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

Calvary,

I for one believe that most missionaries are "Pastors" in a foreign country and therefore must meet the qualifications of a pastor.


Yeah, I see it that way too.

My apologies for hijacking the thread a little. I know I am a pastor, and I know that as soon as the Lord outfits this church, we will be moving on. That is the part that is hard.

God bless,
Calvary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Actually, it is clear, "the husband of one wife". Since it doesn't say "except for..."or "unless...", we should take it as it stands without trying to "clarify" if by bringing up issues and points the Holy Ghost didn't deem it necessary to go into.

As LuAnn pointed out, previous to our times the qualifications were pretty much accepted across the board. It wasn't until modernism, humanism and feminism really began permeating the churches that questions and "exceptions" came into being.


Once again, Baptist tradition is being used to prove something that the Bible doesn't say.

Here's what the Bible says:

1. It is possible to be divorced and blameless (Matt. 5, 19, I Cor. 7).
2. The gifts and callings of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:29).
3. That Jesus recognizes ("thou HAST HAD...") separate marriages at separate times as being separate, not "five living husbands" (John 4:18).
4. That a man can be the "chief" of sinners before he was saved, having tormented Christians and maybe even killed them directly or indirectly, and still be qualified to be a pastor and write half the New Testament AFTER he was saved (I Tim. 1:15).

In conclusion, I agree with what the Bible says when it says that a pastor or deacon must be the husband of one wife to be qualified to serve in that capacity. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators



Once again, Baptist tradition is being used to prove something that the Bible doesn't say.

Here's what the Bible says:

1. It is possible to be divorced and blameless (Matt. 5, 19, I Cor. 7).
2. The gifts and callings of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:29).
3. That Jesus recognizes ("thou HAST HAD...") separate marriages at separate times as being separate, not "five living husbands" (John 4:18).
4. That a man can be the "chief" of sinners before he was saved, having tormented Christians and maybe even killed them directly or indirectly, and still be qualified to be a pastor and write half the New Testament AFTER he was saved (I Tim. 1:15).

In conclusion, I agree with what the Bible says when it says that a pastor or deacon must be the husband of one wife to be qualified to serve in that capacity.

Rick, it goes a lot further back than Baptist tradition...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Its not Baptist tradition, its Bible teachings.

As for Paul, he was not a pastor, he was an apostle selected by Jesus Himself.

There were many great wonderful Christians prior to the founding on a single New Testament Church by Jesus Christ, and before the qualifications for being a pastor of one of Jesus' New Testament Churches, that would not qualify to be pastor of a New Testament Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Its not Baptist tradition, its Bible teachings.

As for Paul, he was not a pastor, he was an apostle selected by Jesus Himself.

There were many great wonderful Christians prior to the founding on a single New Testament Church by Jesus Christ, and before the qualifications for being a pastor of one of Jesus' New Testament Churches, that would not qualify to be pastor of a New Testament Church.


Am I getting you right - Paul was qualified to start churches but not to serve as a deacon in them? The same Paul who penned what the qualifications for a deacon were?

Yes or no, please. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Am I getting you right - Paul was qualified to start churches but not to serve as a deacon in them? The same Paul who penned what the qualifications for a deacon were?

Yes or no, please.


Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Compare scriptures to scriptures, and leave your guessing and reasoning out. I might add, some of the other apostles were pastors, but not Paul, and that takes no authority away from his apostleship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Compare scriptures to scriptures, and leave your guessing and reasoning out. I might add, some of the other apostles were pastors, but not Paul, and that takes no authority away from his apostleship.


You didn't answer me, brother. This is what I said:

Am I getting you right - Paul was qualified to start churches but not to serve as a deacon in them? The same Paul who penned what the qualifications for a deacon were?

Yes or no, please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just as an addendum, turns out the Pastor was also remarried (both him and his wife were remarried). He used to be IFB but left the Church so he could Pastor (he was removed from an IFB Church as the Pastor when they found out). He joined and Pastored an evangelical church for awhile but I guess the Holy Spirit got the best of him and he had to leave under conviction.

He started out as song leader and has a wonderful voice...I hope he can get back to where God wants him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I ran into a man sometime back he was shopping for a church that would approve him to be a pastor, he had been divorce 2 times. He has move to 2 different cities attending churches that he thought would approve him yet they didn't, last I heard he was still shopping.

Edited to add.

He was Baptist, and he was trying to stay a Baptist, yet I feel sooner or later he will move to another one with hopes they will approve of him for that position.

Edited by Jerry80871852
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Interesting question and responses. A few items to add, just for understanding. Then some observations.

I heard a man once say "God does not call the qualified. He qualifies the called".

Also, in the culture of the day, physical virginity on the part of the female was so important that the sheets used by the newly married couple were publicly displayed the day after they came together. Fornication is before marriage, and is cause to not be married, because it would be known immediately (by way of the sheets) if she was or was not a virgin, and thus could be put away. But once the sheets were displayed, the consumation was considered final and complete, and a man was not suppose to put away his wife because the sheets 'proved' she had not fornicated.


Sin is sin. Man sometimes likes to think certain sins are worse than others. Except for blasphemy on the one end, and loving God and your neighbor at the other end, this is not the case. Sin is sin. Adultery, murder, stealing, and every other sin are just that - sin.
The consequences may be immediate or delayed, but they will be there.

When a man gets saved, he is a new creation. Old things (including adultery) are passed away. We are complete in Christ. After salvation, sins occur. Regardless of the sin, God can and will forgive him (I Jn 1:9). However, sometimes the consequences are still there. Perhaps divorce, STD's, heart problems, and the like. The man may be forgiven by God, by friends, by his wife, even his children, but consequences may still follow.

The real problem with willful sin is that ministers are stewards, and it is REQUIRED (not optional) in stewards that a man be faithful. If someone is not faithful in earthly things (marriage, money, time, work, etc.), that person will not be faithful in spiritual things. That will make any pastoral role difficult. But once the man has dealt with his sin and let God deal with his sin, when the man has honestly corrected the error and the issues which led to and followed it, and has established in his life the same principles as Timothy and Titus require, as well as other Scripture, then he may be ready once again to shepherd God's people.

Only the Great Shepherd never sinned. All the other shepherds are under Him, and all have sinned. God does not have degrees of sin, or rightousness.

Do the scriptures indicate if a person gets a divorce and marries another, that they are living in a state of sin? Where does it say that?

I Cor 7 is full of gems on this entire subject. 27b-28a "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;" If you have been loosed from a wife and married, you have not sinned. This is the age of grace, the rulebook, the canon, of today for the church of the body. We are not the church of Israel. And in the church which we are a part of, there is neither male nor female. God is no respecter of persons. In today's venacular, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, or put another way, If you were loosed from your husband and remarry, you have not sinned.
This is no contradiction to what Jesus said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It is funny that one believes that God can and will forgive those who have remarried after divorce, yet still believes they are in an adulterous marriage.

If God has forgiven them, casting their sin in the depths of the sea, (Micah 7:19) how can they still be in the same sin?

If they are in continual adultery, then how could God forgive them as long as they are in that state?

I do not believe it is continual adultery.

And if God has truly forgiven them, how is the husband disqualified from being a pastor? Once God forgives, He cleanses from all sin. (1 John 1:9)

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As has been pointed out, there are often consequences, sometimes lifetime consequences, for sins we have committed even though we have repented of them.

It could be argued that if a person comes to Christ and their spouses divorces them, the Christian is not guilty of sinful divorce.

Those who divorce otherwise, and are not reconciled with their spouse or refuse to remain unmarried, do sin, as Scripture declares. There is no "perpetual sin", yet as long as the couple refuses to repent they are considered to be living in adultery. If they repent, the Lord will forgive them. Even so, the fact they divorced and remarried in direct violation of Scripture, has lasting consequences.

How many of us would consider it good to place a repentant pedophile in charge of the nursery or tending to the kindergarten age children? Would we want our children in this persons care, even though they have repented and been forgiven?

We all have our weaknesses, areas where we are more vulnerable to temptation, and just as we take such into consideration, so does the Lord.

Certain sins, even if they have been forgiven, carry lifetime consequences. That doesn't mean God can't or won't use us, but it does mean God can and will use us in other areas while keeping us from some.

Consider how, in First Timothy 2:11-14, God hearkens back to the sin of Eve as part of the reason women are not to teach or usurp the authority of men. Women today are constrained by the consequences of the sin of Eve. Is it beyond reason to see that certain sins, while they can be forgiven, sometimes hold lifetime consequences for us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Certain sins can hold lifetime consequences, yes.

But should they?

In the case of the repentant pedophile, if the person has truly repented he/she is no longer a pedophile. Would it not be sin on our part to continually look on that person as a pedophile if they have repented?

If that person said they repented, and showed signs of repentance, who are we to show unforgiveness toward that person? Constantly reminding them that we still believe them to be a pedophile?

Jesus told the Disciples in the Gospel of Luke:

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. (Lu 17:3)

It was stated earlier that we cannot truly see if one repents of a sin or not but from the above verse Jesus knew we can see and know those who are truly repentant... and He said to forgive such.

How is saying, "You can't be pastor because you married a divorced woman" showing forgiveness? It doesn't. It says, "because you sinned, ..." The sin is ever before them... but not in God's eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Certain sins can hold lifetime consequences, yes.

But should they?

In the case of the repentant pedophile, if the person has truly repented he/she is no longer a pedophile. Would it not be sin on our part to continually look on that person as a pedophile if they have repented?

If that person said they repented, and showed signs of repentance, who are we to show unforgiveness toward that person? Constantly reminding them that we still believe them to be a pedophile?

Jesus told the Disciples in the Gospel of Luke:

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. (Lu 17:3)

It was stated earlier that we cannot truly see if one repents of a sin or not but from the above verse Jesus knew we can see and know those who are truly repentant... and He said to forgive such.

How is saying, "You can't be pastor because you married a divorced woman" showing forgiveness? It doesn't. It says, "because you sinned, ..." The sin is ever before them... but not in God's eyes.

An ex-felon is barred from certain jobs no matter how repentant he is. In the same way, God has given specifics for certain things as well.

This has nothing to do with forgiveness. In the case of a pedophile, they obviously had a serious problem with resisting the temptation to have inappropriate contact with children. How wise would it be to place someone like that in the midst of temptation? The former pedophile should desire to flee any such possible temptation before such could occur. Could the former pedophile resist the temptation and work well with children...perhaps, but it would only take one stumble to possibly land that person in prison for years or life and devestate one or more children and their families and bring reproach upon the church.

We all sin, we all have certain sins we are more challenged with. We should all recognize such and take precautions to avoid temptation in that area.

If a saved man chooses to marry a sinfully divorced woman, especially knowing what Scripture has to say about this, then he is deliberately choosing to rebel against God. He may repent at some point in the future yet that decision to rebel comes with a lifetime consequence.
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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • 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...