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.

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

The changes will be taking effect soon. I already have moved some forums over to the IFB forums, and I will slowly move more over.
Also soon, our members will have to agree to the boards statement of faith to join the IFB boards (Which will be most of the forums).

Thank you again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If ya'll decide to do this you should first determine what constitutes an Independent Fundamental Baptist. At least if that is the qualification to be a member or being allowed to post. For an example, believing or not believing in double inspiration doesn't determine if someone is an IFBer or not. Especially since at the end of the day you BOTH believe that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. It doesn't matter how it got there just that it is. Neither does, say, believing or not believing in the gap theory. Especially since all gap theorists that I know of still believe in a literal seven day creation. If you expect too much you'll end up with nothing but a nice little clique in here of about five people and that's about it.

Edited by Wilchbla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

There will be a statement similar to the one the Seth posted. If you agree to that, then you are in. It basically is going to be a general IFB statement, I'm not going to get into the minute details of doctrine, I'll leave those things for us to discuss. If you are already in this IFB group here, you will not notice much of a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Both my wife and I attend an IFB Church. We have been members of this Church for several years now. They teach the fundamentals of the faith and the Baptist Distinctives.

That said, there are some things in the Church that we disagree with, but not enough to pack our Bibles and leave. But what we have a problem with, when it is preached or taught, ruins the rest of the sermon for the day for us.

It is the same here on this board. Some know our stance on certain topis, and how we differ in our beliefs concerning those topics. There will always be disagreements... even amongst fellow IFB's.

Should we limit the posting of non-IFB's? I would say it would be wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I just recently came back. Has there been significant changes to what this forum views as an IFB? If I believe in double inspiration am I now out?

Could you explain what you mean by double inspiration (I've heard more than one view)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To be honest, I'm undecided on it and I'm not really 100% sure what "double inspiration" actually is! All I know for sure is that what I hold in my hands is the perfect word of God. If a Greek manuscript disagrees with it, I believe my King James Bible.

Some think that is double inspiration, I think it's just believing God preserves His word.

There are cases where the King James disagrees with the TR. I take the King James in those cases. If that means I believe in double-inspiration so be it. I took one year of Greek in Bible school and studied manuscript evidence like everyone else.... but it's a little dry and boring for me, so I don't remember a lot. I'd rather spend more time studying what I believe than why I believe what I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

That's what I think of when I think of double inspiration, but then I haven't done a lot of research into that stream of thought.
These are my thoughts. If the KJV disagrees with a Greek manuscript from the corrupted line - well of course! But if it disagrees with the TR - how can you rely on the translation more than the original? (I know, I know, they aren't the original manuscripts, just copies - but still.) If it wasn't for those originals, we wouldn't have the translation. I really can't understand the train of thought that would exalt the latter translation over the original version - as if the KJV had sprung itself out of the mists and did not rather stand upon the shoulders of the TR - as if those used by God to pen the Bible had originally written only in English! :icon_confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To be honest, I'm undecided on it and I'm not really 100% sure what "double inspiration" actually is!


"Double inspiration" would be the view that the scriptures in the original languages had become tainted/impure/unknowable until they were re-inspired in 1611 in the KJV. Frequently this is tied in with the idea that the KJV contains advanced revelation, and generally includes the idea that the "KJV" should be translated into other languages instead of going back to the original languages(which are regarded as untrustworthy) when making a new translation into another language. Typically this type of view is espoused by the likes of Peter Ruckman and those who learned from him either directly or indirectly ... Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't see any evidence to suggest that the KJB translators were inspired. Scripture clearly tells us the original authors were inspired and that God will preserve His Word, but there is no suggestion that anyone else would ever be inspired to write Scripture or to translate Scripture.

Let's not forget that it wasn't only copies of the ancient texts that were looked at in the making of the KJB. The KJB translators also looked at the previous English language Bibles and followed much of what was already there.

I trust the KJB but if the translators had been inspired, they wouldn't have had to compare all the many things they did, inspiration from God would have been enough.

Another key factor is the KJB translators made no claim of inspiration but rather of the difficult task they had and of the hope they did well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The problem I have with chosing the TR over the KJV is that you are by default saying the the KJV isn't perfect anymore.

When it comes to translating, I can understand consulting the TR or other original languages as some words have genders ("they" "them" etc) in other languages (such as spanish) that they do not in English. That being said, the KJV is perfect and I'm not going to trust anything over it and I'd never dare correct it with anything that claims to be an original - because the originals do not exisit anymore.

You either believe in preservation or you don't, the King James Bible is either perfect or it's not.

Regardless, if a guy did believe in double inspiration I believe it would be absolutly ridiculous to say that "disqualified" him from being IFB.

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

...you are by default saying the the KJV isn't perfect anymore.


Which edition? 1611, 1620, 1769? I am not talking about spelling differences and I know they are very close, but you did say "perfect" so I want to know what you mean by that. Also the oxford or Cambridge editions? Again I realize we are talking a handful of minor differences, but if we are talking absolutely perfect...


Regardless, if a guy did believe in double inspiration I believe it would be absolutly ridiculous to say that "disqualified" him from being IFB.


I would consider such a individual to be a borderline cultist. It flies in the face of the doctrine of preservation. In many ways it is similar to what Joseph smith taught just "one step back" if you will. Joseph Smith taught that all Christianity had been corrupted including the KJV bible, and that while the KJV was "good" it contained many errors which he "corrected" by "divine revelation". Likewise the extreme fringe of KJVO which holds to things like double inspiration teaches that the scriptures in the original languages were "good" but corrupted till the KJV came along to make things "perfect" again. The general thinking is the same, just a difference of degrees.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there, regardless of what is or is not "IFB" this section has a fairly basic statement of faith that one needs to agree with in order to post in this section. If you can agree with it fine, if you can't agree with it that is your call to make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Which edition? 1611, 1620, 1769? I am not talking about spelling differences and I know they are very close, but you did say "perfect" so I want to know what you mean by that. Also the oxford or Cambridge editions? Again I realize we are talking a handful of minor differences, but if we are talking absolutely perfect...



I would consider such a individual to be a borderline cultist. It flies in the face of the doctrine of preservation. In many ways it is similar to what Joseph smith taught just "one step back" if you will. Joseph Smith taught that all Christianity had been corrupted including the KJV bible, and that while the KJV was "good" it contained many errors which he "corrected" by "divine revelation". Likewise the extreme fringe of KJVO which holds to things like double inspiration teaches that the scriptures in the original languages were "good" but corrupted till the KJV came along to make things "perfect" again. The general thinking is the same, just a difference of degrees.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there, regardless of what is or is not "IFB" this section has a fairly basic statement of faith that one needs to agree with in order to post in this section. If you can agree with it fine, if you can't agree with it that is your call to make.

:goodpost:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Good posting, Seth.

I think the misunderstanding comes in with misunderstanding the definitions of the words. Preservation is exactly that: preserving of something that already exists. God promised to preserve His Word. He did not have to re-inspire it in order for it to be preserved, because it was already available. And God used the men He did to translate it from its original languages - had He not preserved it, there would have been no way to translate it.

Had no documents been available for translation, THEN God would have needed to inspire again. Inspiration, as relating to Scripture, means God-breathed. So, if men could not translate what was already there, there would be no preservation involved, there would be re-inspiration. But that wasn't necessary, because God did preserve His Word. And he allowed men to translate it. He did not breathe every word out, as He did originally, because it was already there. He guided their understanding, which was absolutely necessary, but that is not the same as inspiration.

Double inspiration is actually re-inspiration. If we are to believe the Bible when it tells us God is perfect, there is no need for re-inspiration, is there?

One of the real problems with the idea of double (or actually re-) inspiration is that if God would re-inspire once, perhaps He would do so again. Thus causing many of those who believe in that strongly to believe that they can actually "read between the lines" of scripture to see things in there that aren't. Wouldn't happen? Au contraire, it has. I've heard it from two different "camps," both of which have Bible colleges, so guess what's being taught...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Good posting, Seth.

I think the misunderstanding comes in with misunderstanding the definitions of the words. Preservation is exactly that: preserving of something that already exists. God promised to preserve His Word. He did not have to re-inspire it in order for it to be preserved, because it was already available. And God used the men He did to translate it from its original languages - had He not preserved it, there would have been no way to translate it.

Had no documents been available for translation, THEN God would have needed to inspire again. Inspiration, as relating to Scripture, means God-breathed. So, if men could not translate what was already there, there would be no preservation involved, there would be re-inspiration. But that wasn't necessary, because God did preserve His Word. And he allowed men to translate it. He did not breathe every word out, as He did originally, because it was already there. He guided their understanding, which was absolutely necessary, but that is not the same as inspiration.

Double inspiration is actually re-inspiration. If we are to believe the Bible when it tells us God is perfect, there is no need for re-inspiration, is there?

One of the real problems with the idea of double (or actually re-) inspiration is that if God would re-inspire once, perhaps He would do so again. Thus causing many of those who believe in that strongly to believe that they can actually "read between the lines" of scripture to see things in there that aren't. Wouldn't happen? Au contraire, it has. I've heard it from two different "camps," both of which have Bible colleges, so guess what's being taught...

True, and this same "logic" is what has led some to declare that ONLY the KJB is Gods' Word and all non-English speaking people on the planet must learn to read English in order to read the KJB because no translations in any other langauge is "inspired" as they say the KJB is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

80% of the KJV comes from the Geneva Bible which was also translated from the Received Text and previous incomplete bibles. King James didn't like the marginal notes of the Geneva and so he commissioned this Bible which took about 100 or more years to come into widespread use after 1611. Besides the Geneva and KJV, is there another bible written in English that was translated correctly from the Textus Receptus??? I'm not aware of any. Even the NKJV has been corrupted by Wescott and Hort's work.

If there isn't another faithfull translation than it seems to me to be a facetious argument. We're then KJV only because there isn't anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know enough about foreign languages and their translations, but I've been told by solid Believers that there are sound translations in other languages. To be clear, that's not to say that all non-English translations are sound, some most certainly are not and there are some "better" than others, but from what I've been told by some who should know, there are at least some sound non-English translations of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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...