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.

What God's Word says About Election


Recommended Posts

  • Members

In order to post on this thread, you must provide at least two or more verses of Scripture to support what you believe the Bible says about God's election. Only the doctrine of Election is to be discussed in this thread.

There were two streams of thought on Sola Scriptura coming out of the Reformation.

1. Whatever the Bible does not disallow, we allow.
2. Whatever the Bible confirms we affirm.
These are radically different positions. The first resulted in a Proof Text Theology. In other words, the already established beliefs of Roman Catholicism were brought to the Scriptures and whatever beliefs the Word of God did not disallow, were continued with proof texts. This was the methodology of Luther and Calvin.

The second position was the position of the Anabaptists. This was not a Proof Text Methodology. In this position of Sola Scriptura, a belief could only become dogmatic based upon the weight of Scriptural evidences from the exegesis of a verse within the context it is found. Verses could not be pulled out of their context for a proof text. This was based upon the Scriptural premise of God's Word that says, "that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established" (Matthew 18:16b). This is known an an Inductive Methodology.

Therefore, in this thread, every statement of beliefs must be based upon the exegesis of at least two portions of Scripture. The exegesis of those two texts must be explained and shown after which a conclusive statement of beliefs taken directly from those texts can be stated. Discussion must formulate around the exegesis of the texts in order to question the conclusive statement of beliefs. Do not respond to a post until you have read everything the person you are responding to has said and after you have read each verse of Scripture referred to and after you have evaluated those Scriptures in their context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Since the fall of Satan, the world has had an enemy intent upon opposing the divine order that God established in His original creation. Humanity was divided into two seeds and descendants from those two seeds. These two seed lineages would war against each other until the end of time to the Great White Throne Judgment. God cursed the seed lineage from Satan and promised His eternal blessings upon the Seed lineage from the Promised One (Messiah).

Since Satan had already declared war upon God?s dominion decree in giving dominion of His creation to Adam and Adam?s descendants, when Adam chose to disobey God, he relinquished the dominion of the original creation to Satan. From that point forward in time, the world was divided into two factions. Sin caused/created the division, but God?s righteousness brought condemnation (curse) upon sin putting the ?enmity? between the two seed lineages.

?14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent {Satan in the serpent}, Because thou hast done this {deceived Eve and taken dominion of the first creation away from Adam}, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity {hateful hostility; i.e. war} between thee {Satan in the the serpent} and the woman, and between thy seed {Satan in the the serpent} and her seed {the Promised One}; it {enmity, the warfare} shall bruise {break or crush; referring to a fatal blow} thy {Satan in the serpent} head {rule or dominion}, and thou {Satan in the serpent} shalt bruise his {the Promised One} heel {that instrument that would crush the ?head? of the serpent or Satan?s dominion; i.e, the death, burial, and resurrection of the Promised One}? (Genesis 3:14-15).
The Promised One is God?s Son, chosen (elected) from the ?foundation of the world? (Revelation 13:8) to be both the Redeemer of the lost and a new and ?last Adam? (I Cor. 15:45-50) to restore the dominion relinquished to Satan by Adam?s sinful choice. The Promised One (the ?last Adam?) would be successful where the first Adam failed. The Promised One would be the ?firstborn? (Romans 8:29; Col. 1:15-18) of a New Genesis (Matthew 19:28) and would become a ?door? (John 10:1-9) into this New Genesis to ?whosoever? of fallen humanity willing to believe in His death, burial, and resurrection, repent of sin, confess Him as LORD, call on Him to save them, and be supernaturally ?born again? (John 3:3-7, I Peter 1:23) ?by grace through faith? (Eph. 2:8-9) into the New Genesis ?in Christ? (I Cor. 12:12-13; Christ now having primogeniture that provides inheritance of glorification into the New Genesis; Acts 26:18, Eph. 1:11-18, Col. 1:12, 3:24 and, I Peter 1:2-5). Therefore, this whole group that would become the descendants of the Seed of the Promised One ?through faith? (Eph. 2:8-9) would become the elect ?in Christ? (Eph. 1:3-4, II Tim. 1:9).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I like your rule making, but the rules for this board has already been made. I am only making suggestion, for I'm just a member of this messages board like you are.

The owner of this board has already made rules for this board, they can be found at this link.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24

I feel that we should not make our own rules, but perhaps best of all if we think of a rule that needs to be added, probably the best course of action would be to PM Bro. Matt and mention it to him. I feel he would really appreciate that instead of us trying to set our on rules as we post messages.



Election, that is an easy one, whosoever will is of the elect, or that is whosoever will can be save, not just certain ones hand picked as some teach, those people disregard verses that declare that anyone can be saved them go on to try and condemn many to hell saying they have not choice in the matter that God limited who can be save, that is condemning some to hell because they were not of the elect.

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:15-16 (KJV)

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts 2:21 (KJV)

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10 (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:8 (KJV)

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
1 Tim 1:16 (KJV)

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31 (KJV)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 5:24 (KJV)

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:40 (KJV)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16 (KJV)

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely
Rev 22:17 (KJV)

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
John 4:14 (KJV)

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 7:38 (KJV)

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:41 (KJV)

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 10:32 (KJV)

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luke 12:8 (KJV)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I like your rule making, but the rules for this board has already been made. I am only making suggestion, for I'm just a member of this messages board like you are.

The owner of this board has already made rules for this board, they can be found at this link.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24

I feel that we should not make our own rules, but perhaps best of all if we think of a rule that needs to be added, probably the best course of action would be to PM Bro. Matt and mention it to him. I feel he would really appreciate that instead of us trying to set our on rules as we post messages.




It is ok to specify what you want to specifically talk about in a thread. The OP wasn't making rules for the board, just specifying what he wants this thread to be about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I like your rule making, but the rules for this board has already been made. I am only making suggestion, for I'm just a member of this messages board like you are.

The owner of this board has already made rules for this board, they can be found at this link.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24

I feel that we should not make our own rules, but perhaps best of all if we think of a rule that needs to be added, probably the best course of action would be to PM Bro. Matt and mention it to him. I feel he would really appreciate that instead of us trying to set our on rules as we post messages.



Election, that is an easy one, whosoever will is of the elect, or that is whosoever will can be save, not just certain ones hand picked as some teach, those people disregard verses that declare that anyone can be saved them go on to try and condemn many to hell saying they have not choice in the matter that God limited who can be save, that is condemning some to hell because they were not of the elect.

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:15-16 (KJV)

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts 2:21 (KJV)

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10 (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:8 (KJV)

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
1 Tim 1:16 (KJV)

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31 (KJV)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 5:24 (KJV)

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:40 (KJV)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:16 (KJV)

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely
Rev 22:17 (KJV)

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
John 4:14 (KJV)

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 7:38 (KJV)

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:41 (KJV)

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 10:32 (KJV)

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luke 12:8 (KJV)
You have not shown how any of these verses connect to election or election to salvation. You have merely quoted a number of verses that say "whosoever" can be saved (to which I wholeheartedly say, AMEN!). However, what does this have to do with God's election?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree a bit with the criteria of scripture, since I've seen many times where people will misquote scripture to attempt to defend a position, yet ignore logic. I don't think we are ever to use scripture apart from logic, because it opens the door for misuse. However, often we find ourselves relying on logic in times when scripture is silent. The true meaning of scripture will always be logical, therefore a good grasp of foundational logic aids in understanding scripture.

Here's an example...

Q. Can we lose our salvation?
A. If, on Monday we get "saved" and on Tuesday sin, and on Wednesday die in our sin and go to hell, what then, were we ever saved from on Monday? Wouldn't therefore it be illogical to claim one is "saved" when they can still suffer the fate they are claimed to be "saved" from? So if salvation can ever be known, it must be secure and not something that can ever be taken away. So the question is not can one lose one's salvation, but can one ever know one is actually saved, this side of death? And the answer to that question is in [bible]1 John 5:13[/bible]


...now while I used scripture at the very end, it was only to close the door on the only logical alternative left. The rest of the explination used only logic.

Much of the contention regarding Election resides also in logic. It is (if you'll pardon using this to describe it) a philosophical debate regarding which has prominence, Man's free will or God's sovereignty. And are they mutually exclusive. It's almost the exact same debate between Skinnerian and Rogerian psychotherapists. One contends we are controlled by outside forces, the other contends that we control our environment. But with election we have a third alternative--that God Himself can, and often does, provide us with situations that seem mutually exclusive, yet are both true. The result is a razor-thin truth sandwiched between what we mistakenly assumed were contradictory concepts.

As you've already seen, it's fairly easy to use a Bible search to find verses containing a "proof" word of phrase, and hurl those, yet without thought, it is meaningless.

Fear of the term "Calvinist" comes from the same place fear of the term "Election" comes from--the notion that it eleiminates all free will from the equation of salvation. (It doesn't, but the fear creates the argument)

What I find so amuzing is that in the grand scale of things, our free will may amount to nothing more than the decision a child makes when he decides he doesn't like it when his diaper is soiled. He's still a very, very long way form any sort of mature response to the situation, yet, as any parent of a toddler knows, even that bit is exciting in its promise of change. But it will be the parent, not the child that remedies the situation. Maybe the child will be boastfull in that "I told mommy I went poo-poo" but he remains an infant in need of a good cleaning, just as we remain sinners in need of a Savior to do for us what we could never hope to do for ourselves.

To me the argument of Election is like arguing who's responsible for the child having a clean diaper, the child or the mother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I have to disagree a bit with the criteria of scripture, since I've seen many times where people will misquote scripture to attempt to defend a position, yet ignore logic. I don't think we are ever to use scripture apart from logic, because it opens the door for misuse. However, often we find ourselves relying on logic in times when scripture is silent. The true meaning of scripture will always be logical, therefore a good grasp of foundational logic aids in understanding scripture.

Here's an example...



...now while I used scripture at the very end, it was only to close the door on the only logical alternative left. The rest of the explination used only logic.

Much of the contention regarding Election resides also in logic. It is (if you'll pardon using this to describe it) a philosophical debate regarding which has prominence, Man's free will or God's sovereignty. And are they mutually exclusive. It's almost the exact same debate between Skinnerian and Rogerian psychotherapists. One contends we are controlled by outside forces, the other contends that we control our environment. But with election we have a third alternative--that God Himself can, and often does, provide us with situations that seem mutually exclusive, yet are both true. The result is a razor-thin truth sandwiched between what we mistakenly assumed were contradictory concepts.

As you've already seen, it's fairly easy to use a Bible search to find verses containing a "proof" word of phrase, and hurl those, yet without thought, it is meaningless.

Fear of the term "Calvinist" comes from the same place fear of the term "Election" comes from--the notion that it eleiminates all free will from the equation of salvation. (It doesn't, but the fear creates the argument)

What I find so amuzing is that in the grand scale of things, our free will may amount to nothing more than the decision a child makes when he decides he doesn't like it when his diaper is soiled. He's still a very, very long way form any sort of mature response to the situation, yet, as any parent of a toddler knows, even that bit is exciting in its promise of change. But it will be the parent, not the child that remedies the situation. Maybe the child will be boastfull in that "I told mommy I went poo-poo" but he remains an infant in need of a good cleaning, just as we remain sinners in need of a Savior to do for us what we could never hope to do for ourselves.

To me the argument of Election is like arguing who's responsible for the child having a clean diaper, the child or the mother.
So, what then are you saying? Are you saying that your beliefs regarding the doctrine of election are not based upon the Word of God, but upon your logic? Is there any exegesis of any Bible text that you base this logic upon? Or, are you just pulling your beliefs out of your own mind? I would think you might attempt to find a least some Bible truths to Proof Text those beliefs, even if you are not willing to do the work of inductive exegesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
You have not shown how any of these verses connect to election or election to salvation. You have merely quoted a number of verses that say "whosoever" can be saved (to which I wholeheartedly say, AMEN!). However, what does this have to do with God's election?


But they do, they show it clearly, whosoever believeth can be save, which refutes those who claim only the elect can be saved & everyone else is predestinated to hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


But they do, they show it clearly, whosoever believeth can be save, which refutes those who claim only the elect can be saved & everyone else is predestinated to hell.
Brother Jerry,

I agree with what you are saying. However, you are make a leap of logic without connecting it Scripturally to the doctrine of election. You might say something like, "since we have such weight of Scriptural evidence to the contrary, election CANNOT refer to God choosing some people to be saved and others to damnation. Election must refer to something else other than salvation." I do not want to put words in your mouth, but this appears to be what you are saying. If that fact is true, what do the verses mentioning God's election/choosing mean? There are literally hundreds of verses mentioning God's choosing or electing in the Scriptures. Can we show Scriptural evidences that this is in fact the truth that salvation is not the issue of election as the verses you quote appear to teach?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will respond eventually, but someone posted something on another board that got me really angry, and I don't want to respond while I'm still in that mood. (A mother of a teenager with CAH was asking if her son could still serve in the military. Someone claiming to be from the UK asked why anyone would want to serve in the US military since the commit war crimes. It later turned out to be a flamer, posing as someone with CAH to annoy and insult people. That someone would want to pose as someone with a serious health condition so they could annoy and offend others with that condition is bad enough, but to further insult all Americans by claiming our military commits war crimes, just really got my goat)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Brother Jerry,

I agree with what you are saying. However, you are make a leap of logic without connecting it Scripturally to the doctrine of election. You might say something like, "since we have such weight of Scriptural evidence to the contrary, election CANNOT refer to God choosing some people to be saved and others to damnation. Election must refer to something else other than salvation." I do not want to put words in your mouth, but this appears to be what you are saying. If that fact is true, what do the verses mentioning God's election/choosing mean? There are literally hundreds of verses mentioning God's choosing or electing in the Scriptures. Can we show Scriptural evidences that this is in fact the truth that salvation is not the issue of election as the verses you quote appear to teach?


Yes, but these verses prove what election can't mean. Election cannot mean that God chose some to be saved, others to go to hell because they have no choice in the matter. Proving that shows that Calvinist teachings are false teaching. I notice those of the Calvinist persuasion will not believe that, that is they dismiss these verses and keep right on believing the TULIP doctrine.

I wasn't trying to prove what election was, I was proving what election was not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have begun to put up my new book on Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election on my web site. This will be about a 347,000 word document when it is totally up. We will be adding a new chapter about every week as the Web Master formats them.

The link to these studies is below:
http://disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/DispensationalismIndex.htm

The Introduction and first two chapters are up presently. There is a link to a Comments page at the bottom of each Chapter. If you would like to add a comment, you can click on the link and do so.

If you want to be notified when a new chapter is up, sign up for notifications on the Line Upon Line Blog and you will be notified by e-mail (link below):
http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
So, what then are you saying? Are you saying that your beliefs regarding the doctrine of election are not based upon the Word of God, but upon your logic? Is there any exegesis of any Bible text that you base this logic upon? Or, are you just pulling your beliefs out of your own mind? I would think you might attempt to find a least some Bible truths to Proof Text those beliefs, even if you are not willing to do the work of inductive exegesis.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. The family was hit with the flu, and I still had to try to work through it so it took longer to recover.

What I'm trying to say is that the basics are agreed on. The differences are philosophical and not scriptural.

We all agree that salvation is provided by God. We all agree that it then requires a choice on our part. We all agree that the work of salvation is what God does, and our part is simply accepting His grace, through faith, which then produces obedience and growth. The difference lies it how much He does, and how little we do. It's not a difference based on any scripture, but on the philosophical problem people have with the extent of God's involvement.

An Atheist once said that he didn't understand how Christians could worship a God that killed all those innocent children in Egypt. I responded by saying we worship a God that was directly involved in every single death of every single human being that has ever died, and I wondered why he drew the line at Egyptian children. If God is actually God, A. all powerful, B. all knowing, and C. loving, then it would stand to reason that regardless of how we perceived what he does, logic would demand that it was for a good reason. we have all kinds of examples of we as parents doing things our children perceive as evil, but are for their own good. Why would that logic not also extend to how little we can comprehend God?

So the problem is one of the idea that while God did send His Son to die on the cross, some people cannot accept the idea that God would still allow people to go to hell, when there was something else He could do to prevent it. I can only assume that must be based on a failure to comprehend that we all truly do deserve hell, and even were the entire human race to have gone to hell, it wouldn't have been a bad thing, because we would have received exactly what we deserved.

Some resolve this lack of comprehension by rejecting God altogether. Others resolve it by limiting God and refusing to acknowledge His sovereignty, pretending that somehow we can over power God and go to hell against His will. But the objection to election isn't scriptural, it's philosophical, and therefore it can't be defended with scripture, since those who reject it, have already rejected scripture in order to pacify their sensitive philosophical palate.
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   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 11 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...