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.

John Calvin Had It All Wrong


Calvary

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"DasveW, you completely miss the point by trying to vilify me.  (I am glad that n one will have that attitude when we get to glory)   My point was, they all believed in  predestination.  Incidentally, they all (AS far as I know) taught that the Pope is the Man of Sin, the Antichrist."

Pointing out that you are twisting history as well as doctrine is not vilification.
And if the above was really your point you put a lot of other trash in there to confuse things.

And predestination is Bible doctrine, just not the way Calvin taught it.

This whole thing is classic Calvinist misdirection, moving the argument around so as not to be pinned down, introducing new twists rather sticking to the actual point, and making false accusations again other respondents, twisting their answers.

Nothing unexpected, but lots wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Advanced Member

Brother,

 

Where do you think Cloud is off on history? I have an interest in church history, and often wonder what the best source to go is on that topic.

 

Isa 19:19  In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD.

 

Bro Cloud uses this verse as future, but Josephus uses the same verse to show that the Jewish high priest, Onias who was exile and fled to Ptotlemy Philometor, was given permission to build an altar in Egypt.  This altar was built one hundred and eighty furlongs from Memphis in the Nomos of Heliopolos.  Jos. Wars VII,  X .3. Ant. XIII. III.1,3. 

 

Isa 11:11  And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
 
Bro Cloud uses that verse as future, but again Josephus says it has already happened in the days of Ptolemy Philadelphus who ransomed and freed "a few more than ten times ten thousand."  Ant. XII. II. 3.
 
Bro Cloud also denies there was a Greek LXX before the second Century, but again Josephus writing at the end of the first century describes it as then an ancient book, translated on behalf of Ptolemy Philadelphus who  collected a vast library in Alexandria and wished to have the Jewish law for his Library.
 
Regarding Church history.
 
If you want Baptist history, you could do worse than go to Bro Cloud himself.  He does a CD which includes a digital library containing a number of books on Baptist History.  I was particularly interested in the book on the Bogomils, as I had read that they were true Christians but the only book I could find in a library, said they were heretics, believing in "Two Principals", that is a god  of good and a god of evil.  The Catholic and Orthodox always said that the "heretics" believed that.  I once had an online discussion with a Catholic lady who insisted that the Waldensians believed in two gods, so I gave her a link to the Waldensian "NOBle Lesson" but she still insisted that they believed in two gods.
 
Someone once said, I can't  remember who, "There is no such thing as unbiased history."  This is also true in Church history;  XSo I should read from many different historians.  Anyway, it is bedtime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Arminians.

 

 

And I don't know of a single person here who claims to be an Arminian.

 

I'm an ARMian.  ;)

 

Isaiah 52:10
The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm an ARMian.  ;)

 

Isaiah 52:10
The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

And I'm an IAN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the Gospel?

1Co 15:1-4

(1) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

(2) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

(3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

(4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

What does the Gospel do?

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

 

How is salvation attained?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

What saves under Calvin's system?

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

 

No mention of the blood of Christ, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

 

And you won't find these things mentioned in most outlines of the five points of Calvin.

They will often mention the death of Christ under “Limited atonement”, but only the fact that it isn't sufficient for all – some will say effective for all, but they twist that too.

 

Now John, I don't know about you, but my salvation is based on the free gift of salvation through the shed blood of Christ, and was attained by me by grace through faith.

 

Any other way of salvation is another Gospel, which is not another.

 

Therefore to do as the Calvinist does and base salvation, not on the blood of Christ, but upon the choice of God, is another Gospel which is not another.

 

I believe that many people amongst Calvinistic churches are fooled by the doublespeak of the Calvinist teachers, and have actually believed the surface preaching without understanding the redefinition of words that they use.

But anyone who actually understands and follows Calvin's teachings, is basing their salvation on something other than the blood of Christ.

And that means that they are not saved.

Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

Calvinists are like many other cults – they redefine words, jump through linguistic hoops, and make leaps of logic all so that they can re-understand what the Bible says.

 

But if you base your salvation on anything other than the blood of Christ, you are not saved.

And the Calvinist bases his salvation on the choice of God not the blood of Christ.

Correct, Calvinism teaches another gospel;

 

1 Cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

Paul taught that Jesus died for "our" sins. No Calvinist who believes in Limited Atonement can honestly tell another person Jesus died for "our" sins as they do not believe Jesus died for all men. Calvinists all admit they do not know who the elect are. In fact, Calvinists do not know for certain they are elect, they just presume to be so. They do not know if Jesus died for them personally. Just because you believe something does not make it so. You could believe a gun was unloaded and put it to your head and pull the trigger, if it is loaded you will blow your head off. So, convincing yourself you are elect does not necessarily make it so, if Jesus did not die for all men, then no man can know for a certainty if Jesus died for him. 

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 Calvin was Catholic before he bacome supposedly a Protestant- but with research from David Cloud, it appears he was still pretty Catholic. 

 

Calvin a Catholic?

 

Before we were saved some were Catholics, some of other false religions some none. 

 

OK I looked up some of what Calvin actually wrote and I came across this.  

 

Now,every one that has learned from Scripture what are the things that more especially belong to God, and will, on who is able to save and to destroy; the alone King, whose office it is to govern souls by his word. It represents him as the author of all sacred rites;the other hand, OBserve what the Pope claims for himself -- though he were but a boy of ten years of age -- will have no great difficulty in recognizing Antichrist. Scripture declares that God is the alone Lawgiver (James 4:12)  it teaches that righteousness and salvation are to be sought from Christ alone; and it assigns, at the same time, the manner and means.

 

There is not one of these things that the Pope does not affirm to be under his authority. He boasts that it is his to bind consciences with such laws as seem good to him, and subject them to everlasting punishment.   

 

Teaching that  righteousness and salvation are to be sought from Christ alone;  does not sound Catholic to me.                                                                                                                                                                        

Sorry I should have said it was from his commentary on 2 Thess. 2:4                                                                                                                            

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

Correct, Calvinism teaches another gospel;

 

1 Cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

Paul taught that Jesus died for "our" sins. No Calvinist who believes in Limited Atonement can honestly tell another person Jesus died for "our" sins as they do not believe Jesus died for all men. Calvinists all admit they do not know who the elect are. In fact, Calvinists do not know for certain they are elect, they just presume to be so. They do not know if Jesus died for them personally. Just because you believe something does not make it so. You could believe a gun was unloaded and put it to your head and pull the trigger, if it is loaded you will blow your head off. So, convincing yourself you are elect does not necessarily make it so, if Jesus did not die for all men, then no man can know for a certainty if Jesus died for him. 

 

 

 

 

 

I have seen another gospel mentioned on here, that we become Christians because we don't want to go the Hell,  I have heard a similar other gospel from a Baptist preacher. " We become Christians because we want to go to heaven."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

ALL the reformation churches came from the RC background.  All of them fly the supposed Christian Flag flown in some Baptist churches.  But that flag was the reformation banner not a baptist banner.  Baptist did not come from the reformation they came from around it.  And If I am not mistaken Baptist are not from the direct line of Anabaptist, many associate it because of the word baptist in the name.  American Baptist are a unique fellowship of believers.  See Elmer Towns "Theology Today" he gives a little insight on it.

 

John Calvin didn't just persecute the Anabaptist he persecuted Wesleyans, the Lutherans, the Presbytery church, the Episcopals, RC and any groups that he could not influence toward his ideas for the church.  Later some of these groups created opposition to him while others conformed to him but not to the Bible.

 

 

Weslyans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen another gospel mentioned on here, that we become Christians because we don't want to go the Hell,  I have heard a similar other gospel from a Baptist preacher. " We become Christians because we want to go to heaven."

The devils do not want to go to hell, but that will not save them, because Jesus did not die for the devils, but men only. 

 

Mat 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.

31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

 
These devils begged Jesus that if he must cast them out, that he not send them to hell to be tormented, but into the herd of swine. They did not want to go to hell. The devils believe in God and tremble (Jam 2:19), but they cannot be saved because Jesus did not die for them. And if Jesus did not die for you personally, you cannot be saved either, even if you believe. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romans 10:9

 

This verse can only be true if Jesus died for all men. If Jesus did not die for all men as Limited Atonement teaches, then your faith could be in vain, or perhaps not, there is no way to know until you die. 

 

Paul shows this concept in 1 Corinthians 15;

 

1 Cor 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
 
It is not our faith that saves us, it is Jesus that saved us when he died for our sins and rose from the dead. Paul explains here that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our faith is vain and we are still in our sins. Why? Because Jesus had to sprinkle his blood on the mercy seat in heaven for our sins to be atoned for. Therefore, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins. What you believe does not determine reality. 
 
Likewise, if Jesus did not die for you personally, your faith is vain and you will perish in your sins. Your faith will not save you, your faith must be founded on a reality, that Jesus died for you personally. If Limited Atonement is true, and Jesus only died for some men, then only those persons he died for can be saved. If Limited Atonement is true, you MIGHT be saved, but the overwhelming prOBability is that you are not, as only FEW enter life. 
 
This is why Limited Atonement is another gospel, Paul taught all men that Jesus died for "our" sins.(1 Cor 15:1-3).This is not what 5 point Calvinists believe. They don't know they are elect, there is no list where you can look up your name.to see if you are one of the fortunate elect. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Likewise, if Jesus did not die for you personally, your faith is vain and you will perish in your sins. Your faith will not save you, your faith must be founded on a reality, that Jesus died for you personally. If Limited Atonement is true, and Jesus only died for some men, then only those persons he died for can be saved. If Limited Atonement is true, you MIGHT be saved, but the overwhelming prOBability is that you are not, as only FEW enter life....[snip]...if Jesus did not die for all men, then no man can know for a certainty if Jesus died for him.

 
Welcome to the forum, Winman. Pleased to meet you.
 
I.M.O your argument above would be fine if Calvinism didn't teach that there was any manifest difference between a saved person and an unsaved person. But Calvinism does teach this, in exactly the same way that other Christians teach it. According to Calvinists, the elect will respond to the Gospel and the unelect won't and this will be made manifest by the changed lives of individuals. Therefore, the fact that Calvinists believe atonement is limited and also claim not to know who in a crowd is elect when they begin to preach is immaterial as to whether or not according to Calvinism an individual can know they are saved.
 

Paul taught that Jesus died for "our" sins. No Calvinist who believes in Limited Atonement can honestly tell another person Jesus died for "our" sins as they do not believe Jesus died for all men.


I guess a Calvinist would say that the context of 'our' is the saved Christians that Paul is talking to (if he is?), but even so, I agree with this point that a Calvinist can't honestly witness to an individual by telling them that Jesus died for their sins. I've always thought that a Calvinist soul winning is a bit like a secret agent at a train station. The secret agent walks around the platform saying to people 'have you seen the red and green lighter I dropped' not because he is actually looking for his lighter but because it is a secret signal that his anonymous rendezvous has been briefed to respond to. In the same way, a Calvinist will go around telling every individual that Jesus died to pay for their sins not because they believe that Jesus did die for the sins of those individuals but because they are hoping to illicit a response from the elect. Thus, the Gospel isn't a clear, frank message that can honestly be shared with anyone but instead is a secret message, the 'real' significance of which is only recognised by the intended targets. Might have the wrong idea but that's the impression I get. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sorry "Fed", but I´m not following you too well.
 
I think you sort of say 2 things that are opposing each other.
 
Now it could be argued that this is a distinction without a difference since if man's decision-making is the result of something, such as his desires and inclinations, then that is not free will. But for me, this begs the question, if that isn't free will, then what is? To qualify as 'free will', does the decision have to have no basis at all? And then wouldn't that make it random?
 
?? Sorry but you´re not making sense. Maybe if you try again. What I am hearing you say is that free will is absed upon a man´s "inclinaitons", therefore it´s npot free will, then you say it´s really random, therefore there is no basis of free will.... ???????? Ya lost me bro.
 
Then you say that we really don´t know what Moses´inclinations were so we can´t say why my post refutes calvinism.

 
Sorry this has taken so long, Calvary.
 
I wasn't actually trying to explain my own beliefs at all. I was trying to point out what I see as potential prOBlems/inconsistencies with what follows from your claims, while at the same time trying not to put words in your mouth. :-)
 
I'll try to explain again:
 
1. As far as I can tell from reading what they write, Calvinists claim that God gets elect folk to respond to the Gospel by changing their inclinations/character/desire/constitution (or whatever you want to call it), which in turn determines what choices those folk make for themselves. Same as how, all things being equal, I'll never choose to jump off a cliff.
 
2. You claim that Calvinism is a system whereby God 'overcomes' folks' free will, which I interpret as meaning they end up with no free will to respond to the Gospel.

Now it seems to me that what I've described in (1) isn't a scenario whereby anyone's free will is taken away. But you are saying that under Calvinism, the free will to choose is indeed taken away. Therefore, either:

a] I've interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly and you haven't, or

b] You've interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly and I haven't, or

c] We've both interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly, because having an inclination to chose a certain way is the same thing as having no free will.

If you think is true then fair enough and we must agree to differ unless we want to go further and start quoting from treatises etc. But if you think [c] then in my opinion that leads to the following prOBlems:

  • If 'free will' can only exist provided one doesn't have prior inclinations, then what is left to determine what we choose except randominity? But that conflicts with our own experience.
It renders historical examples such as Moses choice to follow God in Heb 11:25-27 as not a free will choice after all, since the Bible clearly states that Moses was motivated to make the choice. We would have to say that Moses inclination to esteem the reproach of Christ 'overcame' his free will to choose Egypt.

I'm going for [a], of course. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 
Sorry this has taken so long, Calvary.
 
I wasn't actually trying to explain my own beliefs at all. I was trying to point out what I see as potential prOBlems/inconsistencies with what follows from your claims, while at the same time trying not to put words in your mouth. :-)
 
I'll try to explain again:
 
1. As far as I can tell from reading what they write, Calvinists claim that God gets elect folk to respond to the Gospel by changing their inclinations/character/desire/constitution (or whatever you want to call it), which in turn determines what choices those folk make for themselves. Same as how, all things being equal, I'll never choose to jump off a cliff.
 
2. You claim that Calvinism is a system whereby God 'overcomes' folks' free will, which I interpret as meaning they end up with no free will to respond to the Gospel.

Now it seems to me that what I've described in (1) isn't a scenario whereby anyone's free will is taken away. But you are saying that under Calvinism, the free will to choose is indeed taken away. Therefore, either:

a] I've interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly and you haven't, or

b] You've interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly and I haven't, or

c] We've both interpreted what Calvinism says about free will correctly, because having an inclination to chose a certain way is the same thing as having no free will.

If you think is true then fair enough and we must agree to differ unless we want to go further and start quoting from treatises etc. But if you think [c] then in my opinion that leads to the following prOBlems:

  • If 'free will' can only exist provided one doesn't have prior inclinations, then what is left to determine what we choose except randominity? But that conflicts with our own experience.
It renders historical examples such as Moses choice to follow God in Heb 11:25-27 as not a free will choice after all, since the Bible clearly states that Moses was motivated to make the choice. We would have to say that Moses inclination to esteem the reproach of Christ 'overcame' his free will to choose Egypt.

I'm going for [a], of course. ;-)

 

The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be -- and often is -- rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call, the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success.

 

God's call to salvation is unlimited but His redemption is limited to those who believe. (Matthew 22:14) The Holy Spirit's conviction and drawing is what drags us to God. We do not come by our own will, which is utterly depraved and naturally hostile toward God.

 

In John 6:44 Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Clearly those who do come, come because they have been enabled to do so. Furthermore, Jesus continues in this verse to affirm that, He "will raise him up on the last day." There is no room in this passage to allow for the possibility that all who are enabled will make a decision to refuse the offer. Jesus has made that clear with His pronouncement in the second half of this verse. Moreover, to suggest that at this point those who are enabled to come can decide not to, is to destroy the natural reading of this verse. No, all those who come, are indeed only those who have been enabled to do so. And all those who are enabled to do so, are saved. That is grace with power to save; grace that is irresistible!

 

("enabled" here is to be understood as regenerated - in other words, born again yet not saved)

 

The bold above are just a few quotations from real life Calvinism on the will of man. It´s often called irresistible grace, the “I” in TULIP.

 

Following your OBservations, of a,b,and c, I am thinking you haven´t studied the writings of actual Calvinist sufficiently to suggest that I might be wrong on mine.

Irresistible grace denies man’s free will as it is attached to the total depravity of man.

Sadly, many Baptists are confused as to what the reformed doctrines actually teach. They are glossed over with false definitions.

For example, you seem to indicate that this Irresistible grace is merely a yielding to the goodness of God and eventually through God´s grace and mercy on the sinner, he (the sinner) succumbs to the call of the Holy Spirit. To which I would say, yes, that is how it really works.

Unfortunately that is far from what the actual doctrine teaches.

Follow me here. According to the reformed doctrines:

  1. The sinner is so totally depraved in nature, will and disposition that man is UNABLE to respond to the gospel call.
Therefore, God overpowers man´s will as the Holy Spirit draws the sinner to saving grace. In order to do that, the sinner is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, PRIOR to being saved. Thereby making salvation in reality a 2 step process instead of an instantaneous moment.

I am not misrepresenting anyone.

That´s why I tried to demonstrate the weakness of such a position by showing Moses as an example of man´s free will in his choice to serve or not.

 

I´m still not sure of what you are trying to say about man´s free will. But I am sure of this, there is no inconsistency in my understanding of the false teaching of reformed theology. Perhaps now, you can see why I posited Moses as an example to show the folly of the calvinsts position on man’s free will in salvation.

I think your option “a” is the correct scenario.

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hi Calvary. Since you say I haven't studied the writings of 'actual Calvinists' enough to understand their teachings, I'll lay out what I have done in the interests of sharing. About seven years ago, before I was saved, and when I first learned there was such a thing as Calvinism (the Baptist church I was being taken to by a friend was reformed and I did not know it until I read their declaration), I decided to read up on it. I found out about Institutes and knew that I would never get through it, so I did a bit of searching on the net for books that Calvinists themselves were recommending and the title that came up again and again was Loraine Boettner's 1932 book Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. So I bought it and I read it. And after I read it, I tested it by looking on the net to see what other Calvinists were saying about reformed theology and for the most part I found that the book agreed with what they were saying.
 
I believe the way I summarised reformed teaching on free will in my earlier post is consistent with what Boettner says about it and what I've OBserved others who say they are Calvinist claim. Example from Boettner:
 
"...we believe that, without destroying or impairing the free agency of men, God can exercise over them a particular providence and work in them through His Holy Spirit so that they will come to Christ and persevere in His service. We believe further that none have this will and desire except those whom God has previously made willing and desirous; and that He gives this will and desire to none but his own elect."
 
Example from the Westminster Confession:
 
"All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."
 
Now I just googled the three paragraphs you quoted above and the first two contain within those same paragraphs an affirmation that man is brought to a state where he freely chooses God (and it is all from one writing). Here are the ends of the first two paragraphs you quoted:
 
1. "He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."
 
2. "A dead person is lifeless and not able to do anything. If you wish to move a dead person without any assistance, from one end of a place to another you must drag him. That is exactly what the Holy Spirit has to do to sinners to bring them to salvation. The Holy Spirit regenerates the unregenerate by turning a spiritually dead will that is in rebellion against God to one that is spiritually alive and willingly accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord."
 
So I think the way I've defined Calvinist teaching on free will is consistent with one of the major reformed confessions, with a work that Calvinists 'on the ground' recommend (example) as a staple on the subject, and with the source you yourself decided to use in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Follow me here. According to the reformed doctrines:
  1. The sinner is so totally depraved in nature, will and disposition that man is UNABLE to respond to the gospel call.
  2. Therefore, God overpowers man´s will as the Holy Spirit draws the sinner to saving grace.
  3. In order to do that, the sinner is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, PRIOR to being saved. Thereby making salvation in reality a 2 step process instead of an instantaneous moment.

I am not misrepresenting anyone.

 

Sorry, forgot to respond to this bit and I'll keep it brief because my last post was long.

 

I would argue that you mischaracterise the Calvinist position in point (2). They claim that 'therefore' the drawing of the Holy Spirit changes man's inclinations so that he now freely chooses God, not that he ends up with no free will.

 

As for point 3, yeah I'd agree. 'Two step process' is a succinct way of putting it and brings out a distinctive of Calvinism, but the number of steps involved in the claimed process doesn't speak to whether it denies free will.

 

I tell you what would help me see your perspective: if you were to go to the source you just used, single out the bits that talk about man 'willingly' choosing (see my quotes), and tell me what you think your source is saying there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Welcome to the forum, Winman. Pleased to meet you.
 
I.M.O your argument above would be fine if Calvinism didn't teach that there was any manifest difference between a saved person and an unsaved person. But Calvinism does teach this, in exactly the same way that other Christians teach it. According to Calvinists, the elect will respond to the Gospel and the unelect won't and this will be made manifest by the changed lives of individuals. Therefore, the fact that Calvinists believe atonement is limited and also claim not to know who in a crowd is elect when they begin to preach is immaterial as to whether or not according to Calvinism an individual can know they are saved.
 


I guess a Calvinist would say that the context of 'our' is the saved Christians that Paul is talking to (if he is?), but even so, I agree with this point that a Calvinist can't honestly witness to an individual by telling them that Jesus died for their sins. I've always thought that a Calvinist soul winning is a bit like a secret agent at a train station. The secret agent walks around the platform saying to people 'have you seen the red and green lighter I dropped' not because he is actually looking for his lighter but because it is a secret signal that his anonymous rendezvous has been briefed to respond to. In the same way, a Calvinist will go around telling every individual that Jesus died to pay for their sins not because they believe that Jesus did die for the sins of those individuals but because they are hoping to illicit a response from the elect. Thus, the Gospel isn't a clear, frank message that can honestly be shared with anyone but instead is a secret message, the 'real' significance of which is only recognised by the intended targets. Might have the wrong idea but that's the impression I get. :-)

Thanks for the welcome, pleased to meet you as well. 

 

Oh, I agree that Calvinism teaches only the elect will "truly" believe, but John Calvin taught what is called "Evanescent Grace"

 

"Experience shows that the reprOBate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprOBate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent” (3.2.11, Institutes).

 

According to Calvin, God himself deceives some persons with a false faith that seems so real that they are convinced they are elect, only to fall away and be lost. 

 

So, the only assurance any Calvinist can have is to work and keep working to convince themselves they truly believe. It is a fact that Calvinists more than any other group suffer from lack of assurance as has been written of by John Piper, R.C. Sproul, and many other Reformed teachers. 

 

"It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.
 
Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance." C. Michael Patton, Doubting Calvinists
 
That last article was written by a well known Calvinist himself. He says that nearly every single person who has contacted him doubting their salvation is Calvinistic in their theology. 
 
If Limited Atonement is true, then no man can know for a certainty that Jesus died for him personally. Your faith could be completely vain, just as Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15. Unless Jesus died for all men, you have no definite promise to depend upon for salvation. 
 
And you are correct, Calvinists avoid telling anyone that Jesus died for their sins personally, because they cannot honestly say that if Limited Atonement is true. It MIGHT be true, but it could also be completely false. 
 
Calvinists try to compensate by saying Jesus died "for sinners", but this is only a half-truth if Limited Atonement is true. If Limited Atonement is true, the only honest thing you could tell any person is that Jesus died for "some sinners", but you have no way of knowing who those sinners are. 
 
How can anyone have faith in a complete uncertainty?  YOU CAN'T. 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hi Calvary. Since you say I haven't studied the writings of 'actual Calvinists' enough to understand their teachings, I'll lay out what I have done in the interests of sharing. About seven years ago, before I was saved, and when I first learned there was such a thing as Calvinism (the Baptist church I was being taken to by a friend was reformed and I did not know it until I read their declaration), I decided to read up on it. I found out about Institutes and knew that I would never get through it, so I did a bit of searching on the net for books that Calvinists themselves were recommending and the title that came up again and again was Loraine Boettner's 1932 book Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. So I bought it and I read it. And after I read it, I tested it by looking on the net to see what other Calvinists were saying about reformed theology and for the most part I found that the book agreed with what they were saying.
 
I believe the way I summarised reformed teaching on free will in my earlier post is consistent with what Boettner says about it and what I've OBserved others who say they are Calvinist claim. Example from Boettner:
 
"...we believe that, without destroying or impairing the free agency of men, God can exercise over them a particular providence and work in them through His Holy Spirit so that they will come to Christ and persevere in His service. We believe further that none have this will and desire except those whom God has previously made willing and desirous; and that He gives this will and desire to none but his own elect."
 
Example from the Westminster Confession:
 
"All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."
 
Now I just googled the three paragraphs you quoted above and the first two contain within those same paragraphs an affirmation that man is brought to a state where he freely chooses God (and it is all from one writing). Here are the ends of the first two paragraphs you quoted:
 
1. "He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."
 
2. "A dead person is lifeless and not able to do anything. If you wish to move a dead person without any assistance, from one end of a place to another you must drag him. That is exactly what the Holy Spirit has to do to sinners to bring them to salvation. The Holy Spirit regenerates the unregenerate by turning a spiritually dead will that is in rebellion against God to one that is spiritually alive and willingly accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord."
 
So I think the way I've defined Calvinist teaching on free will is consistent with one of the major reformed confessions, with a work that Calvinists 'on the ground' recommend (example) as a staple on the subject, and with the source you yourself decided to use in this discussion.

Following your OBservations, of a,b,and c, I am thinking you haven´t studied the writings of actual Calvinist sufficiently to suggest that I might be wrong on mine.

 

That´s what I said, brother, I did not say that you don´t understand them on your own. I am stating that my understanding of classic reformed theoloigy is right on the money.

 

You still seem to backpeddle a bit on what the true classic reformed doctrine teaches. Irresisitble grace is not a softening of the heart, a breaking down of the defenses of man´s free will - it is fact clearly believed by reformed theologians to be exactly what I presented it to be - a complete overpowering of the will, by a precursor regeneration that eeads to salvation - a process that the BIble nowhere teaches, niether by verse nor example.

 

Let´s try John Piper -

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

 

Thats exactñly what calvinism teaches. God´s grace is imposed upon the sinner as it is apparent that he has no free will to do the right thing, due to TOTAL DEPÄVITY. - in fact one cannot discuss the TULIP points or 5 pillars of reformed theology without crossing over the lines of each tenant as they all stand together or all fall by one being removed.

 

Again, John Piper -

Someone may say, "Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing." Our answer is: except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God. That is what it means to be "unable to submit to God." If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature [i.e born again]. If a person remains too hard hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given such a willing spirit. But to see this most persuasively we should look at the Scriptures

 

He ends by tying the IG to PofS, as one tenant can never stand alone.

 

John Piper understands classic calvinism perfectly and he presents the truest sense of the meaning of Irresistible grace - a grace that negates the free will of man, thereby requiring a "willing spirit" to be forced upon the unwilling reciepient of God´s grace. Irresisitible grace is only true if (and I say IF) Total depravity is true, as defined by calvinism.

 

The previous aticle I quoted, (and there really is no need to quote endless sources, that site is succint in presenting the clearest definition of reformed doctrine) continues to say, -

 

The Apostle John speaks of those for whom some would make the claim were drawn and yet refused this offer of grace. He says of them in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." As this passage indicates, one can appear to be a Christian, to be "of us," and not actually be as he seems. What is the one thing we learn from this passage? It is that genuinely born again people, drawn to Christ by the Father, never fall away. They remain. But those who refuse God's grace by turning from Him, no matter how authentic they may have appeared, prove that they were never truly born again to begin with.

 

Again, the IG cannot stand upon its own merits as it is dependent upon the "perserverance of the saints" (and that does not mean once saved always saved for a minute)

Exactly as the TD must have IG to lean upon, the PofS must be an outcropping of the IG, and on it goes., The 5 pillars are inter dependent, take one away, it all crumbles as the man made doctrine it is.

 

Your further quote of a source I presented does nothing to diminish the reality of the theological clap trap that the reformed doctrines comprise. It solidifies the nonsense.

 

God bless,

calvary

 

That my frind is pure theological hogwash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...