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.

Republican Platform


Recommended Posts

A check of the actual 1956 Republican platform shows that the claims are false. 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1956

There is no mention of low-income communities. It does mention supporting states in dealing with economic problems, not the Federal government doing it themselves.

"We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system." does not mean "extension of social security" because SS was very different back then. It hadn't been raided by Congress so it meant preventing it from becoming a political slush fund. Now that it is, any "expension" means continuing its use as a slush fund, and ignoring whether or not it's sound.

The "refugees" they referred to were people escaping communist countries. Democrats today try to hamper them from coming here, and welcome people who would rather feed of America's prosperity than work toward making their home country better.

Extending the minimum wage laws did not mean raising the minimum wage, but making sure all businesses obeyed it. 

The wording for these promised were to make each of these more efficient, not to wildly expand them and throw taxpayer money at problems (making sure there would be enough kick backs for the politicians pushing the added spending)

Claiming this is like the DNC today is like saying a drug addict is the same as gramma picking up some aspirin at the grocery store.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
38 minutes ago, E Morales said:

Joe Biden GIF by Creative Courage

Thankfully I'm neither Republican nor Democrat! My wife and I became moderate (right of center) Independents in the 1980s when GHW Bush became the POTUS. I never did like Bush on the Reagan/Bush ticket, but voted for Reagan both times. We usually end up voting with Republicans, as they are closest to the Scriptural positions we hold to....but, lately, it seems that's not the case. If Trump were to run again, I don't believe we could vote for him...we'd have to do a write-in or vote for the Libertarians in protest. Too many Christians have been giving Trump "Christ-like" status...and that's something we don't support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sad to say there is no moderate or in the middle anymore and Trump did what he had to do for his for years. I voted for him but not again, not after his last six months in office. his actions made me change my mind. He did his Duty, but lost control. I think for a Republican to win now, this person will have to support the liberal agenda, if he or she have any hope of winning at all. Right now, I am also a independent voter, but there are many atheists in this party. We are getting to a point where I believe Christians might not even vote anymore. Vote for one of the two evils. Not a good choice 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2021 at 6:54 PM, BrotherTony said:

Thankfully I'm neither Republican nor Democrat! My wife and I became moderate (right of center) Independents in the 1980s when GHW Bush became the POTUS. I never did like Bush on the Reagan/Bush ticket, but voted for Reagan both times. We usually end up voting with Republicans, as they are closest to the Scriptural positions we hold to....but, lately, it seems that's not the case. If Trump were to run again, I don't believe we could vote for him...we'd have to do a write-in or vote for the Libertarians in protest. Too many Christians have been giving Trump "Christ-like" status...and that's something we don't support.

So you're judging Trump by some of his followers? 

On 9/19/2021 at 7:08 PM, E Morales said:

Sad to say there is no moderate or in the middle anymore and Trump did what he had to do for his for years. I voted for him but not again, not after his last six months in office. his actions made me change my mind. He did his Duty, but lost control. I think for a Republican to win now, this person will have to support the liberal agenda, if he or she have any hope of winning at all. Right now, I am also a independent voter, but there are many atheists in this party. We are getting to a point where I believe Christians might not even vote anymore. Vote for one of the two evils. Not a good choice 

Could you be more specific about what it was that Trump did that you didn't like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Danny Carlton said:

So you're judging Trump by some of his followers? 

Could you be more specific about what it was that Trump did that you didn't like?

No, I'm judging Trump by Trump. I never have been a fan of Trump. We nearly wrote in a person in both elections instead of voting for him, but decided that since Pence was on the ticket, we'd go ahead and vote for Trump. Mr. Trump did MANY things I didn't like, but one of the things that affected us most here in Tennessee was the loosening of the regulations on water's cleanliness. Our district already had problems with the water's cleanliness not being good, but it steadily got worse under his deregulation of certain things in water purification plants. There was also the incessant bragging about what he'd done, not the Congress helping him, but what HE'D done. Yes, it is true that people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were against him, though they said they were for him, but the point is, without the help of many IN Congress, some of the things he wanted would NEVER have passed. I've NEVER been on the Trump Train, and I never will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
58 minutes ago, Danny Carlton said:

So you're judging Trump by some of his followers? 

Could you be more specific about what it was that Trump did that you didn't like?

Trump did very poorly with the Covid situation, he handled his Twitter account very poorly, the vice president he treated very wrong and that crazy rally at the end was wrong. Trump six months before the election saying that there’s gonna be fraud in the mail, this is just some of the things he did that I didn’t agree with, but I did voted for him twice. I was hoping America can stay conservative for a little longer, but we don’t have that choice anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Meh - it was the media that painted Trump as not handling the covid situation correctly. Hydroxychloroquine has ALWAYS been used for sars and coronavirus treatment...until Trump recommended it and then the media and Fauci (who recommended it for coronaviruses back in 2005) all of a sudden said it was bad...thus condemning many to death. And now they're going after Ivermectin in the same way (claiming - falsely - that there are multitudes of cases of people overdosing on the horse version of it). Covid is a political tool and the media is complicit with it. Trump had no chance of getting any kind of positive media attention because nobody in the media wanted him to triumph (for want of a better word). 

Mail-in voting IS rife with fraud. If you lived in WA state, you would understand that. WA has been under that knife since the 80s, so Trump's comments were actually based in truth. What has gone on in WA for years was perpetrated nationwide this past year.

As to deregulation: the Constitution does not cede any kind of authority to the federal government to regulate state issues. The water issue in TN is TN's problem and they need to solve it - as well as in all other states. We've gotten too comfortable with leaning on the feds to take care of things that are not in their purview. 

That said, we didn't and don't like Trump. We did not vote for him the first time. Second time we did as a vote against Biden...as did multiples of people we know of who either voted for Hillary last time or didn't vote at all. But Biden got more votes than O did. bahahaha - not in a million years.  However, should he be the nominee again next time (if there is a next time) and Biden or Harris or one of their ilk are the opponent, we will vote the same way. 

American Christians need revival so that unsaved Americans can learn about Christ. Right now there is apathy even amongst Christians in regards to things of the Lord. THAT is why we are in the mess we are in (and THAT is why first the Dems with Obama and then many of the GOP - including Christians - with Trump created cult figures of them). Only then will people begin to understand again the relationship between Christianity and the Constitution God gave us. I put little to no stock in conservatives any more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 9/19/2021 at 4:05 PM, BrotherTony said:

This was when the parties were closer together in what they wanted....Today's two parties are so far divided that they could NEVER work together for the good of this country.

I disagree. We have a Uni-party now. It's the American people who are divided.

4 hours ago, E Morales said:

Trump did very poorly with the Covid situation, he handled his Twitter account very poorly, the vice president he treated very wrong and that crazy rally at the end was wrong. Trump six months before the election saying that there’s gonna be fraud in the mail, this is just some of the things he did that I didn’t agree with, but I did voted for him twice. I was hoping America can stay conservative for a little longer, but we don’t have that choice anymore.

Pence is garbage.

Trump's biggest mistake was listening to his liberal son-in-law Jared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
4 minutes ago, SureWord said:

 

Pence is garbage.

Yeah, I didn't address the comment about the way the veep was treated...to be quite accurate, Pence was correct in his handling of things with the count, once the Senate decided not to pursue fraud. It is not in the VEEP's purview to challenge...that must come from other members of Congress. I agree that Trump was heavy-handed toward him regarding that. But in all other areas, he was quite complimentary toward Pence. AND by choosing him as VEEP, guaranteed national attention on Pence for years to come - something that he would not have had otherwise once he did Indiana dirty.

We lived in IN when he was gov. In fact voted for him...but there were a couple of issues that showed him for what he was. I was not happy that he was VEEP, but, man...so many Christians I know were in raptures about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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, 11 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...