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.

The King James Version attacked from with in


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My only concern with Greek and Hebrew (more so Greek) is, can I trust that the source from which I get my Greek definitions is correct, or has it been tampered with. Most of the time, the Bible will explain the meaning of a word (thus the purpose of a word study) and when it isn't clear, or only mentioned once, I use the Webster's 1828 dictionary which, although it is not perfect and infallible, is usually spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Depends on the dictionary but I'd say they're about as reliable as Webster's 1828 (which I also use regularly btw) or Oxford English Dictionary. As the Webster 1828 aptly demonstrates, any dictionary is a snapshot in time due to definitional drift; but I believe there are some that are quite accurate to Koine Greek usage in/around the 1st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Depends on the dictionary but I'd say they're about as reliable as Webster's 1828 (which I also use regularly btw) or Oxford English Dictionary. As the Webster 1828 aptly demonstrates, any dictionary is a snapshot in time due to definitional drift; but I believe there are some that are quite accurate to Koine Greek usage in/around the 1st century.

Which Greek dictionary would you recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Which Greek dictionary would you recommend?

I usually consult the BDAG (ISBN: 978-0-2260-3933-6) or ALGNT (ISBN: 978-1-4120-5654-0). Thayer's is ok, but not my favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Once in a while I look at meanings of the Greek and get a little confused as to the reason a particular word was used, but I don't argue the validity of the word, it just drives me to look a little deeper as to why it might have been used.

For instance. we were just going through Rev 16 last Sunday, and it speaks of the noisome, grievous sore that would be the result of the first vial of wrath. I looked at the Strongs and I find that a majority of the times its used, it is translated 'evil', or 'troublesome'. This is the only use of 'noisome'. So it got me wondering why, how a wound could be noisome.

Now, I am kind of, of the opinion that the implantable microchip could either be the mark, or a precursor to the mark. After all, if you won't be able to buy or sell, what better way to control that than to have everyone have a chip implanted in their hand or forehead with all their bank info, and accept nothing else? Well, the current microchip is powered by a lithium battery encased in glass-if it was to burst, it would cause a terrible wound, infected with lithium, radioactive, and glass. And it would probably make a 'POP!" when it did. So it IS possible to have a noisome, grievous wound with such a thing.  Doesn't have to be that, but it shows how it is quite possible and probable, at least in this scenario.

The term and definition of "noisome" has nothing to do with sound.  

noisome

 

 

[noi-suh m] 
 
adjective
1.
offensive or disgusting, as an odor.
2.
harmful or injurious to health; noxious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Question: What is this verse in the Greek:

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Answer:

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Problem is the TR wasn't written in modern Greek, it was written in ancient Greek (which changed constantly hence the saying "it is greek to me") of which there is no lexicon

So why do y'all keep bringing up this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually, it reads:

the heaven and the earth shall be passing the yet words of me not no may be passing

The problem is the KJV wasn't written in modern English, it was written in Elizabethan English (which was changed constantly in the last 400 years) of which there is no dictionary (Webster 1828 is close, but there was a lot of change between 1611 and 1828).

I refuse to get sucked into this conversation again, so I'll just go ahead and say "Agree to disagree."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually, it reads:

the heaven and the earth shall be passing the yet words of me not no may be passing

The problem is the KJV wasn't written in modern English, it was written in Elizabethan English (which was changed constantly in the last 400 years) of which there is no dictionary (Webster 1828 is close, but there was a lot of change between 1611 and 1828).

I refuse to get sucked into this conversation again, so I'll just go ahead and say "Agree to disagree."

I don't recall any argument?

The English has not changed apart for local names of fruit or towns, etc. The thorough structure of thought has diminished but the language can certainly be understood without a dictionary, capeesh? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The term and definition of "noisome" has nothing to do with sound.  

noisome

 

 

[noi-suh m] 
 
adjective
1.
offensive or disgusting, as an odor.
2.
harmful or injurious to health; noxious.

And there we go-this is why sometimes we need to look something up. I made an ASSUMPTION of the meaning and was found incorrect. Strongs gives even more definitions to the word, including evil, wicked, etc. So, a great case-in-point as to why sometimes it IS good to look at meanings in the Greek, Hebrew, (if we can), or an earlier dictionary.

I stand corrected, thank you.

Actually, it reads:

the heaven and the earth shall be passing the yet words of me not no may be passing

The problem is the KJV wasn't written in modern English, it was written in Elizabethan English (which was changed constantly in the last 400 years) of which there is no dictionary (Webster 1828 is close, but there was a lot of change between 1611 and 1828).

I refuse to get sucked into this conversation again, so I'll just go ahead and say "Agree to disagree."

Actually, it wasn't written in Elizabethan English. Correctly, it was written in Jamesian English, (as it tends to be named after the ruler), but even more so, because some of the terms don't even fit the proper English of the time-it was altered somewhat, even using words in ways that were archaic even then, because they better fit the language found in the ancient writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Although in this case (noisome), even in a modern dictionary it has nothing to do with noisy

From a modern dictionary:

adjective

1.
offensive or disgusting, as an odor.
2.
harmful or injurious to health; noxious.
 
 
As a young Christian, my wife thought the Bible was referring to underwater earthquakes -- "in divers places"
When I first heard the chorus to "No, Never Alone" (I was lost), I thought, "What if I don't want to be bugged all the time and WANT Him to leave me alone?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well I took the same english courses I suspect most of you did and never once thought noisome meant noisy. It was always associated with annoying. The King's English is not difficult to understand if the Spirit indwells folks, you all know this so why the pretend greek haughtiness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't recall any argument?

The English has not changed apart for local names of fruit or towns, etc. The thorough structure of thought has diminished but the language can certainly be understood without a dictionary, capeesh? :)

The King James is the perfect, unadulterated, preserved, "very pure" word of God for English speaking people, but Modern English has been corrupted over time. This is why a word like "conversation" today means "having a discussion" whereas in the King James it meant "manner of life". There are loads of words like that in the King James but doesn't bother me a bit to look them up. It's part of what's called "studying". 2 Timothy 2:15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The King James is the perfect, unadulterated, preserved, "very pure" word of God for English speaking people, but Modern English has been corrupted over time. This is why a word like "conversation" today means "having a discussion" whereas in the King James it meant "manner of life". There are loads of words like that in the King James but doesn't bother me a bit to look them up. It's part of what's called "studying". 2 Timothy 2:15

I understand but must say that the context of the verses will also indicate meanings of the words. It is all about studying carefully and slowly - understanding context, sentence structure and having the Spirit indwelling. Are you sure this is a good example because I am guessing you really did know what "conversation" meant without looking it up in a dictionary simply because I certainly did the very first time I read it and I am NO ROCKET SURGEON my good man. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Listen folks, judgment starts with God's people and even God's soldiers (IFBs) seem to get more and more bored with God's Word and are lured away to read and study everything but God's Word. A bad practice which is getting worse as the time gets closer unfortunately.

Nowhere does God tell us to cross reference, compare or contrast His Word with men's books (regardless of persuasion, IE, lexicons, history books, commentaries, dictionaries, etc.) and He certainly did not lead anyone into writing these supplements for His Word.

Pride, fame and filthy lucre (or even discouragement from lack of results in local NT church work) lead to that activity and nothing more. 

I know saying that rubs the cat the wrong way...so turn the cat around and lets get busy in our local NT church where it counts for Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here are some more which are used differently today.: prevent, quick, quit, reins, road, smart, corn, halt, let, meat, meet, occupy, overcharged, singular, careful, dumb. Then there are words like "ouches" and "besom" that most people would have no idea because the word isn't used today at all. Nobody here is complaining about the King James, bro, we're just saying it takes digging and studying to learn what you need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Listen folks, judgment starts with God's people and even God's soldiers (IFBs) seem to get more and more bored with God's Word and are lured away to read and study everything but God's Word. A bad practice which is getting worse as the time gets closer unfortunately.

Nowhere does God tell us to cross reference, compare or contrast His Word with men's books (regardless of persuasion, IE, lexicons, history books, commentaries, dictionaries, etc.) and He certainly did not lead anyone into writing these supplements for His Word.  I'm curious as to how you know this. see more below.

Pride, fame and filthy lucre (or even discouragement from lack of results in local NT church work) lead to that activity and nothing more. 

I know saying that rubs the cat the wrong way...so turn the cat around and lets get busy in our local NT church where it counts for Christ. 

While its true the Bible doesn't command that commentaries be written, neither is it commanded against. The Bile says "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." I don't see where this limits one to only the Word, in order to be able to rightly divide the word of truth.  People began to write commentaries very early on, not perhaps complete like we have with Matthew Henry or others, but it is all an aspect of teaching the word. I was once lambasted on an IFB site, which was primarily Ruckmanite, because I had the AUDACITY to study history to have a better understanding of the historical context for things in the Bible. How DARE I ADD to God's word by reading about the history of the time! It got so bad that I left. (By the way, I mention it as a Ruckmanite site, because they made it clear it was, not because I blame Ruckman, but some of his acolytes to hold him in such high esteem, rather like Jack Hyles' acolytes, who believed, in both cases, neither man could do any wrong and were held up in a most spiritually unhealthy manner.)

The danger, of course, comes in taking the writings of men, be they commentaries, margin notes, etc, as authoritative. In fact, I find some of the margin notes in the BEST of Bible to be dangerous, and I have more than once crossed them out. And, that being said, I rarely use commentaries or Greek/Hebrew/Chaldean dictionaries, etc, because I have faith in the word of God in the KJV and find way too much questionable content in many areas. But, as is mentioned above by heartstrings, there are words we just don't use anymore, as well as words which have vastly changed in meaning, and in some cases, using other writings can be a help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

While its true the Bible doesn't command that commentaries be written, neither is it commanded against. The Bile says "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." I don't see where this limits one to only the Word, in order to be able to rightly divide the word of truth.  People began to write commentaries very early on, not perhaps complete like we have with Matthew Henry or others, but it is all an aspect of teaching the word. I was once lambasted on an IFB site, which was primarily Ruckmanite, because I had the AUDACITY to study history to have a better understanding of the historical context for things in the Bible. How DARE I ADD to God's word by reading about the history of the time! It got so bad that I left. (By the way, I mention it as a Ruckmanite site, because they made it clear it was, not because I blame Ruckman, but some of his acolytes to hold him in such high esteem, rather like Jack Hyles' acolytes, who believed, in both cases, neither man could do any wrong and were held up in a most spiritually unhealthy manner.)

The danger, of course, comes in taking the writings of men, be they commentaries, margin notes, etc, as authoritative. In fact, I find some of the margin notes in the BEST of Bible to be dangerous, and I have more than once crossed them out. And, that being said, I rarely use commentaries or Greek/Hebrew/Chaldean dictionaries, etc, because I have faith in the word of God in the KJV and find way too much questionable content in many areas. But, as is mentioned above by heartstrings, there are words we just don't use anymore, as well as words which have vastly changed in meaning, and in some cases, using other writings can be a help. 

Well Mike, take a look at your post and realize you just agreed with me in a disagreeable way. :) And I don't care who or what they are associated with, they waste God's time writing "whatever" for profit and not serving God locally as directed specifically in His Word. When I say specifically I mean ONLY locally in their local NT church. God don't need no big shots, he actually and only uses the lowly of heart to do His Work without self recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well Mike, take a look at your post and realize you just agreed with me in a disagreeable way. :) And I don't care who or what they are associated with, they waste God's time writing "whatever" for profit and not serving God locally as directed specifically in His Word. When I say specifically I mean ONLY locally in their local NT church. God don't need no big shots, he actually and only uses the lowly of heart to do His Work without self recognition.

Who is to say the people writing commentaries and helps are big shots, and not lowly of heart? Generally I think its followers of these men that make them big shots, not so much themselves, (except for the afore-mentioned preachers, who while perhaps not initially making themselves anything big, didn't dissuade their followers from it. But I don't read their commentaries, either). But I believe there have been many godly men, lowly of heart, who have written commentaries and books that have been of great help, and they don't seek to make a name for themselves. However, is it wrong to spend years on a written work, and ask for pay for it, any more than paying a pastor who does a great work in a church? This is one of the reasons I like, say, David Cloud, who had done a great amount of writing and makes much of it available for free, and some others very inexpensively. Or Kent Hovind, who makes all of his videos available free for download. The workman is worthy of his hire.

 

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, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

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

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...