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.

It’s Christmas Time…


E Morales
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members
53 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I don't see anything wrong with what is posted. Care to expound on what translation this came from and why you think "something doesn't look right??"

Capital H,He is God, not just for the Jews, but the World, Savior. The miracle and virgin birth.

Edited by E Morales
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 minutes ago, E Morales said:

Capital H,He is God, not just for the Jews, but the World, Savior. The miracle and virgin birth.

In English the word "he" wouldn't have to be capitalized even though it was referring to Christ. You have to remember, though he ws God in the flesh...he was also HUMAN...He had to be both or our salvation wouldn't have been possible. Aren't you being a bit legalistic in trying to push this ideology? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, BrotherTony said:

In English the word "he" wouldn't have to be capitalized even though it was referring to Christ. You have to remember, though he ws God in the flesh...he was also HUMAN...He had to be both or our salvation wouldn't have been possible. Aren't you being a bit legalistic in trying to push this ideology? 

No, I’m just saying it as it is. Even with my poor grammar, I can see.

You sound like a NKJ person to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, E Morales said:

No, I’m just saying it as it is. Even with my poor grammar, I can see.

You sound like a NKJ person to me.

Not hardly....I use the KJV. Your poor grammar aside, one still wouldn't have to capitalize the "H" in he. They do it in the modern translations. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't use the KJV...just sayin'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Not hardly....I use the KJV. Your poor grammar aside, one still wouldn't have to capitalize the "H" in he. They do it in the modern translations. Maybe YOU are the one who doesn't use the KJV...just sayin'!

How about the part they mention God for Israel Only, and they do not mentioning the virgin birth,  above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
47 minutes ago, E Morales said:

How about the part they mention God for Israel Only, and they do not mentioning the virgin birth,  above.

They don't mention "God for Israel only." You've got some pretty bad reading and comprehension skills, Morales. Christ came for the whole world, yes, but Jesus spent his time speaking to whom???? ISRAEL...he was telling them that the "Kingdom of Heaven" was at hand...they were having their chance to accept him as their King...but not in a political sense...It was to bring them back to God the Father. He came in the fullness of time to fulfil the law...Truly, Morales, you need to take a class or read a book on Hermeneutics and exegesis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

They don't mention "God for Israel only." You've got some pretty bad reading and comprehension skills, Morales. Christ came for the whole world, yes, but Jesus spent his time speaking to whom???? ISRAEL...he was telling them that the "Kingdom of Heaven" was at hand...they were having their chance to accept him as their King...but not in a political sense...It was to bring them back to God the Father. He came in the fullness of time to fulfil the law...Truly, Morales, you need to take a class or read a book on Hermeneutics and exegesis. 

I like the way you put words, and skipping the virgin birth. You are a Southern Baptist teacher, this is a Independent Baptist Forum. But we all can learn something here, for all age’s  and denominations are welcome. I’ll go back to school.  🤠

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
38 minutes ago, E Morales said:

I like the way you put words, and skipping the virgin birth. You are a Southern Baptist teacher, this is a Independent Baptist Forum. But we all can learn something here, for all age’s  and denominations are welcome. I’ll go back to school.  🤠

How have I skipped the virgin birth? Please, show me how. I may be in a Southern Baptist church, as that's where God put me, but I'm every bit as Independent, fundamental, and Baptist as you, and I don't believe I need your permission to be here. Maybe you need to stop being so easily offended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
53 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

How have I skipped the virgin birth? Please, show me how. I may be in a Southern Baptist church, as that's where God put me, but I'm every bit as Independent, fundamental, and Baptist as you, and I don't believe I need your permission to be here. Maybe you need to stop being so easily offended. 

Everything I post, you mention, I’m lost or need to get up to date, study more. Lost in space. Pot-stirring, I am a good cook. But that’s not what you’re talking about. The Lord is using me to strengthen you, not to tech you. Have a good night, enjoy chatting with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, E Morales said:

Everything I post, you mention, I’m lost or need to get up to date, study more. Lost in space. Pot-stirring, I am a good cook. But that’s not what you’re talking about. The Lord is using me to strengthen you, not to tech you. Have a good night, enjoy chatting with you.

Don't flatter yourself, Morales...I'm quite scripturally strong without your assistance. I've never stated you "are lost" Your continued accusations against several of us leaves me to the conclusion that you can't handle disagreement in any form. I've only stated that you need to become hermeneutically sound, nothing else. It seems that the Portugese and Hispanic's on this forum can't handle any disagreement at all without becoming offensive to everyone else on the forums. Shameful. Deflection isn't your strong suit...sorry, but that's the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You sound like king Agrippa, when he told Paul, you almost persuaded me into becoming a Christian. Too much teaching is driving you mad. Have a great day my friend. Now, I have to go start taking my Portuguese classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
55 minutes ago, E Morales said:

You sound like king Agrippa, when he told Paul, you almost persuaded me into becoming a Christian. Too much teaching is driving you mad. Have a great day my friend. Now, I have to go start taking my Portuguese classes.

You sound like another Latino who can't defend their position...sad...really sad. Knowing how to properly defend the Word of God and one's position isn't too much learning...and thank you, but I'm a Christian...are you? Your continued deflection and accusation of others is tiresome, especially when you can't back up your statements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

You sound like another Latino who can't defend their position...sad...really sad. Knowing how to properly defend the Word of God and one's position isn't too much learning...and thank you, but I'm a Christian...are you? Your continued deflection and accusation of others is tiresome, especially when you can't back up your statements. 

I think it’s time that we take a break you win brother Tony.

Moderators you have my permission to delete this post, completely for it is too confusing for new members here. Not profitable for anyone.

E Morales with thegloryland
Member 

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, 6 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Bro. West went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Nathan Mosel earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Bro. West earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Bro. West went up a rank
      Rookie
    • SureWord went up a rank
      Experienced
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Bro. West  »  BrotherTony

      The original question by Brother Tony was about Peter being wrong in Acts two. Peter is responsible only for the light God gave him at that point. Later God gave him more light as in Acts 10. He is not the only one to have this happen Apollos (Acts 19:1-7) He was re baptized, why because he did not reject more light given to him.
      Cornelius was another who went by the light that he had, but when Peter spoke to him he received that light, in fact Peter may have received light himself not only about the gentiles, but that the Holy Spirit was given before baptism. (Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act 10:47) This is different than Acts 2:38.
      My main point is that the book of Acts is a book of progressive revelation and to rest your doctrine now on Acts two will produce damnable heresies. I know this first hand as being a member of the “Church of Christ” in good old Tennessee as a youth. I could of died and went to hell. Here in Indiana we have plenty that place the plan of salvation in Acts two. No, I am your Brother and not a MR. West, that is if you believe what Peter said again: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1Pe 3:18. This is the ministry of reconciliation spoke by Paul.
      So let me “TROLL” on out of here. Yours Brother West.
       
       
      · 5 replies
    • farouk  »  Rebecca

      Hi Ms @RebeccaGreat new avatar; so does the rabbit have a name?
      · 1 reply
    • farouk  »  Salyan

      Hi @SalyanInteresting avatar picture there; so does it refer to the Shield of Faith (Ephesians 6), perhaps?
      · 2 replies
    • farouk  »  trapperhoney

      Hi @trapperhoney; great header verse from Acts 20.24! I've thought a lot about that verse in the past...
      · 2 replies
    • farouk  »  John Young

      Hi @John Young Great photo of you guys! (your wife?) I've been away a long while from this site but came back recently...
      · 1 reply
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...