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.

Making America Great Again


Alan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Lady Administrators
2 hours ago, Invicta said:

I don't really understand your system, but I thought you all promoted the right of states over Fed govt.  I suppose when it suits you, you go the opposite way?

I don't reply to this thread because I do not adulate Trump, but I wanted to address this. Our country was set up as a federated republic, which means we are composed of (supposed to be, anyway) independent republics (states) with a (relatively weak) central government. Of late, more and more power has been taken by the feds, and far too many people have ceded that power to them. 

However, the Constitution grants the authority to the federal government regarding things like immigration. Article 4, section 4 states: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them from invasion"...and that would include Hawaii.  Illegal immigration is indeed an invasion upon our country. IMO, the travel ban doesn't go far enough. We need to adopt Ted Cruz' plan, which would make it untenable for illegals to stay here and they would self-deport. That would be a good companion to the travel ban.

I neither like nor trust Trump, but when he does something right, it should be acknowledged. This travel ban is a good first step, and should have been done long ago.

I also want to correct an incorrect statement made in an earlier post. Kate's Law is NOT "Trump's bill." It was written and introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz as a companion to a bill introduced in the House by Rep. Matt Salmon. In 2015. Before Trump ever became a Republican or threw his hat in the ring for POTUS. Bills like this often take time to get passed. This one only took 2 years, which is kind of amazing, actually.  

As I said, I don't post in this thread, but as a moderator I do have to at least skim it once in a while. ;)   When Trump does something right - like the travel ban - he deserves the credit. But he does not deserve credit for something he had nothing to do with, like Kate's Law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
22 minutes ago, HappyChristian said:

I don't reply to this thread because I do not adulate Trump, but I wanted to address this. Our country was set up as a federated republic, which means we are composed of (supposed to be, anyway) independent republics (states) with a (relatively weak) central government. Of late, more and more power has been taken by the feds, and far too many people have ceded that power to them. 

However, the Constitution grants the authority to the federal government regarding things like immigration. Article 4, section 4 states: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them from invasion"...and that would include Hawaii.  Illegal immigration is indeed an invasion upon our country. IMO, the travel ban doesn't go far enough. We need to adopt Ted Cruz' plan, which would make it untenable for illegals to stay here and they would self-deport. That would be a good companion to the travel ban.

I neither like nor trust Trump, but when he does something right, it should be acknowledged. This travel ban is a good first step, and should have been done long ago.

I also want to correct an incorrect statement made in an earlier post. Kate's Law is NOT "Trump's bill." It was written and introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz as a companion to a bill introduced in the House by Rep. Matt Salmon. In 2015. Before Trump ever became a Republican or threw his hat in the ring for POTUS. Bills like this often take time to get passed. This one only took 2 years, which is kind of amazing, actually.  

As I said, I don't post in this thread, but as a moderator I do have to at least skim it once in a while. ;)   When Trump does something right - like the travel ban - he deserves the credit. But he does not deserve credit for something he had nothing to do with, like Kate's Law. 

Thank you for clarifying, LuAnne. I didn't post that to be controversial, I just didn't understand.

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I don't reply to this thread because I do not adulate Trump, but I wanted to address this. Our country was set up as a federated republic, which means we are composed of (supposed to be, anyway) independent republics (states) with a (relatively weak) central government. Of late, more and more power has been taken by the feds, and far too many people have ceded that power to them. 

However, the Constitution grants the authority to the federal government regarding things like immigration. Article 4, section 4 states: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them from invasion"...and that would include Hawaii.  Illegal immigration is indeed an invasion upon our country. IMO, the travel ban doesn't go far enough. We need to adopt Ted Cruz' plan, which would make it untenable for illegals to stay here and they would self-deport. That would be a good companion to the travel ban.

I neither like nor trust Trump, but when he does something right, it should be acknowledged. This travel ban is a good first step, and should have been done long ago.

I also want to correct an incorrect statement made in an earlier post. Kate's Law is NOT "Trump's bill." It was written and introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz as a companion to a bill introduced in the House by Rep. Matt Salmon. In 2015. Before Trump ever became a Republican or threw his hat in the ring for POTUS. Bills like this often take time to get passed. This one only took 2 years, which is kind of amazing, actually.  

As I said, I don't post in this thread, but as a moderator I do have to at least skim it once in a while. ;)   When Trump does something right - like the travel ban - he deserves the credit. But he does not deserve credit for something he had nothing to do with, like Kate's Law. 

HappyChristian,

Thank for answering Invicita's question. I agree with your complete post. I also want to thank you for letting me, and all of us, know that it was Senator Ted Cruz who initiated Kate's Law as a companion to a bill sponsored by House Representative Matt Salmon.

Brethren,

HappyChristian is correct in her summation. The Travel Ban does not go far enough to stop the invasion of illegal aliens into America and our Federal government has far too much power over the rights of the Sates. In this case President Trump did though use his power as President for the good of America.

Also, as I wrote earlier in this thread (and mentioned a couple of times), I do not agree with the character, his role model as a President, nor a lot of the policies, of Trump. I just feel he is doing some good executive actions in his capacity as President that are right, and great, for America. President Trump is trying to stop the tide of the socialists, communists, and political activists to harm America and I do applaud him for that.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 8/8/2016 at 11:08 PM, Alan said:

Brethren,

..............Donald Trump made a great economic speech at the, "Detroit Economic Club," in Detroit, MI

 I rarely watch full speeches by any politician, and, personally did not care to hear Trump in a full speech, but, after hearing what he had to say initially, I decided to watch the full speech. I thought it was a great spreech that is worthy of our attention. Here is the link:

Quite frankly, it was almost like hearing the financial and regulatory polices of President Ronald Reagan.

I think the economic policies of a Donald Trump administration would help the financial health of America.............

Alan

I'm not too familiar with President Trump's economic policies but I do sense that the economy has been on the rise since he took office. I will note that our business does increase between the months of February and May, but it's now July and it's still going strong. I have probably done more business in the past five months than I did for each of the last eight years. I think business people in general have more confidence in the economy right now and I hope it stays that way. More business means more jobs, and more jobs means more business. I wish I could say the same for my sheep business but, I haven't sold a sheep in a few months now and I have 5 figures worth that I'm going to have to feed all summer with no guarantee they will sell. I was told by one of the auction buyers that it's the Muslims, who he has dealings with, who are worried about what Trump is going to do. I say it's bad that sheep sales are down but great if these heathens are worried. I hope he ships the whole lot out and bans all of the Muslims. I was fine with them until they began attacking us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Over 80,000 migrants have arrived in Italy from Libya this year and over 2,000 have drowned.  about 75-80% of these are said to be economic migrants and not refugees. They are put to sea by trafiikers in overcrowded and unseaworthy and overcrowded boats which usually start to sink soon after they leave.  Govts have stopped patrols but NGOs like Medicins Sans Frontieres have been picking them up/ It seems to me that they are encouraging those who profit from this evil trade and if they returned them to Libya, this trade will stop or greatly diminish/  MSF deny this of course. 

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I agree with both Heartstrings and Invicta's assessment.

From what I have read, America's economy is doing better since Trump has been in office than in the previous years (I do not have precise data to back up this statement). And, the Muslim religious fanatics, who caused the terrorists attacks, are concerned. I feel that Trump is not only helping the economy of  the United States, but he is preventing future terrorist activity. The flood (should I say invasion), of economic refugees have hurt Europe in many ways and it it continues it will destroy the economic, moral, religious, and social fabric of America.

In my estimation, President Trump has already helped America and his policies should help America further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 7/3/2017 at 3:50 AM, Alan said:

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld (with some qualifications), President Trump's Travel ban from 6 Muslim countries.

I don't know when it stopped but America used to have travel bans and nobody complained.  We did not let Muhammadens or Communists and other terrorists whose values were opposed and sought the destruction of the United States.  Pakistan was once on a banned list and President Obama as a young man traveled to that country anyway using a different visa from another country if memory serves.

Even the UK used to ban the Moslems and we can all see how well it worked for them when their socialist/communist rulers rescinded that one!

Wayne, I'd love to have some sheep or goats to keep my grass mowed but the city would surely frown on that idea!  Would need a taller fence too!  Maybe you can market them as pets to folks in rural areas?  Well, I'll pray that the Lord takes care of that situation for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 08/07/2017 at 7:40 AM, swathdiver said:

Even the UK used to ban the Moslems and we can all see how well it worked for them when their socialist/communist rulers rescinded that one!

When was this in force? I can't find anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Alimantado said:

When was this in force? I can't find anything about it.

I have not heard that either.  We often hear that it was refugees that helped our country to be great.  They forget, or choose not to remember, that it was Christian refugees from Catholic Europe that helped our country.  Weavers from Northern France, Farmers from Netherlands, for instance.  There was also what was known as the "Protestant work ethic" People were eager to work.  Now many Just don't want to work, just live off the state.  There is plenty of work on farms, picking fruit, etc.but people won't leave their homes to go to farms for work, but Europeans come hundreds of miles to work on farms.  Farmers say if they cannot get the foreign workers, they can;t operate.  

When I was at school we we taught "Our Duty", now it seems they are taught "Our Rights,"

(I notice that I have got a spelling checker back so you should see a difference in my spelling, typos etc.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, Invicta said:

I have not heard that either.  We often hear that it was refugees that helped our country to be great.  They forget, or choose not to remember, that it was Christian refugees from Catholic Europe that helped our country.  Weavers from Northern France, Farmers from Netherlands, for instance.  There was also what was known as the "Protestant work ethic" People were eager to work.  Now many Just don't want to work, just live off the state.  There is plenty of work on farms, picking fruit, etc.but people won't leave their homes to go to farms for work, but Europeans come hundreds of miles to work on farms.  Farmers say if they cannot get the foreign workers, they can;t operate.  

When I was at school we we taught "Our Duty", now it seems they are taught "Our Rights,"

(I notice that I have got a spelling checker back so you should see a difference in my spelling, typos etc.)

 

Now, your country has been invaded by hordes of Muslims and now even the mayor of London is one of them. Unlike those European immigrants of days gone by, the vast majority of these people will not assimilate. They fully intend to over-run your country and do away with your culture and are becoming much more bold about it too. It is only going to get worse. Our country has already allowed a Muslim to hold the highest office in our land which I still consider unconscionable . But now, in our country, I believe President Trump may be part of the last line of defense because, in spite of his faults, he actually cares about the U.S., unlike Obama who was bent on destroying it.

Yes, we have both "duty" and "rights" and these are outlined in our Bible. Our "duty" is to be concerned with the "rights" of others.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 7/12/2017 at 7:34 AM, heartstrings said:

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing

I just realized, the photo on the left is most likely photoshopped. sorry

It's real, saw it on the news when it happened.  Oh wait, maybe it was Fake News!  LOL

 

Just as we were to pray for President Obama and all of our elected leaders, we should continue to pray for President Trump.  Pray that he gets properly discipled and not led astray by those evangelicals.  Pray that he seeks the Kingdom of God first in all that he does.

Edited by swathdiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jim,

 Is there any updates on the mining ban in the State of California?

Do you think the Trump Administration is making a positive difference?

Alan

On 2017/2/4 at 1:41 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

Alan, here is one that I have been involved with from the beginning. I am a gold miner, as well as a property and mining rights advocate. The state of California has banned suction dredge mining for gold for the last nine years. This is a direct violation of the rights that congress gave to this nations miners. I am working with the new administration's new agency heads to get this situation turned around.

Just today Pacific Legal Foundation agreed to take this case the the US Supreme Court for miners. They are a very high profile legal firm, with many impressive wins to their credit. The link below is their announcement and brief concerning the illegality of the state's actions.

http://blog.pacificlegal.org/plf-asks-supreme-court-review-challenge-californias-mining-ban/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Alan, there is no new news in our cases, but the Trump administration has already taken on the plight of miners in the coal industry. I have petitioned The head of EPA as well as Ryan Zinke, head of the Dept of Agriculture in regard to the illegal actions of the state of California's ban on a federally protected right to mine.

Whether that will go anywhere is yet to be seen, but for now we think our best chance of winning is at the Supreme Court level. We are still waiting to see if they agree to hear the case. Once you get the the Supreme Court level things move even slower than at lower levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jim,

We appreciate the update and added information. It is our hope that eventually the actions of the State of California will be overturned by the Federal government.

It is also our hope that the Trump Administration, at all levels, will cleanse our land of the illegal laws, unjust governmental regulations, and the excessive regulations, that the previous administrations put into place in order to turn our country over to Socialism and Communism. King David said, "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" Psalm 94:20 The Socialist administrations of the past tried to change our country from a Republic to a Socialist, or Communist, country through mischievous laws, regulations, and government bureaucracy.

One of the reasons why I think the Trump Administration is good for America is that I feel that Trump is putting individuals into our Federal government agencies that will repeal unneeded, and unjust, legislation, and turn our country back to being a Republic.  

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't mean to discourage my brethren, but I believe that it is already too late for our country.

I'm not even 40 years old and I have already witnessed a MAJOR  downward spiral in the USA.  Especially in the 21st century...things became notably darker, and it has spiraled downhill at an exponential rate. 

Now that we have allowed open, legal & even matrimonial sodomy, it is clear that this empire will fall.

We have allowed sodomites & even women behind the pulpits of America.  God will NEVER bless us when we, as a nation, have defiantly disobeyed Him.

98-99% of the preachers in America are a joke. They've turned churches into a social club.  No hard preaching, no preaching against sin, just LOVE everyone. 

And while of course God is love, God also hates. And He hates righteously. 

I won't pray for God to bless America, because I know God will never bless sin.

I do pray that as this ship sinks further, the hearts of men will not harden against the Lord & that a revival of salvation will pull as many as possible out of the fire.

As far as Trump....he is just like all the other puppets.  He is a wicked, prideful, arrogant, money-obsessed fornicating adulterer who dances to whatever song the "god" of this world(satan) pulls his strings to.

 

 

 

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.".......Ephesians 6:12

trumphornedhands.jpeg

trump4HOMOS.png

TrumpTweetDevil.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...