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

Sorry - I got my information from his website.

From Ariel Ministries Doctrinal Statement


Which is exactly my point - if you have bothered to pay attention to the 'dispensationalists' currently polluting this site you get a very different thing from what is spoken of in that quote.
Under the current circumstances on this site, that distinction needs to be made.

I make no comment on his wife-bride thoughts..........
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 389
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In Rev 4 John sees the door and gets to look around. In Rev 5 John sees the book and the one who can open the book and unleash the wrath of God. In Rev 6, John sees all the bad things happening to mankind and even mankind says the wrath of God is come. Mike in your mind you move from chapter 4 "come up hither" to where? When the book is opened God's wrath begins, those aren't blessings from God. While John is looking around in chapter 4, and seeing the Lamb in chapter 5 how much "earth time" is passing? How did you arrive at that amount of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I heard years ago, while a yungin' that Pre-Trib was invented by a woman. A charismatic woman at that. Don't remember her name, but it would prOBably be recognizable if anyone had any info.

Not saying it was true, but that is the 'skinny'. Might have been in the prewrath info back in the '80's.

Anyone ever hear that?

 

Found it... Margaret McDonald in or about 1830.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I read the entire Doctrinal Statement of Ariel Ministries and found this under the "Salvation" and "Man: Created & Fallen" statements:

 

Salvation

Section One - The Means of Salvation

 

We believe that salvation is wholly a work of God's free grace and not the work of man in whole or in part, nor due to man's goodness or religious ceremony; that it is a gift to man received by personal faith at which time the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner, thereby justifying him in God's sight; that those who are saved have been unconditionally elected to salvation in eternity past and have been effectively and irresistibly called by the Holy Spirit.

 

Man: Created & Fallen

 

We believe that man was created in the image of God; that he fell through sin and lost his spiritual life; that he is dead in his trespasses and sins and, hence, is totally depraved; that this fallen nature is transmitted to every descendent of Adam, the man Christ Jesus excepted; that man has no spark of divine life and is unchangeable apart from divine grace.

 

 

According to those statements in their Doctrinal Statement, Ariel Ministries believes and teaches a 4 point TULIP Calvinism theology. 

 

Total depravity (total inability)

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

 

What type of "dispensational" teaching do they present?.  Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum did not always believe and teach TULIP Calvinism.  His writings before 2000 were very traditional pro-Israel and traditional dispensational.  I believe Ariel Ministries teaches a very confusing and mixed theology...mixing Calvinsm (TULIP) with dispensationalism...but really not defining the type of dispensationalism being taught.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I didn't want to discuss Fruchtenbaum but in response to another post here, I found his teaching on the wife of Jehovah & bride of Christ which I encountered years ago. I think you can safely add the P of TULIP to his beliefs - we all agree on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Genevan

 

I heard that there was a guy that lived several hundred years ago that taught that Revelation was past history, that there was only one kingdom, that the church replaced Israel, and that the church would "bring the kingdom in." 

I can't remember his name...

 

Oh yeah...

 

The great heretic Augustine, whose theology helped the RCC usher in the Dark Ages.

 

Just sayin'

 

I have an idea. 

If you can't substantiate something, then why continue to promote it as if it were true?  You passed on second hand information, and it appears from your statement that you never checked it to see if it was true or not....so why spread it here?

As to my comment about Augustine, it is an historical fact that can very easily be documented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In Rev. 1, John is told he is being given visions for the encouragement of his companions in tribulation, & the assurance of their high position in Christ: kings and priests unto God and his Father; further, he is in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ as we all are: hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son (Col. 1.) How many Kingdoms are there? OBviously that kingdom relationship is spiritual, even though Jesus Christ, [who] is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Jesus is King & has all power in heaven & earth.

 

The vision in Rev. 4 & 5 reassures John that he & his tribulation companions are on the victory side - the Lion-Lamb HAS prevailed to be worshipped with his Father: Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 

 

When we move to Rev. 6, & the book is opened, what does John expect to see? Surely the activities of the triumphant Lion-Lamb executing judgement? And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. He has gained the victory over Satan, death & hell, and is implementing that victory by the deliverance of his redeemed people & judgement of his enemies. Jesus has the crown, the white horse, & until he returns he implements his victory in time by saving sinners, translating them into his kingdom.

 

The opened seals reveal the plan of campaign - the judgement of his enemies to be put into action, as John sees further visions.

 

Back to the beginning of Rev. we see that the events must shortly come to pass; ..... for the time is at hand. If we allow Jesus to mean what he says, the events are to take place within the lifetime of John & his readers, not thousands of years away. Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple in Luke 21 - the Olivet prophecy. That is not recorded in Acts, but must take place before what Jesus repeated calls this generation passes. 

 

Revelation was therefore written before AD 70, & is concerned with the judgement of the Jews who rejected him, & the Apostolic Gospel. Note Ezekiel prophesies:

14:21 For thus saith the Lord God; How much more when I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?

22 Yet, behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both sons and daughters: behold, they shall come forth unto you, and ye shall see their way and their doings: and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, even concerning all that I have brought upon it. 23 And they shall comfort you, when ye see their ways and their doings: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord God.

 

Jesus warns the Jewish Christians of the signs before the destruction - history records that they did escape the city. Rev. 7 shows the faithful Jews sealed before the destruction - the firstfruits.

 

Ultimately all wicked & wickedness will be removed from the Kingdom, but in this age of grace, the wicked - tares - are allowed to live - but harvest is coming. (Rev. 14)

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I read the entire Doctrinal Statement of Ariel Ministries and found this under the "Salvation" and "Man: Created & Fallen" statements:

 

According to those statements in their Doctrinal Statement, Ariel Ministries believes and teaches a 4 point TULIP Calvinism theology. 

 

Total depravity (total inability)

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

 

What type of "dispensational" teaching do they present?.  Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum did not always believe and teach TULIP Calvinism.  His writings before 2000 were very traditional pro-Israel and traditional dispensational.  I believe Ariel Ministries teaches a very confusing and mixed theology...mixing Calvinsm (TULIP) with dispensationalism...but really not defining the type of dispensationalism being taught.

 

 

No prOBlem there, J N Darby, known as 'the father of dispensationalism' was a Calvinist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Genevan

 

I heard that there was a guy that lived several hundred years ago that taught that Revelation was past history, that there was only one kingdom, that the church replaced Israel, and that the church would "bring the kingdom in." 

I can't remember his name...

 

Oh yeah...

 

The great heretic Augustine, whose theology helped the RCC usher in the Dark Ages.

 

Just sayin'

 

I have an idea. 

If you can't substantiate something, then why continue to promote it as if it were true?  You passed on second hand information, and it appears from your statement that you never checked it to see if it was true or not....so why spread it here?

As to my comment about Augustine, it is an historical fact that can very easily be documented.

 

Its called 'conversation', and part of my past that I was sharing.

Good grief Charlie Brown, don't get so offended, it was just a comment. :clapping: Look and see, I edited it after I found her name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Genevan - rumors and gossip are not a welcomed part of a conversation.  There is nothing to substantiate your claim.  So does it add any value to the conversation? 

NO

So that's why I commented...let's keep the subject of the conversation on topic, and not throw out rumors and unsubstantiated claims.  These are mindless distractions, and yet another attempt to label dispensationalism as a man-made theory instead of Bible doctrine.  These tactics by the people on your side of the argument grow very wearisome and tiring.  Your side overlooks and dismisses any connections to "man" as the source of their doctrine so that you can appear to be more "Biblical."  Then, to discredit our side or the argument, your side is constantly attaching man's name to our theology as if NOBODY ever taught this apart from these "men."

 

It is sickening and nauseating, and is a very large part of why I dropped out of these conversations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No prOBlem there, J N Darby, known as 'the father of dispensationalism' was a Calvinist.

He came up with the Dispensational Teachings to defend Calvinism, which is maybe even worse.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yep - here we go again with the name slinging. 

Darby did not "invent" dispensationalism.  He merely systematized what many others had been teaching before him.  There are many Bible Believing Christians who held to some form of dispensationalism long before Darby was even born.  So get over it already.

 

So I guess I'll start calling all of the covenant/replacement theology holders here "Origenites" or "Augustinites?" 

 

Neah....too childish.

 

Let's grow up people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Anyone who cannot see the blatant differences in how God has dealt with man throughout the ages of HIStory and into the future, is completely brainwashed by men. Men call it dispensationalism, I call it rightly dividing His Word (I call it that because God calls it that).

 

IMO, anyone who blends the Bible all together to attempt to serve the Lord or understand the Word stays in a constant state of confusion and actually seems to stay in a constant state of denial about their confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As has been clearly displayed on this site lately, there is dispensationalism and then there is dispensationalism......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Which is exactly my point - if you have bothered to pay attention to the 'dispensationalists' currently polluting this site you get a very different thing from what is spoken of in that quote.
Under the current circumstances on this site, that distinction needs to be made.

I make no comment on his wife-bride thoughts..........

 

 

Later post:

As has been clearly displayed on this site lately, there is dispensationalism and then there is dispensationalism......

Sorry - are you accusing dispensationalists of polluting this forum? Who should I pay attention to? And who are you accusing of "polluting?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you look at any tract, it makes no mention of the Kingdom.

The gospel of the Kingdom is all about the Millennium - Messiah ruling from Jerusalem.

Gentiles don't need to here about that at present..  The Kingdom will be preached during the Tribulation by Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you look at any tract, it makes no mention of the Kingdom.
The gospel of the Kingdom is all about the Millennium - Messiah ruling from Jerusalem.
Gentiles don't need to here about that at present.. The Kingdom will be preached during the Tribulation by Jews.

Show me 1 shred of evidence, in Scripture, that puts Jews preaching the Gospel during the Great Tribulation.

The Jews are going to lead the charge, with their false messiah, against the Christians.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

More post tribs on here than I thought... I almost feel alone being a pretrib


Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

 

I'm pretrib and most of the IFB I know in real life are pretrib. For some reason there is a group of Reformed that like to hang out here. I choose not to debate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

  • 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...