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.

Women SS Teachers ??


Bro K
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Agreed bro Jerry

Everyone knew that Tony Blair would become a catholic when he retired from being PM. When someone asked whey G W Bush always ended his speaches with "God Bless You" and why didn't Blair. his spin doctor, Alistair Campbell answered "We don't do God."

Blair was accepted into Rome although his policies all went against the teachings of Rome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Agreed bro Jerry

Everyone knew that Tony Blair would become a catholic when he retired from being PM. When someone asked whey G W Bush always ended his speaches with "God Bless You" and why didn't Blair. his spin doctor, Alistair Campbell answered "We don't do God."

Blair was accepted into Rome although his policies all went against the teachings of Rome.


No doubt, they knew Tony would be a big draw and prOBably gain them many members, excuse me, $$$,$$$,$$$.$$.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 years later...
  • Members
On 7/9/2010 at 2:07 PM, HappyChristian said:

In fact, 2 Timothy calls those women "silly."

Reminds me of a reference maybe 30 years ago or so,  that "silly women" or "women" also referred to men at the time written - not men of faith , no, but men effeminate or weak-minded,  wrong spirit,  with no substance nor portion in Christ.  Perhaps the womanly men were or passed as teachers or preachers at the time also,  deluding and deceiving many, being carried about by winds of doctrine not at all true nor faithful nor right but pretending to be and too often accepted by others in assemblies or by individuals with or without telling their husbands or elders or deacons in the assembly that they were listening to or paying attention to perverted doctrines ,  having their ears tickled, their emotions leading them astray easily,  perhaps (unknown) their own assembly not providing teaching to resist nor to expose the wolves and false teachings and harmful practices.

Other items in this thread are potential great topics today for this thread continued or for a new thread,  God Willing.

One question I had - I was searching this forum for "teaching women" to see if anyone is teaching women anywhere, in churches, schools,  classes, homes or wherever. 

Teaching according to Scripture KJV,  not according to the world nor any of the multitude of false directions.

It came up a few minutes ago when I saw a reference to a school in UK that trains women to be good wives.    

Is anyone anywhere Biblically sound training young women to be good and faithful wives, 

and then also anywhere training men, young men or old,  to be disciples properly and Scripturally ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, at our Bible class my wife reads Scripture verses and makes suggestions; and it's actively encouraged; and we don't see this as incompatible with the NT.

She used to teach as her secular employment; this is a separate context, of course.

Edited by farouk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Farouk, God’s Word says this:

1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
You or your church may not have a problem with women teaching men - but God does. A woman can teach a children’s Sunday school class, perhaps even a teen class with boys and girls - but the Bible itself teaches women are not to teach men (obviously in a spiritual context). Funny how some people think they can teach the Bible when they themselves are forbidden from doing so in that context. If they rebel against the Word of God, how are they in fact teaching the Word of God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jerry said:

Farouk, God’s Word says this:

1 Timothy 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
You or your church may not have a problem with women teaching men - but God does. A woman can teach a children’s Sunday school class, perhaps even a teen class with boys and girls - but the Bible itself teaches women are not to teach men (obviously in a spiritual context). Funny how some people think they can teach the Bible when they themselves are forbidden from doing so in that context. If they rebel against the Word of God, how are they in fact teaching the Word of God?

Jerry, should a mother be allowed to teach her child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
24 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

So, don't speak for him. Let  him answer.  Thanks. 

Are you actually reading when people comment? He did answer 🤣

I didn't answer for him, I actually read what he typed that you could have read for yourself. If you take the time to read his post you will see that you asked a question that he already gave the answer to. 

It's like me saying....The sky is blue, and then your next comment is asking me what color I think the sky is.

It's all cool bro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually Jerry doesn’t answer that directly… I think you are at the point you just try to argue with Bill, for no reason or any reason. 
 

Anyways the answer to that question is obviously yes. A stupid question indeed, especially looking at Jerry’s stance on Sunday school children’s classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I take "A woman can teach a children’s Sunday school class, perhaps even a teen class with boys and girls

as an answer to

"Jerry, should a mother be allowed to teach her child?"

If a woman can teach a children's Sunday school class then they can obviously teach her child.

Maybe I'm wrong and Jerry can clarify, but it would seem like a contradiction to say yes a woman can teach a child, but no, not her own child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Acts 18:

24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

In the NT scripture, Aquila and Priscilla, a husband and wife team, taught Apollos what he was missing in scripture. It's clear to me that the three had a Bible study together, the wording suggests both Priscilla and Aquilla taught Apollos and he accepted their teaching, becoming a very strong and bold preacher for the cause of Christ. Priscilla may not have taught in the church or Sunday school(the Bible doesn't say), but she did teach Apollos, a man, in a Bible study together with her husband. 

My personal experience: I'm a missionary and there have been times I taught teen boys and men in Bible studies. In one instance, I held a Bible study at a hospital with the administrative staff (all women) during their lunch break. I have had a male pharmaceutical rep drop in on occasion to join the Bible study. Should I have told him he wasn't welcome because I was a woman and had no authority to teach him? Or is it because I taught at a hospital and not a church it's okay? 

At the church my dad started in Taiwan I taught Sunday school, which included teen boys up to age 16. There have been numerous times when a young child is afraid to go to Sunday school alone and the father sits with them in the class and participates in the lesson and activities with their child. Should I have insisted they go to the main service and let their child cry and disrupt class? (some parents did just this, I held the crying child and taught the lesson at the same time, no big deal for me, but other parents don't want their child crying) The choice was the father's, they wanted church to be a positive place and not a fearful place and so they listened to the lesson I taught. 

When the church decided to forgo VBS and church camp and instead hold a weeklong series of intensive Bible lessons, I was asked to teach in one of the hour slots. It was a mixed class, teenagers and adults. 

I am in Taiwan to minister mainly to children and women, but I will teach teen boys and men if asked to do so, although it happens rarely. I do not believe I  am in any way usurping authority or putting myself (or women in general) on a pedestal.  On the contrary, I believe I am submitting myself to my pastoral authority by obeying the instruction given to teach the truths of the Bible, no matter who may be listening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
46 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Are you speaking of an adult class, @E Morales? If you're speaking of an adult, MIXED, male and female SS class, I would have to say NO. 

Yes, to any old or young man or female. A woman can teach a class, if there is no man to do so. Old and New Testament, even dead bones will speak, if man falls short. As a donkey if kick to. In my opinion  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Rebecca said:

Acts 18:

24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

In the NT scripture, Aquila and Priscilla, a husband and wife team, taught Apollos what he was missing in scripture. It's clear to me that the three had a Bible study together, the wording suggests both Priscilla and Aquilla taught Apollos and he accepted their teaching, becoming a very strong and bold preacher for the cause of Christ. Priscilla may not have taught in the church or Sunday school(the Bible doesn't say), but she did teach Apollos, a man, in a Bible study together with her husband. 

My personal experience: I'm a missionary and there have been times I taught teen boys and men in Bible studies. In one instance, I held a Bible study at a hospital with the administrative staff (all women) during their lunch break. I have had a male pharmaceutical rep drop in on occasion to join the Bible study. Should I have told him he wasn't welcome because I was a woman and had no authority to teach him? Or is it because I taught at a hospital and not a church it's okay? 

At the church my dad started in Taiwan I taught Sunday school, which included teen boys up to age 16. There have been numerous times when a young child is afraid to go to Sunday school alone and the father sits with them in the class and participates in the lesson and activities with their child. Should I have insisted they go to the main service and let their child cry and disrupt class? (some parents did just this, I held the crying child and taught the lesson at the same time, no big deal for me, but other parents don't want their child crying) The choice was the father's, they wanted church to be a positive place and not a fearful place and so they listened to the lesson I taught. 

When the church decided to forgo VBS and church camp and instead hold a weeklong series of intensive Bible lessons, I was asked to teach in one of the hour slots. It was a mixed class, teenagers and adults. 

I am in Taiwan to minister mainly to children and women, but I will teach teen boys and men if asked to do so, although it happens rarely. I do not believe I  am in any way usurping authority or putting myself (or women in general) on a pedestal.  On the contrary, I believe I am submitting myself to my pastoral authority by obeying the instruction given to teach the truths of the Bible, no matter who may be listening. 

I believe if you're a a missionary, isn't that what you're supposed to be doing? Are you alone, or do you have a husband who's a missionary with you? 

If there is a "qualified" man, then I believe the man should be teaching/preaching. But, as Mr. Morales has pointed out, there are cases where a woman HAS to be the speaker. I don't see that in a church, as a SS teacher or preacher, unless, of course the men of the church have abdicated their responsibiities. If they have, it might be necessary for a woman to do the speaking until a man is trained to take over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I remember one time, I ask a pastor if you were in a very small town where there was a woman evangelizing or preaching, and no man doing this mission, would you listen to her? this Pastor told me no. Now me being a Christian, I know that the head of the church is Christ, the pastor a man is the head of the home and is chosen by God to lead the church. I did not agree with him, because I know God will do many things that I don’t understand. He the boss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 minutes ago, E Morales said:

I remember one time, I ask a pastor if you were in a very small town where there was a woman evangelizing or preaching, and no man doing this mission, would you listen to her? this Pastor told me no. Now me being a Christian, I know that the head of the church is Christ, the pastor a man is the head of the home and is chosen by God to lead the church. I did not agree with him, because I know God will do many things that I don’t understand. He the boss

The job of "evagelizing" is for every Christian, male or female. The job of leading a congregation is for a pastor, and women ARE NOT supposed to be pastors according to Scripture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
27 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I believe if you're a a missionary, isn't that what you're supposed to be doing? Are you alone, or do you have a husband who's a missionary with you? 

If there is a "qualified" man, then I believe the man should be teaching/preaching. But, as Mr. Morales has pointed out, there are cases where a woman HAS to be the speaker. I don't see that in a church, as a SS teacher or preacher, unless, of course the men of the church have abdicated their responsibiities. If they have, it might be necessary for a woman to do the speaking until a man is trained to take over. 

Yes, it's exactly what I'm supposed to be doing. I am not married, I work with the local pastors where needed. The church I'm helping in now I haven't needed or been asked to teach men, but in the prior church I was asked on occasion to do so because it was a very small, new church plant started from the ground up. I did everything except preach (piano, Bible studies, janitor, Sunday school, etc). I helped train the people who are now qualified to be in the positions they're in (except the now pastor, my dad taught him). I did it all under the guidance of my dad - the missionary who started the church, and now the local pastor. Once they had all the positions filled with locals who were doing an excellent job, I moved on to the next church, where I am now. So it wasn't a matter of men abdicating responsibility, there simply weren't many men knowledgeable in the Bible at that time to be the teachers. I was extremely happy once I was able to step back, do you know how intimidating it is to teach someone who holds a doctorate, haha! 😄 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Rebecca said:

Yes, it's exactly what I'm supposed to be doing. I am not married, I work with the local pastors where needed. The church I'm helping in now I haven't needed or been asked to teach men, but in the prior church I was asked on occasion to do so because it was a very small, new church plant started from the ground up. I did everything except preach (piano, Bible studies, janitor, Sunday school, etc). I helped train the people who are now qualified to be in the positions they're in (except the now pastor, my dad taught him). I did it all under the guidance of my dad - the missionary who started the church, and now the local pastor. Once they had all the positions filled with locals who were doing an excellent job, I moved on to the next church, where I am now. So it wasn't a matter of men abdicating responsibility, there simply weren't many men knowledgeable in the Bible at that time to be the teachers. I was extremely happy once I was able to step back, do you know how intimidating it is to teach someone who holds a doctorate, haha! 😄 

I agree with how you did this....I know it may not be a popular opinion, but I don't see where it would be unscriptural. 

Now you asked if I know how intimidating it is to teach someone who has a doctorate...Yes, ma'am, I certainly do. When I was teaching SS in many of the churches where I've done so, I had several people with their doctorates...especially ones in religion. I often felt so inadequate to teach until one of those who had been a pastor for 30+ years and was on a sabbatical told me 'God qualifies those he calls." He and I talked at length several times, and he was a great encouragement to me. I have never even finished college, but I have preached enough to know that God doesn't send anybody out to do something without giving them the tools to do it! 🙂 Blessings.

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

  • 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

  • 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...