Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      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.

Billy Graham's Sad Disobedience to the Word of God


PastorMatt
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members



Precisely how does a believer's sincere interpretation of creation that may differ from yours have to do with whether or not a person is walking upright before the Lord? I mean if they believe the Bible is God's word and inerrant and perfect and yet one looks at days with the Lord as possibly years, etc......

Just curious.......


I guess you didn't read the article at all. Here is the prOBlem of supporting the gap theory:
1. The gap theory undermines the simplicity and authority of Scripture.

Psalm 119:169 teaches that man is to receive his understanding from the Scriptures. Although God made His Word plain and simple so that all could understand and believe (Psalm 119:130), many theologians interpret Scriptures with a mind clouded by opinions, preconceived ideas, and a bias having been "educated" in heathen schools of thought. Interpretation in this manner causes many theologians to twist the Scripture into agreeing with their "theory." Feeling the attacks of "science, "Christians began to interpret the Scripture with the preconceived idea that science had determined the age of the earth. God did not write His Word with tricky language. To compromise the simplicity or authority of the Scripture is to accommodate the world
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think in the times in which we live where many are confused by the widely accepted theories of evolution and the origin of species, it would be very easy to try and reconcile that confusion while still resting on the authority of Scripture by applying the gap theory to the history of creation. I personally don't believe in the gap theory but I wouldn't judge someone who did because we are all human and can make mistakes. Most people would not think about the 4 points you listed above, though I think they're accurate for the most part. Most people just don't think along those lines and I wouldn't judge someone because they believed differently, at least they still believe in the sovereignty of God in creation. Maybe not to the degree that others do, but I can't fault them for not coming to the same belief or understanding that I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

There are just some things that are extremely clear in the Scriptures and there is 100% understanding and agreement; while other doctrines are not as clear nor agreed upon.

This tends to cause internal conflict in the brain for some believers who only see black and white without any shades of gray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you said that, it made me think of all the personality types that make up the Body of Christ and how many of those personality types are separated along denominational lines. Imagine how well we could work together if we could put aside the names of our denominations and worked together as one. But instead, we have the head over there in fundamentalism and the feet are over there in Presbyterianism and the arms are in the Southern Baptist Convention, etc. Imagine how well we could balance each other out and the works we could do for Christ if we united the Body and helped to balance out one another's strengths and weaknesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When you said that, it made me think of all the personality types that make up the Body of Christ and how many of those personality types are separated along denominational lines. Imagine how well we could work together if we could put aside the names of our denominations and worked together as one. But instead, we have the head over there in fundamentalism and the feet are over there in Presbyterianism and the arms are in the Southern Baptist Convention, etc. Imagine how well we could balance each other out and the works we could do for Christ if we united the Body and helped to balance out one another's strengths and weaknesses.


I am glad that Christ is the head of the body of Christ not "fundamentalism". Even so I am glad that fundamentalists for the most part understand that not every denomination that claims to to be Christian is following Christ. If refusal to work with people teaching things that are contrary to the word of God is a handicap I just have to say that it is better to loose you your feet by amputation then allow the whole body to die of gangrene.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, my bad, but you got the point. ;)

That's a cute analogy but it isn't quite Biblical. The Bible doesn't say that we can cut off the feet but rather he stresses the importance of us working together and complimenting one another. I think that if we had stayed united, there would be far less distinction between the denominations that we have today because you would have the arms to correct the legs and the feet to correct the arms, etc. Instead, we have everyone broken up into their own little spheres and having no impact on one another at all. There are things that Baptists could learn from Presbyterians and things that Presbyterians could learn from non-denominationalists and things that non-denominationalists could learn from Baptists. If everyone worked together, we could reach our fullest potential as Christ's Body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's a cute analogy but it isn't quite Biblical. The Bible doesn't say that we can cut off the feet but rather he stresses the importance of us working together and complimenting one another. I think that if we had stayed united, there would be far less distinction between the denominations that we have today because you would have the arms to correct the legs and the feet to correct the arms, etc. Instead, we have everyone broken up into their own little spheres and having no impact on one another at all. There are things that Baptists could learn from Presbyterians and things that Presbyterians could learn from non-denominationalists and things that non-denominationalists could learn from Baptists. If everyone worked together, we could reach our fullest potential as Christ's Body.


I would be happy to work with Presbyterians, non-denominationalists, Billy Graham or anyone else if they would come back to the bible. If they came back to the bible a lot of denominations would have to call themselves something else. ;)

I am not about to endorse leaving the word of God for the sake of unity and that is what ecumenicism requires.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How does ecumenicism require leaving the Word of God? You can't work with someone who is a Christian but practices infant baptism as a form of dedication?


The only reason they baptize infants is because they held on to the baggage of the catholic church. They kept the same practice of infant baptism but now claim it is for dedication instead of for salvation. That is little different then when the catholic church moved into an area and adopted the heathens feasts and Gods but re-named them after various "saints" to "Christianize" them. If we joined those that turn wickedness into "dedication" so that they might keep their traditions we risk becoming entangled in that yoke of bondage.

1 Corinthians 5:6-7 ....Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is little different then when the catholic church moved into an area and adopted the heathens feasts and Gods but re-named them after various "saints" to "Christianize" them.

Are you kidding? That's night and day difference. Praying to saints is little more than praying to false gods. The dedication of a baby is neither biblical or unbiblical(IFB's practice it, too) and whether they choose to use water or not may be an error on their part but is extremely different from praying to saints. Simply no comparison.


If we joined those that turn wickedness into "dedication" so that they might keep their traditions we risk becoming entangled in that yoke of bondage.

So you're saying that your faith is so weak that if you work with people who practice infant baptism, you'll eventually want to do the same thing? I went to a Pres. church for a year and have been friends with them for years and still have zero desire to have my future babies baptized.

Also, while you believe with all your heart(as you should - Romans 14:5b) that what you believe is right, you still very well may be wrong in some areas. Those Christians of other denominations may have a few errors in their doctrinal line-up, as well, but they shouldn't separate us from them any more than the NT churches with their innumerable errors caused Paul to separate from them. He wrote to them, he reasoned with them, and he encouraged them, but never did separation ever occur except on the occasion that someone had rejected their faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
The dedication of a baby is neither biblical or unbiblical(IFB's practice it, too) and whether they choose to use water or not may be an error on their part but is extremely different from praying to saints. Simply no comparison.


The comparison was that the catholics took the practices of the heathen and renamed it, likewise the the Presbyterians keep the practice of infant baptism which the catholics teach saves a child, and now claim it's just being done as a dedication of the child instead of being done for the child's salvation. This is a corruption of biblical baptism either way.







So you're saying that your faith is so weak that if you work with people who practice infant baptism, you'll eventually want to do the same thing? I went to a Pres. church for a year and have been friends with them for years and still have zero desire to have my future babies baptized.


I would like to think that by God's grace it wouldn't affect me but there is no reason to play around with or excuse dangerous teaching.

Proverbs 4:13-15 Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life. Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Those Christians of other denominations may have a few errors in their doctrinal line-up, as well, but they shouldn't separate us from them any more than the NT churches with their innumerable errors caused Paul to separate from them. He wrote to them, he reasoned with them, and he encouraged them, but never did separation ever occur except on the occasion that someone had rejected their faith.


Paul had not yet reached the point of rejection in his letters, he reasoned with them but if they had refused to accept sound doctrine and persisted in sin he would have separated eventually. The various denominations crossed the line where reasoning was still possible long ago. Now reasoning is only possible on a individual level and if through reasoning out of the scriptures someone in that denomination understands the truth they themselves will then face the biblical requirement to separate from false teachers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



The only reason they baptize infants is because they held on to the baggage of the catholic church. They kept the same practice of infant baptism but now claim it is for dedication instead of for salvation. That is little different then when the catholic church moved into an area and adopted the heathens feasts and Gods but re-named them after various "saints" to "Christianize" them. If we joined those that turn wickedness into "dedication" so that they might keep their traditions we risk becoming entangled in that yoke of bondage.

1 Corinthians 5:6-7 ....Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened...


The historical record of Christianity evidences that the earliest Christians were baptizing infants. The Bible even alludes to the baptism of infants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Bible even alludes to the baptism of infants.


No such thing. I am sure that you are speaking of places that say that someone was baptized "and their house" which just means everyone was old enough to understand, got saved, and were baptized. It certainly does not mean infants were baptized.

The bible says:

"Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

You can see that it was necessary to believe with all your heart before baptism. A infant cannot do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revelation, there is a vast difference between rejecting the principals of God's Word and sincerely believing that you are following Scripture and are yet in error. I can say with 100% certainty that there are things in Scripture that both you and I have made an error in interpretation on or have misunderstood and therefore are in error in that area. That doesn't mean that I have to separate from you or you from me. The same could be said for LuAnne, Matt, Clarence Sexton, you name it. We are all human and are fallible and subject to error. Being in error is not a sin, choosing to be in error may be a different story.

As far as Paul goes, you don't have any evidence to conclude that he would ever separate from those churches and no historical reference to go by that would indicate he ever did it at all. The Bible is pretty clear about separation from sin, not from sinners, from Christians who dive into sin, not from Christians of differing beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



No such thing. I am sure that you are speaking of places that say that someone was baptized "and their house" which just means everyone was old enough to understand, got saved, and were baptized. It certainly does not mean infants were baptized.

The bible says:

"Acts 8:35-38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

You can see that it was necessary to believe with all your heart before baptism. A infant cannot do that.


We're getting quite a following of those who don't know the Bible and follow another gospel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Where, pt?


Many places. This article sums it up nicely.

http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH00/0007c.html

The best response I can give to Revelation's post is that the verse he is quoting is dealing with someone converting from one faith to Christianity, not someone being born to Christian parents and raised in the Church from birth. It's kind of like circumscision. If you are born to Jewish parents, you are circumsized eight days after birth. If you convert to Judahism as an adult, you are circumsized after going through their rite of conversion. The Bible is very clear in the relation between circumscision and baptism

- good grief I am having trouble spelling today but in to big of a hurry to correct. Please forgive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually, the Bible never links circumcision and baptism. The first was part of Israel's covenant with God, the second is only taught as believers' baptism in the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Enlighten me, what is "another gospel?"


Kevin, With all you claim to know by stating difference churches, denominations, do not teach different paths to heaven, and calling me a liar, I would think at least you would be familiar with another gospel.

Maybe you need to search the Scriptures a little bit more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...