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.

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/1/2016 at 10:54 PM, heartstrings said:

If a man puts on a dress, we look at him like he's a fruitcake. But if a woman wears bluejeans, most consider that normal and socially acceptable. Like I've said before;  it's no wonder there are so many effeminate men and masculinewomen. Our society is OK with women police officers, bosses, construction workers, big game hunters and infantry soldiers: women have taken over all the men's roles including wearing our pants. I'm serious. No wonder we have so many pathetic folks who can't use their own bathroom. And our stupid president makes facilitating such the law of our land. Short answer is "No". A woman should wear womens clothes, and act like a feminine lady. Let men wear men's clothes and be men....and use the men's bathroom. Speaking of bathrooms, isn't the universal symbol for "men's room" a stick-dude wearing pants? And look what the "womens" symbol has on...If the WORLD still recognizes the "dress" symbolized on a bathroom door, then THAT is what "pertaineth to a woman" in our culture; know what I'm saying?

1206572119215038269johnny_automatic_NPS_

I agree. Mostly.

But when you look at womans clothing in the store, the difference is clear, in the so-called 'style' of the clothing too.

So it's not just whether it's labeled women's clothing that matters. Women's pants are quite different from men's. And as immodest as they can be, not all are.

Immodest pants are form fitting and alluring to the eyes of a man, who btw has his mind NOT under control of biblical restraint, and those pants do not 'glorify' the proper station of a woman. (*NOT THAT THE WOMAN BEARS NO BLAME*)

The same goes for 'skirts'. A Scottish man wearing a kilt is not alluring at all, yet he is wearing a skirt. And a kilt is much different on a man than a woman's skirt would be on a man.

Take your bathroom emblem above - widen the shoulders on the woman and add a 'cap' and what do you have?

A men's bathroom emblem in Scotland?

It's mostly about our perception.

I have worked with women who are gay. They will sometimes wear men's jeans. And you can see that they are men's jeans.

Men's jeans/pants are obviously differently made in pattern and style.

So the women who are wearing women's pants are not wearing that which pertains to a man.

On 9/2/2016 at 1:15 AM, swathdiver said:

You've addressed the subject of modesty and ignored the admonition for a woman not to wear men's clothing.

In our western society men wear pants and ladies wear dresses and skirts.  That split legged thing when I heard it thirty years ago was derogatory.

Watching old movies from the '20s and thirties, Hollywood's most prideful women appeared in movies with the tailored suits.  Bible believing women wore dresses and skirts even while working the fields on farms in all weather for hundreds of years.

Since those fraudulent Egyptian bibles came out and have become widespread, bible doctrine after bible doctrine has been questioned, redefined and discarded so the Burger King Christian can feel good about having Christ "Their Way" and not the Lord's Way.

Wayne, AMEN AMEN AMEN Brother!

See my above post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother "Swathdiver,"

I present this posting with all due respect and regard for you as a fellow brother in Christ.  I pray that it will be received with the grace in which I intend it.

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 6:59 AM, swathdiver said:

Many cultures are heathen cultures and did not, do not follow, nor care for the things of God.

Mowhawks and tattoos are symbols of rebellion (to God) and have been so for thousands of years.  Does the fact that millions of toddlers are running around with those silly mowhawk chickenhead haircuts being watched by their parents who are covered in tattoos and piercings make them ok for God's people today?

Nope, still rebellion.

Should a Christian woman engage in an activity that would cause her to dress immodestly or as a man?  Will the Lord wink at a Christian woman who puts on a skin tight wetsuit to go diving or wear those short skirts for playing tennis or the leotard for gymnastics?

I fully agree with the principle of this part in your posting above.

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 6:59 AM, swathdiver said:

Why was it unseemly for a lady to straddle a horse but today it is not? 

Food for thought but as for me and my house, such is sin because the bible tells me so.  I was against culottes and riding skirts but caved in.  Today, our girls volley ball team wears them and my youngest has made the team.  I ain't never seen no man wearing culottes or riding skirts or maybe I'm being hypocritical or maybe just want to please my wife and children?  Lord help me!  

I am burdened concerning this part in your posting above.  First, by definition culottes are indeed "pants-wear."  Yet by definition they are also "pants-wear" made specifically for females.  Therefore, we could engage in a discussion concerning whether some "pants-wear" is specifically woman's wear, and not men's wear at all (as per your statement, "I ain't never seen no man wearing culottes or riding skirts."). 

However, such is not the part in your posting that burdens me.  Rather, it is the following statement in your posting that burdens me -- "I was against culottes and riding skirts but caved in."  That statement appears to indicate that your conscience is "against culottes and riding skirts."  Yet it also appears to indicate that you compromised and sinned against your conscience by "caving in" (for whatever reason).  If indeed your conscience has not changed in relation to the subject of culottes and riding skirts, then you are sinning against the Lord your God by sinning against your conscience through "caving in;" "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (See Romans 14:23)  Indeed, Romans 14:23 teaches us that if a believer engages in an activity against which his or her conscience carries doubt, then that believer is "damned" in so engaging; for he or she is engaging in that activity "not of faith."  (Note: As for myself, my conscience does not hold the same position as your conscience appears to hold concerning culottes and riding skirts.)

Brother, I am quite burdened for your spiritual condition before the Lord in this matter and for the spiritual damage that you might be causing against your own conscience.  Oh, how I pray that you might receive this warning with the grace in which it is intended.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

I thought this bit of history would be apropos to the discussion. I am quoting the article in full. To give credit, the link is at the end, but just be warned that the article on the link contains a photo that is risque, so I don't recommend opening it. Emphasis by bolding was  part of the article.

"Culottes have made a definitive comeback in the past few seasons, this year in particular. Opinions on them are definitely polarizing- some say the bold look is incredibly chic, others claim it is “aggressively unsexy.” However you feel, it’s safe to say that these pants are comfy, and versatile- definitely the perfect summer staple to combat these past few sweaty months.

This is hardly the pant’s first time in the fashion limelight however. Culottes have a long, tumultuous history, and have gone through a number of changes throughout the years.

So what are culottes?

It’s a bit of a trick question- the answer depends on what point in time you are referring. While today the term refers to women’s wear, its first iteration was as a men’s pant. The word was used as far back as the Renaissance- men of upper class would wear breeches, which in France was translated from English into French as “culottes.”  This early version was nothing like the ones worn today. These pants were fitted, often cut from fine silk, and ended just below the knee with a fastener such as a buckle or button.

At first glance, culottes are simply pants and nothing more. However, the garment has been caught up in scandal since it’s early days. By the late 1700’s the French Revolution culottes, which were frequently worn by the wealthy, became a symbol of the upper class and oppression. So much so, revolutionaries were referred to as “sans culottes” or “without culottes,” referring to their station and opposition to aristocratic ideas. These sans culottes wore trousers instead, creating a stark visual divide between classes and values.

But the French Revolution certainly wasn’t the end of it. The drama surrounding culottes only intensified as they made the transition from a symbol of male wealth into a freeing, feminist garment for women. This version, a skirt split into pants, is much more in line with what we know culottes as today.

Women’s culottes came about in the Victorian era, as women of the time started to become much more active than they had in previous generations. They were participating in activities such as horseback riding, tennis, and especially bicycling. However, the cumbersome skirts of the period were definitely not conducive to sports, or really anything other than sitting while looking pretty.

The bifurcated skirts of the Victorian era were originally created as garments that would give the illusion of wearing a long skirt while enabling women to straddle a horse instead of riding sidesaddle. Ruffles or panels helped to conceal the divide, allowing the wearer to ride horses and bikes properly. The French word “culottes” was borrowed and used to refer to these new women’s pants. Women enjoyed a newfound freedom in the Victorian version of culottes, and fortunately, did not need to endure much social backlash as a result of their sartorial choices. This garments looked enough like a skirt that few made too much of a fuss.

This would eventually change however, because the further the design of culottes moved from that of a traditional skirt, the more contentious the garment became. French designers began experimenting with the idea of divided skirts as they became more of a staple in women’s wardrobes.

However, it was Elsa Schiaparelli who would make the bold move of creating culottes that made no attempt to hide what they really were: pants for women.

In 1931, Schiaparelli caused a scandal during a trip to London to go fabric shopping. The designer wore culottes that were “undisguised by panels or a wraparound skirt.” The Bristish press tore Schiaparelli’s design apart, calling them “manly, with hints of lesbianism.” Though this is a ridiculous insult by today’s standards (in fact, now it could even be considered a compliment) the jabs got worse, even downright hostile. For example, Lili de Alvarez, a professional tennis player, wore a Schiaparelli design at Wimbledon. This outraged reporters at the Daily Mail, who declared that she should be “soundly beaten.” In fact, for a time, there was a French law that expressly forbade women wearing pants unless she was “holding a bicycle handlebar or the reigns of a horse.” Women were arrested in Paris for wearing culottes in public.

Fortunately, this outrage was short-lived, and pants for women became socially acceptable as attitudes and gender roles evolved in the subsequent decades. The wide-legged culottes fell out of fashion in favor of other styles, but, as we know, have recently made a comeback.

While public opinion on modern culottes is not nearly as “passionate” as it was in the 1930’s, its “aggressive” unsexiness is still a point of contention, even today. But looking back through its history, culottes were never meant to be sexy. And perhaps that’s a good thing."

https://startupfashion.com/fashion-archives-history-of-culottes/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sister DePriest,

What would the information of your above posting mean for so many Fundamental Baptists who preach so strongly against "pants-wear" on women as an abomination to the Lord, yet who readily allow for women and girls to wear culottes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
25 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister DePriest,

What would the information of your above posting mean for so many Fundamental Baptists who preach so strongly against "pants-wear" on women as an abomination to the Lord, yet who readily allow for women and girls to wear culottes?

I think they would need to admit that, indeed, they have allowed culture to influence their standards. I have never been in favor of culottes precisely because they are pant-like (or pants-wear). I have seen too many women - both young and old(er) - who sit like men while wearing the culottes, wrongly assuming that nothing can be seen. IMO, wearing the culottes puts the female in the same mind set as wearing full-blown pants does. 

For full disclaimer, I will say that I do not wear pants, nor do I wear culottes. However, I do have a swimming outfit that was made at my request from a pair of culottes that have elastic in the bottom hem. So they look, effectively, like bloomers. I chose that because pinned skirts just don't work for modesty sake, and I will not  wear a bathing suit (totally immodest, IMO). I believe that my stance on pants is scriptural, and I don't believe that my swimming apparel pertains to a man. Neither, more importantly, does my hubby. (add to that the fact that they are only worn when in the pool, where there are no men, and no manly man would be found dead in them...;) )

I have made this suggestion before and I will repeat it just because I like the book so much. An excellent read is The Fall and Rise of Christian Standards. The author delves into a number of standards, but pants is addressed. And it is laid out very well, with scriptural explanation and application. It's a worthy addition to any bookshelf. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

By the way, one thing that the Lord showed me when reading Deut. 22:5 one day:  it is not the wearing of the apparel that is abomination. It is the wearer. "all who DO SO"...female or male. 

In this country, the history of clothing has been typically that women wore dresses, men wore pants. But as time has progressed, and feminism/gay rights has taken hold more and more strongly, things are being flipped on their heads. And women are donning more and more masculine apparel while men feminize theirs. All in the name of freedom - the banner cry for the feminist of yore who wanted to wear pants and the men of today who want to wear dresses/skirts. (it truly is a movement - just google "men who want to wear skirts" and you'll find out a lot...)

Unisex/Gender-neutral. Not pleasing to God...

When one looks at the standards God set from the time He clothed Adam and Eve (the term coat used means, in the Hebrew, a long, flowing garment...they were both fully covered), to Deut. 22:5, to Romans 1 (the natural outcome of abandoning the distinction between male and female) to the NT commands on modesty, one has to realize that God wants us distinct. Distinct from the world, and distinct from each other (gender-wise).  That is one of the biggie reasons I don't wear pants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sister DePriest,

1.  Do you believe that "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear (as in -- "doth not nature itself teach you" through the very creation as God created it)?

2.  Do you believe that "pants-wear" was the primary issue of Deuteronomy 22:5 when it was first communicated?

I do not at all desire to move you from your convictions; I simply desire to understand them.  Indeed, I very much respect the consistency of your convictions.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
mistake in Biblie reference corrected
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Brother Markle - to be 100% honest, I cannot say definitively that "pants-wear" is specifically taught by nature (but, then, that quote is specifically related to a man's hair...). However, I do believe that God intends for the genders to be distinct. As distinct as possible in whatever culture in which one lives. Because, admittedly, each culture has acceptable and unacceptable garb. But as I mentioned before, I notice a marked difference in the way women comport themselves in different clothing. Many (I will not say most because I do not know most) women who don "pants-wear," whether in the form of culottes, pants, shorts, or whatever style - lose a bit of their femininity while wearing them. (Now, I do know women who have donned culottes both without and under skirts and do not manifest masculinity, so, here again, is why I have to say many and not most.)

Where "pants-wear" becomes pertinent to men is in, well, a society's culture.  Yes, there I said it. The US has a culture that was founded on scriptural principles - and one of those principles is gender identity. And in this country, that identity was manifested by men in breeches and women in dresses. 

And so we come to the fact that society/culture here in America has changed. So that means pants-wear no longer pertains to men, correct? Well, why? And where has that change in American society/culture brought us? To a better, higher plane? I don't think anyone would say that, right? Do I think the poor societal change is linked to clothing? Honestly? I think it is strongly related, because of the gender neutral/unisex issue. It was only when that began being pushed that homosexuality began to be accepted and which now is not only accepted by protected. As are many other forms of sexual deviancy, many related to clothing styles (transvestites, cross-dressers, etc).  When we cross lines God never intended us to cross, chaos follows.  (heh - I just re-read my last post...seems a bit of repeating, eh?)

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?). No. I don't think any honest person could say that it is specifically about pants since only the priests (that we know of, biblically) wore breeches (although the outer girdle on a man's robe was designed so that the man could tuck his robe into it [kind of like a belt] so that he could run unhindered). Nor do I think it is simply cross-dressing, as so many have tried to make it simply be (although it does include that idea).

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing. Setting up the principle of gender distinction. There's more, but it's late and my mind is beginning to fray (it's been a long three first days of school).   

But, and here's the cruncher that shows some ambivalence, I'm sure...do I think that women who wear pants are an abomination? I cannot go that far, because pants were not the subject of Deut. 22:5. 

Never fear, I don't think you are trying to move me from my convictions.  Here's how I have explained it in the past:

A conviction is something for which one is willing to die. A preference is something upon which someone will stand, but not for which one is willing to die. 

It is my conviction that I am to be modest. And that I am to be distinctly feminine - in action as well as apparel. It is my PREFERENCE to show my convictions by not wearing pants (but to be properly shown, it has to be accompanied by action and attitude as well...and I do strive for that as well) or masculine-style clothing.

As I said, it's late here, and my mind is a bit of mush, so I hope this post isn't completely confusing or seems contradictory...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Brother Markle - to be 100% honest, I cannot say definitively that "pants-wear" is specifically taught by nature (but, then, that quote is specifically related to a man's hair...). However, I do believe that God intends for the genders to be distinct. As distinct as possible in whatever culture in which one lives. Because, admittedly, each culture has acceptable and unacceptable garb. But as I mentioned before, I notice a marked difference in the way women comport themselves in different clothing. Many (I will not say most because I do not know most) women who don "pants-wear," whether in the form of culottes, pants, shorts, or whatever style - lose a bit of their femininity while wearing them. (Now, I do know women who have donned culottes both without and under skirts and do not manifest masculinity, so, here again, is why I have to say many and not most.)

Where "pants-wear" becomes pertinent to men is in, well, a society's culture.  Yes, there I said it. The US has a culture that was founded on scriptural principles - and one of those principles is gender identity. And in this country, that identity was manifested by men in breeches and women in dresses. 

And so we come to the fact that society/culture here in America has changed. So that means pants-wear no longer pertains to men, correct? Well, why? And where has that change in American society/culture brought us? To a better, higher plane? I don't think anyone would say that, right? Do I think the poor societal change is linked to clothing? Honestly? I think it is strongly related, because of the gender neutral/unisex issue. It was only when that began being pushed that homosexuality began to be accepted and which now is not only accepted by protected. As are many other forms of sexual deviancy, many related to clothing styles (transvestites, cross-dressers, etc).  When we cross lines God never intended us to cross, chaos follows.  (heh - I just re-read my last post...seems a bit of repeating, eh?)

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?). No. I don't think any honest person could say that it is specifically about pants since only the priests (that we know of, biblically) wore breeches (although the outer girdle on a man's robe was designed so that the man could tuck his robe into it [kind of like a belt] so that he could run unhindered). Nor do I think it is simply cross-dressing, as so many have tried to make it simply be (although it does include that idea).

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing. Setting up the principle of gender distinction. There's more, but it's late and my mind is beginning to fray (it's been a long three first days of school).   

But, and here's the cruncher that shows some ambivalence, I'm sure...do I think that women who wear pants are an abomination? I cannot go that far, because pants were not the subject of Deut. 22:5. 

Never fear, I don't think you are trying to move me from my convictions.  Here's how I have explained it in the past:

A conviction is something for which one is willing to die. A preference is something upon which someone will stand, but not for which one is willing to die. 

It is my conviction that I am to be modest. And that I am to be distinctly feminine - in action as well as apparel. It is my PREFERENCE to show my convictions by not wearing pants (but to be properly shown, it has to be accompanied by action and attitude as well...and I do strive for that as well) or masculine-style clothing.

As I said, it's late here, and my mind is a bit of mush, so I hope this post isn't completely confusing or seems contradictory...

To me, this seems like an even and considered post, and to finish with the difference between a conviction and a preference put into this context is a mature way to end the post.

Well done Ma'am.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

As to Deut. 22:5 being about "pants-wear" (I assume you meant verse 5 and not 6...unless you are going into the "follow one part of the law follow it all" idea?).

Sorry.  Proverbs 22:6 has also been a recent study for me (due to your own thread on the subject), and I merged the two references in my head by accident.  I should have actually checked the reference, rather than just take it from "memory."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

 

I found it interesting that, in my research, I found that the idea that is taught there is linked to worship. The pagan practice was for women who went to the temple to don men's armor and men to don women's clothing before they went in to worship. God was warning Israel not to do the same thing.

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

NN - I began with a book titled Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. It is, to me, an invaluable look into the Oriental mind and so into the meanings of so many things that westerners don't always completely grasp - because our minds do, indeed, work differently.

Here is a quote from the book (and I actually found the full text online - I will add the link so you can spend hours and hours browsing =D ):

2OO. DISTINCTION IN DRESS. 

XXII, 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth 
unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman s garment: 
for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. 

The distinction between the dress of the sexes being less than with us, 
there was the greater need of this regulation. There is reason to believe 
that the law was made not merely to preserve decency, but because the 
heathen were in the habit of pursuing a different course as a part of their 
idolatrous worship. Maimonides says: "In the books of the idolaters it is 
commanded that when a man presents himself before the Star of Venus, he 
shall wear the colored dress of a woman ; and when a woman adores the 
Star of Mars, she shall appear in armor." Pagan idols were frequently 
represented with the features of one sex and the dress of the other, and 
their worshipers endeavored to be like them. It is not at all unlikely that 
this custom was as old as the time of Moses, and was a partial reason for 
the enacting of this law. 

https://archive.org/stream/handbookofbiblem00freeuoft/handbookofbiblem00freeuoft_djvu.txt

Then, when we go into the NT and see that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, it strikes me that we should be even more concerned about gender distinction (and not just in our apparel - although apparel is ofttimes where the distinction begins). If God was concerned enough about it to warn Israel away from it, how much more concerned would He be for the living temples in which the Holy Spirit resides to be distinct?  (notice, too, that he begins with the idea that the distinction of dress is less with them that with us - westerners...and yet, now, that distinction is slowly going away; women are wearing pants and men are beginning to wear dresses/skirts)

I think the comment regarding Deut. 22:5 from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary (I know many people don't like commentaries, but I do...and JFB is often a good one) is pretty spot-on with where this verse is actually going:

"Though disguises were assumed at certain times in heathen temples, it is probable that a reference was made to unbecoming levities practiced in common life. They were properly forbidden; for the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the other is an outrage on decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in the woman as well as levity and hypocrisy in both; and, in short, it opens the door to an influx of so many evils that all who wear the dress of another sex are pronounced "an abomination unto the Lord."

I would venture to say that there isn't one among us who would say that there has not been a grossly softening and effeminacy in men and an impudence and boldness in women that has grown exponentially. This is where Romans 1 links to Deut. 22:5. Where there is a softness and effeminacy in men and a boldness and impudence (I would venture to use the word masculization  [not really a word, but sums up what I mean] of women as an explanation of what boldness and impudence would mean), there is the leaving of the "natural use of the woman..."  

Thank you, Dave, for your comment. I'm glad you found my post cogent. As I was heading into sleep last night, I re-worded things in my mind, wondering where I could have been more clear...=D

I would like to add a couple of thoughts to the idea that I presented re: conviction/preference.  Modesty is indeed a conviction. I believe God shows us His desire for us to be modest clear back in Genesis, when He covered Adam and Eve. Gender distinction (I mistakenly called it identity a couple of times, although distinction does show identity) is also something I believe God shows us He desires. Deut. 22:5  is a verse that can be used for that, but so, too, are any verses in which God discusses what a woman is to do/be and what a man is to do/be (for instance, Prov. 31). And then there is Christian identity. The identity of Christians is being blurred more and more as we allow ourselves to be swallowed up by the philosophy of the world in all aspects of our lives. So, my conviction is that I must be modest, distinct in my gender, and show my Christian identity. And my preference is to do that - outwardly - by my clothing choice.   Does that make sense?

Bro. Markle - I figured it was a typo, but I'm glad to know you're looking at Prov. 22:6. I actually have been hoping to hear your input on that verse!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

Bro. Markle - I figured it was a typo, but I'm glad to know you're looking at Prov. 22:6. I actually have been hoping to hear your input on that verse!

Sister DePriest,

I thank you for your encouragement on the matter of Proverbs 22:6.  I have indeed presented two postings of word study research on that verse, but my full study thereof is not yet complete.  More shall follow as I am able.

Concerning your above posting "when you were half-asleep," I also found it well communicated and thoughtfully developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Ah...now if that's the case, it's making more sense to me now. The Hebrew does reference battle armor, and I've wondered just exactly how that tied in...which is why I've not participated here thus far. Sis. HC, do you mind sharing your source, or is it possible to point me in the direction from which you obtained that information? No pressure...just if it's possible and at your convenience.

Brother McWhorter,

I thank you much for your comment above concerning the Hebrew.  Until that comment I had not examined the specific Hebrew terminology of Deuteronomy 22:5.  Your comment motivated me to do so, and I believe that this examination has provided a significant advancement of my understanding concerning the verse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The original missionary pastor that I was saved under taught the explanation that HC supplied in her reference material, " Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. " Although he taught it, I never remember him giving any reference for it.

So far I have not commented on this thread because although I believe this is in reference to armor, I had no supporting evidence for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

The original missionary pastor that I was saved under taught the explanation that HC supplied in her reference material, " Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman. " Although he taught it, I never remember him giving any reference for it.

So far I have not commented on this thread because although I believe this is in reference to armor, I had no supporting evidence for it.

Brother Jim,

Having now looked at the Hebrew terminology in Deuteronomy 22:5 (as per Brother McWhorter's mention), I intend as the discussion continues and time permits to present Biblical evidence for that reference (not just historical).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

First, thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed answer...it's very much appreciated. I have a Manners and Customs... on my Bible Software, but it's not that one. I'll definitely look at that link and see if I can purchase one on Amazon (or somewhere). Thank you.

I've known of the "armor" for several years, yet ashamedly, I've never taken the time to delve deeper into it. My belief has been that it centered around the armor somehow, but I couldn't pin down a reason, so I generally remain silent on this topic. Yet, knowing how many of the commands deal with worship and not modeling the worship of God after the pagans...I should have made the connection. Hindsight...

Now, let me try to briefly give my general view of these types of topics. I don't claim to be right, but after "experience", I think I could handle certain topics better. I personally believe that topics such as this are best handled as a result of growth. In other words, as a Christian grows and matures, they will hopefully (and should be) more open to conforming to God's word. Some may enter that "phase" quicker than others. However, in the day in which we live, the general Christian is worldly. I'll leave it at that.

Now to tell on myself. Where I live, when a young man or man announces that he's been called to preach, every Baptist church within a 25 mile radius will invite him to come preach. After I'd been preaching for about a year...that's when I basically became an IFB. I was raised in Southern Baptist churches but was attending an Independent Missionary Baptist Church when I started preaching. At the time, I didn't know the difference between Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Independent Fundamental Baptists, etc. I thought a Baptist was a Baptist. After being exposed to the preaching of some of the big-names in the IFB movement, nothing else seemed right to me...I became IFB.

I was a young buck...mid-20's. Churches would invite me, and I'd rip 'em up one side and down the other about pants on women, watching TV, movies, smoking, etc. You know...all the major sins that Christians shouldn't be doing. I probably called a lot of them "beer-drinkin' Baptists" at some point too. Well...I know I did. LOL! After all...I was preaching God's word, and they just needed to accept it and change the way they lived...whether they liked what I was preaching or not...they just needed to get right with God.

The preaching invitations started dwindling for some reason...before long, I wasn't being asked to preach anywhere except in the church that I belonged to. In fact, I've only preached in one church (by invitation) in probably the last 5-6 years.

They weren't ready for it, and they couldn't handle it. All they saw was this angry preacher calling them a bunch of heathens, hypocrites, and pharisees.

I'll be 50 soon, and though I've grown, and it's been a long time since I've preached in those churches...I still have that characterization applied to me as a preacher.

Was what I was preaching right? Yes, I believe so. Was my "preaching" right? No...

People need to grow, and a lot of them aren't ready to grow when we think they should.

Is it wrong to preach about such things? No...but it doesn't help to beat them over the head with it. Allow God to change them...not the preacher.

Anyway, I wrote too much and exposed myself as "Dan...the angry preacher".

I just think now, that a lot of these topics are things that come with growth...and just like plants, a little "fertilizer" will help them grow...but too much "fertilizer" will kill 'em.

Know how to fertilize...

 

Amen!

Nice to meet you, fellow earthling.

Seems we all have similar experiences in life. May we all continue to get past ourselves and be what we need to be.

I will be praying in detail for you NN as I hope you will for me brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

They weren't ready for it, and they couldn't handle it. All they saw was this angry preacher calling them a bunch of heathens, hypocrites, and pharisees.

I'll be 50 soon, and though I've grown, and it's been a long time since I've preached in those churches...I still have that characterization applied to me as a preacher.

Was what I was preaching right? Yes, I believe so. Was my "preaching" right? No...

People need to grow, and a lot of them aren't ready to grow when we think they should.

Is it wrong to preach about such things? No...but it doesn't help to beat them over the head with it. Allow God to change them...not the preacher.

Anyway, I wrote too much and exposed myself as "Dan...the angry preacher".

I just think now, that a lot of these topics are things that come with growth...and just like plants, a little "fertilizer" will help them grow...but too much "fertilizer" will kill 'em.

Know how to fertilize.

The lesson is that they should have been fed milk and not meat, sadly when we're young we have more vinegar running through us than wisdom!  But you know all this now and the Lord will use you again when the time is right.  However, while you may not have been invited back, God's Word doesn't return void and surely some mended their ways and were brought closer to the Lord because of your preaching.  Good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 11 Guests (See full list)

  • 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...