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.

Mark And Avoid Or Spit Out The Bones?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Gentiles, having not known the Law, were instructed not to hold their spouses who would not be converted, if they wanted to leave.
 

 

If what you say about verse 15 is true, how do you reconcile verse 11 and 27?  What do they then mean?  Reconcile or remain unmarried cannot mean get back together or stay single anymore.  It must mean something else.  What?

 

 

What about between Jesus and Paul?

 

Do you believe the church age started before Christ went to the cross?

 

 

If there is an apparent conflict between Paul and Christ we must look to who their messages were meant for.  Right?  That doesn't mean we ignore the 4 gospels and follow Paul or visa versa, every word in the scriptures benefits us. 

 

The bible says the law and the prophets were until John.  So yes, the church age started before Calvary, before Pentecost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The first, reconciliation, refers to believers, both spouses, while the other refers to a believer and an unbeliever.

 

Hmm...  I'll look at it further later, thanks Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The first, reconciliation, refers to believers, both spouses, while the other refers to a believer and an unbeliever.

 

Mike, I have considered your position and again have to reject it on biblical grounds.  Verses 12 and 13 clearly admonish the believer not to leave his or her unbelieving spouse.  The Lord then gives the reason for such in verses 14 and 16, because they and the children are sanctified and that they may get saved.  

 

God's plan for the church age is no divorce for any reason.  If it does occur, one is to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sadly, those who are unwilling to make their marriage work and choose to file for divorce are not going to accept resolving to either remain unmarried or reconcile with their spouse.

 

Even among Christian women one of the first things I hear when a woman divorces her husband is her "friends" telling her to start dating, that God will send the right man to her, that she'll be married and happy in short order.

 

Biblical teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage is greatly lacking. Add to this the willingness of most Christians to ignore, skip or re-interpret Bible verses on these matters and it's no wonder this prOBlem plagues Christians in like manner as the lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If what you say about verse 15 is true, how do you reconcile verse 11 and 27?  What do they then mean?  Reconcile or remain unmarried cannot mean get back together or stay single anymore.  It must mean something else.  What?

 

 

If there is an apparent conflict between Paul and Christ we must look to who their messages were meant for.  Right?  That doesn't mean we ignore the 4 gospels and follow Paul or visa versa, every word in the scriptures benefits us. 

 

The bible says the law and the prophets were until John.  So yes, the church age started before Calvary, before Pentecost. 

NoOne I included ever said to ignore any books of the Bible.  We just don't apply everything to us that's all.

 

The church of the first born is the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against and that is Israel, also known as the church in the wilderness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The church of the first born is the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against and that is Israel, also known as the church in the wilderness.

 

Well...  Christ said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  That's the local New Testament Church, not Israel.  Which do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mike, I have considered your position and again have to reject it on biblical grounds. Verses 12 and 13 clearly admonish the believer not to leave his or her unbelieving spouse. The Lord then gives the reason for such in verses 14 and 16, because they and the children are sanctified and that they may get saved.

God's plan for the church age is no divorce for any reason. If it does occur, one is to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

The context is OBvious, if the unbeliever wants to leave, let them go.
It is talking about a marriage where one of the partners gets saved, but not the other.
You now have light in union with darkness.
The husband is the head of the home, thus, if he is a believer, sanctified everyone under his authority.
The wife has instructions for her, if she believes first.
God allows that the Gospel carries an offense.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The context is OBvious, if the unbeliever wants to leave, let them go.
It is talking about a marriage where one of the partners gets saved, but not the other.
You now have light in union with darkness.
The husband is the head of the home, thus, if he is a believer, sanctified everyone under his authority.
The wife has instructions for her, if she believes first.
God allows that the Gospel carries an offense.

Anishinaabe

 

I'm not sure we're in disagreement here.  Whether a believer or not, God's plan for marriage today does not include divorce.

 

I might add that any believer in a home of unbelievers sanctifies that home according to the scriptures (verse 14 for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'm not sure we're in disagreement here.  Whether a believer or not, God's plan for marriage today does not include divorce.

 

I might add that any believer in a home of unbelievers sanctifies that home according to the scriptures (verse 14 for example).

I agree-but God's plan also didn't include sin, death, murder, or a plethora of things that have occurred. So, for the remedy of those things, Christ died on the cross so that such things can be placed under the blood. And, in the case of marriage, while it is not God's plan, clearly, yet knowing it would happen, He gave certain allowances for those who are the 'left', if you will. If one's spouse leaves them, commits adultery and departs, particularly being an unbeliever, does the 'innocent' party then have to be found a guilty sinner when it wasn't their sin that caused it?

 

And if so, even at the worst, is it a sin that cannot be forgiven, placed under the blood of Christ, and forgotten, as with all sins? Is this the one we don't let go of? Or do we forgive men their trespasses, as we are told to do? Or is it a forgiveness with strings attached?

 

Now, certainly, there are some things that may have strings attached, so to speak-you aren't going to assign a converted child molester to a Sunday School teacher. But that's less about strings as it is protection of that person, so they are not brought into temptation, as well as the children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well...  Christ said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  That's the local New Testament Church, not Israel.  Which do you mean?

you might want to study before you comment.  A simple search of any KJV Bible program will assist you well.

 

I think that people who dont study aren't worth discussions on topics they have not studied. 

 

Look up chuch in the wilderness and the church of the first born.

 

Do so to learn not to prove an error,  many who do the later never learn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Sometimes it doesn't matter what one thinks...AVBB, swath simply asked you a question to clarify. If you were truly interested in a discussion, you would not dismiss him as worthless to a discussion. You would answer the question.  If you want to be counted worthy to discuss things with people, stop insulting and simply answer questions asked of you. That's what discussion is. Be advised  -  don't start getting snarky again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And, in the case of marriage, while it is not God's plan, clearly, yet knowing it would happen, He gave certain allowances for those who are the 'left', if you will. If one's spouse leaves them, commits adultery and departs, particularly being an unbeliever, does the 'innocent' party then have to be found a guilty sinner when it wasn't their sin that caused it?

 

And if so, even at the worst, is it a sin that cannot be forgiven, placed under the blood of Christ, and forgotten, as with all sins? Is this the one we don't let go of? Or do we forgive men their trespasses, as we are told to do? Or is it a forgiveness with strings attached?

 

The Lord permitted divorce for fornication because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews under the law.  1st Corinthians 7 is the doctrine on divorce and it is not permitted for any reason now.  That being said, no, it's not an unpardonable sin to divorce or remarry another.  If Mao and Stalin made repentance before God and put their trust in Jesus Christ, they too would be redeemed.  As for strings, could that mean a man is then not eligible to pastor a church or be a deacon?  Yes, that's what the bible teaches, doesn't it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

you might want to study before you comment.  A simple search of any KJV Bible program will assist you well.

 

I think that people who dont study aren't worth discussions on topics they have not studied. 

 

Look up chuch in the wilderness and the church of the first born.

 

Do so to learn not to prove an error,  many who do the later never learn

 

So, what then is the correlation between Christ's statement and the Jewish "church"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sometimes it doesn't matter what one thinks...AVBB, swath simply asked you a question to clarify. If you were truly interested in a discussion, you would not dismiss him as worthless to a discussion. You would answer the question.  If you want to be counted worthy to discuss things with people, stop insulting and simply answer questions asked of you. That's what discussion is. Be advised  -  don't start getting snarky again.

to discuss the differences of the church of the wilderness/the church of the first born, and the the church, the body of Christ, one must study them out first to know the differences, it is OBvious by his question he has not.  So why waste time discussing with someone who does not know the topic at hand?

 

It is like knowing the differences between divorce for Israel and for the Body of Christ.  If you don't know the differences then you will blend them and so you end up going around and around like he and UKU are doing and like he does on many subjects.

 

It is like talking about the differences in a Granny Green Apple and Red Delicious if you know the differences then you can proceed along and discuss details of those difference.  But if you don;t you just keep calling them apples and lump them all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The Lord permitted divorce for fornication because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews under the law.  1st Corinthians 7 is the doctrine on divorce and it is not permitted for any reason now.  That being said, no, it's not an unpardonable sin to divorce or remarry another.  If Mao and Stalin made repentance before God and put their trust in Jesus Christ, they too would be redeemed.  As for strings, could that mean a man is then not eligible to pastor a church or be a deacon?  Yes, that's what the bible teaches, doesn't it? 

Except that teaching seems to suggest a current situation, (the husband of one wife) not a past/present situation, (has had more than one wife, or has been divorced).  It could very easily be interpreted either way, depending upon your view. Your way of seeing it says that even though Jesus gave an acceptable, (not ideal), reason for divorce, and Paul gave another, they would still disqualify you from some service, meaning forgiveness but with strings.  

 

Multiple spouses in the middle east was still done at the time of the writing of the Bible, and still is in come cultures. In this case, culture was to be rejected, because the marriage between husband and wife was a picture of Jesus and His church. Thus, a husband could not have multiple wives. But if a marriage was over for a reason that was acceptable by Christ, apparently to be married again would not be seen as disqualifying one for such service.  

 

Consider the woman of Samaria, (I think I mentioned it earlier). Jesus never accused the woman of having five husbands, but of having HAD five husbands. Past. So, If I had had one wife, divorced and remarried, I would still only HAVE one wife.

 

But look, I'm not going to try and convince you any more. I'm not your pastor, and I suspect you would not acept me as such if you could, and that's fine-I have no prOBlem with that. You do as you understand to be right in the Lord's eyes and so will I and when we each stand before the Lord, we will each give account.

 

One thing I don't generally do, though-I don't endorse divorce. In fact having been there and knowing the pain it brings, I stand pretty strong against it. But a woman should not have to stay with a physically abusive husband who has no intention of changing, and a man shouldn't feel the need to stay with a adulterous wife who has no intention of changing. Both break the picture Christ intended for marriage, and if one is unwilling to seek restoration, I won't tell them they must forever remain married. But I will help them fight to keep it if there is a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Considering other NT teachings it would seem if we are truly intent upon following Christ, even presented with a terrible marriage situation, the Christian shouldn't sue for divorce. Even if there must be separation between the couple, that certainly doesn't mean divorce should accompany it. If the other spouse files for divorce, that's upon them.

 

I know many pastors put forth a whole list of "good reasons" for a Christian to divorce their spouse that has nothing to do with fornication even though Scripture doesn't list any of them as any form of biblical reason for divorce.

 

No doubt, we live in a fallen world and even Christians allow the world, the flesh and devil to lead them into sin so divorce will be a fact among the lost and saved alike.

 

The really bad thing today is what should be very rare among Christians is now as common place as among the lost. It seems most pastors simply go with the flow on this rather than taking a biblical stand.

 

From my experience, when Christians decide they want a divorce, they avoid those who will speak biblical truth to them and seek out those Christians (and sometimes even non-Christians) who will agree with them. This makes them feel better and justified in getting a divorce. Since their pastors don't preach or teach on the matter, they won't be hearing what they need to hear.

 

I find it very sad when a Christian couple divorces. This is especially so when one spouse is doing their biblical best to save the marriage but the other spouse refuses to even consider anything other than divorce. The idol of self dooms many marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Your way of seeing it says that even though Jesus gave an acceptable, (not ideal), reason for divorce, and Paul gave another, they would still disqualify you from some service, meaning forgiveness but with strings.  

 

Mike, we cannot have and should not accept moral relativism.  I'm guilty of it it too, it's so ingrained in our culture.  But it's not what the verses mean to me but rather what, "sayeth the Lord".

 

Christ gave no new exception for divorce.  All he did was bring the questioners back to the OT and the law.  He left the doctrine for Paul to give.  Therefore, no divorce would be acceptable to God and Christ during the church age.

 

The examples you provide as legitimate reasons in your last paragraph while seemingly prudent to you and I is still unacceptable according to God's Word.  The person being abused can and should leave, and according to the bible, remain separated or be reconciled.  

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...