Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Why King James Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

Brother John why did they not use the TR for the NKJV? 

The NKJV was sort of a hybrid bible. The original intent was to update the KJV and to show the N-A variations but several areas they directly changed the reading to reflect the N-A preferred reading rater then sticking with just updating the passage. Also the biggest issue with the NKJV is not the text but rather the N-A marginal notes. Everywhere the KJV differs from the preferred N-A reading they placed a note indicating what the the "better translation" was or where they think a scribe added a verse they would say "this verse does not appear in the best manuscripts", or etc. The manuscripts they claim are better are ones ignored by the TR composers and the KJV Translators because those manuscripts were of questionable origin and authenticity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am of the opinion that, although the Sin. and Alex. manuscripts may be pretty old (which is very questionable), I think the reason they were not used by the 'right' translators is - they didn't know about them.

Those manuscripts were never used by any group claiming to be Christians, so what would make us think Christians would use them?

There were plenty of 'alternate translations' amongst the good manuscripts for the translators to deal with.

Just leaf through a 1611 printing and you will see well over a 1000 alternate translations in the gloss.

These guys had quite the job in ascertaining which 'wording' to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Now with the NKJV - there are plenty of textual differences. But it has been years since I  studied that out and I currently don't have the documentation handy, just my memory right now, but one verse problem was with them calling Jesus Christ a servant in Acts 4:27 & 30.

Geneva - Son

King James - child

NKJV - servant

Interesting changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The  Nestle Aland or whatever it's called today is based on the fraudulent Textus Sinaiticus.  This was created by Tischendorf in the 1840s.  The ink it was written on has been dated to that timeframe even.  The LXX Septuagint was also created out of thin air and is a fraud.  It's only proof for existence is a letter and that too is bogus.

 

So, I use the King James Bible today because it is God's preserved Word in the English language and is inerrant and perfect in every way.  Everything else is is either based on the lies of the Sinaiticus/Latin Vulgate or was lacking perfection like the Geneva bible.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/15/2016 at 3:33 PM, swathdiver said:

 or was lacking perfection like the Geneva bible.      

Reading the Chick Publications 'false' story on the reason for the KJB in English speaking nations is quite the eye opener.

Did you know there were NO English Bibles before the KJB that were available to the common person? Even though England and Scotland were already christian nations because the Geneva Bible, the word of God, was preached and taught, not only in the pulpits but in the home - and people and families already knew the word of God because they owned copies of the Geneva Bible.

Pointing out the translators deaths were if 'suspicious' events because they were chosen of God to do the translation has no evidence at all.

He says as much.

He is very 'off kilter' when it comes to accuracy. 

Did you know there was a Catholic conspiracy to get the Apocryphal books in the hands of the people?

He says as much.

The most widely used and read Bible before the KJB was the Geneva Bible. And every version before the KJB had the apocryphal books. No big conspiracy.

It took almost 70 years for the KJB to overtake the Geneva Bible. It was not an immediate acceptance like some will teach. 

So on that thoughtline, just because you have an opinion that the Geneva Bible is "imperfect" - that has zero evidence also.

Just like Jack Chicks little booklet - statements made without evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
47 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The most widely used and read Bible before the KJB was the Geneva Bible. And every version before the KJB had the apocryphal books. No big conspiracy.

It took almost 70 years for the KJB to overtake the Geneva Bible. It was not an immediate acceptance like some will teach. 

I believe you're quite correct.  I have in my possession and like my Geneva Bible.  However, the Holy Spirit continued to direct me to God's PERFECT and preserved Word in the English, the King James Bible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, swathdiver said:

I believe you're quite correct.  I have in my possession and like my Geneva Bible.  However, the Holy Spirit continued to direct me to God's PERFECT and preserved Word in the English...

Ditto.

On 5/15/2016 at 3:33 PM, swathdiver said:

lacking perfection like the Geneva bible.      

You could also p.m. me some "lacking perfection" information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 3:34 PM, Genevanpreacher said:

I am of the opinion that, although the Sin. and Alex. manuscripts may be pretty old (which is very questionable), I think the reason they were not used by the 'right' translators is - they didn't know about them.

Those manuscripts were never used by any group claiming to be Christians, so what would make us think Christians would use them?

There were plenty of 'alternate translations' amongst the good manuscripts for the translators to deal with.

Just leaf through a 1611 printing and you will see well over a 1000 alternate translations in the gloss.

These guys had quite the job in ascertaining which 'wording' to use.

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/24/2016 at 9:47 AM, Ukulelemike said:

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

I can't find any source material online about Tyndale knowing about Vaticanus. Do you have a source I can look into?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/24/2016 at 9:47 AM, Ukulelemike said:

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

Yes, Big T didn't 'discover' it.

This link says as much -

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_vaticanus.html/

Big difference in time there - 1481 to Big T's time of 1844.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_sinaiticus.html/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plustwo heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

Wow, I thought junk like that only happened in modern times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plustwo heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

Wow, I thought junk like that only happened in modern times.

Our pastor has got into some of the false garbage which began to be taught even during the time of the Apostles. Over the course of history these false teachings keep coming back up again and again. The devil attacked quickly and hasn't relented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/24/2016 at 9:47 AM, Ukulelemike said:

to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink.

This statement runs counter to my earlier statement.  Yours is correct.  I confused the testing of the ink with MS 2427 (Archaic Mark), which was tested and found to date no earlier than the 1700s.  Nestle's 28th edition Greek NT is based almost entirely (for the book of Mark) on this fraudulent work.

As early as last year the Sinaiticus was to be tested and it was cancelled.  Doing so would put a billion dollar industry of the devil's at risk.  Now that we can see it online, it's quite easy to tell that this is a fraud, for God is not the author of confusion.  None of my teachers would have accepted this garbage as even a rough draft, it's that sloppy and poorly written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/30/2016 at 1:02 PM, MountainChristian said:

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plustwo heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

Wow, I thought junk like that only happened in modern times.

So is there some proof that the English Bibles of the 1500's and 1600's knew about such a text? They all had these same books in them.

The KJB did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And - so what!

What if it was dated and found to be as old as the hills?

Does that really mean anything?

No.

What is wrong is wrong.

Period.

Don't know why I am doubling posts.

Sorry folks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well many of the gnostic books were written in the third-fifth centuries, so they have antiquity. But as you say, age isn't the point. In fact, contrary to the critical position, greater age can be a negative because it means no one found it good enough to use, so it remained intact far longer than it would if it was good and used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I do find it interesting that when it comes to Christianity they claim the older texts have to be viewed as the most accurate and most reliable, yet for other works these days it's often pointed out early printings often have errors that were corrected in later printings.

An annoying factor is those people, especially prevalent online, who love to post pithy statements claiming the KJB is full of errors, that there are thousands of ancient copies of the Bible and none of them agree with one another, that Christianity has no factual basis. Then people flood in to "like" or post supporting comments to these. Never mind anti-Bible posting contained no factual basis of support.

There is no simple pithy response that would even be considered and no way to put forth a factual response without a large posting. Thus, the anti-Bible postings most often go unchallenged and more and more people believe such lies or have the lies they already believe reinforced.

Sorry, not really sure why that came to mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • 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...