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.

A New Covenant With The House Of Israel, And With The House Of Judah


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Advanced Member

 

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;
and will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. [includes the national sin of killing Messiah]  Jeremiah 31:31-34

 

That's a favourite passage of mine. Quoted exactly in Hebrews 8. We need to note that Hebrews begins by saying, "in these last days...."  He is writing for real, living people, whom he expects to give "more earnest heed ..." Hebrews 2:1-3. Jesus established the new covenant in his blood, as was prophesied before his birth.  Luke 1:32-33  Luke 1:54-55  Luke 1:68-75 

 

Gentiles are counted into the covenant, from the first promise to Abraham Gen. 12:3 All believers are covered by New Covenant blood. And we are included in NC Israel, as children and heirs of Abraham. Gal. 3:13-16  Gal. 3:27-29  

 

The NC is stated in terms of Israel and Judah, but is not exclusive. Never has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's a favourite passage of mine. Quoted exactly in Hebrews 8. We need to note that Hebrews begins by saying, "in these last days...."  He is writing for real, living people, whom he expects to give "more earnest heed ..." Hebrews 2:1-3. Jesus established the new covenant in his blood, as was prophesied before his birth.  Luke 1:32-33  Luke 1:54-55  Luke 1:68-75 

 

Gentiles are counted into the covenant, from the first promise to Abraham Gen. 12:3 All believers are covered by New Covenant blood. And we are included in NC Israel, as children and heirs of Abraham. Gal. 3:13-16  Gal. 3:27-29  

 

The NC is stated in terms of Israel and Judah, but is not exclusive. Never has been.

Thank you for illustrating Replacement Theology for us.  Now it is clearly seen how you "replace" the Covenants

meant for Israel.  Does that include your plot of land in the holy land?  :nuts:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Thank you for illustrating Replacement Theology for us.  Now it is clearly seen how you "replace" the Covenants

meant for Israel.  Does that include your plot of land in the holy land?  :nuts:

I trust my Saviour - John 14:1-3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Thank you for illustrating Replacement Theology for us.  Now it is clearly seen how you "replace" the Covenants

meant for Israel.  Does that include your plot of land in the holy land?  :nuts:

 

Yes, in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What the preterist will do is quote Galatians 6:16 and Romans 9:7, then use the Greek to change the word "covenant" to "testament" (or just refuse to recognize the difference between the two words) and voila, they just kicked Israel out of the passage and replaced her with the church. 

did you mean they will change "New Testament to New Covenant" to make the church Israel?

 

paul quoted Christ telling him "New Testament" and The Author of Hebrews writes "New Testament"  yet they change both of these inthe newer versions and in Replacement theology to "New Covenant".

 

And Like Steve Said the leading OP scriptures will take place in the future not now or did it take place anytime in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

did you mean they will change "New Testament to New Covenant" to make the church Israel?

 

paul quoted Christ telling him "New Testament" and The Author of Hebrews writes "New Testament"  yet they change both of these inthe newer versions and in Replacement theology to "New Covenant".

 

And Like Steve Said the leading OP scriptures will take place in the future not now or did it take place anytime in the past.

 

I don't know which bible you say uses 'new testament' (only?) from Paul and the author of Hebrews, but this is an interesting part of the discussion.

Ever look up the word 'covenant' in the new testament?

It is in the KJV 20 times. Mostly in Hebrews. Chapter 9 has a bunch of the word 'testament', and chapter 8 has just as much and more of the word 'covenant'.

So I don't get it? Why even go there?

 

As for the perversions, we shouldn't even go there either, they do not matter.

But if you compare the 1560 Geneva Bible to the 1611 KJV, you see an interesting comparison.

 

KJV has the word 'testament' in it 13 times, and the word 'covenant' 20 times.

Geneva has the word 'testament' 25 times, and the word 'covenant' times. (Yet the 'notes' lean only toward 'Covenant Theology' and don't touch the 'Dispensationalist' view.)

 

I looked them both up in these 2 sources of Greek - Nestles 23rd Critical Apparatus (perversion base) and Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus (the Greek underlying the English AV1611.)

They read identical for both words- "diatheke", and this word is used in the Greek for both words 'covenant' and 'testament'.

(Except where the few times the verses experience interlocution by the translators from Greek into English.)

 

So that would kinda make one think that the KJV was for Covenant Theology?

And the Geneva for Dispensationalists? ( even though the translators were 'partial preterists' in the notes?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

 

Posted 12 May 2014 - 07:04 PM

Wow! Look at this -  διαθηκη

And compare this -   diatheke

 

One is the Greek word for 'covenant'.

The second is the Greek word for 'testament'. Using English letters of course.

 

Both the same word! Isn't that just strange?

 

*If you have a Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, you will see the word on the cover.

 

 

Once again I repost this for those who believe there is a difference between the two words in English, when the words originate in Greek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, then I must assume that the Lord meant for us to understand some sort of difference between Covenant and Testament, if nothing else in a connotative way.  Maybe they come from the same Greek word, but in my mind this only demonstrates the insufficiency of the Greek here.  The Lord is attempting to differentiate between the OT Covenants, primarily to PHYSICAL Israel, and the New TESTAMENT given to the Church. 

 

It is also noteworthy that the term Covenant appears 14/20 in the NT in the Book of Hebrews, and only 3 times in the Pauline Epistles.  Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews cause more doctrinal stumblingblocks for the New Testament Church Age than any other books in the NT, so I am always suspicious of those who want to START in one of these books to prove their case.  Case in point, the title of this Book of the Bible in question should be a huge "warning bell" to the reader - "HEBREWS."  I am a Gentile through and through, not a Hebrew.  Thus, much of the content of this difficult book is pointed to the HEBREWS, and how Christ has partially fulfilled the requirements of the OT LAW.  However, as the OP notes, not ALL of the OT Law and Covenant has been fulfilled literally.  We do not replace Israel, nor are "included" in the New Covenant with Israel.  The OT promises were very specific regarding the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, and the PHYSICAL Land grants, and the PHYSICAL resurrection of David to rule over PHYSICAL Israel in their promised PHYSICAL land.  There is no getting around this, unless one just blithely dismisses 75% of the Bible.

The Bible Believing Christians throughout this present age have been noted to base their doctrine primarily on Paul, i.e. Romans through Philemon, recognizing that while all of the Bible is written FOR us (Romans 15:4), not all of the Bible is written TO us (i.e. the Church). 

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Oh, by the way....

 

Jer. 31:34 "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me..."

 

Anyone who thinks this has been fulfilled needs to have their head examined!

In fact, this goes contrary to the great commission given to us by none other than Jesus Christ Himself (Matt. 28:19-20) and the Apostle Paul's qualifications for the NT Bishop (I timothy 3:2 - "apt to teach.")

 

Since this verse is undeniably connected to the previous verses in the passage (Jer. 31) regarding this new covenant, then it is clear that this new covenant has NOT YET been fulfilled, at least not completely.  Until the day comes when we no longer need teachers to teach us the way of the Lord, then it has not yet been fulfilled.  That day will not come until Christ returns PHYSICALLY to this present earth (not the New Heavens, New Earth, and New Jerusalem!), and establishes a physical Kingdom.  When Christ is PHYSICALLY present, nOBody will be allowed to teach or preach on this earth.  See Zech. 13:3 - note the context - the Second Coming of Christ to this earth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, then I must assume that the Lord meant for us to understand some sort of difference between Covenant and Testament, if nothing else in a connotative way.  Maybe they come from the same Greek word, but in my mind this only demonstrates the insufficiency of the Greek here.  The Lord is attempting to differentiate between the OT Covenants, primarily to PHYSICAL Israel, and the New TESTAMENT given to the Church. 

 

It is also noteworthy that the term Covenant appears 14/20 in the NT in the Book of Hebrews, and only 3 times in the Pauline Epistles.  Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews cause more doctrinal stumblingblocks for the New Testament Church Age than any other books in the NT, so I am always suspicious of those who want to START in one of these books to prove their case.  Case in point, the title of this Book of the Bible in question should be a huge "warning bell" to the reader - "HEBREWS."  I am a Gentile through and through, not a Hebrew.  Thus, much of the content of this difficult book is pointed to the HEBREWS, and how Christ has partially fulfilled the requirements of the OT LAW.  However, as the OP notes, not ALL of the OT Law and Covenant has been fulfilled literally.  We do not replace Israel, nor are "included" in the New Covenant with Israel.  The OT promises were very specific regarding the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, and the PHYSICAL Land grants, and the PHYSICAL resurrection of David to rule over PHYSICAL Israel in their promised PHYSICAL land.  There is no getting around this, unless one just blithely dismisses 75% of the Bible.

The Bible Believing Christians throughout this present age have been noted to base their doctrine primarily on Paul, i.e. Romans through Philemon, recognizing that while all of the Bible is written FOR us (Romans 15:4), not all of the Bible is written TO us (i.e. the Church). 

 

In Christ,

 

I was just thinking, Schwenke has been kinda silent.

I knew you would say these things and you did not let me down. 

 

By the way, ever wonder about your lineage?

You are Caucasian. You know, from Caucasia? (saw you on the video discussion)

If you have never looked up the area, do it sometime.

Maybe you are Hebrew.

Caucasia/Caucasian Mountains are north of the land of Israel, maybe you are of the 10 lost tribes?

They were Hebrews. 

 

So maybe, just maybe the book of Hebrews in our Bible, not only the 'Jewish' book, but the book of the 'followers of Christ Jesus the Son of the Living God' is for us.

Whether Jew or not, the Bible is for followers and believers everywhere, no matter the time or place of the book or writing.

So discounting God's decision of being Lord of his children in all ages, does nothing to gain my admiration. Of course you do not desire that, I know.

But the scriptures are and were there for our learning, til Jesus was revealed in the flesh as the Christ. The 'One' followers of God Almighty have

been waiting for for 40 centuries, to be 'God among us', and the Redeemer of Mankind.

 

He didn't spend all of the past history and countless lives to give us a book that wasn't for us.

Jews didn't carry the Gospels down through the centuries, it was 'others' who did, the vast majority of Christians for the last 20 centuries were Europeans.

We didn't carry the 'book' for anyone else than the whole world!

 

That is who the Gospel is for!

 

By the way, if a 'Jew' became a believer, they became 'gentile' to the Jews, and I am not just speaking of the Jewish blood descendants, but converts and proselytes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
"maybe you are Hebrew"

 

- my goodness, what a stretch of the imagination.  What conjecture!  Can you prove this?  NOBody in my family has ever hinted at this being a remote possibility. 

so what are you now?  A proponent of the Armstrong's One World Church of God?  Are you a proponent of British Israelism?  Are you teaching that Gentiles are not really Gentiles, but the 10 lost tribes of Israel? 

Nuts, man, nuts! - Pecan, cashew, peanuts, macadamia, walnut, hazelnut - nuts!
 

 

"He didn't spend all of past history and countless lives to give us a book that wasn't for us."

 

Read my post again carefully.  I said, "All of the Bible is written FOR us (Rom. 15:4), but not all of the Bible is written TO us. " 

Got it?

 

The Pauline Epistles are written directly to the Church. 

The OT Law was written to the OT Israel, and anyone who wanted to be a believer in Jehovah.  They didn't have Pauline doctrine - they had the OT Law.  It was written TO them.  We can learn many things from the OT, but the doctrine in the OT is for Israel, and differs greatly from NT Pauline doctrine. 

They had to offer sacrifices - we don't.

They had to keep the dietary laws - we don't.

They had to OBserve the feast days - we don't.

They had to tithe - we don't.

The Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, and Israel (as a nation) was primarily physical - physical, material blessings, physical land, a physical kingdom. 

The promises God has made to the NT believer are primarily spiritual - answered prayer, supply for needs (implying that we may be materially poor, but spiritually rich), a home in heaven, complete forgiveness of sins, etc. etc. etc.

There is no mention of the physical aspects of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB anywhere in the Pauline Epistles, thus indicating that these are not included in any of the spiritual blessings we may "inherit" through Abraham by faith.

 

The Jews were not supposed to carry the message of the OT Law to the world (in OT times).  The promises God gave to them was that if they kept the Law, God's physical blessings would be so great upon their physical nation that all of the heathen nations would come to THEM.  Then they could teach them the true worship of the Lord.  This is partially fulfilled in Solomon (for example, the Queen of Sheba), although he became apostate in his later years. 

We were told to go into all the world to preach the gospel with no promise of any physical blessings.  In fact, Paul promises the exact opposite - II Tim. 3:12. 

 

This is why so many of us find it so preposterous when others say that the New Testament is a fulfillment of ALL of the promises given to Israel.  I know you hate the term "Replacement Theology" but it is an appropriate name.  Covenanter blatantly denies that he believes this, but his writings constantly confirm that what he believes is the same as what the RT's believe - it is subterfuge. 

 

All of the books on Baptist history I have read all say the same thing - true Bible Believing Christians over the last 2,000 years have tenaciously held the Pauline Epistles as the staple of NT doctrine, distinguishing between the Church and Israel. 

 

PS - I like how you completely ignored my comments of Jer. 31:34.  Nice jOB!

 

PPS - I don't always participate because I work a secular jOB outside of the church, and sometimes I have to work a lot of OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

- my goodness, what a stretch of the imagination.  What conjecture!  Can you prove this?  NOBody in my family has ever hinted at this being a remote possibility. 

so what are you now?  A proponent of the Armstrong's One World Church of God?  Are you a proponent of British Israelism?  Are you teaching that Gentiles are not really Gentiles, but the 10 lost tribes of Israel? 

Nuts, man, nuts! - Pecan, cashew, peanuts, macadamia, walnut, hazelnut - nuts!
 

Read my post again carefully.  I said, "All of the Bible is written FOR us (Rom. 15:4), but not all of the Bible is written TO us. " 

Got it?

 

The Pauline Epistles are written directly to the Church. 

The OT Law was written to the OT Israel, and anyone who wanted to be a believer in Jehovah.  They didn't have Pauline doctrine - they had the OT Law.  It was written TO them.  We can learn many things from the OT, but the doctrine in the OT is for Israel, and differs greatly from NT Pauline doctrine. 

They had to offer sacrifices - we don't.

They had to keep the dietary laws - we don't.

They had to OBserve the feast days - we don't.

They had to tithe - we don't.

The Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, and Israel (as a nation) was primarily physical - physical, material blessings, physical land, a physical kingdom. 

The promises God has made to the NT believer are primarily spiritual - answered prayer, supply for needs (implying that we may be materially poor, but spiritually rich), a home in heaven, complete forgiveness of sins, etc. etc. etc.

There is no mention of the physical aspects of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB anywhere in the Pauline Epistles, thus indicating that these are not included in any of the spiritual blessings we may "inherit" through Abraham by faith.

 

The Jews were not supposed to carry the message of the OT Law to the world (in OT times).  The promises God gave to them was that if they kept the Law, God's physical blessings would be so great upon their physical nation that all of the heathen nations would come to THEM.  Then they could teach them the true worship of the Lord.  This is partially fulfilled in Solomon (for example, the Queen of Sheba), although he became apostate in his later years. 

We were told to go into all the world to preach the gospel with no promise of any physical blessings.  In fact, Paul promises the exact opposite - II Tim. 3:12. 

 

This is why so many of us find it so preposterous when others say that the New Testament is a fulfillment of ALL of the promises given to Israel.  I know you hate the term "Replacement Theology" but it is an appropriate name.  Covenanter blatantly denies that he believes this, but his writings constantly confirm that what he believes is the same as what the RT's believe - it is subterfuge. 

 

All of the books on Baptist history I have read all say the same thing - true Bible Believing Christians over the last 2,000 years have tenaciously held the Pauline Epistles as the staple of NT doctrine, distinguishing between the Church and Israel. 

 

PS - I like how you completely ignored my comments of Jer. 31:34.  Nice jOB!

 

PPS - I don't always participate because I work a secular jOB outside of the church, and sometimes I have to work a lot of OT.

 

No, I am not a 'follower' of those type of people.

But I do see the validity of the question of 'who' we are.

 

By the way, there are doctrines and beliefs in 'other' religions and so-called faiths that are the same as ours, yet that does not make them wrong to believe.

Church of christ cult immerses. That surely does not mean we shouldn't.

 

Just because I question the possibility of someones familial lineage does not make me a follower of anyone in particular.

I also like the books between the testaments, that doesn't make me Catholic.

(Shopping at Walmart does not make one a drunk, because they sell liquor.)

 

By the way, I grew up with a lot of Jewish people in my past. Their kids were freckle faced red haired and brown haired kids, just like the rest of us common folk.

We all looked the same.

In elementary school, you couldn't tell the difference between, what they termed 'Christian' families and them until Christmastime.

Then everyone knew who the minority was. My family was one of about 3 families in our neighborhood that had a christmas tree.

Their celebrating showed who they were, all the kids in my school were bringing in their multitude of new toys for days. 

Oh well, enough flashbacks.

 

Just saying, what is the prOBlem with wondering, that since my 'race' looks just like theirs, why is it 'wrong' to consider the possibility?

And with Jews being less than 0.2 % of the worlds population (according to The Jewish Press at jewishpress.com), hardly seems like an impossibility.

Genesis 22:17,18, Hebrews 11:12, etc.,...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 
 

Read my post again carefully.  I said, "All of the Bible is written FOR us (Rom. 15:4), but not all of the Bible is written TO us. " 

Got it?

 

The Pauline Epistles are written directly to the Church. 

The OT Law was written to the OT Israel, and anyone who wanted to be a believer in Jehovah.  They didn't have Pauline doctrine - they had the OT Law.  It was written TO them.  We can learn many things from the OT, but the doctrine in the OT is for Israel, and differs greatly from NT Pauline doctrine. 

They had to offer sacrifices - we don't.

They had to keep the dietary laws - we don't.

They had to OBserve the feast days - we don't.

They had to tithe - we don't.

The Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, and Israel (as a nation) was primarily physical - physical, material blessings, physical land, a physical kingdom. 

 

 

 

"The Twelve" in Jerusalem, headed by Peter, continued to OBserve the Law.  This is where the Gospel of the Circumcision differs from Paul's Gospel of the Uncircumcision.

The Gospel of the Circumcision stressed to the Nation of Israel that Jesus the Messiah was offered up for the sins of the Nation (Yom Kippor) as well as individual sins.

"The Twelve" in Jerusalem were devoted to the conversion of the Nation of Israel in order to usher in the return of the King to set-up his Kingdom on earth.

OBviously this never occurred, however, God "left the door open" at least until 70 A.D. when the Temple was destroyed as well as Jerusalem.

 

Several hundred years later, the Roman Catholic Church became the State Religion under the Emperor, and later the Pope, and Replacement Theology was developed (which persists to this day).

 

Now, in these "latter days", suddenly the Nation of Israel reappears, and those who "bought into" Replacement Theology over the last 1,500 years are scrambling to patch the holes in their theology.

It's a matter of pride to never admit that you are wrong or have been misled.

 

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me,
as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;  Galatians 2:7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here is another great passage regarding the New Covenant with Israel that is absolutely crystal clear - it cannot refer to the Christian Church, and it is not being fulfilled today.

 

Jeremiah 32:36-44

I will post a couple of verses from this passage with comments.

 

v. 37 - "Behold, I will gather them (ISRAEL) out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again to THIS PLACE (the promised land!), and I will cause them to dwell safely:

 

Sorry, this has not been fulfilled as yet.  It certainly does not apply to the NT Church.  It was not fulfilled in Ezra/Nehemiah because the rest of the passage forbids it. 

For example:

v. 39 "And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:"

 

Again, Jeremiah is speaking to ISRAEL.  The message is that they are restored to the land, there will be a change on a spiritual level that will affect the way they think.   They were not of one mind in Nehemiah (Neh. 3:5), nor were they OBedient unto the Law (Neh. 13 brings out several issues they were guilty of.)

 

v. 40 "And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."

 

This has not happened yet.  Israel turned away from the Lord in Ezra/Nehemiah, and Malachi, and even in the gospels and early parts of Acts, they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.  The covenant promised here is with genetic Israel, and deals with God bringing them out of captivity and putting them into the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB.  There is absolutely no connection to the NT Church here.

 

v. 41 "Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will PLANT THEM IN THIS LAND assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul"

 

How much clearer can you get?  The NT church is never promised any land!  And this covenant is to be an EVERLASTING COVENANT (v. 40)!  Were they in the land after 70 AD?  Was going doing them good in 70 AD? 

 

THe entire chapter is an illustration of God's promise of a restored kingdom.  He had Jeremiah buy a piece of land from his uncle to illustrate that while judgment was forthcoming under Nebuchadnezzar, there would be a restoration, and the terms of this restoration were FOREVER.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here is another great passage regarding the New Covenant with Israel that is absolutely crystal clear - it cannot refer to the Christian Church, and it is not being fulfilled today.

 

Jeremiah 32:36-44

I will post a couple of verses from this passage with comments.

 

v. 37 - "Behold, I will gather them (ISRAEL) out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again to THIS PLACE (the promised land!), and I will cause them to dwell safely:

 

Sorry, this has not been fulfilled as yet.  It certainly does not apply to the NT Church.  It was not fulfilled in Ezra/Nehemiah because the rest of the passage forbids it. 

For example:

v. 39 "And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:"

 

Again, Jeremiah is speaking to ISRAEL.  The message is that they are restored to the land, there will be a change on a spiritual level that will affect the way they think.   They were not of one mind in Nehemiah (Neh. 3:5), nor were they OBedient unto the Law (Neh. 13 brings out several issues they were guilty of.)

 

v. 40 "And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."

 

This has not happened yet.  Israel turned away from the Lord in Ezra/Nehemiah, and Malachi, and even in the gospels and early parts of Acts, they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.  The covenant promised here is with genetic Israel, and deals with God bringing them out of captivity and putting them into the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB.  There is absolutely no connection to the NT Church here.

 

v. 41 "Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will PLANT THEM IN THIS LAND assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul"

 

How much clearer can you get?  The NT church is never promised any land!  And this covenant is to be an EVERLASTING COVENANT (v. 40)!  Were they in the land after 70 AD?  Was going doing them good in 70 AD? 

 

THe entire chapter is an illustration of God's promise of a restored kingdom.  He had Jeremiah buy a piece of land from his uncle to illustrate that while judgment was forthcoming under Nebuchadnezzar, there would be a restoration, and the terms of this restoration were FOREVER.

 

In Christ,

 

Interesting, thanks.

I will read this over later. 

 

*I read it - sounds like eternity to me, not a 'millennium' thing.

After the resurrection of Ezekiel 38 maybe. Both houses will be raised up and will 'be with the Lord forever'.

Since he is talking to them, they are to whom he would direct what was 'a happenin'.

And the only time 'forever' happens is when eternity sets in.

And that would only happen to people who believe in Jesus Christ with all their heart.

The lost never get to be 'with God', only believers.

That makes it the 'church'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

- my goodness, what a stretch of the imagination.  What conjecture!  Can you prove this?  NOBody in my family has ever hinted at this being a remote possibility. 

so what are you now?  A proponent of the Armstrong's One World Church of God?  Are you a proponent of British Israelism?  Are you teaching that Gentiles are not really Gentiles, but the 10 lost tribes of Israel? 

Nuts, man, nuts! - Pecan, cashew, peanuts, macadamia, walnut, hazelnut - nuts!

 

I can relate to that - nuts are a staple part of my low carb, high fat diet - I'm diabetic.

 

But the point made is that we do not know who is physically descended from Abraham. What we do know is that many thousands were converted soon after Pentecost, & continued to be converted as recorded in Acts. Zechariah predicts the deliverance of 1/3. Zec. 13:9 Revelation speaks of 144,000 firstfruits. Rev. 7: 3 14:4 They are "firstfruits" so must be those Jews converted in the first century, not some future generation. These were disowned by the unrepentant Jews, & so became aligned with the believers, Jew & Gentile as one redeemed people of God.

 

They would not have maintained the Mosaic Law beyond such practices as circumcision & Sabbath keeping & within a generation or so would cease to identified as of Jewish descent. But there were over 100,000 converted Jews in the first century & they had the Gospel promise for their children. Acts 2:39 60 generations have passed since Pentecost. Who knows who is of Abrahamic descent & not necessarily the Ashkenazi Jews? Jewish descent is of no significance as far as the Gospel is concerned.
 

Read my post again carefully.  I said, "All of the Bible is written FOR us (Rom. 15:4), but not all of the Bible is written TO us. " 

Got it?

 

The Pauline Epistles are written directly to the Church. No - to churches, with application to all believers, aka "the church." While the other letters may be considered "general" they had to have a recipient, & as "general epistles" may be considered to intended for all believers, aka "the church."

The OT Law was written to the OT Israel, and anyone who wanted to be a believer in Jehovah.  They didn't have Pauline doctrine - they had the OT Law.  It was written TO them.  We can learn many things from the OT, but the doctrine in the OT is for Israel, and differs greatly from NT Pauline doctrine. 

They had to offer sacrifices - we don't.

They had to keep the dietary laws - we don't.

They had to OBserve the feast days - we don't.

They had to tithe - we don't.

However, the tabernacle & the rituals & sacrifices were not sufficient - only in Christ, & because of Christ, were they acceptable to God. Without faith they were worthless. Without Christ, & without the Christian Gospel they were of no value. e.g Heb. 11:39-40  

The Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, and Israel (as a nation) was primarily physical - physical, material blessings, physical land, a physical kingdom. 

They are described in physical terms, but required a spiritual relationship with God. Even circumcision had to be of the heart.   

The promises God has made to the NT believer are primarily spiritual - answered prayer, supply for needs (implying that we may be materially poor, but spiritually rich), a home in heaven, complete forgiveness of sins, etc. etc. etc.

There is no mention of the physical aspects of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB anywhere in the Pauline Epistles, thus indicating that these are not included in any of the spiritual blessings we may "inherit" through Abraham by faith.

If the OT covenants & promises were primarily physical & believers are heirs of God & joint heirs with Christ then surely those physical blessings are ours also - & with Abraham & the patriarchs will receive them in the NH&NE when ALL God's promises & purposes will be perfectly realised. Gal. 3:7 26-29 Notice that - ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. There is no great Jew/Gentile division taught in the NT, only a saved/lost division. 

 

The Jews were not supposed to carry the message of the OT Law to the world (in OT times).  The promises God gave to them was that if they kept the Law, God's physical blessings would be so great upon their physical nation that all of the heathen nations would come to THEM.  Then they could teach them the true worship of the Lord.  This is partially fulfilled in Solomon (for example, the Queen of Sheba), although he became apostate in his later years. 

We were told to go into all the world to preach the gospel with no promise of any physical blessings.  In fact, Paul promises the exact opposite - II Tim. 3:12. 

 

This is why so many of us find it so preposterous when others say that the New Testament is a fulfillment of ALL of the promises given to Israel.  I know you hate the term "Replacement Theology" but it is an appropriate name.  Covenanter blatantly denies that he believes this, but his writings constantly confirm that what he believes is the same as what the RT's believe - it is subterfuge. 

I've never read the writings of a "replacement theologian" - it's a pejorative term used by disps. But certainly I believe that the new covenant in Jesus' blood secures salvation for ALL believers and indeed through the NC ALL the promises given to Israel are realised. If Israelis want the promises of the OT - them come to Jesus - NOW! Isa. 49:8 2 Cor. 6:2

 

All of the books on Baptist history I have read all say the same thing - true Bible Believing Christians over the last 2,000 years have tenaciously held the Pauline Epistles as the staple of NT doctrine, distinguishing between the Church and Israel. 

 

PS - I like how you completely ignored my comments of Jer. 31:34.  Nice jOB!

Did Israel cease to be a nation for 1900 years? The unbelieving Jews were scattered, & not a coherent nation. In the NH&NE all believers will comprise one holy nation, inheriting all the glorious promises of God. God cannot forget his promises, but he can keep them in a way the surprises us. I'm sure whoever is right about prophecy, Abraham & David won't be disappointed.

 

The covenant promises begin with faith, & are lived by faith, and will be fully realised in the resurrection, & not some intermediate millennial state, shared with unbelievers (as at present.)

PPS - I don't always participate because I work a secular jOB outside of the church, and sometimes I have to work a lot of OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Covenanter,
Jewish people do not "lose their identity" in the way you are suggesting.
The vast majority know of their heritage even if they and their parents do not practice.
There would be some, sure, but in my experience "secular Jews" still know it.

And your "aka the church" jibes are simply off track.
114 times church or churches occur in the Bible, and the overwhelming majority are cleatly local church - either "churches" or "the church at....."
Of all the occurrences, there are only a few which are vague, with not one reference being clearly universal, or even suggesting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 See Jer. 33:17 - has that promise failed, or is it fulfilled in and by Jesus?  If he is the fulfilment, then how many more prophecies relating to Israel are fulfilled in hmm? 

 

And how many Christian Jews, from the first century, would continue as Jews through several generations? And how many remember their Jewish origins through 60 generations? 

 

In the first century, over 100,000 Jews from all around the empire and beyond were saved, and were rejected by their communities. Why should they remember their heritage beyond a generation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You are speculating.... "why should they...."

I can tell you that Jewish people keep their heritage even if they are a non practising family.

Not speculation - fact.

Many people I have known personally who freely confess to being non-practising Jews still identify as Jewish people.

Speculate away, but it doesn't change the facts.

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
      Collaborator
    • 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
  • 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...