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.

Happy 200th Birthday to a good man...


dwayner79
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, those closest to him all testified he wasn't a Christian so he couldn't have been a good man.

Anyway, the only reason I bothered to post in this thread is because I happened to speak to a liberal today. This woman heard today for the first time what Lincoln's views of blacks were and she asked me if I knew about this. We ended up in a fairly long talk about Lincoln's views on race, his disregard for the Constitution, his hypocritical ways, his ungodliness, etc. Eventually another woman joined in on the conversation too.

Slowly but surely the truth is once again coming to the surface. The myth of Lincoln, FDR, JFK and others are all crumbling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Isn't it some kind of Darwin anniversary this year too?

Rest assured, if something (or someone) is being heavily promoted by liberals and in liberal institutions there's something wrong with it (or them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Lincoln and Darwin were both born on the same day, 200 years ago yesterday.

Lincoln was a good leader, during a bad time. I knew I could not in good conscience put "great" man, but as far as presidents go, Lincoln was IMO a good one.

The topic title was meant to do what jchahl fell for ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Lincoln and Darwin were both born on the same day, 200 years ago yesterday.

Lincoln was a good leader, during a bad time. I knew I could not in good conscience put "great" man, but as far as presidents go, Lincoln was IMO a good one.

The topic title was meant to do what jchahl fell for ;-)


How can a president who trampled upon what this country was founded upon and who ignored the Constitution and failed to keep his oath of office be considered a good leader?

I know it's pure speculation, but I do actually believe Lincoln may have had the opportunity to be a good leader after The War ended if he had lived. His views and those of the Radical Republicans who ended up running the country for decades were very different with regards to how things should be handled after The War.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Well, those closest to him all testified he wasn't a Christian so he couldn't have been a good man.

Anyway, the only reason I bothered to post in this thread is because I happened to speak to a liberal today. This woman heard today for the first time what Lincoln's views of blacks were and she asked me if I knew about this. We ended up in a fairly long talk about Lincoln's views on race, his disregard for the Constitution, his hypocritical ways, his ungodliness, etc. Eventually another woman joined in on the conversation too.

Slowly but surely the truth is once again coming to the surface. The myth of Lincoln, FDR, JFK and others are all crumbling.

-81,

There are ALSO people who claimed to be close to Jesus Christ while He was here on earth that said disparaging things about Him. Would you believe them too??????????
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Lincoln did trample on the Constitution but he was forced to because of Europe. The Europeans powers, including the Vatican, still wanted control of what they thought was theirs and they were doing this by splitting up the Union. A lot has been written on this but check out William Grady's book "What Hath God Wrought: A Biblical Interpretation of Amercian History." Lincoln knew that popish people were going to try to kill him. Even to this day there are politicians who would love to bring us back under European powers.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can a president who trampled upon what this country was founded upon and who ignored the Constitution and failed to keep his oath of office be considered a good leader?

I have to agree with Brother John here.
God bless,
Crushmaster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Oh, that [his Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward's nonsense, and it pleases the fools.
-- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M Nelson, in response to a question from Nelson: "I once asked him about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published." Quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 138

What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.
-- Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Mary Todd Lincoln in William Herndon's Religion of Lincoln, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 118

It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Manford's Magazine, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 144

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
-- Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker"

"Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words."
-- Mary Todd Lincoln, to Colonel Ward H Lamon, in his Life of Abraham Lincoln, p. 459, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 118

------------------------------------------

Herndon's "Life of Lincoln" is conceded by all fair-minded persons to be the most accurate picture of the life of the sixteenth President of this country that has ever been written. Some maintain that Herndon was to Lincoln what Boswell was to Johnson. Men prominent in the higher walks of life, members of Congress, Senators, Judges, members of the President's cabinet, intimate friends and relatives and even his wife, testify that Lincoln was an unbeliever, an infidel, a Freethinker. Strangers, a few casual acquaintances and a number of clergymen, known and unknown, maintain that he was a Christian. And yet the two ministers most intimately acquainted with Lincoln -- Bishop Simpson and the Reverend P. D. Gurley -- do not support the contention of their more zealous, but less truthful fellow "divines."

It is very curious indeed, that if Lincoln were a Christian, as some say, nowhere in any of his writings does there appear a single mention of Jesus Christ. In his public addresses, official documents and his private correspondence, never once did he express a belief in any doctrine that would even remotely claim him as a Christian.

-----------------------------------

Abraham Lincoln actually said: "Christianity is not my religion and the bible is not my book. I have never united myself in any church because I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian doctrine and dogma." Lincoln never joined any church and was never baptized, looking upon it as superstition. His wife said: "my husband is not a Christian"

------------------------------------

You cannot get better testamony or witnesses to a fact then those who actually knew him in person like his wife Mary Todd Lincoln, who stated that her husband NEVER was Christian or a believer, and this was true to his death. She and other first hand witnesses told of how the only time Lincoln went into a Christian church was to openly mock it and disrupt it with his nasty remarks. Lincoln's own friends and associates stated that Lincoln told them that he hated Christianity and the Bible, and he had, in fact, written a book stating his hatred for the Bible and Christianity, one friend grabbed the book from him and burned it in an oven on the spot, telling Lincoln he had to begin to be more secretive and discreet about this issue if he wanted to run for office !!

-------------------------------

Carl Sandburg, in volume one of his six-volume set on Lincoln's life, observed the following: "Close friends of Lincoln, such as his law partner Herndon and Matheny, who stood as best man at his wedding, had a notion that Lincoln was a sort of infidel. They said Lincoln told them he did not believe the Bible was the revelation of God. 'Lincoln did tell me that he did write a little book on infidelity...I got that from Lincoln's mouth' said Matheny. 'An infidel, a theist, a fatalist,' was Herndon's notion...Still others like Jesse W. Fell at Bloomington felt that he held a good deal of the same views as the famous heterodox New England preachers, Theodore Parker and William Ellery Channing." If, at best, even that statement by Fell is accurate, it is worth noting that Parker and Channing were Unitarians! So can we, at best, possibly say that Lincoln might have been some sort of Unitarian? That's a long way from Christian.

William Herndon, himself, wrote a book called Life Of Lincoln and he stated, quite forthrightly, that "Lincoln was a deep-grounded infidel. He disliked and despised churches. He never entered a church except to scoff and ridicule. On coming from a church he would mimic the preacher. Before running for any office he wrote a book against Christianity and the Bible."

According to George Edmonds in Facts And Falsehood, as recorded on page 53 of the book: "A man named Hill was greatly shocked, urged Lincoln not to publish it. Urged it would kill him politically. Hill got the book in his hands, opened the stove door, and it went up in flames and ashes. After that, Lincoln became more discreet..." Lincoln's relatives and friends testified that he "scoffed and derided religion and the Bible."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Were there any other "unconstitutional presidents" or just the one associated with the Civil War (er, The War Between the States, um, or was it The War of Northern Aggression?).

I read of Abraham Lincoln being a bad prez and in recent history, Clinton and GWB being a bad prez. Surely there were other unconstitutional presidents. Why aren't more articles written about them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Were there any other "unconstitutional presidents" or just the one associated with the Civil War (er, The War Between the States, um, or was it The War of Northern Aggression?).

I read of Abraham Lincoln being a bad prez and in recent history, Clinton and GWB being a bad prez. Surely there were other unconstitutional presidents. Why aren't more articles written about them?


There have been several presidents who failed to abide by the Constitution. There are articles and books written on them; FDR and LBJ to name just two from the 20th century. Grant (19th century) is one whose corruption has much been written about.

Typically, wartime presidents are able to push things to extremes that non-wartime presidents can't get away with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...