thought out plan other than getting on planes and leave, that was the problem. Of course doing the same execution in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years will produce the same result. However a well thought out execution that had American and our allies best interested in mind would have produced a better outcome and we'd not be talking about this right now. The execution is squarely on Biden's shoulders. 

Biden only cares about people not dying of covid, not by execution... well, that's part of the plan I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I've not dodged anything...and you're pulling the same thing you did before you 'took a vacation." Remember, BB, I'm NOT going to be intimidated by you. You've got little sway over anything I do or feel. You've been trying to get me to answer your inane questions for several weeks now, and I thought you'd have learned...you answer a question with a question like you're still doing, and you'll not get an answer from me. I don't play those games. You apparently don't know who supplied the money, as you're still iem-hawing around looking for an answer. I've told you where the money came from...accept it and move on. 

Now, back to the Taliban...which apparently BB wants to avoid since he's trying to derail his own thread again! 

Well, just answer my question please. Should we have gone after the country that supplied the money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
19 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Well, just answer my question please. Should we have gone after the country that supplied the money?

You have no idea where the money came from even though I've given you several possibilities to choose from. Do your own homework....We went after the country that was harboring the terrorist who set up the attacks...that's all that matters...Care to go around again, BB?? You're losing! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

You have no idea where the money came from even though I've given you several possibilities to choose from. Do your own homework....We went after the country that was harboring the terrorist who set up the attacks...that's all that matters...Care to go around again, BB?? You're losing! 

No. Your refusal to answer answers all I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Just now, Bouncing Bill said:

No. Your refusal to answer answers all I need to know.

I've not refused to answer anything. It's just NOT THE ANSWER YOU WANT. You still think you can intimidate people like the Talibans does, eh? Maybe you should go to Afghanistan and help! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

"If you ever feel useless, remember it took 20 years, trillions of dollars and 4 US Presidents to replace the Taliban with the Taliban"

Amen! A much better armed Taliban!

 

Edited by BrotherTony
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, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

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