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.

Pastoral Qualifications


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Moses was not fit to lead Israel simply because he got mad and hit the rock instead of speaking to it. I suppose many they be that thinks it was foolish of God to disqualify Moses from leading Israel into the promise land even taking his life for what we would call a very minor disobedience.


The difference, brother, is that Moses sinned and did something wrong in that instance. If Matthew 5 and I Cor. 7 teach that one can biblically be divorces without having sinned, then there is no blame to assign.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators



The difference, brother, is that Moses sinned and did something wrong in that instance. If Matthew 5 and I Cor. 7 teach that one can biblically be divorces without having sinned, then there is no blame to assign.


Again, Rick, each man is the head of his home. And the responsibility for the spiritual health for that home lies on that man's shoulders. While we all give account for our own individual lives, husbands will give account for how they husbanded their homes. When there is divorce, the home wasn't properly husbanded (cultivated). Ergo, there is blame to assign to the man...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1Co 7:10 ¶ And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.


The divorced person is free to remarry only at the death of their spouse.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

And the Lords way is not grievous to His children.
Remember, God never contradicts Himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Again, Rick, each man is the head of his home. And the responsibility for the spiritual health for that home lies on that man's shoulders. While we all give account for our own individual lives, husbands will give account for how they husbanded their homes. When there is divorce, the home wasn't properly husbanded (cultivated). Ergo, there is blame to assign to the man...


So that means in every case where there is divorce the man is de facto at fault and has sinned? Then why didn't Jesus say that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Most men hate the responsibility God has placed them in, and few will act responsible, when things go wrong they try to place the blame somewhere else, just as Adam, yet God did not accept his excuse, notice,Adam even blamed God.


Ge 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That doesn't mean that divorced people cannot serve in ministry, including preaching and missions. But I believe that any divorce (whether his own or his marriage to a divorced woman) disqualifies a man from the pastorate.

I find that attitude interesting. It's ok for a "missionary" to be a divorced guy, but not a "pastor". Or perhaps you meant, go on mission trips?
I am a "missionary" (what the Bible calls an evangelist) and I find that too many have the idea that a missionary is somehow lacking pastoral authority or is somehow "less qualified" to pastor.

There is absolutely no Biblical references that default a missionary to a "less than" pastor.

The 4 churches I have planted are full of people that call/called me "pastor".

Wanna know why they call/called me that? Because I am a pastor. Every bit as much as any other pastor you care to name.

my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If a person is a missionary, they're not a pastor, of course a pastor could become a missionary. And a missionary could become a pastor if qualified. And of course a person can be an evangelist and not be a pastor nor a missionary.

Its not an attitude, its what the Bible teaches. I find it interesting the attitude some, even many, have when they disagree with someone, many times they will say that person has an attitude. Yet perhaps its an attitude within ones self that makes them think the person they disagree with has an attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'd agree that a missionary is similar to a pastor and would have to meet the qualifications to be a pastor. It's really common sense. Being a missionary means you have to do the role of a pastor, for awhile at least, until you can get someone else plugged into that spot. That could take years, and I know of cases where a missionary has been the pastor in the same church overseas his entire ministry.

One thing I've seen over and over again is that these qualifications are spoken of for a pastor only. It has much bigger implications than that, it's also for a deacon. If what Jerry and company are saying is true, a man could get divorced before he's saved and he'd be banned from ever being a deacon for the rest of his saved life regardless of whatever fruit God may have worked in his life decades down the road.

If a pastor, missionary, and a deacon are permanently disqualified because of a pre-conversion divorce, then I don't see why an evangelist wouldn't be either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The qualifications for pastor is to be the husband of one wife, there are only so many ways that a man can fit that qualification.

1. Have been married one time, never divorced.
2. Are to have been married and wife died, in that case he is free to be married.

Human reasoning and logic is the wrong path to take if you want to follow God. God does not state, if a person married before they were saved, them got a divorce, that is OK. He only states the husband of one wife, nothing added to it as you do by using that IF. Besides that, if what you say is true them God contradicts Himself.

1Ti 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..."

Tit 1:6 "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife..." And it appears God felt strongly enough about that qualification to have inspired it to be written not once, but twice in two different chapters.

All we can do with that is trust and obey, not look for loopholes as lawyers do. When loopholes are applied we stop trusting and obeying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators



And all the feminists said, "Amen!"

#1 - I'm not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination, Wilch, so let's not go there, okay?
#2 - Rick, does the responsibility for the home rest on the husband or not? (as I said, that doesn't take accountability away from the woman). Note that I didn't say that the man was de facto at fault. But I did say there was blame to assign to the man (in response to your usage of the term). Um, isn't that the essence of leadership?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, of course the responsibility of the home lies on the husband. That doesn't mean he's at fault or has sinned in every divorce situation though, like you said, his leadership doesn't take away the woman's accountability. I don't think you're a feminist, and I don't think Wilch does either. :)

Obviously if a man is going through divorce proceedings his house is not in order and should step down and do whatever he can to save his marriage. I think we'd all agree on that.

Where my disagreement is the idea of permanent disqualification; specifically the "living wives" interpretation. I wish folks who subscribe to that idea would just admit, if nothing else, that it is an interpretation of a verse that could go one of two ways instead of slamming their fists down and being so dogmatic about something that the Bible doesn't spell out exactly the way they say it does. There's just too many problems with it.

In the end, people pick who they want to be their pastor and deacons, and I've seen God use plenty of pastors and deacons that have a divorce in their past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

But where is scripture that states re-qualification? Yep, we are forgiven for sins. But as has been said, sins have consequences - some sins leave bigger scars. Divorce is one of those.

Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church...divorce destroys that picture. Even if a Christian backslides, Christ doesn't divorce us. Salvation is permanent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

So you believe a person is disqualified from being a deacon for his entire life if he was divorced ten years before he was saved?


I have to admit that the before salvation issue is questionable. But one thing I do know: once a person has gotten a divorce, it is easier to do so again. It is always on the table in the subconscious. And I do know of men who were divorced before salvation, got saved, and became preachers....and went on to be divorced and remarried again...and continued preaching. Without remorse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes, of course the responsibility of the home lies on the husband. That doesn't mean he's at fault or has sinned in every divorce situation though, like you said, his leadership doesn't take away the woman's accountability. I don't think you're a feminist, and I don't think Wilch does either. :)

Obviously if a man is going through divorce proceedings his house is not in order and should step down and do whatever he can to save his marriage. I think we'd all agree on that.

Where my disagreement is the idea of permanent disqualification; specifically the "living wives" interpretation. I wish folks who subscribe to that idea would just admit, if nothing else, that it is an interpretation of a verse that could go one of two ways instead of slamming their fists down and being so dogmatic about something that the Bible doesn't spell out exactly the way they say it does. There's just too many problems with it.

In the end, people pick who they want to be their pastor and deacons, and I've seen God use plenty of pastors and deacons that have a divorce in their past.


No, its not just an interpretation, its what two verses within the Holy Bible says, and that is all that counts, it cannot go any other way except by changing the Bible. This is qualifications to be a pastor of Jesus' New Testament Churches, not for being a Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Rick,

Based on the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3, yes he is disqualified. I would state that he is qualified again once his 1st wife dies as he is again the husband of one wife.

This conversation started with the Pastor's wife, but apparently has moved to the pastor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Does anyone here think it's a little odd that Paul could be a torturer of Christians before he was saved, as in the self-confessed "chief of sinners" who forced people to reject Christ under threats of only God knows what - but he could still be eligible for the role of a deacon after salvation... because he never had a divorce?

Unless, of course, Paul was eligible to write half of the New Testament but not be a deacon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • 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...