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.

How to Understand Revelation and Daniel


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Just now, DaveW said:

But Acts 1 isn't reversed is it?

"Shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go" doesn't mean reversed?  Isn't "come" the reverse of "go"?  Besides, that's not the point.  I was illustrating what it might look like if "coming in the clouds" were literal.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, if taken literally "coming with the clouds" has no connection to the context, compared to Acts 1 were leaving to the cloud is flows with the context.   The nature of an idiom is that it doesn't connect, or flow, with the context, if taken literally.   

And vs 9 tells us - oh look at that: WHEN HE HAD SPOKEN THESE THINGS, WHILE THEY WATCHED, he was taken up - and then the Bible describes the manner in which He was taken up - specifically that WHILE THEY WATCHED a cloud received Him OUT OF THIER SIGHT.

Where is there any indication that any of this was other than literal.

What's sad about this is if you haven't understood that I take Acts 1 literally, then you haven't been following my reasoning.

THIS PASSAGE does not designate when that event will happen - just that IT WILL HAPPEN IN THE SAME MANNER as when He was received up into a cloud.

Acts 1 also doesn't designate that Christ coming as he left, "he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight", is the "coming in the clouds" at Jerusalem's judgement.  The context and language is very different.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 minutes ago, Brother D said:

"Shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go" doesn't mean reversed?  Isn't "come" the reverse of "go"?  Besides, that's not the point.  I was illustrating what it might look like if "coming in the clouds" were literal.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, if taken literally "coming with the clouds" has no connection to the context, compared to Acts 1 were leaving to the cloud is flows with the context.   The nature of an idiom is that it doesn't connect, or flow, with the context, if taken literally.   

 

 

And here was me hoping that for once you would keep your word - but no, you answered me anyway, even though you said you would ignore me...….. 🤣

There is no need to reverse the passage of the Bible, except to misrepresent what it is saying - which is what you did. How about you just use the Bible itself. It says what it says, no need to rewrite it.

 

15 minutes ago, Brother D said:

Acts 1 also doesn't designate that Christ coming as he left, "he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight", is the "coming in the clouds" at Jerusalem's judgement.  The context and language is very different. 

Another misrepresentation:

I said:

41 minutes ago, DaveW said:

In this post I am not even suggesting that this is the same "Coming in the clouds" event that has been spoken of by others in this thread - I am just showing what the Bible actually says, rather than rewriting it. One would need to reference other passages that DO talk about Jesus coming in clouds to figure out which event is the one being spoken of here so literally.

You simply cannot help but misrepresent other here for the purposes of misleading readers.

I was VERY VERY VERY clear about what I was posting - you chose to ignore what I wrote so that you could try to make it look like I was wrong.

You just can't help yourself can you? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bro. D

I find it quite ironic that your profile indicates that you are an Independent Fundamental Baptist and you have stated that you are a "traditional Baptist", and yet in all of your posts there is not one real Baptist that agrees with your beliefs.

It makes me wonder if you can provide even one credible Baptist writer or expositor that agrees with your "opinions".

You have stated that you were "always a Baptist" and yet when pointedly asked to provide your salvation experience and what church you attend you totally ignored the request.

You don't seem to like references to Scripture and prefer to replace Scripture with your personal opinions, expecting others to take your word over what the Bible plainly says.

You call the plain inspired Word of God, "absurd" simply because you can't understand how certain things can be possible, such as Jesus riding on a cloud.

These are not the actions or beliefs that traditional Baptists hold dear as traditional Baptist doctrine.

I, for one, would welcome you being completely honest and stating clearly your salvation experience as well as what Baptist churches you have attended or now attend.

I write none of this in a spirit of sarcasm or contention, but instead as a simple request for clarification. After all, we are commanded to:  
1Jo 4:1  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Please note that I am quoting Scripture here, not accusing you of being a false prophet. If you come among God's people attempting to teach things contrary to traditional Baptist doctrine, we are commanded to critically examine both your doctrine and person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:02 AM, Brother D said:
On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:57 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  What does the context say our Lord Jesus Christ will do when He arrives?

Matthew 24:31 -- "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

If Acts 1 were reversed, it would be something like this:  "Men of Galilee were looking up and they saw Jesus come into sight from out of a cloud.   When Jesus had come down, the men asked Jesus if he were going to now restore the kingdom to Israel.  Jesus stayed in Jerusalem and presented himself alive and spent 40 days speaking about the kingdom of God."

Jesus sending his angels, nor the other verses you posted, have nothing to do with a physical presence or an appearance  in clouds.   If "coming in the clouds" isn't an idiom, then there are no idioms in the Bible.

I am not exactly sure why you presented your comments about Acts 1 in relation to that portion of my posting, since I did not reference Acts 1 at all in that portion of my posting.

You had asked the question, as follows:

Quote

Let's, apply this rule to Jesus coming in the clouds.  What does the context say Jesus will do when he arrives. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

I gave answer by quoting a series of passages that were specifically from the contexts of Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21, as follows:

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:57 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Matthew 24:31 -- "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."
Mark 13:27 -- "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

Luke 21:28 -- "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

Luke 21:31 -- "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand."

Matthew 24:37-41 -- "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.  Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Matthew 25:31-46 -- "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:  and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.  Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.  Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?  Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

Then I summarized what we learn from these passages, as follows:

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:57 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, when He arrives, our Lord Jesus Christ will (1) deliver and gather His elect from across the whole world, (2) establish His kingdom reign on the earth, (3) judge all the nations for how they treated His brethren.

Throughout this entire answer unto your question, I did NOT make even a single reference unto Acts 1 AT ALL - Because your question asked about the contexts of Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26, and Luke 21:27; and Acts 1 is NOT within those contexts.  On the other hand, Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21 ARE the contexts for those verses.

However, the fact that you chose to quote only the first verse of the series that I quoted in my posting, and chose not to make any reference unto my summary statement, causes me to wonder if you even noted and considered the Biblical information of my entire posting.  If you did not, then such would reveal that you are not much of real BIBLE student - since a real BIBLE STUDENT would take whatever time necessary to read, study, and understand any portion of Scripture that is relevant to the discussion.
 

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:57 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  What function do the clouds serve?

(1) To fulfill the return of our Lord Jesus Christ by the same manner in which He ascended (from the earth unto the heavens)
(2) To be a literal representation of His sovereign power and divine glory when He returns in His Second Coming to establish His thousand year reign upon the earth
(3) To be an observable connection between the sovereign power and divine glory of the Lord Jesus Christ with the Lord (Jehovah) God of the Old Testament (because He actually and bodily IS the Lord God of the Old Testament)
(4) To be an observable connection with the prophetic utterance of Daniel 7:13-14
(5) To be an observable indication that the Lord Jesus Christ's kingdom rule is not of this earth, but is come down out of heaven. 
(6) To distinguish Him from the false Christs of Matthew 24:23-26 and Mark 13:21-22.

On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:02 AM, Brother D said:

All six of those points seem really reaching.  1) "Coming in the clouds" is not same manner as Acts 1. 2) The passages about "coming in the clouds" contain no references to a 1000-year reign.  3) Do really you think "clouds" provides a needed connection with the OT?  4) Daniel 7 speaks of an eternal reign, not a 1000-year rain, besides Daniel uses "clouds" non-literally, in a vision.  5) You haven't shown "coming in the clouds" to be anything about a kingdom (vs. judgment).  But, if it were, do clouds really send a message that Christ's kingdom rule is not of this earth? 6) There is a small problem of people claiming to be Christ who are not, but there will be no problem for anyone to recognize Christ when he makes a literal return.  Besides, in our age, "coming with the clouds" can be faked by fake Christ.  TV makes it trivial. 

Well, I certainly do NOT agree that these points are "reaching."  Rather, I believe that they are all BIBLICALLY SIGNIFICANT.  Thus I reject your attempt to trivialize them.  Even so, I find your argument (that the reference unto cloud(s) is idiomatic because it lacks literal value) to be empty, which is the very reason that you have been completely unable to sway me toward your position on this matter.  You have one foundational argument -- It is an idiom because it (supposedly) lack literal value.  I strongly disagree with that foundational argument, as per the extensive BIBLE study of my postings.  Therefore, as your foundational argument falls, so your position falls with it.

1)  Acts 1:9 indicates that in His ascension our Lord Jesus Christ was received (carried) by a cloud (singular) out of the disciples' SIGHT (the reference unto physical sight is worthy of notice).  Acts 1:11 indicates that our Lord Jesus Christ will come back "in like manner" as the disciples had "SEEN him go into heaven" (again, the reference unto physical sight is worthy of notice).  That observable MANNER was by a CLOUD (singular).  Considering the specific Greek prepositions in each passage, we learn the following: Matthew 24:30 indicates a coming of our Lord Jesus Christ UPON (Greek preposition "epi") the clouds (plural) of heaven; Mark 13:26 indicates a coming of our Lord Jesus Christ IN (Greek preposition "en") clouds (plural); and Luke indicates a coming of our Lord Jesus Christ IN (Greek preposition "en") a cloud (singular).  Now, either each of these three passages is talking about a different coming, because one speaks about coming upon plural clouds, whereas another speaks about coming in plural clouds, whereas another speaks about coming in a singular cloud.  Or, all three passages are a legitimate BIBLICAL way for describing the SAME event, whether upon or in plural or singular cloud(s).  If all three of these passages are indeed a BIBLICALLY legitimate way to describe the same event, then the reference unto a singular cloud in Acts 1:9-11 cannot simply be ruled out simply because it only reference a cloud in the singular, since Luke 21:27 also only references a cloud in the singular.  (It is also worthy of notice that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of the Acts were written by the same inspired penman.)  Furthermore, it is worthy of notice that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these passages specifies that the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SEEN.  (Yes, I know that you believe these references unto seeing simply to be stylistic and thus trivial; however, I consider them to be a significant signal for the literal nature of these prophetic utterances in literal fulfillment of the promise that was made in Acts 1:11.)

2)  Luke 21:31 (which is a part of the context for Luke 21:27) speaks about the establishing of the KINGDOM upon the earth, and Matthew 25:31 (which is a part of the context for Matthew 24:30) speaks about our Lord Jesus Christ sitting "upon the throne of his glory" in order to judge the nations of the world.  Indeed, the kingdom reign of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the earth most certainly is reference within these contexts.

3)  Yes, I really DO think that. 

4)  Indeed, Daniel 7 does speak about an eternal kingdom because the kingdom reign of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the earth, that will begin with the thousand year reign (as per Revelation 19-20), will not be broken, but will continue into the eternal reality of the New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem.

5)  Note my comment for #2) above.

6)  False Christs are NOT a "small problem."  The spirit of antichrist is NOT a "small problem."  The antichrist himself, who will himself be a false christ, will NOT be a "small problem, but will move the majority population of the whole earth to worship him, and thereby damn themselves unto the eternal torment of hell.  NOT a "small problem" AT ALL.    Even so , I am compelled to say that your trivialization of Biblical matters is somewhat offensive to this Bible student.
 

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:57 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

3.  How does the context discuss the travel-by-clouds statement?

As a literal event that all the tribes of the earth shall literally SEE.

So then, a definite relationship to the context. No idiom needed.

On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:02 AM, Brother D said:

You are referring to: Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

1) The context doesn't show it to be literal. All you have is "see" which can refer to seeing the judgment.  Compare to my illustration at the top of this post regarding Acts 1, what the context  might look like if it were literal.

2) The context shows this to mean judgement. Aside from the verse itself speaking of wailing, this verse is part of the introduction to Revelation which is a book about judgment. Likewise, Jesus' use of "coming in the clouds" is in the context of judgment of Jerusalem.  Taken literally, it doesn't fit, at all, the context.  It's a completely random statement, if taken literally.

3) It says those who pierced Jesus would see him.  If you take that literally, it has to be the first century, because those people aren't around now.

No sir. I was referring to Matthew 24:30 -- "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."  Therefore, your comments about the context of Revelation 1:7 are not really relevant.

________________________________________________________

Now then, it has not really been my expectation throughout this discussion that I would convince you to change your position.  Rather, it has been my primary intention to demonstrate unto the audience that there are definite BIBLICAL answer for your doubtful disputations.  Thus at this time I now speak to the audience of this discussion -- Throughout this thread discussion between Brother D and myself (Pastor Scott Markle), one of us has engaged the discussion primarily through actual, extensive Bible study, whereas the other has engaged the discussion primarily through personal declarations.  As members of the audience, it is your responsibility to discern which is which, and to recognize that one method stands upon the authority of God's own Word, whereas the other method stands upon the authority of a man's personal word.  

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To those who may be interested:

1.  It is worthy to notice the reference unto SEEING throughout the following prophecies concerning our Lord Jesus Christ's coming.

Matthew 24:30 -- "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Mark 13:26 -- "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."

Luke 21:27 -- "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."

Acts 1:9-11 -- "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.  And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."
Revelation 1:7 -- "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.  Even so, Amen."


2.  Considering the different references to clouds in these passages and considering the specific Greek prepositions involved, we find the following:

Matthew 24:30 -- Our Lord Jesus Christ will come UPON (Greek preposition "epi") the clouds (plural) of heaven.
Mark 13:26 -- Our Lord Jesus Christ will come IN (Greek preposition "en") the clouds (plural).
Luke 21:27 -- Our Lord Jesus Christ will come IN (Greek preposition "en") a cloud (singular).
Revelation 1:7 -- Our Lord Jesus Christ will come WITH (Greek preposition "meta") clouds (plural).
Acts 1:9-11 -- Our Lord Jesus Christ will come "IN LIKE MANNER" as the disciples had seen Him go.  They saw a cloud (singular) receive (carry) Him away.  Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ will come, being carried by a cloud (singular).

If we join all of this together, we understand the following:  When He returns, our Lord Jesus Christ will come in and by a singular cloud, being surrounded under and around by a plurality of clouds, so as to come with a plurality of clouds.


3.  Considering the phrase in Revelation 1:7, "And they also which pierced him."

John 19:34 indicates that a single Roman solider pierced Jesus' side -- "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."
Psalm 22:16 also speaks about the piercing of his hands and his feet -- "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."
This piercing of His hands and His feet was also accomplished by Roman soldiers.

John 19:37 indicates that these piercings, especially that of His side, fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy -- "And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."
The Old Testament prophecy is that of Zechariah 12:10 -- "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

This Old Testament prophecy indicates that the reference to those who pierced Him is a reference unto "the house of David" and "the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
Yet Jesus was not literally, physically pierced by "the house of David" or "the inhabitants of Jerusalem," but literally, physically by Roman soldiers.
So then, we may understand that the phrase in Revelation 1:7 does NOT apply literally unto the Roman soldiers, but prophetically unto "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" at the time when our Lord Jesus Christ shall return in His Second Coming.  Indeed, the phrase in Revelation 1:7 refers unto the children of Israel, who will mourn with repentance at His coming.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Again, to those in the audience who may be interested:

The reason that Brother D is so driven to argue for the idiomatic nature of Matthew 24:29-20, Mark 13:24-26, and Luke 21:25-27 is not simply due to the principle of his belief concerning the definition of Biblical idioms.  Rather, he is so driven because he believes that these prophecies were fulfilled in and around 70 AD, through events at that time concerning God's judgment upon the children of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.  However, there was no literal occurrence of the prophetic utterances in these passages at that time.  Therefore, if these prophetic utterances are to be taken literally, they could NOT have been fulfilled at that time since they did not so occur literally.  However, if he takes these prophetic utterances as idiomatic, then he can adapt them and apply them unto the events of that time, and so claim their past fulfillment.  Indeed, Brother D would also do the same with the great majority of the prophetic utterances within the Book of the Revelation.

Now, Brother D's most foundational position will be to focus upon those phrases concerning "this generation" or concerning the "soon," or "quick," or "at hand" fulfillment of these prophecies.  For him and his position, it all really does begin on that foundational ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Thanks for this clarification Bro. Scott. The thought of his position being Preterist did cross my mind when he posted things such as you pointed out referring to "soon, "quick", "at hand". and "this generation." But I didn't follow through with reasoning it out since Preterism is a relatively new subject for me. I never even heard of the term before joining OB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 7/16/2018 at 10:39 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1)  Acts 1:9 indicates that in His ascension our Lord Jesus Christ was received (carried) by a cloud (singular) out of the disciples' SIGHT (the reference unto physical sight is worthy of notice).  Acts 1:11 indicates that our Lord Jesus Christ will come back "in like manner" as the disciples had "SEEN him go into heaven" (again, the reference unto physical sight is worthy of notice).  That observable MANNER was by a CLOUD (singular).  Considering the specific Greek prepositions in each passage, we learn the following: Matthew 24:30 indicates a coming of our Lord Jesus Christ UPON (Greek preposition "epi") the clouds (plural) of heaven; Mark 13:26 indicates a coming of our Lord Jesus Christ IN (Greek preposition "en") clouds (plural); and Luke indicates a coming of our Lord Jesus Christ IN (Greek preposition "en") a cloud (singular).  Now, either each of these three passages is talking about a different coming, because one speaks about coming upon plural clouds, whereas another speaks about coming in plural clouds, whereas another speaks about coming in a singular cloud.  Or, all three passages are a legitimate BIBLICAL way for describing the SAME event, whether upon or in plural or singular cloud(s).  If all three of these passages are indeed a BIBLICALLY legitimate way to describe the same event, then the reference unto a singular cloud in Acts 1:9-11 cannot simply be ruled out simply because it only reference a cloud in the singular, since Luke 21:27 also only references a cloud in the singular.  (It is also worthy of notice that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of the Acts were written by the same inspired penman.)  Furthermore, it is worthy of notice that EVERY SINGLE ONE of these passages specifies that the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ WILL BE SEEN.  (Yes, I know that you believe these references unto seeing simply to be stylistic and thus trivial; however, I consider them to be a significant signal for the literal nature of these prophetic utterances in literal fulfillment of the promise that was made in Acts 1:11.)

2)  Luke 21:31 (which is a part of the context for Luke 21:27) speaks about the establishing of the KINGDOM upon the earth, and Matthew 25:31 (which is a part of the context for Matthew 24:30) speaks about our Lord Jesus Christ sitting "upon the throne of his glory" in order to judge the nations of the world.  Indeed, the kingdom reign of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the earth most certainly is reference within these contexts.

3)  Yes, I really DO think that. 

4)  Indeed, Daniel 7 does speak about an eternal kingdom because the kingdom reign of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the earth, that will begin with the thousand year reign (as per Revelation 19-20), will not be broken, but will continue into the eternal reality of the New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem.

5)  Note my comment for #2) above.

6)  False Christs are NOT a "small problem."  The spirit of antichrist is NOT a "small problem."  The antichrist himself, who will himself be a false christ, will NOT be a "small problem, but will move the majority population of the whole earth to worship him, and thereby damn themselves unto the eternal torment of hell.  NOT a "small problem" AT ALL.    Even so , I am compelled to say that your trivialization of Biblical matters is somewhat offensive to this Bible student.
 

No sir. I was referring to Matthew 24:30 -- "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."  Therefore, your comments about the context of Revelation 1:7 are not really relevant.

________________________________________________________

Now then, it has not really been my expectation throughout this discussion that I would convince you to change your position.  Rather, it has been my primary intention to demonstrate unto the audience that there are definite BIBLICAL answer for your doubtful disputations.  Thus at this time I now speak to the audience of this discussion -- Throughout this thread discussion between Brother D and myself (Pastor Scott Markle), one of us has engaged the discussion primarily through actual, extensive Bible study, whereas the other has engaged the discussion primarily through personal declarations.  As members of the audience, it is your responsibility to discern which is which, and to recognize that one method stands upon the authority of God's own Word, whereas the other method stands upon the authority of a man's personal word.  

I addressed the key verse/phrase Dispensationalists use to deny Mark 13 (and related) is a prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  Jesus didn't physically come in 70 AD. I pointed out that the Old Testament sometimes uses clouds symbolically for judgement.  I pointed out "Jesus coming in the clouds" has the quality of an idiom because the context makes no discussion of the verse as if it's literal.  And, the verse itself seems to have a pointless reference to clouds, if taken literally. 

You countered that the "coming in the clouds" is like manner, in reverse, of Acts 1.  I pointed how Acts 1 is very different.   In Acts 1, the cloud serves a function.  The context treats the  ascension as a literal event.  And, the concept of judgement is completely absent from the context. 

I believe all your arguments against my position is pleading.  You point to Luke Luke 21:31 and you say it speaks about the establishing of the KINGDOM upon the earth.  But, that comment about the kingdom isn't closely connected with Jesus coming in the clouds.  Jesus has already moved on and started a parable before speaking of the kingdom of God.   Even worse for your argument, Jesus often spoke about the kingdom of God being near or at hand, and he's not talking about a physical kingdom.

I addressed your key verse.  Now you can address the rest of the chapter. 

Which Temple is Jesus pointing to, that will be destroyed?

Who is Jesus telling will be persecuted and beaten in synagogues?

Did Rome not surround Jerusalem and cause desolation in 70 AD?

What do you think the definition of "this" is?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Brother D said:

I addressed the key verse/phrase Dispensationalists use to deny Mark 13 (and related) is a prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  Jesus didn't physically come in 70 AD. 

That is very correct. Our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT literally return in 70 AD, which is the reason that you are so driven to view the prophetic utterances of Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26, and Luke 21:27 as idiomatic.  Because if you do not take them as idiomatic, but as literal, then you cannot claim their fulfillment at that time.

1 hour ago, Brother D said:

I pointed out that the Old Testament sometimes uses clouds symbolically for judgement. 

And while acknowledging that such is SOMETIMES true, I provided an extensive study of the Old Testament wherein I demonstrated that clouds are also use in connection with the Lord (Jehovah) God for a number of OTHER characteristics as well.  Furthermore, I demonstrated with a grammatic study that in the contexts of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, the coming of the Lord is NOT what results in the judgment, since it comes AFTER the judgment and since it BRINGS deliverance for the Lord's elect.  Finally, I demonstrated that the most closely related characteristic of the Lord to the clouds within Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26, and Luke 21:27 is NOT His judgment, but His POWER AND GREAT GLORY. (Not reaching at all, for it is ALL right there in the inspired Word of God)

1 hour ago, Brother D said:

I pointed out "Jesus coming in the clouds" has the quality of an idiom because the context makes no discussion of the verse as if it's literal.  And, the verse itself seems to have a pointless reference to clouds, if taken literally. 

And I pointed out that this claim is false based upon the emphasis to literal seeing that is referenced in all of the passages, just as it is in Acts 1:9-11.  The seeing aspect of Acts 1:9-11 is that which emphasizes its literal nature, and the seeing aspect of Matthew 24:30, Mark, 13:26, and Luke 21:27.  (Yes, I know that you want this seeing aspect to be "just stylistic;" but in truth it is Biblically significant.)  Thus there is NO pointlessness in the reference unto literal clouds.  In fact, there is great deal of Biblical point, as I have presented above.

1 hour ago, Brother D said:

You countered that the "coming in the clouds" is like manner, in reverse, of Acts 1.  I pointed how Acts 1 is very different.   In Acts 1, the cloud serves a function.  The context treats the  ascension as a literal event.  And, the concept of judgement is completely absent from the context. 

Actually, I have countered your argument with a whole series of Biblical studies, including a Biblical study of Acts 1:9-11.  Furthermore, Acts 1:9-11 is NOT very different.  The literal nature of the cloud in Acts 1:9 is bound up with the aspect of seeing.  The prophecy of our Lord Jesus Christ literal return by a literal cloud as per Acts 1:11 is also bound up with the aspect of seeing.  And ALL of the prophetic utterances of Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27, and Revelation 1:7 include the aspect of literal seeing.  Finally, I have demonstrated with Bible study that although Actus 1:11 does not specifically mention judgment in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ's Second Coming, other passages of God's Holy Word certainly DO.  

1 hour ago, Brother D said:

I believe all your arguments against my position is pleading.  You point to Luke Luke 21:31 and you say it speaks about the establishing of the KINGDOM upon the earth.  But, that comment about the kingdom isn't closely connected with Jesus coming in the clouds.  Jesus has already moved on and started a parable before speaking of the kingdom of God.   Even worse for your argument, Jesus often spoke about the kingdom of God being near or at hand, and he's not talking about a physical kingdom.

Well, let us see how close or far Luke 21:31 actually is in the context of Luke 21:27.

Luke 21:27-31 -- "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great gloryAnd when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.  And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.  So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Brother D said:

I addressed your key verse.  Now you can address the rest of the chapter. 

Which Temple is Jesus pointing to, that will be destroyed?

Who is Jesus telling will be persecuted and beaten in synagogues?

Did Rome not surround Jerusalem and cause desolation in 70 AD?

What do you think the definition of "this" is?

1.  The Lord Jesus Christ was pointing to the temple in Jerusalem that was then standing in His very day.

2.  Those who will be persecuted and beaten in Jewish synagogues and before various government officials are New Testament church age preachers of the gospel.

3.  Rome most certainly and literally DID surround Jerusalem and DID bring desolation to Jerusalem in 70 AD, literally destroying the temple in Jerusalem so that there literally was not one stone left standing upon another.  However, in 70 AD the abomination of desolation did not stand in the temple of Jerusalem.  THAT will occur when the antichrist sets himself up within the (rebuilt) temple, professing himself to be Messiah and God.

4.  The word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun that grammatical points to something or someone present in the context.  

So, now some questions in return:

1.  Are the children of Israel still falling by the edge of the sword?

2.  Were the children of Israel lead away captive into all nations, and are they still scattered among those nations?

3.  Is Jerusalem still being trodden down of the Gentiles?

4.  Has the times (plural) of the Gentiles already been fulfilled, or are we still in the midst of the times (plural) of the Gentiles?  (Note: To answer this question you might want to consider Romans 11:25-27.)

5.  Are all of these things to be taken literally or idiomatically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  The Lord Jesus Christ was pointing to the temple in Jerusalem that was then standing in His very day.

2.  Those who will be persecuted and beaten in Jewish synagogues and before various government officials are New Testament church age preachers of the gospel.

3.  Rome most certainly and literally DID surround Jerusalem and DID bring desolation to Jerusalem in 70 AD, literally destroying the temple in Jerusalem so that there literally was not one stone left standing upon another.  However, in 70 AD the abomination of desolation did not stand in the temple of Jerusalem.  THAT will occur when the antichrist sets himself up within the (rebuilt) temple, professing himself to be Messiah and God.

4.  The word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun that grammatical points to something or someone present in the context.  

So, now some questions in return:

1.  Are the children of Israel still falling by the edge of the sword?

2.  Were the children of Israel lead away captive into all nations, and are they still scattered among those nations?

3.  Is Jerusalem still being trodden down of the Gentiles?

4.  Has the times (plural) of the Gentiles already been fulfilled, or are we still in the midst of the times (plural) of the Gentiles?  (Note: To answer this question you might want to consider Romans 11:25-27.)

5.  Are all of these things to be taken literally or idiomatically?

You are mostly right about those events, which Jesus spoke of, happening in 70 AD.  But, in fact desolation did come in 70 AD, and wouldn't you think that something causing that would be an abomination?

Your definition of "this" comes up a little short. 

1 (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as present, near, just mentioned or pointed out, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): This is my coat.
2 (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., referring to the one nearer in place, time, or thought; opposed to that😞
This is Liza and that is Amy.

If Jesus meant a generation other than his, one far off, he would have said "that generation".  Also, since Jesus doesn't mention any generation in context, the only generation he could be referring to is his generation.  You wouldn't say "this house needs cleaning" when you mean another house that you haven't mentioned (even then, you'd be using bad grammar to say "this house" when you mean another).

Don't you think it complicates your "that generation" argument when you concede the the Temple Jesus spoke of being destroyed was destroyed in Christ's generation and that Christ's followers were beaten in Jewish synagogues in Christ's generation, and that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies in 70 AD.  That Temple can't be destroyed again.  It's hard to imagine Christians today being beaten in jewish synagogues (in significant numbers), but at least you can imagine Jerusalem being surrounded again.  In fact, desolation was caused in 70 AD.  All you're quibbling about is what constitutes an abomination, apparent not the Roman army that caused the desolation, nor Roman general who claimed divinity who stood in the Temple, immediately before its destruction.

1) The 7-year Jewish-Roman wars ended in 73 AD with the fall of Masada.  There were some battles early after that when Jews tried to restore Judea.  But, it's been a very, very long time that Jews in significant numbers have fallen to swords.  And, I don't expect any future wars to be fought with swords.  So-called Jews are not children of Israel, but regardless, they're not falling by the edge of the sword.

2) Yes, in 70 AD, those Jews who weren't killed were scattered, just as Jesus predicted, along with the Temple being destroyed.  His generation.

3) No Jerusalem is still not being trodden down by the gentiles.   People you believe aren't gentiles control Jerusalem.  But, Jesus was referring to Roman war on Jerusalem (the topic of the chapter).  "Trodden down" is from a word that is only used in the Bible in the context of violence or crushing.  Jerusalem hasn't been trodden down much since the first century. 

4) The times of the gentiles being fulfilled doesn't mean an end to gentiles, but the fulfillment of the times of the gentiles is when the fullness of the gentiles has come into Israel (the church), and the Old Covenant is no more.  This happened with the Temple's destruction.

5) The only thing I take idiomatically is the one paragraph with Jesus coming in the clouds and stars falling, both clouds and stars are used symbolically in the OT. And, the context here implies they're idioms (e.g. what resulted form the stars falling), even if the reader didn't know clouds and stars were established idioms in the OT.  I take everything else literally.  Dispensationalists only pretend to take the chapter literally.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Brother D said:

You are mostly right about those events, which Jesus spoke of, happening in 70 AD.  But, in fact desolation did come in 70 AD, and wouldn't you think that something causing that would be an abomination?

However, "the abomination of desolation" about which our Lord Jesus Christ prophesied in Matthew 24:15 & Mark 13:14, our Lord HIMSELF described as "the abomination of desolation, SPOKEN OF BY DANIEL THE PROPHET," which will "stand in the holy place."  Therefore, we MUST consider that information which is revealed in Daniel the prophet concerning this "abomination of desolation" in order to understand it aright.  Furthermore, it MUST be something or someone that stands "IN THE HOLY PLACE" of the temple, a place "where it ought not."  As such, the desolation of Jerusalem, which is the desolation of a city, is NOT equivalent to "the abomination of desolation."  Could "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet," have stood "in the holy place" at or around the same time as the desolation of Jerusalem?  It could have; however, the two descriptives themselves are not equivalent descriptives.  In order to discern if "the abomination of desolation" event occurred at that same time, we must understand better what it is, as per Daniel's prophecy; and then we must discern if such an event literally occurred at or around 70 AD.
 

3 hours ago, Brother D said:

Your definition of "this" comes up a little short. 

1 (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as present, near, just mentioned or pointed out, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): This is my coat.
2 (used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., referring to the one nearer in place, time, or thought; opposed to that😞
This is Liza and that is Amy.

No sir, my definition for the demonstrative pronoun "this" was precisely accurate.  And by definition, there are TWO possibilities of meaning for its usage by our Lord Jesus Christ in the verses under question.  In fact, those TWO possibilities are even revealed by the definition that you gave above.  Let us consider:

1.  Used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, ects, (POSSIBILITY #1) as present, near (POSSIBILITY #2) just mentioned or pointed out, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis.
2.  Used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., referring to the one nearer in place, time, or thought; opposed to that.

First, let us understand that the secondary definition above actually is NOT applicable because it requires an indication and comparison between ONE OF TWO OR MORE.  Our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT mention or compare two or more different generations; therefore, this usage for the demonstrative pronoun "this" is not the one for the context under question.

Second, in the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, He used the demonstrative pronoun "this" as an adjective to modify the noun "generation."  By definition the noun "generation" indicates a group of people at a certain period of time.  The TWO possibilities for our Lord's usage thereof are (1) as a reference unto the group of people in His audience at that present time UNTO whom He was speaking, or (2) as a reference unto the group of people that He just mentioned who would SEE the event of "the abomination of desolation" and who would SEE the "signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars," ABOUT whom He was speaking.  In the first possibility, He was indicating "this generation," you, the very group who are standing and hearing right now.  In the second possibility, He was indicating "this generation," the very group about which I have just been speaking that will actually see these events unfold.

So which possibility is the correct one in this context?  Actually, the answer to that question requires a correct understanding concerning "the abomination of desolation," since the event of "the abomination of desolation" is that which will START a whole series of events that directly lead unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ "in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" and unto the gathering together of HIs elect "from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, I am now at somewhat of an advantage, since Brother D has been kicked out of the forum and can no longer respond with any counter arguments.  Nevertheless, for the sake of the audience, I do believe that some matters should be brought to a form of conclusion.  Even so, I shall yet post a few additional postings to this thread.

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 6:41 AM, Brother D said:

Don't you think it complicates your "that generation" argument . . .

I did NOT make a "that generation" argument.  Rather, as per my posting above, I made a "THIS generation" argument.  I just made certain that we recognized ALL of the possibilities for the grammatical usage of the demonstrative pronoun "this," rather than just the one which supports my personal agenda.

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 6:41 AM, Brother D said:

Don't you think it complicates your "that generation" argument when you concede the the Temple Jesus spoke of being destroyed was destroyed in Christ's generation and that Christ's followers were beaten in Jewish synagogues in Christ's generation, and that Jerusalem was surrounded by armies in 70 AD.  That Temple can't be destroyed again.  It's hard to imagine Christians today being beaten in jewish synagogues (in significant numbers), but at least you can imagine Jerusalem being surrounded again. 

No, I do not think that there is any complication at all, because I understand that our Lord's prophecy revealed the judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD, as well as a judgment against the whole world sometime in the future.  Now, for the details on this matter, I shall be presenting another posting that provides the time-line of events as prophesied by our Lord in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

Indeed, that temple which was destroyed in 70 AD cannot be destroyed again.  Thus I believe that a third temple shall be built.

First, it is not hard to imagine Christians being beaten in Jewish synagogues today.  Second, the requirement of "significant numbers" is NOT provided in these passages of Scripture.  Third, Matthew 24:9 simply presents this as follows -- "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."  Not at all hard to image that Christians will be afflicted and killed even today, nor that they shall be hated of all nations for Christ's name's sake.  Mark 13:9 presents this as a three-fold matter -- "But take heed to yourselves: [1] for they shall deliver you up to counsils; AND [2] in synagogues ye shall be beaten: AND [3] ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them."  As long as any part of this is still occurring, this prophesy can still be considered to be in effect.  So then, even if I were to concede that it is hard to image Christians being beaten in Jewish synagogues, it is not at all hard to image Christians being brought before counsels, rulers, and kings in persecution for Christ's name's sake.  In like manner, Luke 21:12 also presents this as a three-fold matter of persecution -- "But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, [1] delivering you up to the synagogues, AND [2] into prisons, [3] being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake."  No sir, not at all hard to image Christians being persecuted and imprisoned by various kings and rulers today.

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 6:41 AM, Brother D said:

In fact, desolation was caused in 70 AD.  All you're quibbling about is what constitutes an abomination, apparent not the Roman army that caused the desolation, nor Roman general who claimed divinity who stood in the Temple, immediately before its destruction.

Grammatical and contextual precision in Bible study is NOT "quibbling."  Rather, it is the very manner for "rightly dividing" God's Holy Word of Truth.  The desolation of Jerusalem did indeed occur in 70 AD, just as our Lord Jesus Christ prophesied in Luke 21:20; and the oppression of Jerusalem and the children of Israel by the Gentiles continues unto this day, just as our Lord Jesus Christ prophesied in Luke 21:24.  (By the way, the phrase "times [plural] of the Gentiles indicates an extended series of generational (or larger) time periods.  Even so, this very phrase itself indicates contextually that our Lord Jesus Christ was not speaking about the generation standing before Him through the phrase "this generation" in Luke 21:32.)  Furthermore, I am not seeking simply to define "what constitutes an abomination."  Rather, I am seeking to define what constitutes "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet."  That is a more specific abomination than just any abomination, as per our Lord Jesus Christ's own declaration.  (By the way, the fact that Brother D did not even make reference unto Daniel's prophecies concerning the abomination of desolation reveals something about the type of Bible student that he was -- or was not.)  Finally, I am not aware of ANY historical source which indicates that Titus stood in the temple claiming to be God, just before the destruction of the temple.  If Brother D were still here, I would request his historical source for this claim.  If he had provided one or more, I would certainly have considered it.  If he did not provide at least one, we would be left with simply taking his personal declaration as a valid authority -- something that I myself simply WOULD NOT be willing to do.

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 6:41 AM, Brother D said:

1) The 7-year Jewish-Roman wars ended in 73 AD with the fall of Masada.  There were some battles early after that when Jews tried to restore Judea.  But, it's been a very, very long time that Jews in significant numbers have fallen to swords.  And, I don't expect any future wars to be fought with swords.  So-called Jews are not children of Israel, but regardless, they're not falling by the edge of the sword.

2) Yes, in 70 AD, those Jews who weren't killed were scattered, just as Jesus predicted, along with the Temple being destroyed.  His generation.

3) No Jerusalem is still not being trodden down by the gentiles.   People you believe aren't gentiles control Jerusalem.  But, Jesus was referring to Roman war on Jerusalem (the topic of the chapter).  "Trodden down" is from a word that is only used in the Bible in the context of violence or crushing.  Jerusalem hasn't been trodden down much since the first century. 

4) The times of the gentiles being fulfilled doesn't mean an end to gentiles, but the fulfillment of the times of the gentiles is when the fullness of the gentiles has come into Israel (the church), and the Old Covenant is no more.  This happened with the Temple's destruction.

5) The only thing I take idiomatically is the one paragraph with Jesus coming in the clouds and stars falling, both clouds and stars are used symbolically in the OT. And, the context here implies they're idioms (e.g. what resulted form the stars falling), even if the reader didn't know clouds and stars were established idioms in the OT.  I take everything else literally.  Dispensationalists only pretend to take the chapter literally.    

1)  Actually, swords were used in battles over and against Jerusalem for hundreds of years after 70 AD.  Furthermore, swords are still used at times as weapons in the battles and skirmishes of the middle east.  Finally, "swords" is representative of any and all forms of weapon.

2)  And they are still scattered across the whole world, as per our Lord's prophesy in Luke 21:24 - because "the times of the Gentiles" has not yet come to its fulfilled conclusion.

3)  Oh, but Jerusalem most certainly IS still being "trodden down" with oppression unto this very day.  Actually, throughout the centuries since the first century, Jerusalem has been fought over and trodden down a great number of times.  This is simply a historical FACT.

4)  Never said that the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled meant an end to the existence of the Gentiles.  Indeed, the fulfillment for the times of the Gentiles IS when the FULNESS of the Gentiles shall come in, as per Romans 11:25, which will lead to the deliverance of ALL the children of Israel, as per Romans 11:26-27.  This FULNESS of the Gentiles has NOT YET been completed.  As far as the ending of the old covenant from Mount Sinai, that ended at the cross of Christ, not at the destruction of temple in 70 AD.  The New Testament/Covenant was established in Christ's shed blood, sacrificial death, miraculous resurrection, and glorious exaltation.  When the New Testament/Covenant was thereby established, the old covenant was taken away.  

5)  By his own acknowledgement, Brother D DOES take some of the prophesy as idiomatic.  By my own claim, I take NONE of the prophesy as idiomatic, but as grammatically and contextually precise and literal.  Now, Brother D attempts to disparage my claim with the accusation that I only PRETEND to take the chapter literally.  Yet his accusation is NOT valid just because he claimed it to be so.  Rather, he must provide evidence for the accuracy of his accusation in order for it to be established as having validity; but he is no longer able to do that because he ha been kicked out of the forum.  Even so, at the beginning of this posting, I acknowledged my advantage for the remainder of this threads postings.

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

  • Administrators

Bro. Scott, I son't believe that if he were still here he could provide any further argument in addition to what he has already provided time and time again. Saying the same thing over and over just doesn't make it so, especially when what he has declared has been proven wrong at every turn.

I myself would not go as far as declaring him a false teacher, simply because he is not a teacher of any form. But I would say without any hesitation that he has been and still is seriously deluded and/or misled. Whether this is something he learned by listening to others or something he arrived at by himself I do not know. I tend to lean toward him being self taught, simply because of the ridiculous nature of many of his arguments. I have never personally heard this kind of teaching from any kind of Baptist.

So post on brother, it will be good information to any future folks who stumble upon this thread. Besides, most of this is really deep stuff that most people never get to hear preached simply because so few pastors are knowledgeable enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Concerning Matthew 24:1 - 25:46, Mark 131-37, Luke 21:5-36 (Part 1).

First, let us recognize that Matthew 24:1 – 25:46, Mark 13:1-37, and Luke 21:5-36 are parallel passages concerning the same teaching event of our Lord Jesus Christ’s ministry.

Second, let us recognize that this teaching event of our Lord’s ministry was delivered in response to questions that the disciples had asked.  In fact, the disciples had asked TWO sets of questions. 

A few days before our Lord’s crucifixion, He engaged in teaching at the temple in Jerusalem.  Upon one of those occasions, as He was leaving the temple, some of His disciples pointed out the glory of the temple building.

Matthew 24:1 — And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.”
Mark 13:1 — And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!”
Luke 21:5 — And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,”

In response, our Lord Jesus Christ prophesied concerning the destruction of that temple.

Matthew 24:2 — And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things?  Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
Mark 13:2 — And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings?  There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
Luke 21:6 — As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Then in response to our Lord’s prophecy, the disciples asked their two sets of questions.

Matthew 24:3 — And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?  And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Mark 13:3–4 — And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, tell us, when shall these things be?  And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?”
Luke 21:7 — And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be?  And what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?”

In each of these three passages, it is recorded that the disciples asked two questions.  However, in both Mark 13:3-4 and Luke 21:7 the two questions both concern the SAME matter; for both questions in both of these passages are about “these things.”  Now, since our Lord Jesus Christ had just prophesied concerning the destruction of the temple, the matter of “these things” must concern that very destruction.  On the other hand, in Matthew 24:3 the two questions concern DIFFERENT matters; for the first question is also about “these things,” but the second question is about the Lord’s coming and the end of the world.  So then, the TWO sets of questions by the disciples were as follows:

1.  Set #1 – Concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
     A.  WHEN shall these things [the destruction of the temple] be?
     B.  WHAT SIGN will there be when these thing [the destruction of the temple] shall come to pass?

2.  Set #2 – Concerning the Lord’s coming and the world’s end
     A.  WHAT shall be the SIGN of thy coming?
     B.  WHAT shall be the SIGN . . . of the end of the world?

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members
On 4/26/2017 at 5:00 AM, CelinaCelinaCelina said:

I've read the book of Revelation and Daniel at least twice before, but I wasn't really able to understand the prophecies therein.
I know that the Holy Spirit will guide you of all truth but I don't really know how to understand it.

I can read some opinions from other Christians but how will I know if they are right?

How were you guys able to finally understand those books?
 

Helpful to remember that the Revelation ties directly into Daniel and other OT prophecies, so the key to the symbols will be found in those other prophetic books. Also important to realise that the Book was written to address both immediate situations at time of John, and also was addressing future end time events still yet to come.

The churches mentioned by John addresed by jesus would refer to various churches throughout the Church Age, and some see them as historical churches, as in various stages of the state of the Church going forward.

Please remember also that the main person of the Book is Jesus Christ, not the antichrist, as some weant to elevate that person to being the main person of the prophecy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Celina, celina, celina...

 

Agreed, if we know Daniel properly, its chronology and exact dating, then it must also coincide exactly with Revelation and its chronology and exact dating..

 

One is a compliment of the other, and both must match if we get it right and exact, and we do have to after the Covenant START begins.

 

And blessed be the Philippines, a truly Christian country, and an amazing Christian President..The Lord bless and keep him.Im definitely not political there or here or anywhere, but President Duarte has brough law and oreder, even though he cant do it all. GBY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just trying out this format, please forgive if wrong....

DaComb, Revelation is about Jesus' victory over the AntiChrist and the False Prophet, and our unity together under HIS earthly leadership of Revelation 11, etc with our Two Witnesses. So again, there is a parallel, and we do have to know the opposition, and the exact times of our GATHERING and fleeing and fight to the end....

Know the Lord, know prophecy, and know the opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 8/13/2018 at 7:21 PM, Davidjayjordan said:

Just trying out this format, please forgive if wrong....

DaComb, Revelation is about Jesus' victory over the AntiChrist and the False Prophet, and our unity together under HIS earthly leadership of Revelation 11, etc with our Two Witnesses. So again, there is a parallel, and we do have to know the opposition, and the exact times of our GATHERING and fleeing and fight to the end....

Know the Lord, know prophecy, and know the opposition.

There are no scriptures though that even hin thtta we will know the eaxact hour of His rapture event, as we are just commanded to be ready for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry Bro, the exact hour is 84 hours after our two Christian prophets are killed by the AC, and lie in the steets of Jerusalem for 3.5 days until the Lord comes in the air for them and ALL others in the first RESURRECTION

 

Rev 11

And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

 

Im not allowed to make a NEW TOPIC with these WORDS OF GOD, but maybe I am allowed to answer you HEREON, with an answer for you.

Edited by Davidjayjordan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

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

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...