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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

I am not surprised you agree. You said you were a ruckmanite when you joined the board recently I recall. Further I said that he claims the KJV was re-inspired which he does, and that he believes that the original(original being used in the sense here that everyone but ruckman and ruckmanites typically use it in) greek and hebrew are corrupted which he does, and that he believes the KJV contains advanced revelation not found in the greek or hebrew which he does. Please stick to what I actually said rather than attempting to re-define it as a statement that "the bible lost inspiration". You and I both know that that isn't his position, his position is more along the general lines that the bible itself was "lost" or corrupted I suppose at some undefined point prior to 1611, and that it was "re-given" and "purified" in 1611 and that the KJV is now the only completely reliable bible today in any language.

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

 

You know, this is such a pitiful argument. God has set his seal of "approval" on the the "english text of 1611" On what grounds? This mythical "seal of approval" is somehow solid proof of something while faith that God has kept his promise to continually preserve his word as he promised in the scriptures is "hazarding a guess" at what the originals(narrowly defined) said? 

 

What defines "seal of approval" anyway? Is it something solid enough that you are brave enough to base everything you know about God on it?

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

 

I have a question for you, but I don't want to hijack this any longer. Mind continuing this in the Biblical issues forum under 'Preservation & Inspiration'?  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

rm, please read post 141 & 143.  Thank you.  And then go here:    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Okay, I hate to be the heavy in this, but this thread is not pro- or anti-Ruckman.  The conversation that has been going on for several pages is not inline with the OP...For those who wish to continue the discussion, please create another thread.  If you don't want to create another thread, that's fine.  But pro or anti Ruckman talk stops in this one...Thank you.

 

(and, Song - you can't tell someone they can't contribute to a thread...)

This wasn't about pro or anti Ruckman. It was about slandering a man.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Some do indeed believe this, but not all. What do the ones posting here now believe in this area?

 

Check out all 5 points against the Bible, & decide what you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would like for this to be a civil discussion. The problem is that an IFB can mean many sort of things. For example, this website is and mostly IFB, but some say we are too IFB while other state we are not IFB enough. Where in your mind should Online Baptist/We draw the line for IFB?

​I do think a little different than some on OB, in which one thing I find to be hard to explain on OB -  the Bible I use.

In my opinion, as I do not use 'perversions' in my preaching and teaching, the explanation of 'what' I believe can be best explained

in the text I use, but the rules here keep me from clearly saying where I get my 'thinking'. I have been trying to 'smooth-over' the words

I use, to try and show in my own words, what I believe. There are times when members here say things that are not in the KJV text, yet they 'get'

a certain meaning from the text which mine says in it's text. So I would like to see the rule about 'KJV only' changed to 'KJV and previous

English versions of the 'proper' line of Bibles, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Bishops, and Geneva Bibles'. I believe it would deepen

our understanding of the text, and reveal some interesting discussions on real 'biblical' teachings. I will still be here whether or not that happens.

I know some will say it brings confusion into the realm, but I disagree, it will solidify what we truly believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sometimes I feel that non IFB saints, and Calvinists, and, A-millenialists, post their views on OLB just to antaganize us and get converts  to their agenda. They do not really want an honest discussion. We need a solid Statement of Faith. One of the reasons why some of the discussions degenerate into rancor, ill-feeling and dislike is that some folks that are in the forums are not true IFB and they do not want to be. They are leavening OLB with there non-biblical beliefs.

Also, I do think that you should consider someone joining OLB to state there church name. If they are not near a local IFB church than they need to give the name of the previous IFB church they sere a member of.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Sometimes I feel that non IFB saints, and Calvinists, and, A-millenialists, post their views on OLB just to antaganize us and get converts  to their agenda. They do not really want an honest discussion. We need a solid Statement of Faith. One of the reasons why some of the discussions degenerate into rancor, ill-feeling and dislike is that some folks that are in the forums are not true IFB and they do not want to be. They are leavening OLB with there non-biblical beliefs.

Also, I do think that you should consider someone joining OLB to state there church name. If they are not near a local IFB church than they need to give the name of the previous IFB church they sere a member of.

 

Alan,

 

I think that we deal with the trolls very well. I say let them come, there is always the chance that they will see some validity in the IFB stand for truth. After all, how can we stand for the truth if we never have an opportunity to preach it? I think it a good thing that we have visitors like this so that we can point out their errors and put forth the truth of the IFB position.​

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

So I would like to see the rule about 'KJV only' changed to 'KJV and previous

English versions of the 'proper' line of Bibles, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Bishops, and Geneva Bibles'. I believe it would deepen

our understanding of the text, and reveal some interesting discussions on real 'biblical' teachings. I will still be here whether or not that happens.

I know some will say it brings confusion into the realm, but I disagree, it will solidify what we truly believe.

That's not going to happen, Genevan...

Concerning the Scriptures:

We believe that every word of the scriptures was given by inspiration of God and that every word of of the scriptures has been preserved by his divine power from the tainting of man thus retaining their inspired character in its entirety.
We therefore hold the scriptures to be the foremost authority for faith and practice and reject every doctrine or teaching contrary to the teachings of the 66 books of scripture as nOT of God and false. We believe that the revelation of scripture was completed with the book of Revelation. Online baptist holds that the King James Bible is Gods preserved word for the English speaking peoples and does nOT permit using OTher versions on the forum. We reject the teaching of the double inspiration of theKJV and hold that the KJV retains the original divine inspiration of the scriptures through faithful translation and Gods divine preservation rather than being re-inspired in the English language in 1611.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

First United Holy Christian Congregational Assembly of Latter Day BaptiPresbyMetholic Adventists, Inc.

​These days I actually wouldn't be surprised to see such a church spring up!:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First United Holy Christian Congregational Assembly of Latter Day BaptiPresbyMetholic Adventists, Inc.

​Ha! If the liberals had their way it would also include...

First United Holy Christian Congregational Assembly of Latter Day BaptiPresbyMetholicSuni Adventist-Shias, Inc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Saylan,

Thank you for reinterating the position of OLB on the King James issue. I personnally appreciate it very much and commend you for your stand.

Old Fashioned Preacher, that was hilarious!

I still feel that these trolls that get into these discussions  to push their own non-IBF positions are doing harm to honest and sincere IFB's. Calvinism, A-millenialsim, amd any form of 'Replacement Theology' to most IFB's are heretical doctrines and cause serious division among the brethren. Since these types of saints do not activley soul win converts they draw their converts from their non-biblical 'Bible' studies. And, that is the main reason they are on the OLB forum.  

 

​Sadly, there are many IFB's teaching a form of Replacement Theology that don't even realize that they are.
I'm not speaking in terms of Israel being replaced by the Church, the Bible clearly makes distinction between the two factions.  The Church is not Israel.

However, a great many IFB's have been teaching different forms of  Replacement Theologies.  We talked about one of those replacements in PM a while back. 

When IFB's teach or preach their opinions or their traditions as being fact when they are in clear contradiction to what is written in God's Holy Word, then they are teaching a form of a Replacement Theology.  Replacement Theologies are more prevalent in Churches today, (not just IFB, but all denominations across the board) than most are willing to admit... and it is mind-boggling. 

And so many cannot see the truth written in God's Word because they have been conditioned to believe a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We also have to acknowledge the difference between a true troll, one who joins a forum for the sole intent of causing trouble, and those who join a forum with good intent but happen to have some differing views.

As SFIC pointed out, one of the big problems among IFB is the prevalent teaching of opinion as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
 

That's not going to happen, Genevan...

​It is still what I would like.

I knew when I stated such, it would be denied, yet I feel better 'verbalizing' it.

Many don't understand that when they read something in the KJV and acknowledge it as fact, it was more than likely already

written in the Geneva Bible. Thus making what God said in the Geneva just as equal as the KJV. Yet there is much in the 'perversions'

that do the opposite. The older text of the 1560 does nothing but lift the Lord and his truth high, whereas the 'perversions' downgrade

the Lord and his truth. Equalizing the Word of God used earlier than the KJV, with the modern 'perversions' downgrades God's ability

to preserve his word continuously from Davids day to ours, since most will say it was "Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever"

as is spoken in David's day in Psalm 12. Or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • 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
  • 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...