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.

God preserving his word


Recommended Posts

There are words in every language that cannot be translated into English using an equivalent word. One English word will not cover the meaning.

I just ran across one such word, Teranga. Teranga is a Senagal Wolof word. Teranga includes the values of hospitality,
courtesy, politeness, and gratitude all wrapped up in one word.  

Mandarin Chinese has the word guanxi. This word is impossible to translate in one English word.  Guanxi takes in the concept of having personal trust within a strong relationship with another person. It can involve obligations and giving favors. 

I am not even a novice in Hebrew or Greek. But I often what words in those languages are in the original Bible texts and how much was lost in the translations. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Well it’s simple. None 

Well, I know enough about language to know that is not true. For instance Greek has four words that must be translated as 'love.' English has only one word, 'love.' But each Greed word has a different meaning. So, I know that meaning is lost. 

When Jesus ask Peter if he (Peter) loved him Peter replied, but did not use the same Greek word. That difference in meaning is lost in English.

Just now, SureWord said:

There comes a point that you just have to have faith God preserved his words for us the way he wanted them especially since we don't even have the originals.

But I do not have to believe that a particular person's interpretation of that word, where meaning is lost, is accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus asks Peter if he loves him. John 21:15-17.

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Now I will add the Greek words that Jesus and Peter used which have to be translated as 'love' in English.

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest [agape] thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love [philo] thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest [agape] thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love [philo] thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest [philo] thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love [philo]thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Note that the third time Jesus asks Peter if he loves him that Jesus drops from the highest form of love, agape to the lower form of love, philo.

This difference is lost in the translation to English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following the "Was the king James Bible itself inspired", finding it interesting. It has raised a question in my mind. 

Language, any language, including English is always changing. Words be come extinct, no long used. New words come into the language. The meaning of words change. Geoffrey Chaucer's Cantebury Tales is exceedingly difficult to read in the original Middle English. 

A short example from Chaucer's Middle English from his Canterbury Tales:

Me thynketh it acordaunt to resoun
To telle yow al the condicioun
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche they weren, and of what degree,
And eek in what array that they were inne (Book I, ll. 37–41)

Thus, the question is, how does God preserve his word as a language, in the case English, changes/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Well, I know enough about language to know that is not true. For instance Greek has four words that must be translated as 'love.' English has only one word, 'love.' But each Greed word has a different meaning. So, I know that meaning is lost. 

When Jesus ask Peter if he (Peter) loved him Peter replied, but did not use the same Greek word. That difference in meaning is lost in English.

But I do not have to believe that a particular person's interpretation of that word, where meaning is lost, is accurate. 

So, is it YOUR belief that Jesus Christ or the HOLY SPIRIT lied when these words were written in the Bible? If a jot or a tittle is that important, I don't believe a difference in the word is going to change God's ability to preserve His Word or to keep his promises to do so. 

Matthew 5:18

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I have been following the "Was the king James Bible itself inspired", finding it interesting. It has raised a question in my mind. 

Language, any language, including English is always changing. Words be come extinct, no long used. New words come into the language. The meaning of words change. Geoffrey Chaucer's Cantebury Tales is exceedingly difficult to read in the original Middle English. 

A short example from Chaucer's Middle English from his Canterbury Tales:

Me thynketh it acordaunt to resoun
To telle yow al the condicioun
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche they weren, and of what degree,
And eek in what array that they were inne (Book I, ll. 37–41)

Thus, the question is, how does God preserve his word as a language, in the case English, changes/

BB, are you implying that God cannot preserve his Word even as the language/words change? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

So, is it YOUR belief that Jesus Christ or the HOLY SPIRIT lied when these words were written in the Bible? If a jot or a tittle is that important, I don't believe a difference in the word is going to change God's ability to preserve His Word or to keep his promises to do so. 

Matthew 5:18

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Nope, not at all. And your reply does not address the subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Nat at all BT. But how does God preserve his word when language changes? 

There are usually equivalent that come along to replace the word that don't change the meaning. You're the one who taught/worked in a seminary or Bible college...right? You should be aware of this if you were involved in any way in this kind of ministry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Nope, not at all. And your reply does not address the subject. 

In a round about way, yes, it DOES address "the subject." It also puts YOU on the offensive....Your answer, "Nope, not at all," is an evasion of the question. I'll be a little more specific so that maybe even you can understand. Though there are indeed 3 different words for love in this passage you posted, anyone worth their salt would be able to find the differences by actually "studying" (2 Tim 2:15...Study to show thyself approved unto God...") by using a Bible dictionary, a commentary and a good concordance. It's not that complicated, BB...and after some of your comments in other threads "I dont NEED Scripture," it puts me into questioning your motive for asking the questions you've asked in the two threads concerning this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Looks like too much dieting on emergent church writings has caused him to think we can't even get the Bible meaning today. Therefore a preference for other writings other than the Bible. But if you cannot study the Bible and get what God is trying to teach us from His Word - through all available sound Bible study materials - then someone has to wonder if there is something wrong.

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 1 Corinthians 1:30

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:7-16

Edited by Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The issue with Bible versions is not the changing of words over time and finding the current appropriate word with the same meaning - the issue is modern versions:

1) use different underlying manuscripts, which do NOT say the same thing

2) change the MEANING of the passages, by adding to God's Word, removing from God's Word, or outright changing God's Word, which the Bible forbids us from doing. In fact, God curses those who do so.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

3) Change the language and wording a minimum of 10% in order to copyright their work. It is not just an issue of updating the language - or else, for example, the NKJV would not remove the word "matrix" from the five verses they are found in the KJV THEN GO AHEAD AND PUT THE SAME SUPPOSEDLY ARCHAIC WORD IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PASSAGE IN ISAIAH. That is deception and double speak, pure and simple.

Funny how the world and yea, even some in Christendom, have no problem with translating Plato, Aristotle, or any other ancient text - religious or secular - into another language, including English - but somehow no one can do the exact same when it comes to the Bible. I guess it is the only book on the planet that no one can ever translate accurately. Oh wait, is that the sound of hissing I hear?

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Edited by Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jerry said:

The issue with Bible versions is not the changing of words over time and finding the current appropriate word with the same meaning - the issue is modern versions:

1) use different underlying manuscripts, which do NOT say the same thing

2) change the MEANING of the passages, by adding to God's Word, removing from God's Word, or outright changing God's Word, which the Bible forbids us from doing. In fact, God curses those who do so.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

3) Change the language and wording a minimum of 10% in order to copyright their work. It is not just an issue of updating the language - or else, for example, the NKJV would not remove the word "matrix" from the five verses they are found in the KJV THEN GO AHEAD AND PUT THE SAME SUPPOSEDLY ARCHAIC WORD IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PASSAGE IN ISAIAH. That is deception and double speak, pure and simple.

Funny how the world and yea, even some in Christendom, have no problem with translating Plato, Aristotle, or any other ancient text - religious or secular - into another language, including English - but somehow no one can do the exact same when it comes to the Bible. I guess it is the only book on the planet that no one can ever translate accurately. Oh wait, is that the sound of hissing I hear?

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Every translation, Socrates, the Bible or any other translation looses meaning. There are no exceptions to this. 

Are there advances in scholarship?

Are there advances in understanding ancient languages?

13 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

There are usually equivalent that come along to replace the word that don't change the meaning. You're the one who taught/worked in a seminary or Bible college...right? You should be aware of this if you were involved in any way in this kind of ministry. 

I worked in the seminary library updating their data base. I never taught and have no qualifications to teach in a seminary ... other than perhaps about the library and its collection, helping students and professors find information. 

 

13 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

There are usually equivalent that come along to replace the word that don't change the meaning. You're the one who taught/worked in a seminary or Bible college...right? You should be aware of this if you were involved in any way in this kind of ministry. 

I worked in the seminary library updating their data base. I never taught and have no qualifications to teach in a seminary ... other than perhaps about the library and its collection, helping students and professors find information. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
53 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Every translation, Socrates, the Bible or any other translation looses meaning. There are no exceptions to this. 

Are there advances in scholarship?

Are there advances in understanding ancient languages?

I worked in the seminary library updating their data base. I never taught and have no qualifications to teach in a seminary ... other than perhaps about the library and its collection, helping students and professors find information. 

 

I worked in the seminary library updating their data base. I never taught and have no qualifications to teach in a seminary ... other than perhaps about the library and its collection, helping students and professors find information. 

 

That all depends...your defintion of "advances," "scholarship," "and what you consider ancient languages. I don't believe that any of these loses it's meaning if one can compare to books of the same time period, actually has access to the meaning of the words from that time through the people, the context in which things were written, etc. It still comes down to context and content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is nothing in the KJV that a modern English speaker cannot understand. I'm a high school dropout with a GED who never attended college and who never read a book prior to my salvation yet I could understand. 

The bottomline is do you believe that God is powerful enough to give us his words without error in a language we can read and understand.

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, 8 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...