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.

Here's Why We Are Against Abortion


DeaconDixon

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is exactly the type of post Suzy and others were referring to in another thread regarding why it's so hard to try and have a discussion with IFB folks. You are jumping to absurd conclusions.

 

I never said a baby could or could not go to heaven. I simply asked for the Scriptures that tell us there is a special way into heaven for babies or anyone else.

 

Myself, sibling twins were stillborn to my Mom and my first baby sister died shortly after birth. I could go on but my emotional and actual experiences with such have no bearing upon what Scripture does or does not say.

 

We (IFBs) always say we go only by what Scripture clearly teaches, which is why I'm asking for the clear Scripture telling of the alternate ways to enter heaven.

How much clearer can you get with David saying he will go to his baby.  He seemed to be ok with it, so I don't believe the "going to" was talking about seeing his child at the great white throne judgement being cast into hell because it didn't make a conscious decision to accept Christ.  I don't believe it was talking about a casket because there would still be mourning because ain't no casket going to make you feel good about seeing your dead child.  So I believe this Scripture is all about David being with his child in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How much clearer can you get with David saying he will go to his baby.  He seemed to be ok with it, so I don't believe the "going to" was talking about seeing his child at the great white throne judgement being cast into hell because it didn't make a conscious decision to accept Christ.  I don't believe it was talking about a casket because there would still be mourning because ain't no casket going to make you feel good about seeing your dead child.  So I believe this Scripture is all about David being with his child in heaven.

First, that verse says nothing at all about there being any way to heaven other than through Christ.

 

Second, none of us know for sure what David meant when he made that statement. Maybe he was saying he would see the baby in heaven, maybe he was saying he too would go to the grave. We don't know.

 

Is Scripture wrong when it says there is only one way to heaven? Is there an "exception" passage which lists one or more other ways a person can get to heaven other than through Christ? Is it possible Scripture doesn't specifically address this and we are left to trust God with the matter, or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let's just run down to our hospitals and kill all the infants in the nurseries.  After all, the Bible does say "He that winneth souls is wise" and that would be a sure win of many souls for the kingdom.

That is, if your 'die without Christ and still get to heaven' doctrine is true.

 

Since those babies are already under grace, you wouldn't be do anything but disobeying "thou shalt not kill".

 

There is a preponderance of Scripture that makes it clear that the unborn, infants and for lack of a better word, retards, are under grace.  It was clear to David, it's clear to me, besides, it just makes sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Well...I honestly don't believe David alluded to just joining his child in the grave.  After all, he said "...I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever."  Somehow I can't picture him thinking that his grave would be the house of the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If those babies are "under grace," then it is because of one reason and one reason only... they trusted Christ.

He that believeth not is condemned.  No man cometh unto the Father but by the Son.

You say there is a preponderance of Scripture to show babies will go to heaven without trusting Christ, yet, in reality there is no preponderance of Scripture that says such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You know, I'm 95% certain that DD started this thread to arouse contention & indignation. The sad thing is that we are obliging him. This hasn't even evolved into a nice, congenial discussion; it's full of contention, offenses, pride and blanket statements. On all sides. What say we try to not fall into the trap he set?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Abortion is murder.  Murder is sin.  Where someone spends eternity is not the issue in discussing abortion.  Life begins at conception and taking the life of an unborn infant at any stage of gestation is murder.

 

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

How much clearer can you get with David saying he will go to his baby.  He seemed to be ok with it, so I don't believe the "going to" was talking about seeing his child at the great white throne judgement being cast into hell because it didn't make a conscious decision to accept Christ.  I don't believe it was talking about a casket because there would still be mourning because ain't no casket going to make you feel good about seeing your dead child.  So I believe this Scripture is all about David being with his child in heaven.

 

You can't get any clearer, but we have some on here that do not go by the teachings of the Bible, but by commandments of men. We have more false teachers propagating their false teachings that ever before while hoping to win Christians to follow them in their false teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You know, I'm 95% certain that DD started this thread to arouse contention & indignation. The sad thing is that we are obliging him. This hasn't even evolved into a nice, congenial discussion; it's full of contention, offenses, pride and blanket statements. On all sides. What say we try to not fall into the trap he set?

What have I posted that's contentious, offensive, prideful or a blanket statement?

 

Unless you are not referring to me since I don't have a "side".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You can't get any clearer, but we have some on here that do not go by the teachings of the Bible, but by commandments of men. We have more false teachers propagating their false teachings that ever before while hoping to win Christians to follow them in their false teachings.

Stop making accusations and post the Scripture which says some people can get to heaven without being in Christ. If there is a teaching in Scripture which allows someone to go to heaven without Christ then that means there are verses saying so. Simply because someone states their opinion on the matter, not matter what view they take, doesn't make it a teaching of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Let's just run down to our hospitals and kill all the infants in the nurseries.  After all, the Bible does say "He that winneth souls is wise" and that would be a sure win of many souls for the kingdom.

That is, if your 'die without Christ and still get to heaven' doctrine is true.

Correct!  The anti-Calvinists/Cathlo-sympathizers may also claim that they'll repent or confess to their priest to be forgiven!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You say there is a preponderance of Scripture to show babies will go to heaven without trusting Christ, yet, in reality there is no preponderance of Scripture that says such.

 

Incorrect sir.  I'm not going to post it again, John81 and I went round and round on this before in another thread.  Robmac's scripture postings today strengthen also the case that the little ones are indeed with the Lord.  One verse doesn't make a doctrine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Incorrect sir.  I'm not going to post it again, John81 and I went round and round on this before in another thread.  Robmac's scripture postings today strengthen also the case that the little ones are indeed with the Lord.  One verse doesn't make a doctrine.  

I can't even count the number of times I've read the Bible through, plus much more reading and studying, and as of yet I've never seen even one verse of Scripture which says any person can get to heaven without being in Christ. If there are verses offering another option for certain people I would very much like to know about them.

 

At this point, I only know of the verses which clearly state that no one can go to heaven without being in Christ. If the Bible doesn't tell us of some other way for babies or anyone else, that doesn't bother me because I trust God with whatever his plan is.

 

I did find out in my readings about the post-mil position that they believe all babies and children that die automatically go to heaven, but they provided no Scripture to support this, and this is one of the reasons they believe the road to heaven really isn't narrow, because if all dead babies and children from the beginning to the end go to heaven, that means there will be far more souls in heaven than there are souls in hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Stop making accusations and post the Scripture which says some people can get to heaven without being in Christ. If there is a teaching in Scripture which allows someone to go to heaven without Christ then that means there are verses saying so. Simply because someone states their opinion on the matter, not matter what view they take, doesn't make it a teaching of the Bible.

 

John, Its been posted many times just for you, yet you ignore it. Why keep on doing it over & over again & again for the same person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John, Its been posted many times just for you, yet you ignore it. Why keep on doing it over & over again & again for the same person?

Where are there any posts which proclaim there is another way to heaven other than through Christ? They are not here. If you have any verses which speak of an alternate way for anyone to go to heaven other than through Christ I would like to read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It is obvious to me that this dixon idiot, SFIC and John have no experience with a small child dying or misscarried children. Your wild spectulations would be on the opposite spectrum.

 

Use some sensitively since you are all clueless to what the real truth of the matter is. Think of those who have suffered these losses before you blurt your meaningless opinions.

 

I realize that some have zero life apart from this forum and the internet but you don't have to post misguided or knee jerk opinions about every, single subject.

 

Why use that word?

 

Why does moderators let anyone call anyone an idiot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I noticed the quote of Romans 7:9 was overlooked.

What died? Body? Soul? Spirit?

Eph 2:1; Col2:13 something dead was quickened -- obviously not the body.  Rom 7:9

This dead thing was alive and died -- not Adam. "I died" said Paul.

When was it alive? Could their be a time while "it" is still alive that the body could have died -- and the resulting eternal result??

 

It can't be at the chronological dating of the Law or Paul couldn't say that the Law came to a 'living him" and "slew him" before he was conceived or did all of Rom 7 take place "before the foundation of the world"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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

  • 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...