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.

Original Sin/the Sin Nature


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Winman,

 

Why keep this up? Can't you understand that not everyone is looking to argue or debate? Had I a view to put forth I would have done so. As I clearly stated before, this is a topic I had not previously given any consideration. Therefore, I read with interest the postings here. Then I consulted Scripture. As I previously pointed out, your theory fell short and others have already posted the scriptural evidence of this. Scripturally speaking, the debate is over.

 

My only purpose in posting my original post was to let folks know that while I hadn't been participating, I had been reading and studying. Then I stated my conclusion. Simple as that. Other than prodding for someone to argue with, I don't know why can't accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is funny, John, that Winman says your mind is made up,  when it is quite OBvious that his mind is made up. 

You are right.  arguing is futile.

What he presents here on OB is not a Baptist doctrine.

 

The difference is that I have presented dozens of scriptures and went into great detail as to how I interpret them to explain my views. You or anyone else can then respond and explain to me why I am wrong, but no one has. 

 

John 81 on the other hand just makes a blank statement like "scripture refutes you". Is that an argument?

 

If you really believe scripture supports Original Sin, show it. People here have presented Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3 and I have answered why I believe these verses do not prove Original Sin. 

 

Does Psalm 51:5 say all men are born sinners? Nope, it says "I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me". This is the type of Hebrew poetry where each phrase is saying the same thing. This verse is simply saying that David's mother was sinning when he was conceived. It doesn't tell us exactly what she was doing, but she was doing something wrong. But it is not saying all men are born sinners, that is a ridiculous interpretation of this verse. 

 

Is Psalm 58:3 saying all men are born sinners? Nope, it is speaking of the "wicked" only. In the same Psalm David speaks of "the righteous". So, he is not saying all men are born speaking lies, but the wicked only. But the trouble is, the whole Psalm is OBvious figurative speech and exaggeration. There has NEVER been a baby born that can speak lies the moment he came out of the womb. Babies are not poisonous like snakes, they do not have huge teeth like lions, and they do not melt like snails. 

 

So Psalm 58:3 is utterly ridiculous scripture to form doctrine on. That was never it's intent. It is OBviously figurative and hyperbole, and should not be taken literally. 

 

See, this is how you answer your opponents in debate. You don't just say "you are wrong", you tell WHY they are wrong. 

 

None of you have done that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Why so much negativity?

 

Where I'm from a simple wave good-bye is just that; simply a wave good-bye. No attempt to make fun.

 

In order to be even more clear, good-bye :wave: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why so much negativity?

 

Where I'm from a simple wave good-bye is just that; simply a wave good-bye. No attempt to make fun.

 

In order to be even more clear, good-bye :wave:

 

What makes you think I'm being negative?

 

Gmay1Q.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to understand why BB BANNED YOU.

 

They only banned me for a month, because as much as they hate me, I make them think. And I will make you think too. 

 

But if you do not seriously want to learn, I can be MORE inane than you. 

 

cmLdiS.gif

 

I don't understand why folks get mad when I imitate them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

didn't Jesus say he laid down his life and he would take it up again?

 

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am not embracing the position Winman holds, but he is being more intellectually honest and treating the scriptures fairly. Those of you railing on him have a hint of pride and arrogance in the way you are talking.

 

At least he is trying to contend for what he believes is the truth, while many of you are sitting here like cowards not defending a doctrine you believe to be true, We are suppose to contend for the faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Saying you are wrong and the scriptures prove it, is not how you defend truth, you defend truth by quoting scripture and explaining it.

 

What you are all doing would be like if I started posting and saying Baptizing babies is ok, and if I then quote a scripture saying how that a household was baptized, then you would debunk me and I would just say SCRIPTURE SAYS YOU ARE WRONG.

 

This is exactly what many of you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Winman, If the bible says there is none righteous, no not one, Than if we are not born with original sin and a sin nature, than doesn't that mean there is a time period in a Child's life where they are righteous because they have not yet sinned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Winman, If the bible says there is none righteous, no not one, Than if we are not born with original sin and a sin nature, than doesn't that mean there is a time period in a Child's life where they are righteous because they have not yet sinned?

You do realize that there had to have been infants on the Earth at the time that the statement was made, "There is none righteous, no, not one" don't you?  Blows a hole in the theory that infants are righteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Saying you are wrong and the scriptures prove it, is not how you defend truth, you defend truth by quoting scripture and explaining it.

What you are all doing would be like if I started posting and saying Baptizing babies is ok, and if I then quote a scripture saying how that a household was baptized, then you would debunk me and I would just say SCRIPTURE SAYS YOU ARE WRONG.

This is exactly what many of you are doing.

All John did was say that he had read Winman's posts but still wasn't convinced. This is a fellowship/discussion forum, not a debate forum, so there's not onus on him to write a treastise on it in response. If you want a formal debate you should go to Bro Matt and asked him to consider it for the debate section he is thinking about setting up. As it is, anyone is free to drop in and express their thoughts on the OP, whether it's a rebuttal or just a remark.

 

For example, here's some one-line comments from someone who's hardly been given to substantive responses in this thread, and there's nothing wrong with that:
 

I find this to be the most convincing in favor of the doctrine of original sin/ the sin nature.

 

Well, that just answered the questions I was having with how you rendered those verses. It's very compelling. I will have to think upon this

 

I find this to be a compelling argument for Original Sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winman, If the bible says there is none righteous, no not one, Than if we are not born with original sin and a sin nature, than doesn't that mean there is a time period in a Child's life where they are righteous because they have not yet sinned?

 

Fantastic question Jordan, and I will answer it. The scriptures are not addressed to children, the scriptures are addressed to MEN. The Jews understood this, and still do. The Jews do not hold children accountable to the law until they are 13 years old (males) and 12 years old (females). This is called the Bar Mitzvah (boys), and Bat Mitzvah (girls). These words literally mean "son of the commandments" and "daughter of the commandments".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_and_Bat_Mitzvah

 

This is exactly what Paul is describing in Romans 7, when he learned the law as a young man (pre-teen). Paul said he would not have "known sin" except for the law, he would have not "known" what lust is, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet (10th commandment). 

 

Paul said he was ALIVE ONCE without the law, but when the commandment came (when he learned and understood the law), sin revived and he DIED. Paul cannot possibly be saying he physically died, so he was not saying he was physically alive either. Paul is saying he was spiritually alive, but when the learned the law he was convicted by the law as a sinner, and this is when he died. He died when he understood God's law. 

 

Rom 5:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
 
All sorts of folks have perverted this very simple and straightforward passage. In vs. 7 Paul simply explains how the law gave him KNOWLEDGE. 
It is the knowledge of good and evil that makes us accountable. 
 
But sin uses the law against us and convicts us of all sorts of sin. This is what Paul is saying in vs. 8. Sin has no power without law, but as soon as we learn the law and break it, we are "sold to sin" (vs 14). Now sin owns us and has power over us. 
 
But until Paul learned the law he was spiritually ALIVE. He was not born dead in sin as Original Sin falsely teaches. He was ALIVE. Plain as day. 
 
But when he learned the law, sinned revived and he DIED. That is spiritual death. Paul thought the law would lead to life, but sin took advantage of the law and used it against him to KILL him. 
 
Plain as day, but many have perverted this simple passage. 
 
Little children are not judged sinners. Jesus spoke only GOOD of little children. Jesus told his disciples they had to be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. 
 
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
 
Was Jesus telling his disciples they must become evil little sinners to enter heaven? Absurd!
 
Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
 
Is Jesus telling us that God gives little wicked sinners guardian angels? Ridiculous!
 
No, the scriptures show children are innocent, God does not judge them as sinners until they learn the law like Paul did in Romans 7. When they know and understand the law, then they become accountable and will DIE spiritually when they choose to sin. 
 
When the scriptures say, For ALL have sinned, it is speaking of MEN not babies and very little children. The Jews understood this (and still do). 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that there had to have been infants on the Earth at the time that the statement was made, "There is none righteous, no, not one" don't you?  Blows a hole in the theory that infants are righteous.

 

And you are mistaken, Jesus told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. Nothing defiled is allowed to enter heaven, so OBviously little children are not defiled. 

 

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
 
Is Jesus telling his disciples they need to become filthy sinners to enter heaven? Absurd!
 
Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
 
The scriptures say no defiled thing will enter heaven. But Jesus said you must become converted and become as a little child to enter heaven. Therefore, simple logic dictates that little children are not defiled. 
 
And did Jesus say we must become as a certain or particular child to enter heaven? No, he simply said we must be converted and become as "little children" to enter heaven. Therefore, all little children are innocent and not sinners. 
 
Original Sin is complete falsehood. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All John did was say that he had read Winman's posts but still wasn't convinced. This is a fellowship/discussion forum, not a debate forum, so there's not onus on him to write a treastise on it in response. If you want a formal debate you should go to Bro Matt and asked him to consider it for the debate section he is thinking about setting up. As it is, anyone is free to drop in and express their thoughts on the OP, whether it's a rebuttal or just a remark.

 

For example, here's some one-line comments from someone who's hardly been given to substantive responses in this thread, and there's nothing wrong with that:
 

 

Yes, but if a person says, "Scripture refutes you" it is only fair that you at the least show what scripture you are referring to. That gives the other person a chance to respond. 

 

It is fine to say you agree with someone's post. You do not have to show scripture, the other person did. You are agreeing with that scripture and that person's interpretation of that scripture. 

 

But to simply say, "You are wrong, and scripture proves it" is meaningless. If you can't say something meaningful, you shouldn't say anything at all. 

 

I will respond to any scripture anyone posts here, and I guarantee you that I can show it does not support Original Sin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

And you are mistaken, Jesus told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. Nothing defiled is allowed to enter heaven, so OBviously little children are not defiled. 

 

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
 
Is Jesus telling his disciples they need to become filthy sinners to enter heaven? Absurd!
 
Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
 
The scriptures say no defiled thing will enter heaven. But Jesus said you must become converted and become as a little child to enter heaven. Therefore, simple logic dictates that little children are not defiled. 
 
And did Jesus say we must become as a certain or particular child to enter heaven? No, he simply said we must be converted and become as "little children" to enter heaven. Therefore, all little children are innocent and not sinners. 
 
Original Sin is complete falsehood. 

 

Nice misapplication of Scripture, Winman.

Be converted and become as little children was not speaking of becoming like infants. 

Tell us, where is this fountain of youth you have received your reverse-age process from?  It clearly has fermented and addled your understanding capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

  • 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...