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.

Titus


Alan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Unfortunately most "conservative Christians" seem to disagree with much of this and promote various forms of rebellion just as do "liberal Christians" (and the lost). I can't even count the number or variety of wild arguments I've heard from Christians as to why they can flaunt speed limits or why it's okay for them to dodge taxes or why taking up arms is the solution to just about anything they have a problem with.

Too many Christians are caught up and entangled in politics, political action and assorted "rights" movements to the neglect of Christian growth and living. To them, doing things God's way is equal to doing nothing. In effect they find themselves trying to help God set things right (as they see it in their own eyes) by going against God's commands.

John81,

I could not have said it better. Thank you.

Eswarden,

I am glad to know that the brief side-study on Luke 20:21-23 coupled with Daniel 9:24-27 was a blessing to you. 

Brethren,

Does anybody else have any thoughts, comments, or areas of discussion that you would like to see discussed?

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Christian Markle,

Welcome! We are very happy to have you on OnLine Baptist and part of this discussion on the book of Titus.

I am new to this forum and this is my first post.  I am not sure how this Bible Study format works. Are we on Chapter 3:1? If so, I would ask what everyone sees as the flow of thought from vs 1-8?

For His glory

Christian Markle

I will briefly answer your questions.

1. The way this bible study format works is that someone (for this study that someone is me) starts a subject and sort of keeps the thread on the subject matter and, in this case, as I load lessons up anyone who wants to comment, discuss, agree or disagree may do so (hopefully in a friendly manner). If I need to clarify anything that I said please let me know.

2. Yes we are one Chapter 3:1. When people comment I try and respond in an appropriate manner. 

3. The flow of thought of verses 1-8. Good Question! Does anybody have any response to what you think is the flow of thoughts of Titus 3:1-8?

One last thought, since you are just coming to this thread, if you have any comments on any of the earlier lessons in Titus, or lessons that were a blessing to you, please let us know.

Glad to have  you in this discussion of Titus.

Alan

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am new to this forum and this is my first post.  I am not sure how this Bible Study format works. Are we on Chapter 3:1? If so, I would ask what everyone sees as the flow of thought from vs 1-8?

For His glory

Christian Markle

what I see as the flow of thought is, Paul is admonishing not to speak ill of any man (this would include those in authority over us, whether it be church leadership or secular) and he "justifies" it by reminding that before we were saved we had a lot of sinful, contentious behaviors.  Basically -- except for the grace of God that brought you salvation and made you a better man, you would be just like the person you criticize, and in fact, you were once just like him.  Because of the grace you received, you should be a kind and gracious person to those who need that same grace.  It is through those good works that those men see a difference and are potentially won to the Lord.  Face it, everyone in the world complains about those in rule over them, those who are kind to them will stand out and make an impression.

at least that is where I saw the progression going....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1. The way this bible study format works is that someone (for this study that someone is me) starts a subject and sort of keeps the thread on the subject matter and, in this case, as I load lessons up anyone who wants to comment, discuss, agree or disagree may do so (hopefully in a friendly manner). If I need to clarify anything that I said please let me know.

Thank you, I will indeed attempt to keep any disagreements friendly.

2. Yes we are one Chapter 3:1. When people comment I try and respond in an appropriate manner. 

Excellent, we are using Titus 2:11-3:8 as our passage for memorization for this year in our Adult Sunday School Class. It is my responsibility to lead a similar teaching/discussion. I look forward to the interaction.

One last thought, since you are just coming to this thread, if you have any comments on any of the earlier lessons in Titus, or lessons that were a blessing to you, please let us know.

I appreciate the welcome and invite to go back to previously discussed passages, but this may unnecessarily bog down the present discussion. I do think that the broader "flow of thought" for this section of the book begins with 2:1, but that really is going back pretty far. 3:1-8 is a powerful passage on a number of fronts and is certainly worthy of our attention.

Glad to have  you in this discussion of Titus.

Alan

Thank you again for the warm welcome!


For His glory,

Christian Markle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

what I see as the flow of thought is, Paul is admonishing not to speak ill of any man (this would include those in authority over us, whether it be church leadership or secular) and he "justifies" it by reminding that before we were saved we had a lot of sinful, contentious behaviors.  Basically -- except for the grace of God that brought you salvation and made you a better man, you would be just like the person you criticize, and in fact, you were once just like him.  Because of the grace you received, you should be a kind and gracious person to those who need that same grace.  It is through those good works that those men see a difference and are potentially won to the Lord.  Face it, everyone in the world complains about those in rule over them, those who are kind to them will stand out and make an impression.

at least that is where I saw the progression going....

Sister, you have indeed seen a similar flow of thought to what I have also noticed. I would add that this is not just about our communication, but in how we behave. Further I would suggest that this passage offers us specific information on how we are to respond to those who are indeed "not nice" to us. I would suggest the following as a summary: "How to deal with people who irritate you."

I am regularly reminded that I have been treated way better by God than I would prefer to treat others -- oh, how gospel grace teaches and trains us to live differently (Titus 2:11-12).

Two things of significance for preachers: Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) is telling Titus what to preach on ("Put them in mind" has the idea of "remind them"); furthermore in vs 8, he tells him to regularly affirm these things so that we who are believers will be careful to maintain good works. We who preach should take note of Spirit inspired commands on preaching topics!

There is much here for meditation toward sanctification of our character and behavior, but I sense that we are supposed to be focused on vs 1 for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Does anybody else have any thoughts, comments, or areas of discussion that you would like to see discussed?

Alan

I agree that the point of 3:1a,b is our submissive response to government. The emphasis on levels of government officials (principalities, powers, magistrates) certainly pushes us to respond with obedience and submission at each level of government. (There are exceptions, but these should be for clear and direct demands against the clear and direct commands of the Lord our God (cf. Acts 5:29).) However, vs 1-2 offer 5 subjects of responsibility which Titus was to remind his hearers of  (that is 5 if we separate out subjection of principalities and powers and obedience to magistrates as 2 separate responsiblities). Ought we not also think through the last phrase of vs 1 as well as the we do the beginning of the verse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Trapperhoney,

Thank you very much for your comments on the responsibility of Christian behavoir towards leadership. As God instituted government (church, local, rulers, etc...), we should obey the leadership above us as ultimately all leaders in all aspects of life will give a full accounting, (lost or saved), for all of the decisions (good or bad), that they made and will be rewarded accordingly. I fully understand that the lost rulers of this world, and other leaders in areas of importance (including churches), cannot comprehend the judgment to come on all decisions and laws, the judgment will take place nonetheless. Acts 24:25

Christian Markle said, "There is much here for meditation toward sanctification of our character and behavior, but I sense that we are supposed to be focused on vs 1 for now."

Throughout the book of Titus the Apostle Paul dwells on our character and our sanctification. If I needed to put a title on the flow of thought on 3:1-8 I would probably write, "Sanctify Yourselves."

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Tongue

Titus 3:2

     (2) To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

One of the hardest things to control is our tongue. James 3:8, “But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.”

Maybe that is why God only gave us one tongue and two ears so that we would listen more than we would speak. God is against all forms of evil. This includes speaking evil of others, gossiping, and spreading false rumors about others by mouth or by print. Even if a fault is found out against a brother, it is best to let God judge him and keep our mouths shut and our pens silent. We are living in an age when even Christian writers are slandering brothers in Christ for any reason under the sun. Brethren, we need to stop printing slanderous material about anybody. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” 1 Corinthians 15:33

Remember Job? Job was a righteous man who suffered much for having integrity. Yet, his so-called friends judged him day after day and spoke evil of him while he was in the midst of extreme suffering. All through the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite, continually accused Job with lies, half-lies, slanders, and innuendoes. Finally, God put an end to it. God told Jobs’ three friends to stop their lies, Job 42:7-9.

Like Job’s friends, God will judge those who slander, by mouth, or by pen, a brother in Christ. King David warned us about this matter in Psalms 50:19-21, “Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slenderest thine own mother’s son. These things hast thou done, and I [God] kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such as one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.” God will judge, and reprove, all those who slander a fellow Christian, especially a man of God in the ministry. Psalms 105:15 clearly states, “Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.”

Brethren, God hates slander, gossiping, innuendoes, and other forms of backbiting.” These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:16-18

We ought to carefully weigh all the facts when we deal with men and not judge people carelessly. Remember what the Lord Jesus said when we had a problem with another saint? We are supposed to go directly to the person and talk with him. If that did not resolve the conflict, then we were supposed to go the pastor of the church that he was in, (not the church of the one accusing the brother), and then discuss it with the pastor.  and two or three witnesses and then take the matter before the church: Matthew 18:15-17.

Very importantly, if the brother in question was a minister, then there must be at least two or three witnesses even before the matter was heard: 1 Timothy 5:19

I know there are brethren that just love to pick verbal religious fights and spread slander about the character, and work, of a fellow pastor, evangelist, or missionary. The best advice that I know is to just avoid them and not answer them, if possible. Why? Usually, those who want to have verbal and written fights are foolish and unreasonable men who do not really want the truth anyway. We need to take the advice given by King Solomon in Proverbs 26:4, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him, ” And, Proverbs 10:18 and 19, “He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.”

God wants His people to develop within themselves a gentle and meek spirit. This is in direct contrast to a prideful, boastful, and brawling attitude. Paul said it best in Ephesians 4:1 and 2, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love.”

We need to be longsuffering and put up with those who are brawlers, evil and have other character defects. As Christ put up with us before we were saved, and before we were sanctified, I might add, so must we try to develop a non-judgmental attitude towards others. The Apostle Paul said, “Charity suffereth long, and is kind, charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up ... Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” 1 Corinthians 13: 4 and 7. We should strive to have a non-judgmental attitude in our hearts.

 

 

Edited by Alan
correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now that we have included vs 2 may I make some observations?

In Titus 3:1-2 Paul commands Titus to regularly remind the Cretan believers of 5 responsibilities. Grammatically the list looks like this:

Put them in mind

to be subject to principalities and powers,

to obey magistrates,

to be ready to every good work,

To speak evil of no man,

to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

1) They are to have a submissive attitude toward governmental authorities.

2) They are to actually obey governmental authorities.

3) They are to be prepared (ready for immediate action) for all kinds of good works.

4) They are not to speak with the intent of malice toward anyone

5) They are not to be a brawler (ready for a fight, a chip on the shoulder) - instead they are to be gentile and displaying all kinds of meekness toward all.

 

There is much to explore here. Like what does it mean to be ready for every good work? What does that look like practically speaking? What forms of communication are evil speaking and what forms of communication although not pleasant are actually right not evil? What does it mean to be a brawler? What does gentleness look like?

Although I am interested in all of these questions, I would like to emphasis only one specific idea. Why the emphasis in the last phrase of vs 2 -- ALL meekness toward ALL men? This I believe really sets the stage for the rest of the passage (vs 3-8). May I suggest that the universal nature of this responsibility draws out from us a natural question? HOW IN THE WORLD CAN I DO THAT WITH EVERYONE? And the answer is found in our recall of our own evil depravity toward God (vs 3) and His merciful response to us (vs 4-8). Note that the notion of the preparation "to every good work" is repeated in vs 8 in the phrase "be careful to maintain good works." The point of vss 3-7 then is to help us know what to review constantly so we will respond properly when it very hard to respond properly.

For the glory of His grace,

Christian Markle

Edited by Christian Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We ought to carefully weigh all the facts when we deal with men and not judge people carelessly. Remember what the Lord Jesus said when we had a problem with another saint? We are supposed to go directly to the person and talk with him. If that did not resolve the conflict, then we were supposed to go the pastor of the church that he was in, (not the church of the one accusing the brother), and then discuss it with the pastor. Matthew 18:15-17. If these steps are not taken then it would be best, and spiritual I might add, to not judge our brother and drop the matter. And, very importantly, if the brother in question was a minister, then there must be at least two or three witnesses even before the matter was heard. 

Does Matthew 18 actually teach that we are to take our unresolved personal conflicts to our spiritual leaders? It seems that if the first step (private confrontation vs 15) does not win back the brother then it is not time to get a Pastor, but to get other spiritual brothers to go as witnesses (Matthew 18:16). These witness do not need to be fully informed (so as to be "on the side" of one brother or the other, but come to hear the case. These witness appear to fulfill two purposes: 1) to be able to establish every word (vs 16) and 2) that they may speak into the situation so as to be heard (vs 17). This does not need to be a Pastor. I suggest that Paul saw the believers of Rome to be fully able to admonish one another because they had two characteristics: 2) full of goodness and 1) full of all knowledge (Romans 15:14). Jesus does not say go to your pastor, he says take two or three witnesses. If these are not heard, then one may take it to the church (again not to the pastor per se, but to the assembly). The congregation may then rule on the matter. If this ruling is then ignored then there is to be treatment such as a heathen and/or publican (vs 17).

You are correct that not all matters are worthy of this progression. I think it is possible to allow love to cover and mercy to prevail at any stage of this process. The determining factors however, should be the potential spiritual damage if one backs off. We are indeed called to forbear one another in love (Ephesians 4:2).

For His glory,

Christian Markle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Another reason I don't believe Mt 18 requires the pastor to be one of these witnesses (notice I said didn't require him as one as opposed to a prohibition from him being one) is that it would eliminate a check and balance in the church. What I'm referring to is a situation where the person in the wrong is the pastor himself, the same Mt 18 process applies to him which couldn't be done if you HAD TO HAVE the pastor as one of the witnesses. 

Then there's the issue of not having a pastor at the time of an issue that won't wait. They had that problem here shortly before they called me. They had to put a man out at a time when there was not a pastor here and no indication as to when there would be one.

Edited by OLD fashioned preacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎2015‎年‎9‎月‎23‎日 at 10:26 AM, Christian Markle said:

Does Matthew 18 actually teach that we are to take our unresolved personal conflicts to our spiritual leaders? It seems that if the first step (private confrontation vs 15) does not win back the brother then it is not time to get a Pastor, but to get other spiritual brothers to go as witnesses (Matthew 18:16). These witness do not need to be fully informed (so as to be "on the side" of one brother or the other, but come to hear the case. These witness appear to fulfill two purposes: 1) to be able to establish every word (vs 16) and 2) that they may speak into the situation so as to be heard (vs 17). This does not need to be a Pastor. I suggest that Paul saw the believers of Rome to be fully able to admonish one another because they had two characteristics: 2) full of goodness and 1) full of all knowledge (Romans 15:14). Jesus does not say go to your pastor, he says take two or three witnesses. If these are not heard, then one may take it to the church (again not to the pastor per se, but to the assembly). The congregation may then rule on the matter. If this ruling is then ignored then there is to be treatment such as a heathen and/or publican (vs 17).

You are correct that not all matters are worthy of this progression. I think it is possible to allow love to cover and mercy to prevail at any stage of this process. The determining factors however, should be the potential spiritual damage if one backs off. We are indeed called to forbear one another in love (Ephesians 4:2).

For His glory,

Christian Markle

 

On ‎2015‎年‎9‎月‎23‎日 at 10:51 AM, OLD fashioned preacher said:

Another reason I don't believe Mt 18 requires the pastor to be one of these witnesses (notice I said didn't require him as one as opposed to a prohibition from him being one) is that it would eliminate a check and balance in the church. What I'm referring to is a situation where the person in the wrong is the pastor himself, the same Mt 18 process applies to him which couldn't be done if you HAD TO HAVE the pastor as one of the witnesses. 

Then there's the issue of not having a pastor at the time of an issue that won't wait. They had that problem here shortly before they called me. They had to put a man out at a time when there was not a pastor here and no indication as to when there would be one.

Matthew 18:16, "But  if he will hear thee, then take with thee one of two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

The Lord does not specifally say one of the witnesses must be the pastor. I will change the lesson to reflect the item noted.

Matthew 18:17, "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

In the strictest sense, both Christian Markle and Old Fashioned preacher are correct; the word pastor and/or bishop, and/or overseer, is not mentioned. And there are some cases when the pastor is the one accused (by two witnesses), where it is obvious the transgression is held before the church body with the pastor as the one accused.

The reason why I said to bring it before the pastor as the pastor is the head of the visible church and the representative of Christ; 1 Peter 5:1-4

As 1 Timothy 3:1-7;5:1 & 17-19, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 are further revelations from Paul and Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, on the office of the Pastor (bishop or overseer), as the visible head of the local church I believe it is completely appropriate to say that (except in extreme circumstances), the pastor must be present for any accusations brought before the church body.  

Furthermore, a church without  a head is an incomplete body. If a decision was made to expel the accused individual from the church without the consent of the pastor it  would be, in my estimation, not appropriate. Be that as it may, I will not belabor the point mentioned. 

Alan

Edited by Alan
scripture addition spelling Auh. 22, 2016
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Matthew 18:16, "But  if he will hear thee, then take with thee one of two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

The Lord does not specifally say one of the witnesses must be the pastor. I will change the lesson to reflect the item noted.

Matthew 18:17, "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

In the strictest sense, both Christian Markle and Old Fashioned preacher are correct; the word pastor and/or bishop, and/or overseer, is not mentioned. And there are some cases when the pastor is the one accused (by two witnesses), where it is obvious the transgression is held before the church body with the pastor as the one accused.

The reason why I said to bring it before the pastor as the pastor is the head of the visible church and the representative of Christ; 1 Peter 5:1-4

As 1 Timothy 3:1-7;5:1 & 17-19, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 are further revelations from Paul and Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, on the office of the Pastor (bishop or overseer), as the visible head of the local church I believe it is completely appropriate to say that (except in exteme circumstances), the pastor must be present for any accusations brought before the church body.  

Furthermore, a church without  a head is an incomplete body. If a decision was made to expel the accused individual from the church without the consent of the pastor it  would be, in my estimation, not appropriate. Be that as it may, I will not belabor the point mentioned. 

Alan

Brother Alan,

I am thankful for your clarification on Matthew 18. I think you are on safer ground with that.

I would like to press your view of the Pastor a bit. The Biblical text only gives headship in the church to one person, Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:10, 19). We pastors are not heads; we are overseers (ie managers). We do not preside as lords over believer-priests (1 Peter 5:3 cf 2:5,9); we are not the mediators between God and the church. We are the teachers of doctrine; this is how we lead, feed and protect the flock. The congregation makes the decisions in the area of discipline (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5). Christ died for the church; it is God's flock (1 Peter 5:2)., Christ is the chief shepherd (vs 4); we are simply His under-shepherds. I do not think it is an oversight by Christ to not mention church leadership in Matthew 18. This certainly does not exclude the pastor from the process, but it does not demand his involvement either. The pastor's role is to teach the principles of conflict resolution; he certainly may be a witness in the second step. He may also guide the church through the third and implementing the fourth step, but he certainly is not the "visible head" of the church...Christ is the church's ONLY head.

For the glory of Christ in His Church

Christian Markle

:

Edited by Christian Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Lord Jesus is the head of the church; that is indisputable. But, at this time the Lord Jesus is not, "visible." Please note in my post I made careful note that He is not visible at this time and that the pastor of the church is the "visible," head of the local church.

In the qualifications for the pastor we read, "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For is a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Timothy 3:4 and 5 The pastor is to rule the local church as a man rules his household.

This does not mean being a dictator or other forms of miss-rule. I fully understand that many pastors are not fit for the office in our day and age but that still does not change the order of the New Testament, local, Independent, Baptist church.

And, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." 1 Timothy 5:17 The elders, pastors, who rule "well," are worthy of double honour. Those pastors who do not rule "well," will be denied the crown and taken care of accordingly at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

The pastor is the under-Shepherd of the visible, local, church and is to "rule," the church in the absence of the Chief Shepherd. The pastor is to rule the church as the personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, those pastors who are faithful "rulers," will receive a crown as a reward for doing so. "And when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Peter 5:4

Alan

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Lord Jesus is the head of the church; that is indisputable. But, at this time the Lord Jesus is not, "visible." Please note in my post I made careful note that He is not visible at this time and that the pastor of the church is the "visible," head of the local church.

In the qualifications for the pastor we read, "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For is a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Timothy 3:4 and 5 The pastor is to rule the local church as a man rules his household.

This does not mean being a dictator or other forms of miss-rule. I fully understand that many pastors are not fit for the office in our day and age but that still does not change the order of the New Testament, local, Independent, Baptist church.

And, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." 1 Timothy 5:17 The elders, pastors, who rule "well," are worthy of double honour. Those pastors who do not rule "well," will be denied the crown and taken care of accordingly at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

The pastor is the under-Shepherd of the visible, local, church and is to "rule," the church in the absence of the Chief Shepherd. The pastor is to rule the church as the personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, those pastors who are faithful "rulers," will receive a crown as a reward for doing so. "And when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Peter 5:4

Alan

My point is that the Scriptures never indicate that the pastor is any kind of "head" of the church. This designation is reserved for Christ alone. Certainly there is authority given to the pastor, but he is not a visible head. It appears that you were trying to say that he is the human (visible) authority (head). I may be assuming too much, but this may be neglecting to value the authority vested in the congregation, which is both visible and exactly what Christ seems to emphasize in Matthew 18.

Clearly we have stepped far off the intended study of Titus 3. I am wiling to drop the matter here, or move the discussion to another thread, but we should probably get back to the passage in question, right?

For the glory of His church,

Christian Markle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Clearly we have stepped far off the intended study of Titus 3. I am wiling to drop the matter here, or move the discussion to another thread, but we should probably get back to the passage in question, right?

For the glory of His church,

Christian Markle

We will heed the admonition of Christian Markle and just discuss the items pertinent in Titus 3:2 We may need to remind ourselves that the passage in question is primarily dealing with controling our tongue and having grace towards others  and not primarily with the position of the pastor.

Alan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Titus 3:3

Our Sinful Nature

     Verse 3

     (3) For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

Expected Characteristics of the Saints

In the book of Titus Paul the Apostle wrote to Titus, and to us, the expected characteristics of those saints within the New Testament church.

In Titus 1:5-9 the Apostle Paul gave to Titus the Qualifications and Characteristics of the office of the Pastor and/or Elder or bishop.

In Titus 2: 2 Paul gave us the expected characteristics of the aged men.

In Titus 2:3-5 Paul gave us the expected characteristics of the aged women.

In Titus 2:6-8 Paul gave us the expected characteristics of the young men.

In Titus 2:9 and 10 Paul gave us the expected characteristics of the servants.

Characteristics of the Saints before they became Saints

The scriptures plainly teach that man has a sinful nature. Romans 1:17-32 and 3:10-23 give us a true picture of the heart of man. In conclusion Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” The Lord Jesus plainly said that the problem of all the filth and evil of mankind comes from the heart. Mark 7:21-23, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”

Paul says that we, and the entire human race, are sometimes; foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving our sinful pleasures are envious and full of hate.

Foolish

“The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD.” Proverbs 19:3

Disobedient

The law was written to show how disobedient we are to God, His Righteousness, His holiness, and His commandments. “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [homosexuals and lesbians], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” 1 Timothy 1:8-10

Deceived

So far, in the book of Titus Paul the apostle has told Titus 6 times to be sound in doctrine: i.e., 1:9 and 13; 2:1, 2 and 7 and 10. Six times in just two short chapters! Why did Paul warn Titus that sound doctrine is paramount in the church? Because before people are saved and taught the true doctrines of the bible they are deceived in their religious beliefs.

The Mormons are deceived, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are deceived, the Buddhists are deceived, the Catholics are deceived, and various denominations are deceived in numerous religious doctrines.

The Apostle Paul, in Titus 1:10-16, listed, “The Characteristics of Reprobates or False Teachers.” I would suggest that the reader re-reads these characteristics of the reprobates, or false teachers. The false teachers are deceived in their religious beliefs and some of these false doctrines listed are in our independent, fundamental Baptist churches today.

Serving Divers Lusts

For examples of the lusts of the flesh the reader is directed to Galatians 5:19-21 and Romans 1:22-32

The Apostle Paul had already taught the grace of God teaches us to deny the lusts of the flesh; Titus 2:11 and 12 When a saint is living in the lusts of the flesh he has not been taught by Grace.

Serving Divers Pleasures

The pleasures of sin, the flesh, and the world are just for a season. Hebrews 11:25

Living in Malice

The definition of malice is: 1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; spite.

A person living in the lusts of his old nature has malice; the desire to see others suffer and has a spiteful attitude. Because Haman (Esther 3:1-6), had anger and malice in his heart towards Mordecai, Haman sought to destroy, out of spite, the Jews.

“Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you with all malice.” Ephesians 4:31

Envious

Our old nature is envious of the blessings in other people’s lives and can cause a root of bitterness to spring out of our hearts. Because of our envious nature, we covet other people possessions, wealth, fame, and even their mates. Exodus 20:17

Hateful

Our old sinful nature is full of hate. At times, we hate God, we hate our neighbor, we hate our mates, we hate our children, we hate our rulers, we hate the Law of God (the Law is perfect and good), we hate man’s laws, and we hate those who try and do good.

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come ... Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good.” 2 Timothy 3:1 and 3

Hating Others

God is love and loves the whole world and the Lord Jesus loves the world and gave His life for the sins of the whole world: 1 John 4:8-10 While on the Cross of Calvary the Lord Jesus died for all men.

Our old sinful nature not only hates those who we perceive are against us but it hates others out of spite.

Guilty Before God

In the above list Paul clearly shows that all of us before we are saved are sinners guilty before the Holiness and Righteousness of God and deserve to spend eternity in hell. Romans 1:32, “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Romans 3:19

Sin is a worldwide problem.

The Chinese race, through the false philosophies of the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism, and Taoism, believe that they are without a sinful nature. They feel that they are without sin and that any bad habits that they may have are through a lack of knowledge. They do not believe that man, at least the Chinese race; does not have a sinful nature. A favorite Chinese saying is, 人自初性本善。 Roughly translated, that means, “The nature of man at the beginning is good.” This goes in direct contradiction with the laws of nature and the word of God. The Confucian philosopher Mencius, (372-289 B.C.), is credited with being the Second Sage, or holy person, after Confucius. Mencius is also credited with the teaching that all men born at their birth are good and that evil is a product of our lack of knowledge.

Even though a number of their philosophers believe that they are without sin, there are some notable exceptions to this rule. Hsun Tzu, (fl. 298-238), was a notable Confucian scholar and a high official in the Chinese kingdom. His background is somewhat obscure do the lack of record keeping at that time. Hsun Tzu took the opposite school of thought of Confucius and Mencius and taught that, “The nature of man is evil: his goodness is acquired.”[1]

Paul now gives Titus an example of why we should have a non-judgmental attitude towards those who do evil. The example? Our own lives before we got saved. Lehman Strauss points out in his commentary, Galatians and Ephesians that, “The old nature, which is present in every believer, is subject to every form of impurity.”[2]

Conclusion

The apostle Paul is using this treatise on the sinfulness of the old nature to show us that we deserve to spend eternity in hell. Paul is also about to express the wonderful kindness and grace of the Lord Jesus in the next section of Titus.

Thank the Lord, once I got saved, the Lord Jesus started to clean up my life; as He does to all those who are saved. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.” 2 Corinthians 5:17. As Paul is expressing to Titus, the evidence of a man having salvation is his personal testimony. Sinful old habits, such as foolishness, disobedience, serving lusts and pleasures, envying and a hateful attitude are washed away and Christ gives us new characteristics as we walk in Him.

After a person is saved, Christ develops in us a loving attitude, a thankful attitude, and a desire to know the truth, a love for God, the Bible, the church, and the lost who need to get saved. “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” Ephesians 4:32

 

 

[1] De Bary, Wm. Theodore. Sources of Chinese Tradition. (Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960) Page 104.

[2] Strauss, Lehman. Galatians and Ephesians. (Neptune, N J: Loizeaux Brothers, 1957) Page 193.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But why the walk down memory lane? Why is Paul reminding us what we were like before? Certainly we can develop a great gospel message on from vss 3-7. But may i suggest that Paul was not telling Titus to preach this to the lost, but to those that were already saints. Again, why the review of the Gospel? To what end is this line of thinking? If one gets this right, one will have a powerful tool in the sanctification process.

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
  • 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...