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.

Eve's Transgression?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

First, let me apologize for keeping this short. I'll not be quoting any scripture because of time constraints at the moment, and I hope I can explain quickly what I was wondering about.

Second...I've been thinking...  :hide:    :nuts:

I've often hear it preached (and I've preached it myself) that Eve twisted God's word by adding "neither should they touch" the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now, at the least, if God didn't say that, that would be lying...and therefore, it would have been a sin. Eve was deceived and in the transgression, but the Bible plainly states that sin entered because of Adam's sin.

We don't have every recorded word that God told them, so it is possible that God told them not to touch it also? Did Eve lie, or did her transgression happen only after all that the serpent told her?

Or, am I over-analyzing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
  • I have always believed that God told either Adam, or Eve, or both... Not to eat of the tree or even to touch it.

Wherefore, by one man's disobedience sin entered.  One man.  The sin was not until Adam disobeyed.  Yes, Eve ate first.  However the eyes of both were opened after they had both ate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

God told Adam in chapter 2 not to eat it.  In chapter 3 Eve says she was told not to touch it also.  Maybe Adam told his wife that he didn't even want her to touch it let alone eat it.  Anyway, how ever it went down, I still blame Adam.  When Eve ate she "gave also unto her husband with her" 3:6 it sounds like Adam was with Eve while the serpent was talking with her and Adam never should have allowed that. He was supposed to protect her.

edit:  thanks SFIC and Rosie, your replies were very thought provoking for me.  

 

Edited by robmac68
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

As far as scripture tells us, and beyond is only speculation, we know that God told Adam not to eat of the tree. However, we know, since his job was to tend to the garden, it would have had to extend to this tree, hence he would have to touch it from time to time. From here, all we can assume is that God told Adam, Adam told Eve. Perhaps, as was said above, she was told to stay away from it and he would tend to it, so this is the word she got-her disobedience was to her husband-wrong but not a sin, while Adam, following her into it, sinned, being the one told directly by God, thus, HE sinned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Okay...what I'm getting at is this...

If (as is commonly taught) Eve twisted God's word, that would be a sin (lying). She did say that God said for them not to touch it. Even if Adam is the one who told her not to touch it, she still attributes that command as coming from God; therefore, I can only assume that if she heard it from Adam, he must have told her that the command came from God. However, if she was truthful, it wasn't lying or sin.

The Bible does say that she was deceived and in the transgression (violation).

If she lied by saying that God said something that he didn't say, then that puts sin before the fall (the eating of the fruit). As I read the account in Genesis 3, the serpent's actual deception didn't start until AFTER Eve said they shouldn't eat or touch the fruit.

Am I still over-analyzing?  :nuts:

Edited to add: by putting what I did in bold letters, I was just emphasizing...not yelling at anyone. ;)

Edited by No Nicolaitans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Maybe this timeline will help with some analysis?

Gen 2:15 - God puts Adam in the Garden to dress it (serve in/labor) and keep it (keep/guard/observe)

Gen 2:17 - God tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil

Gen 2:21-25 - God creates Eve

Gen 3:1 - The serpent asks if God told them not to eat of every tree

Gen 3:2-3 - Eve says they can eat of every tree except the one and adds the requirement not to touch

At this point, there are 3 possibilities (as mentioned by several people above):

  1. God reiterated and expounded on the command after Eve was created
  2. Adam passed on the command and added that Eve shouldn't touch it. Eve relayed the command as she heard it.
  3. God reiterated or Adam passed on the original command without addition. Eve added the requirement when talking to the serpent.

Gen 3:6 - Eve takes the fruit, eat is, and gives it to Adam who also eats it.

The verse suggests that Adam was there during the encounter and he did not correct her. It is also one long sentence that lists events but does not necessarily specify time order. the entire phrase "with her; and he did eat" is actually one Hebrew word. I suppose then, it is also possible that they ate simultaneously.

Anything we come up with is obviously speculation, but it stands to reason that Eve making up the new rule not to touch on the fly is unlikely given Adam's lack of intervention or correction. Therefore, either God added or Adam added it, which means Eve did not knowingly twist God's Word. That would put the responsibility back on Adam then wouldn't it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well said Sword. You articulated my point better than I did. As far back as I can remember, I've never heard anyone teach or preach anything other than Eve twisted God's word and added to it. Which, after I thought about it...would put sin as happening before the Bible teaches that sin happened. I can't recall ever hearing anyone teach or preach that Eve didn't twist and add to God's word.

It's obvious from others in this thread that there are people who accept and believe the latter though.

I realize that it's still speculative to a point, but I think the Bible's "sin timeline" aids in giving credence to Eve not lying by twisting and adding to God's word.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Unless you hold to the Gap theory, in which case, Satan's sin brought death, not Adam's, despite clear scripture to the contrary. Sorry, just stirring the pot a little.

:stirthepot: ooooh boy...:runforhills:

What? So you both deny the Gap? I can prove from God's word that the gap is true...

Ezekiel 22:30
And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

 ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

 

What? So you both deny the Gap? I can prove from God's word that the gap is true...

Ezekiel 22:30
And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

 ;)

 

:huh:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just my "two cents."

I myself have never believed that Eve misrepresented God's Word on the matter.  If she had, then this falsehood would have been the first sin of humanity; and it would have been a sin of willful falsehood, not of deceived transgression (as 1 Timothy 2:14 reports concerning Eve's part "in the transgression").  

Now, the timeline of the creations, commandment, and temptation has been given already, as follows:

1.  The Lord God created Adam.
2.  The Lord God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden tree.
3.  The Lord God created Adam's wife, Eve.
4.  The Serpent, the Devil, tempted and deceived Eve.

However, I wish to bring forward a grammatical element in relation to this timeline, as follows:

1.  In Genesis 2:17 the Lord God delivered His commandment unto Adam, saying, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."  Herein the Lord God employed the pronoun "thou" three times.  This pronoun is a singular pronoun; therefore, in delivering this command the Lord God was only speaking to a single individual.  Even so, this would be appropriate in the context since Adam's wife Eve had not yet been created, such that the Lord God was indeed only speaking to Adam himself.  

2.  In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered her report of the Lord God's command, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  Herein Eve employed the pronoun "ye" three times.  This pronoun is a plural pronoun, indicating a command that was delivered by the Lord God Himself (as per the phrase, "God hath said") unto more than one person.  Since there is no indication within this context or within the Lord God's rebuke against Eve that she had falsely misrepresented God, and since there is no indication in 1 Timothy 2:13-15 that Eve had transgressed by speaking falsely, I would contend in accord with the plural pronouns that Eve employed that the Lord God reiterated His command unto Adam and Eve as a group sometime after Eve was created.  Furthermore, I would contend that Eve reported the Lord God's command with perfect accuracy.

Some thoughts to consider -- Did "the voice of the LORD God" regularly meet and walk with Adam and Eve "in the cool of the day"?  If He did, then there is a significant amount of communication between them that is not recorded in the Scriptures.  As such, is it likely that Eve was directly quoting out of that unrecorded communication?

Intriguing. I have to agree with your grammatical analysis. I also offer up that at this point Adam and Eve were married and were one flesh. Since the man is the head of the single body (1 Cor 11:3), it stands to reason Adam is the one ultimately responsible for the events that transpired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just my "two cents."

I myself have never believed that Eve misrepresented God's Word on the matter.  If she had, then this falsehood would have been the first sin of humanity; and it would have been a sin of willful falsehood, not of deceived transgression (as 1 Timothy 2:14 reports concerning Eve's part "in the transgression").  

Now, the timeline of the creations, commandment, and temptation has been given already, as follows:

1.  The Lord God created Adam.
2.  The Lord God commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden tree.
3.  The Lord God created Adam's wife, Eve.
4.  The Serpent, the Devil, tempted and deceived Eve.

However, I wish to bring forward a grammatical element in relation to this timeline, as follows:

1.  In Genesis 2:17 the Lord God delivered His commandment unto Adam, saying, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."  Herein the Lord God employed the pronoun "thou" three times.  This pronoun is a singular pronoun; therefore, in delivering this command the Lord God was only speaking to a single individual.  Even so, this would be appropriate in the context since Adam's wife Eve had not yet been created, such that the Lord God was indeed only speaking to Adam himself.  

2.  In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered her report of the Lord God's command, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  Herein Eve employed the pronoun "ye" three times.  This pronoun is a plural pronoun, indicating a command that was delivered by the Lord God Himself (as per the phrase, "God hath said") unto more than one person.  Since there is no indication within this context or within the Lord God's rebuke against Eve that she had falsely misrepresented God, and since there is no indication in 1 Timothy 2:13-15 that Eve had transgressed by speaking falsely, I would contend in accord with the plural pronouns that Eve employed that the Lord God reiterated His command unto Adam and Eve as a group sometime after Eve was created.  Furthermore, I would contend that Eve reported the Lord God's command with perfect accuracy.

Some thoughts to consider -- Did "the voice of the LORD God" regularly meet and walk with Adam and Eve "in the cool of the day"?  If He did, then there is a significant amount of communication between them that is not recorded in the Scriptures.  As such, is it likely that Eve was directly quoting out of that unrecorded communication?

Excellent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a lot of questions.  I always figured Eve disobeyed the command not to eat of the tree....she rebelled....deceived to do it, but she rebelled willfully.   Since nothing is said about exactly who told Eve whatever about eating of the tree, I always guessed that it was Adam who told her and maybe Adam embellished God's warning by saying "don't even touch it"  as if to say "don't even think about eating it."  There is nothing that indicates it was God who said not to touch the fruit, so I figured Adam added that in hope of keeping Eve in obedience in the matter.

Also, I would imagine God, Adam, and Eve talked volumes that are not recorded before the fall.  A few of those volumes would include the names of the animals given by Adam as God showed the creatures to Adam to see what Adam would call them.   Paul heard things when caught up to heaven that it is not lawful to speak, and I think that is the heavenly speech which we as sinners are not good enough to hear.  Maybe we'll get to hear them repeat it in heaven some day when there's no limit on time.

I suppose it's possible that God reiterated His command to Adam and Eve together, and added to that command that they were not to touch the fruit, but I think the part about touching was added by Adam or Eve, and it was not sin for them to add "do not touch"  because the addition would have been done in desire to strengthen their resolve to obey the command not to eat of the fruit....

Also, it was after they ate that there eyes were opened and they hid from God...not after they touched the fruit.  I think the part of touching the fruit was added by Adam and/or Eve.  God had not commanded them to refrain from adding verbal encouragements to his command to avoid falling to temptation, and that's all the "do not touch" addition was.

We as fallen sinners are directly commanded today to add nothing to or take nothing from God's word, but there was only one command recorded from God before the fall, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a danger in claiming to know facts in things that are speculative and not directly revealed in God's word.  I would not contend to be certain that God commanded Adam and Eve together and told both of them not to touch the fruit after it is recorded that He told Adam not to eat of it and said nothing then about touching the fruit.  I think God permitted Adam to add "do not touch" to His command regarding the forbidden fruit.  Adam wanted Eve to leave that stuff alone, not even to touch it let alone eat it.  It probably would have scared Adam half to death if he looked over his shoulder and saw Eve touching the fruit.  I think Adam looked at Eve as he was touching the fruit, knowing she was as good as dead and he had lost her, and the only way to remain with her would be to join her in rebellion and try to hide from God.  I don't believe there was any command from God regarding touching the fruit.  Adam's eyes were opened after he ate, not after he touched.  He could have put that fruit away where every tiny piece of it would have remained forever and God would have made him a new wife...but the new one would have done the same thing I guess.  God made man in His own image, then rested.  After God made woman, nobody ever rested again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me apologize for keeping this short. I'll not be quoting any scripture because of time constraints at the moment, and I hope I can explain quickly what I was wondering about.

Second...I've been thinking...  :hide:    :nuts:

I've often hear it preached (and I've preached it myself) that Eve twisted God's word by adding "neither should they touch" the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now, at the least, if God didn't say that, that would be lying...and therefore, it would have been a sin. Eve was deceived and in the transgression, but the Bible plainly states that sin entered because of Adam's sin.

We don't have every recorded word that God told them, so it is possible that God told them not to touch it also? Did Eve lie, or did her transgression happen only after all that the serpent told her?

Or, am I over-analyzing?

I liked this because you asked if you are over-analyzing.  As long as you stay within the boundaries of the written word of God, you won't be over-analyzing.  I applaud you for asking good hard questions.  God wants us to know Him, and we won't know if we don't ask when we have questions.  I tend to analyze things much more than it's worth sometimes, but I still ask the hard questions when a concept in the Bible seems hard to grasp......there are a couple things I still wrestle with trying to analyze so I can feel I have a competent grip to communicate God's character when people raise questions about or against God, but I don't want to derail your thread with my questions and opinions  on those topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...