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.

Pet Peeves


2bLikeJesus

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am certainly not a grammar major either ( I just misspelled grammar.  Thank you spell check).

I use the word because when I write a post or a comment in a post I am writing the post to anybody and everybody who might read the post.  It is a habit I picked up from reading a lot of old and very old books.  Maybe I am just an old relic from the distant past. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

When one utilizes the word 'one' in one's writing, one must be cautious lest one's penchant for 'one' become excessive or, worse yet, decline into one's exaltation of one's literary prowess which really is not as keen as one may perceive, notwithstanding, there is a proper "time and place" for one's inclination for 'one' and yet can be as obnoxious in its misdirected use as can an excess of commas, which should be avoided, or the common, but still incorrect, writing of run-on sentences.

 

 

I would say, "I couldn't help it", but I'd be lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When one utilizes the word 'one' in one's writing, one must be cautious lest one's penchant for 'one' become excessive or, worse yet, decline into one's exaltation of one's literary prowess which really is not as keen as one may perceive, notwithstanding, there is a proper "time and place" for one's inclination for 'one' and yet can be as obnoxious in its misdirected use as can an excess of commas, which should be avoided, or the common, but still incorrect, writing of run-on sentences.

 

 

I would say, "I couldn't help it", but I'd be lying.

​I guess since my literary prowess is not excellent as some others, possibly I should refrain from using "one", however I don't know any better.  Here is another persons ideas on the use of "one".  Probably not he best source in the world but here it is:

One (pronoun)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

One is a pronoun in the English language. It is a gender-neutralindefinite pronoun, meaning roughly "a person". For purposes of verb agreement it is a third-person singular pronoun, although it is sometimes used with first- or second-person reference. It is more or less equivalent to the French pronoun on, the German man, and the Spanish uno. It has the possessive form one's and the reflexive form oneself.

The pronoun one has quite formal connotations (particularly in American English[1]), and is often avoided in favor of more colloquial alternatives such as generic you.

The word one as a numeral can also be put to use as a pronoun, as in one was clean and the other was dirty, and can form pronominal phrases in combination with another determiner, such as the onethis onemy one, etc. (see prop-word). This article, however, concerns the use of one as an indefinite pronoun as described in the preceding paragraphs.

 

 

Etymology[edit]

One may have come into use as an imitation of French on.[2] French on derives from Latin homo, nominative singular for human, through Old French hom[me]. It is distinct from the French word for the numeral one, un(e).

Forms and usage[edit]

One may be used as the subject of a verb, but (unlike French on and German man) it can also be used in other grammatical positions. It occurs most commonly in general statements, which are true of any person, not of any specified person. It may nonetheless sometimes be used with the intention that it be construed as referring to the speaker (as in the case of the "royal one" described below), or as referring to the listener. (The latter type of usage is not so frequent with the English one as with the French on, for example.)

Examples of its use:

  • As grammatical subject:
    • One cannot help but grow older.
    • If one were to fail, that would be unfortunate.
  • As verbal object:
    • Drunkenness makes one unreliable.
  • As the complement of a preposition:
    • A reputation travels with one.
  • As an indirect object:
    • That dead-end job at least gives one a chance to develop as a person.

Notice that unlike some personal pronouns (I/mehe/him, etc.) the form of one is unchanged depending on whether it is used as a subject or object. It has a possessive form, namely one's, as in:

  • One's experiences shape one's expectations.

Unlike the possessive forms of the personal pronouns (itshers, etc.), one's is written with the apostrophe. There is no second form analogous to hersyoursmine, etc. for use without a following noun, and in fact one's is not normally used in that position (such sentences as one's is brokenI sat on one'sI broke one's, etc. are not standard English).

There is also a reflexive form of one, namely oneself, for example:

  • To quit smoking is like giving oneself a raise.

This must refer back to one, not to any other subject (a sentence such as one exhausts oneself is correct, but a person exhausts oneself is not).

Royal one[edit]

Monarchs, and today particularly Queen Elizabeth II, are often depicted as using one as a first-person pronoun. This is frequently done as a form of caricature.[3] For example, the headline "One is not amused"[4] is attributed humorously to the Queen, and also makes reference to Queen Victoria's supposed statement "We are not amused", which in turn contains the royal we.

Alternatives[edit]

For repeated one[edit]

In formal English, once the indefinite pronoun one is used, the same pronoun (or its supplementary forms one'soneself) must continue to be used consistently – it is not considered correct to replace it with another pronoun such as he or she. For example:

  • One can glean from this whatever one may.
  • If one were to look at oneselfone's impression would be...

However, some speakers find this usage overly formal and stilted, and do replace repeated occurrences of one with a personal pronoun, most commonly the generic he:

  • One can glean from this whatever he may.
  • If one were to look at himselfhis impression would be...

Another reason for inserting a third-person pronoun in this way may sometimes be to underline that one is not intended to be understood as referring particularly to the listener or to the speaker. A problem with the generic he, however, is that it may not be viewed asgender-neutral; this may sometimes be avoided by using singular they instead, although this is in itself viewed as ungrammatical by many purists (particularly when the question arises of whether its reflexive form should be themselves or themself).

Examples are also found, particularly in the spoken language, where a speaker switches mid-sentence from the use of one to the generic you (its informal equivalent, as described in the following section). This type of inconsistency is strongly criticized by language purists.[5]

For one in general[edit]

A common and less formal alternative to the indefinite pronoun one is generic you, used to mean not the listener specifically, but people in general.

  • One needs to provide food for oneself and one's family. (formal)
  • You need to provide food for yourself and your family. (informal if used with the meaning of the above sentence)

Other techniques that can be used to avoid the use of one, in contexts where it seems over-formal, include use of the passive voice, pluralizing the sentence (so as to talk about "people", for example), use of other indefinite pronouns such as someone or phrases like "a person" or "a man", and other forms of circumlocution.

Occasionally, the pronoun one as considered here may be avoided so as to avoid ambiguity with other uses of the word one. For example, in the sentence If one enters two names, one will be rejected, the second one may refer either to the person entering the names, or to one of the names.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ "The Uses of One"Guide to Grammar and Writing. Retrieved 15 May 2014.
  2. Jump up^ "One", entry in The Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, edited by John Simpson and Edmund Weiner, Clarendon Press, 1989, twenty volumes, hardcover, ISBN 0-19-861186-2.
  3. Jump up^ Emilia Di Martino, Monica Pavani, "Common and Uncommon Readers: Communication among Translators and Translation Critics at Different Moments of the Text’s Life". In Authorial and Editorial Voices in Translation 1: Collaborative Relationships between Authors, Translators, and Performers, Hanne Jansen and Anna Wegener (eds.), Montréal: Éditions québécoises de l’œuvre, collection Vita Traductiva, 2013.
  4. Jump up^ "One is not amused", metro.co.uk, 25 October 2014.
  5. Jump up^ Katie Wales, Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English, CUP 1996, p. 81.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​I guess since my literary prowess is not excellent as some others, possibly I should refrain from using "one", however I don't know any better.

Another reason for inserting a third-person pronoun in this way may sometimes be to underline that one is not intended to be understood as referring particularly to the listener or to the speaker. 

 

​Your literary prowess is no better or worse than the rest of us. It's only a pet peeve on my part, I'll have to deal with it:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I heard a preacher on the radio early this morning which reminded me of another pet peeve. The preacher kept adding an "s", making plural what should be singular when referring to a Psalm or the Book of Revelation.

He would say, "Let us look at Psalms 19", "Then in the Book of Revelations".

Not a major thing, yet a pet peeve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I heard a preacher on the radio early this morning which reminded me of another pet peeve. The preacher kept adding an "s", making plural what should be singular when referring to a Psalm or the Book of Revelation.

He would say, "Let us look at Psalms 19", "Then in the Book of Revelations".

Not a major thing, yet a pet peeve.

​John, I can't say I have noticed the one about "Psalms", but I have noticed it about "Revelations". This seems to be a very common mistake and I think it is due to the mispronunciation being so ingrained in our churches. People have heard it pronounced that way for so long that they don't even think about it.

 

I can't say it is a pet peeve of mine, but it is very noticeable and incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​John, I can't say I have noticed the one about "Psalms", but I have noticed it about "Revelations". This seems to be a very common mistake and I think it is due to the mispronunciation being so ingrained in our churches. People have heard it pronounced that way for so long that they don't even think about it.

 

I can't say it is a pet peeve of mine, but it is very noticeable and incorrect.

​I agree, it seems to be one of those things that's spread by so much common misuse. Few actually read the name of the book and think about it, they just know "Revelations" is the last book.

"Revelations" is the one I hear most often. References to "Psalms" when referring to one particular Psalm isn't, in my experience, as common, but it was brought to mind this morning from that preacher on the radio who kept saying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Pet Peeve:  People that when you lend them something to use for a day or two, you have to hunt them down months later to get the item back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A pet peeve to go along with Jim's is:

Reading a comment by a professing Christian taking on an anti-Christian online and their postings are so filled with wrongful use of words (your when it should be you're; for example) that their credibility is instantly lost and no matter the substance of their (not there!) position their poor vocabulary becomes the point of attack against "uneducated, backward Christians".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

4-way Stops (right of way) The car to the right always has the right of way.

I arrive at the same time as the person on my right. The other motorist is supposed to move through the intersection first. I look over after a few seconds and the person is motioning me to proceed through. Why don't people just obey the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Pet peeve:  Men who give you the limp dead fish for a handshake and won't look you in the eye when they are doing it.  Grab my hand like a man...don't try to squeeze it off, but at least make it a FIRM handshake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

4-way Stops (right of way) The car to the right always has the right of way.

I arrive at the same time as the person on my right. The other motorist is supposed to move through the intersection first. I look over after a few seconds and the person is motioning me to proceed through. Why don't people just obey the law?

​In one small city close to here if two or more people show up at a 4-way they tend to all sit and look at each other. Knowing this, if I'm one of them I look towards the one with the right of way and if he doesn't proceed, I go and let the rest figure out how to get on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Pet peeve:  Men who give you the limp dead fish for a handshake and won't look you in the eye when they are doing it.  Grab my hand like a man...don't try to squeeze it off, but at least make it a FIRM handshake!

​Agreed! It also makes it difficult when shaking hands because when you grasp the weakly offered hand it feels as if you are gripping them harder than you actually are and often they look at you as if there is something wrong with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Pet peeve:  Truckers who get into the left lane of a two lane highway to pass another trucker that is going 1/2 mile per hour slower than them up the hill.  He is going 35 1/2 miles per hour instead of 35 in the 65 mph zone.  5 minutes later he finally passes and moves back over to the right and releases the mile long line that was stuck behind him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

​In one small city close to here if two or more people show up at a 4-way they tend to all sit and look at each other. Knowing this, if I'm one of them I look towards the one with the right of way and if he doesn't proceed, I go and let the rest figure out how to get on.

​He who hesitates is last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Pet peeve:  Truckers who get into the left lane of a two lane highway to pass another trucker that is going 1/2 mile per hour slower than them up the hill.  He is going 35 1/2 miles per hour instead of 35 in the 65 mph zone.  5 minutes later he finally passes and moves back over to the right and releases the mile long line that was stuck behind him.  

​As an ex OTR trucker I think my two biggest pet peeves while driving would be the four wheelers who don't know how to merge into traffic on an interstate.  Then there are the four wheelers who don't seem to understand what a slow down lane on an off ramp is for and start slowing to 40 or 45 while still on the interstate traffic lane.  Both are traffic hazards and lucky if they reach old age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That raises another pet peeve: Those who don't seem to know what turn lanes are for or how to properly use them.

It seems many folks will decide they are going to turn, some may even turn their signal light on but not all, and they begin slowing down in the drive lane and remain in the drive lane until right before they get to their turn when they hastily move into the turn lane...sometimes cutting off those who have rightly pulled into the turn lane when they should have.

There are also those who will pull out from a business or side road into the turn lane and then proceed to drive down the turn lane until they finally manage to merge into the driving lane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Thumb's Up
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
  • 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...