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.

Why I Left The Pre-Trib Position


Ukulelemike

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

OKay, so, we can have a trump, which is admittedly the sound a trumpet makes, WITHOUT a trumpet? What did John say in Rev 4 about the voice? "and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me". Wow-no mention of a trump here. Guess no trumpet, just a voice As a trumpet, so we're prOBably speaking of volume, not quality. BUt this, then, makes your argument invalid, by your own admission, because no trump. And the Bible says it will be the trump of God. A trump needs a trumpet, but the voice of a trumpet, by your estimation, does not equal a trump, particularly when it is specifically said to be a voice, not a trumpet.

 

 

Context of Rev 4:1- "Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter". This was a call to John to SEE what would be hereafter. This is not a rapture, any more than when Isaiah was brought to heaven, before the throne of God, or Ezekiel was brought to heaven before the throne of God. Like Isaiah and Ezekiel, it was to receive a message, a revelation from the mouth of God, to be passed on to the people of God.  Now might it have been a picture of the rapture? Perhaps. But really, I would more see the example of the two witnesses being brought up as possibly being the rapture, because they were dead, were resurrected and again, heard a voice that called them up. Though I believe, as with John, this was specifically for them, as a witness against the nations.

 

And seriously, I just don't see the point in arguing trump/trumpet-its a dumb, (yes I said it) argument, because to say this, that a trump, which is the sound a trumpet makes, will come without a trumpet, which trumps, is seriously twisting the plain meaning. A trumpet trumps. A trump emenates from a trumpet. I am seriously not seeing the prOBlem in understanding this. 

   As well, the coming of Christ for His redeemed is both said to the with the trump of God, AND that the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised. So, trump...trumpet, but present at the same event.

 

Going back to Rev 14. Really, now, there is disagreement that there are two different things here? The scripture is really very plain about that. I will reiterate.

 

One: "And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped."

    Okay, Jesus' reaping completed. The Earth Was Reaped. He thrust in His sickle and the earth was reaped. Period.

 

Two: "And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God "

   Second, different harvest completed. An angel with a sickle comes out of the temple, and then ANOTHER angel comes out and says to gather the clusters of the vine of the earth. He thrusts in his sickle, the vines are gathered and cast into the winepress of God's wrath.

 

See, in the first, we see a reaping. Jesus Christ is told to reap. B y the way, if you have done farming, you will know that reaping INCLUDES gathering, not just leaving it on the ground. That would be cutting, not reaping. So Jesus reaps His harvest.  THEN, an angel comes from the temple also wth a sickle, (which would not be needed, by the way, if Jesus hat merely cut and left His harvest lying on the ground the be gathered here.), ad the angel from the temple tells him to gather the clusters of the vine of the earth. Clearly this is something different from what Jesus had done. Grapes you gather, you don't reap, you cut the clusters of grapes from the vine, which were then thrown into a press to be made to wine. No cutting of the vines.

 

So, my question remains: If this isn't the rapture, what is it? What is the harvest of the earth that is ready for Jesus to gather them? How is this not seen clearly as representing the church, which was called, in Matthew, wheat, who, at the sound of a trumpet, will be reaped after the days of tribulation?

 

Yes, the beast will be judged before the nations, which will be before the believers. That's fine-no conflict here. If the events of Rev 14 are the rapture, as I believe, we must ask ourselves, how long does the wrath take, after which Jesus returns to judge the beast and nations? A day? A week? A month? A year? You haven't considered my reply on it-are the events in Heaven subject to time? God ceetainly isn't, and it would make sense then that, being in His presence, we won't be either. John is taken from a time 2,000 yhears past, and given to witness the events that as yet haven't occurred, so apparently, there is no binding of time there. So while to us the judgment may take thousands of years, to time here, what, a day is as a thousand years? And a thousand years as a day? We may experience what seems a great passing of time, virtually none may pass here on earth.

 

Basically from scripture, all we know is that it MUST occur, it would seem, before Jesus returns to earth to reign. So, as I said before, it coukd be taking place surrently as believers die and go to Heaven, or it could all be at once after the rapture, and may take no time at all by earth's reckoning. Again, not seeing the prOBlem.

 

We seem to run often on long-term assumptions: the judgment seat of Christ as a huge auditorium full of all belevers of all time, waiting their turn. That's not scirpture, and honestly, I would think maybe the Lord would be a bit more efficient than this. Why have people in heaven for 2000, 1000, 100 years, waiting around doing who-knows-what, and wait to judge them all at one time? Why not assume the Lord is wise enough to judge them as they come?  The only judgments that are clearly shown to occur at one time, are the GWT judgmet and the judgment of the nations. Once a believer dies, what's the wait? 

   And again, we are trying to put linear constraints on that which will prOBably NOT be subject to such. Again, assumptions is really what we are talking about in this subject-I have just chosen to stop assuming and study the Bible. NOTHING says we won't be present on earth during the tribulation period. Nothing. Assumption. NOWHERE di we see anything that looks vaguely like a catching up of the saints anywhere in scripture except Rev 14-assumption that it takes place at an unspecified time causes us to soundly reject that and try to fit other meanings to it, or ignore it altogether.  Assumption that Matt 25 is only speaking of Jews causes us to reject that this is the rapture AFTER the days of great tribulation, and thus, an actual second rapture/resurrection that is really only part of the first, must then be fit into our theology.  ,

 

 

You did that which most do when confronted with an opposing view. You continue to argue your point, completes ignoring the post on why the Rapture cannot be after the Trib. You just blindly went on debating yourself and espousing your view.

 

 

 

I figured as much.

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 389
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Advanced Member

Let's agree before we disagree :coffee:

 

We believe God is King over all creation, & Jesus ascended to his throne at God's right hand;

Jesus rose bodily from the dead, & ascended bodily into heaven [that stretches my understanding, for he is in no way limited by his body in time or space, but is omnipresent with us always];

Jesus will return in person, in glory for resurrection & judgment;

The final state is an eternal NH&NE of perfect righteousness & peace inhabited by all & only the redeemed among mankind, & angelic beings;

God made promises to Abraham concerning becoming a great nation, possessing the land, & being a blessing for all families on earth, those promises being repeated throughout the OT;

the promises & prophecies were & are fulfilled in & through Jesus Christ & his saving work, and are appropriated by repentance & faith in Jesus Christ.

 

That's a start ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

14And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

16And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.  (Reaping Number One)

17And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

18And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

19And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. (Reaping Number Two)

 

We see here two very specific reapings-twice a sickle is thrust into the earth, and twice we see something reaped. In the case of that which Jesus reaped, we see notning said about what is done with them. In the case of the angel's reaping, we see them cast into the winepress of God's wrath. There is no way this can be construed as a single reaping-two reapers, two sickles, two thrustings, two reapings. One is believers, the other is unbelievers.


 

my eschatology isnt very strong, but couldnt this simply be those who have become believers during this time reaped, and then the casting down of the Anti-christ and all those with him in the second.  Or even the bundling of tares in the first and the putting them into the winepress second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Interesting info - I heard this once years ago - JerUSAlem. I thought it kinda cool.

 

I was a Facebook administrator on a site called, JerUSAlem - United Israel Peace.  Another IFB and myself formed a group six years ago to help the nation of Israel.  We made t-shirts and stickers and sold them via the internet, to send to an IFB missionary in Israel to help the children with P.T.S.D. - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Syndrome.  We also got the gospel out to the children through our ministry.  For those who don't know, many children in Israel suffer from P.T.S.D. because of the many rockets coming in from the "Palestinians" on a daily basis.  Sirens go off and the children hide under their desks in school, and many Israelis and Jews have to go into bomb shelters so they aren't murdered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You did that which most do when confronted with an opposing view. You continue to argue your point, completes ignoring the post on why the Rapture cannot be after the Trib. You just blindly went on debating yourself and espousing your view.

 

 

 

I figured as much.

 

God bless,

calvary

Except you didn't give asny reasons the rapture can't be after the tribulation. Keep in mind, I am talking about a post-trib/pre wrath position, because the Bible clearly shows a separation, or, if you will, a portion OF the tribuation as being the outpouring of wrath. It is before this that I see the rapture occurring, NOT all the way at the end when Jesus returns. So maybe you have misuderstood my point from the start.

  Your primary point, I believe, as to why it couldn't be, was because, when would the judgment be? I answered that, and you ignored my reply. So I reiterated it and expanded it. You said the rev 14 events were prOBably one event, not two, I explained why they were clearly two events and bult upon that. You said trump doesn equal trumpet, I explained why it must..

 

Allow me to repeat, verbatim, errors of spelling included, from my answer to what you asked, which perhaps you missed some of:

 

"Yes, the beast will be judged before the nations, which will be before the believers. That's fine-no conflict here. If the events of Rev 14 are the rapture, as I believe, we must ask ourselves, how long does the wrath take, after which Jesus returns to judge the beast and nations? A day? A week? A month? A year? You haven't considered my reply on it-are the events in Heaven subject to time? God ceetainly isn't, and it would make sense then that, being in His presence, we won't be either. John is taken from a time 2,000 yhears past, and given to witness the events that as yet haven't occurred, so apparently, there is no binding of time there. So while to us the judgment may take thousands of years, to time here, what, a day is as a thousand years? And a thousand years as a day? We may experience what seems a great passing of time, virtually none may pass here on earth.

 

Basically from scripture, all we know is that it MUST occur, it would seem, before Jesus returns to earth to reign. So, as I said before, it coukd be taking place surrently as believers die and go to Heaven, or it could all be at once after the rapture, and may take no time at all by earth's reckoning. Again, not seeing the prOBlem.

 

We seem to run often on long-term assumptions: the judgment seat of Christ as a huge auditorium full of all belevers of all time, waiting their turn. That's not scirpture, and honestly, I would think maybe the Lord would be a bit more efficient than this. Why have people in heaven for 2000, 1000, 100 years, waiting around doing who-knows-what, and wait to judge them all at one time? Why not assume the Lord is wise enough to judge them as they come?  The only judgments that are clearly shown to occur at one time, are the GWT judgmet and the judgment of the nations. Once a believer dies, what's the wait? 

   And again, we are trying to put linear constraints on that which will prOBably NOT be subject to such. Again, assumptions is really what we are talking about in this subject-I have just chosen to stop assuming and study the Bible. NOTHING says we won't be present on earth during the tribulation period. Nothing. Assumption. NOWHERE di we see anything that looks vaguely like a catching up of the saints anywhere in scripture except Rev 14-assumption that it takes place at an unspecified time causes us to soundly reject that and try to fit other meanings to it, or ignore it altogether.  Assumption that Matt 25 is only speaking of Jews causes us to reject that this is the rapture AFTER the days of great tribulation, and thus, an actual second rapture/resurrection that is really only part of the first, must then be fit into our theology."  ,

 

So maybe tell me why you assume all believers must be judged at one time for the works of their lives. Tell me why there is an assumption that perhaps there won't be time, if time appears to mean nothing in scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By no means. I am speaking to doctrine on a BAPTIST forum, not to any issues of character. I don´t know Mike. His morality or integrity are not in question by me.
 
I signed on here because this site purported to be a BAPTIST web site for IFB like minded folks could have fellowship. I never thought I would have to wade through the nonsense of 7th Day Adventists heresies, anti mission minded tight fisted misers who won´t pay a pastor, KJB "preferred" instead of only¨¨, and now a Moderator no less comes out in opposition to a long held sound doctrine of the IFB position, Pre Trib, which can be found in the articles of faith all over the IFB world,
 
so yes I feel a little bit disappointing in this site. It´s not what it was when I signed on.
 
God bless,
calvary

pastors that are so bold as to lie to their congregations about what God requires of them deserve no earthly rewards for their lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

By no means. I am speaking to doctrine on a BAPTIST forum, not to any issues of character. I don´t know Mike. His morality or integrity are not in question by me.

 

I signed on here because this site purported to be a BAPTIST web site for IFB like minded folks could have fellowship. I never thought I would have to wade through the nonsense of 7th Day Adventists heresies, anti mission minded tight fisted misers who won´t pay a pastor, KJB "preferred" instead of only¨¨, and now a Moderator no less comes out in opposition to a long held sound doctrine of the IFB position, Pre Trib, which can be found in the articles of faith all over the IFB world,

 

so yes I feel a little bit disappointing in this site. It´s not what it was when I signed on.

 

God bless,

calvary

 

For years people sometimes just accept what is taught to them without studying the facts, then , for some reason, eyes open up.

Just because it was a 'traditionally held teaching', does not make it biblical.

The letters should really be IFBBB, meaning Independent Fundamental Bible Believing Baptists, who, by the way, will correct their own views to conform to the scriptures, even when they have 'believed' them different before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just because it was a 'traditionally held teaching', does not make it biblical.
The letters should really be IFBBB, meaning Independent Fundamental Bible Believing Baptists, who, by the way, will correct their own views to conform to the scriptures, even when they have 'believed' them different before.


This implies that the traditionally held positions are not Biblical.

Let me remind you that there is nothing new under the sun, and that God's Word never changes.
If those men of the past were following the Bible, there is every chance that those traditional positions are indeed biblical, and it is therefore correct for us to continue in the things which we were taught.

Just because someone 'discovers' some new doctrine (which will not be new) doesn't make them automatically correct either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I wanted to start this post so as not to hijack another, and because some seem genuinely confused as to why an IFB pastor, particularly, would hold to what to them, (and to me once, as well) comes close to perhaps heresy or a departure of the faith.

 

Let me first say that despite how strongly we hold to such a doctrine, one way or the other, it is not what we might consider a fundamental, or it shouldn't be IMHO, and so, I have never seen it as a separation issue, though I know of some who do. I won't judge them-its between them and the Lord.

 

I was not raised IFB-it is something I turned to in my 20's. However, saved in a C&MA church and raised in various churches in my youth, one things they all agreed on was a pre-tribulation rapture position. So, since my youth this is what I believed.

 

Shorlty after I was married to my wife, back in about 2005-ish, my wife began to seriously question me concerning  the various positions on the timing of the catching away/rapture, whatever you want to call it. I explained to her all that I had ever been taught on the subject: The entire tribulation is the outpouring of God's wrath., so we won't go through it; it is for the Jews, the time of JacOB's trouble, so the church won't be there; Rev 4:1 seems to suggest the rapture as John sees a door open in heaven, (isn't Jesus called 'the door'?) and a voice that says "Come up hither", ( voice of the archangel?), so this must depict the rapture JUST before the tribulation is seen to begin; 1Thes 4  says, concerning the rapture, "Comfort one another with this', how can we find comfort in knowing we will go through great tribulation? And so on.

 

So, she began to lay out a pretty extensive argument both against the PreTR and for the PostT/PreWR Trib.  To go into it all, I haven't time. But I told her that, to make her happy, and because I want to please God before man, OR her, I would take what we have both said, and prayerfully study it out for myself. I took about a year looking it over in scripture and praying over it before I was finally willing to say that I had to agree with her. I knew I was taking a stand considerably different than 99% of other IFB's and might lost friends and associates over it, but I believed, as I do now, that pleasing God was more important. 

 

Some of what I found was, yes, Israel is the focus of the tribulation time. However, nowhere do we see that this must mean the church is not in existence. Jew have continued to live and thrive during the 'church age', and even with Israel being re-established as a nation, here we still are. The focus on them doesn't necessarily mean we can't be here any more-it is assumption, no more.

 

I have yet to hear anyone give a good explanation of what occurs in Rev 14:14. No, it isn't Jesus sitting on the church-we see Jesus in the clouds with a sickle, reaping His harvest. This takes place shortly after the seventh trumpet sounds, the last trumpet mentioned in scripture. We also see an angel shout to Him that the time has come.  Last trumpet, Jesus in the clouds, voice of an angel from the temple, (an archangel?). sounds like about all that is needed to match what occurs in 1Thes 4 return of Christ. NO, we don't see those who sleep in Christ coming with Him, but that doesn't mean they aren't there-it is the ONLY specific example we are given of Jesus reaping His harvest, and it is followed immediately by the outpouring of God's wrath. Apparently the entire tribulation is NOT God's wrath, because we see a specific time the wrath falls.  

 

I will continue when I have time. There's more! Please read, comment if you like, but again, this is not comprehensive, so no fights just yet.

Brother Mike will you provide some info on your study if possible, from what I've read you've spent a lot of time on your study and we should all be graceful to hear you out, though I may disagree or agree there should be no need to argue because you are still my brother in the Lord and I hold firmly to loving my brothers and sisters, thank you brother 

God bless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This implies that the traditionally held positions are not Biblical.

Let me remind you that there is nothing new under the sun, and that God's Word never changes.
If those men of the past were following the Bible, there is every chance that those traditional positions are indeed biblical, and it is therefore correct for us to continue in the things which we were taught.

Just because someone 'discovers' some new doctrine (which will not be new) doesn't make them automatically correct either.

 

Not at all. For you to say "...the traditionally held positions..." , makes it sound like 'all'. There are some, but that is off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think much confusion comes from not factoring in the "two rapture" conjecture.

In Revelation 7 we have the 144,000 Hebrew servants of God followed by a "great multitude

which no man could number" in heaven.  John had to ask who these people were.

(We know that the two witnesses are brought up into heaven just as Jesus was.)

 

The N.T. simply does not give us "all the details", in clear terms, on the Tribulation.

There is no reason why the Lord would not remove the Body of Christ BEFORE

the Tribulation, to make way for Israel to fulfill its role (and fulfill prophecy concerning it),

and then remove the great harvest of souls from the Tribulation, before pouring out

his WRATH on an unbelieving world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think much confusion comes from not factoring in the "two rapture" conjecture.
In Revelation 7 we have the 144,000 Hebrew servants of God followed by a "great multitude
which no man could number" in heaven. John had to ask who these people were.
(We know that the two witnesses are brought up into heaven just as Jesus was.)

The N.T. simply does not give us "all the details", in clear terms, on the Tribulation.
There is no reason why the Lord would not remove the Body of Christ BEFORE
the Tribulation, to make way for Israel to fulfill its role (and fulfill prophecy concerning it),
and then remove the great harvest of souls from the Tribulation, before pouring out
his WRATH on an unbelieving world.

Tribulation is for Saints. Wrath is for Unbelievers.

The best reason we have is Matthew 24.
All doctrine concerning The Second Coming should originate with Matthew 24.

Matthew 24 is a private conversation with Jesus' church, after telling the Jews, at the end of Matthew 23, that they wouldn't see Him again, until His Second Coming.

They ask Him, point blank, about the future, and He gives very direct answers.

He never mentions, to them, any pretrib blah, blah, blah.

Now, you can say He was talking to the Jews, but the end of Matthew 23 says you are wrong.

You can say they weren't His Church, but no one would say that 11 of those 12 were His church, 43 days later, so let's quit playing dispy games.

In light of that, Daniel, Revelation, Corinthians, and Thes. all line up quite nicely with Matthew 24.

You can say what isn't mentioned on I Thes. 4, but it's just that, not a detailed account, but rather a comforting reminder.

OBviously, IIThes. 2 was written to provide context, since IThes. freaked them out. It lines up with Matthew 24, as well.


Bottom line...Jesus put the jelly on the bottom shelf in Matthew 24, and it is our plumb line.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think much confusion comes from not factoring in the "two rapture" conjecture.
In Revelation 7 we have the 144,000 Hebrew servants of God followed by a "great multitude
which no man could number" in heaven. John had to ask who these people were.
(We know that the two witnesses are brought up into heaven just as Jesus was.)

The N.T. simply does not give us "all the details", in clear terms, on the Tribulation.
There is no reason why the Lord would not remove the Body of Christ BEFORE
the Tribulation, to make way for Israel to fulfill its role (and fulfill prophecy concerning it),
and then remove the great harvest of souls from the Tribulation, before pouring out
his WRATH on an unbelieving world.

Tribulation is for Saints. Wrath is for Unbelievers.

The best reason we have is Matthew 24.
All doctrine concerning The Second Coming should originate with Matthew 24.

Matthew 24 is a private conversation with Jesus' church, after telling the Jews, at the end of Matthew 23, that they wouldn't see Him again, until His Second Coming.

They ask Him, point blank, about the future, and He gives very direct answers.

He never mentions, to them, any pretrib blah, blah, blah.

Now, you can say He was talking to the Jews, but the end of Matthew 23 says you are wrong.

You can say they weren't His Church, but no one would say that 11 of those 12 were His church, 43 days later, so let's quit playing dispy games.

In light of that, Daniel, Revelation, Corinthians, and Thes. all line up quite nicely with Matthew 24.

You can say what isn't mentioned on I Thes. 4, but it's just that, not a detailed account, but rather a comforting reminder.

OBviously, IIThes. 2 was written to provide context, since IThes. freaked them out. It lines up with Matthew 24, as well.


Bottom line...Jesus put the jelly on the bottom shelf in Matthew 24, and it is our plumb line.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Matthew 24 and 25 has nothing at all to do with the church.  The context of the Olivet Discourse is the Tribulation, Second Coming, Judgment of the nations (the separating of the sheep nations and goat nations) which will determine who will enter the Millennial Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Matthew 24 and 25 has nothing at all to do with the church. The context of the Olivet Discourse is the Tribulation, Second Coming, Judgment of the nations (the separating of the sheep nations and goat nations) which will determine who will enter the Millennial Kingdom.
Show me where the Scripture says this. Who was Jesus talking to? Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
 
Perhaps this wholesale application of the Gospel of Matthew to the Church is the impetus behind these "Hebrew Roots" movements.
It is actually a "remnant" of 4th Century Catholic "Replacement Theology" to take the Gospels and apply them directly to the Body of Christ
(composed of Jew & Gentile in this dispensation).  Catholics have always "elevated" the Gospels above the rest of scripture. 
 
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Dan 9:24  [shabuwa` - literally "sevens" - like we use the word decade or dozen]
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the OBlation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Dan 9:27
 
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Matt 24:15
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: Mark 13:14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Show me where the Scripture says this. Who was Jesus talking to? Anishinaabe

First of all, the "church" is never mentioned in either Matthew 24 or 25.

 

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Matthew 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Matthew 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
Matthew 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

 

1. When, if ever does the Church see the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place"? That holy place is the third (tribulation) temple located in Jerusalem. (verse 15)

2. Is the Church located in Israel? (verse 16)

3. To where would the Church be fleeing? And why should the Church be concerned if it was the on the "sabbath day"? (verse 20)

4. The Church goes through "tribulation" during this dispensation of grace, which is not God's wrath.  But during the 7 year tribulation period, Israel and the Christ rejecting world will go through a time of "tribulation" of God's wrath and judgment that this present world has not seen yet, but it will be worse than Hitler's Holocaust and both World Wars put together. (verse 21-22)

 

The fact that the word "Church" never appears in the Olivet Discourse should be enough evidence that there is NO CHURCH present and that the context of which Jesus speaks is the "time of JacOB's Trouble"....which is ISRAEL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
First of all, the "church" is never mentioned in either Matthew 24 or 25. Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Matthew 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Matthew 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! Matthew 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 1. When, if ever does the Church see the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place"? That holy place is the third (tribulation) temple located in Jerusalem. (verse 15) 2. Is the Church located in Israel? (verse 16) 3. To where would the Church be fleeing? And why should the Church be concerned if it was the on the "sabbath day"? (verse 20) 4. The Church goes through "tribulation" during this dispensation of grace, which is not God's wrath. But during the 7 year tribulation period, Israel and the Christ rejecting world will go through a time of "tribulation" of God's wrath and judgment that this present world has not seen yet, but it will be worse than Hitler's Holocaust and both World Wars put together. (verse 21-22) The fact that the word "Church" never appears in the Olivet Discourse should be enough evidence that there is NO CHURCH present and that the context of which Jesus speaks is the "time of JacOB's Trouble"....which is ISRAEL!
IThes. 4 doesn't have the word "church" in it, either. Every single chapter in the Scripture that doesn't say "the church" in it, is to Israel...by your definition. So these men were never in "the church"? Mat 24:3-4 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. Funny, Jesus said this to these same men, before the "Olivet discourse": Mat 16:18-19 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mat 18:1 Chapter 18 1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Mat 18:17 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church:but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. So these Disciples weren't part of the church. Hmmmm. News to them. News to Jesus. He musta had a bad week? Got a little confused? O, wait, he wasn't a dispy...men made that up later. Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Five Phases of the First Resurrection

(1) Jesus took the Old Testament saints to Heaven at His ascension. Ephesians 4:8 KJV

(2) The Holy Spirit and the church age saints are caught up to heaven before the antichrist Is given power by God. 2Thessalonians 2:3-12 KJV,


(3) The mid tribulation catching up will include the two witnesses Revelation 11:3,7-14 KJV, the 144,000 sealed Jews from Revelation chapter 7 who where redeemed from the earth. Revelation 14:1-4 KJV, and the redeemed dead saints from the first half of the Tribulation. See Revelation 15:1-4 KJV

(4) The dead saints from the last half of the tribulation are redeemed from the earth after the tribulation. Revelation 20:4 KJV


(5) The dead saints from the Kingdom age will be judged at the great white throne judgment along with the second resurrection sinners. Revelation 20:11-15 KJV

 

 

 

Ephesians 4:8-10

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

 

I believe these verses indicate that Jesus took the Old Testament saints to heaven when he went back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • 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...