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.

And the stars of heaven fell.....


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

Revelation 12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 

What we commonly refer to as a "star", is a "sun". So if just one of those were to collide with earth, it would take one and only one and the planet would be completely engulfed and melted. One collision and there would nothing left for any additional "stars" (plural) to fall onto. So methinks that the "stars" mentioned in the Bible include the massive asteroids and comets which astronomers call "NEO's", "NEA's" and "NEC's" and they're getting mighty close. What say ye?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-asteroid-deflection-mission-enters-next-design-phase

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Revelation 12:4 

to me it reads as angels, but I also agree with your meteoroid theory. I believe that’s how it will appear.

 

 

Interestingly John Hopkins is leader in this push of DART. As well as the COVID vaccine. 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, SureWord said:

Unless the stars aren't as big and/or massive as the reprobates in NASA and the Universities say they are.

In some commentaries I've read concerning this verse, they are ASTEROIDS, not stars. I'm not saying they are, but it's a possibility. Because of the time that this was written in, there are many things that are put into terminology of that time to describe things, ie., when the dragon is described with ten horns...this isn't a literal dragon, but something else. Who would have known how to describe this in that time period...only in figurative terminology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, BrotherTony said:

In some commentaries I've read concerning this verse, they are ASTEROIDS, not stars. I'm not saying they are, but it's a possibility. Because of the time that this was written in, there are many things that are put into terminology of that time to describe things, ie., when the dragon is described with ten horns...this isn't a literal dragon, but something else. Who would have known how to describe this in that time period...only in figurative terminology. 

Well “shooting stars” is a meteor burning in our atmosphere. It is a literal dragon, that is a fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Well “shooting stars” is a meteor burning in our atmosphere. It is a literal dragon, that is a fact. 

They are called "shooting stars", yes. But, as you just mentioned, they are meteors. Difference in terminology. So, would you mind providing proof that it is a literal "dragon?" If I'm not mistaken, the dragon is the devil. 

Edited by BrotherTony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

They are called "shooting stars", yes. But, as you just mentioned, they are meteors. Difference in terminology. So, would you mind providing proof that it is a literal "dragon?" 

Revelation 12:9

Revelation 20:2 

Revelation 13:2

Revelation 12:7

Isaiah 27:1


The dragon is Satan.  12:9 Is how we get the idea that the fallen stars are Satans angels

 

its a pretty cool study

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Revelation 12:9

Revelation 20:2 

Revelation 13:2

Revelation 12:7

Isaiah 51:9


The dragon is Satan.  12:9 Is how we get the idea that the fallen stars are Satans angels

 

its a pretty cool study

Again...Satan is CALLED a dragon...another name for him...He is NOT a literal dragon. He is an ANGEL A fallen angel, yes, but still an angel. Figures of speech for a description of what was depicted. Just like the "lion" and the "bear." They are to represent certain countries. 

I agree, it is a pretty cool study. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Read Job 41 and then read Isaiah 27:1 .We get a description of what it looks like. That’s pretty clearly a dragon.
 

Job 41:19  Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

Job 41:20  Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

Job 41:21  His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

 

How can you deny that, when you read Job 41 and then Isaiah 27:1

 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Read Job 41 and then read Isaiah 27:1 .We get a description of what it looks like. That’s pretty clearly a dragon.
 

Job 41:19  Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

Job 41:20  Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

Job 41:21  His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

 

How can you deny that, when you read Job 41 and then Isaiah 27:1

 

Many believe that this leviathin is akin to the crocodile...an extinct kin to the crocodile. I'm not so sure it is extinct. But, over the years many things have been referred to as a dragon. Did you read the whole passage in context, Hugh? I mean, it actually goes back into the chapter before Job 41....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Many believe that this leviathin is akin to the crocodile...an extinct kin to the crocodile. I'm not so sure it is extinct. But, over the years many things have been referred to as a dragon. Did you read the whole passage in context, Hugh? I mean, it actually goes back into the chapter before Job 41....

I mean you can listen to others or you can compare scripture to scripture.

Personally, I’ve never heard of a fire breathing crocodile. And If I did, I think it being fire breathing probably makes it a dragon, and it’s scales being impenetrable. Weird How it’s called the serpent, and that’s also another name for Satan, and that Christ him self comes to kill it.

And Yes I have read Job.

 Honestly this is where my argument lands and it’s either we believe what the Bible says, or we believe what we want to believe. 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I mean you can listen to others or you can compare scripture to scripture.

Personally, I’ve never heard of a fire breathing crocodile. And If I did, I think  making it fire breathing probably makes it a dragon. 
 

And Yes I have read Job

It's possible you are right...it's also possible that it's a typeology of the crocodile. It's not listening to man, and it IS comparing scripture with scripture. It doesn't make it any less descriptive of something or someone else. Look, we don't have to agree on everything that is written unless it is TOTALLY clear and it's DOCTRINAL. It doesn't make us any less brother in Christ. It doesn't make us enemies...so we'll have to agree to disagree on what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

It's possible you are right...it's also possible that it's a typeology of the crocodile. It's not listening to man, and it IS comparing scripture with scripture. It doesn't make it any less descriptive of something or someone else. Look, we don't have to agree on everything that is written unless it is TOTALLY clear and it's DOCTRINAL. It doesn't make us any less brother in Christ. It doesn't make us enemies...so we'll have to agree to disagree on what it is. 

Sure I do agree with you on that we are 100% Brothers in Christ, and that small differences shouldn’t grieve the opportunity of fellowship.

 

I come off as hard, I do apologize in that.

 

What typology breathes fire? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Sure I do agree with you on that we are 100% Brothers in Christ, and that small differences shouldn’t grieve the opportunity of fellowship.

 

I come off as hard, I do apologize in that.

 

What typology breathes fire? 

So do I, as you pointed out in another thread....I'm just very direct. It offends some people, but, I've been that way ever since I was a child. No need to apologize to me, Hugh. Differences of opinion are the spice of life! 🙂 I'm not offended by them. Blessings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

All the size and distances of the stars are pure assumptions by scientists. They predetermine the sizes, densities, distances etc ahead of time then rig the math to fit their theories. Just as they do with evolution and geology.

Though it's true that angels are typified by stars, in the context of this passage it refers to celestrial bodies. And the fact that the passage refers to the sun and moon then it is only logical that stars are the stars we see when we look up into the night sky.

We have been indoctrinated from birth with a lot more lies than we can ever imagine.

Has anyone ever seen close up images of stars? If you can find an actually picture (since the vast majority are fake being either animations and "artist renderings") they do not resemble the sun. They have a more electrical and translucent appearance like a jelly fish or bacteria.

Psalm 148

[3] Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.


[4] Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Sureword I would like to 

1 hour ago, SureWord said:

All the size and distances of the stars are pure assumptions by scientists. They predetermine the sizes, densities, distances etc ahead of time then rig the math to fit their theories. Just as they do with evolution and geology.

Though it's true that angels are typified by stars, in the context of this passage it refers to celestrial bodies. And the fact that the passage refers to the sun and moon then it is only logical that stars are the stars we see when we look up into the night sky.

We have been indoctrinated from birth with a lot more lies than we can ever imagine.

Has anyone ever seen close up images of stars? If you can find an actually picture (since the vast majority are fake being either animations and "artist renderings") they do not resemble the sun. They have a more electrical and translucent appearance like a jelly fish or bacteria.

Psalm 148

[3] Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.


[4] Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

 

Did you compare Rev 12:4 and 12:9?

Rev 12:4  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
 

Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

 

 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Sureword I would like to 

Did you compare Rev 12:4 and 12:9?

Rev 12:4  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
 

Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

 

 

Rev. 6

[12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
[14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

If you are going to spiritualize the stars in verse 13 to make them angels than to be consistent you need to spiritualize the sun, moon, heaven, mountain and island also but I'm pretty sure they are literal. 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)

Just because it’s spiritual doesn’t mean it’s not literal. The bellow passage is pretty obviously a spiritual context, yet it is literal, see. For this woman is clothed with the sun that is black as a sackcloth of hair. 

 

Rev 12:1  And there appeared

a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

 

 

Rev 6:12  And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

Rev 6:13  And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

 

 

 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Just because it’s spiritual doesn’t mean it’s not literal.

 

Rev 12:1  And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

This is pretty obviously a spiritual context, yet it is literal, see;

 

ev 6:12  And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

Rev 6:13  And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

 

what is a sackcloth, and why is the woman clothed with it?

Please, Hugh, explain how it will be both literal and spiritualized. If it is, it's not something that occurs very often in scripture. 

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, 14 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...