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.

"Repent of Your Sins" False gospel


BabeinChrist
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
23 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Acts 8:22 - "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."

22 hours ago, wretched said:

That is close Scott and was definitely considered but doesn't fit if the issue being considered is sinful acts and not the condition of the heart in unbelief. The context of Simon is His disingenious "belief" of which repentance was needful. Does that make sense?

Yes, Brother Wretched, it makes sense . . . IF we are parsing sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance, and IF the wickedness of Simon was the sinful attitude of unbelief.  However, I myself would take issue with this for the following reasons:

1.  I would NOT parse sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance.  Rather, I would contend that the matter of repentance encompasses any and all sinfulness, including BOTH sinful actions and sinful attitudes, BOTH sinful speech and sinful thoughts.

2.  I would contend that Simon's wickedness was NOT the sinful attitude of unbelief, but was the thought that spiritual blessings can be purchases with carnal money (in principle - the thought that carnal means are the way to spiritual progress).  Consider Acts 8:18-23 -- "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of GodRepent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.  For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."  Throughout this I do not see any place wherein Peter accuses Simon concerning the sinful attitude of unbelief.  Rather, it appears to me that Peter accused Simon concerning the sinful attitudes of materialism (as the means for spiritual progress) and of bitterness.  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God itself reports that Simon DID believe.  Even so, BEFORE the event of Acts 8:18-23, the opening line of Acts 8:13 reports, "Then Simon himself believed also."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, Brother Wretched, it makes sense . . . IF we are parsing sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance, and IF the wickedness of Simon was the sinful attitude of unbelief.  However, I myself would take issue with this for the following reasons:

1.  I would NOT parse sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance.  Rather, I would contend that the matter of repentance encompasses any and all sinfulness, including BOTH sinful actions and sinful attitudes, BOTH sinful speech and sinful thoughts.

2.  I would contend that Simon's wickedness was NOT the sinful attitude of unbelief, but was the thought that spiritual blessings can be purchases with carnal money (in principle - the thought that carnal means are the way to spiritual progress).  Consider Acts 8:18-23 -- "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of GodRepent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.  For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."  Throughout this I do not see any place wherein Peter accuses Simon concerning the sinful attitude of unbelief.  Rather, it appears to me that Peter accused Simon concerning the sinful attitudes of materialism (as the means for spiritual progress) and of bitterness.  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God itself reports that Simon DID believe.  Even so, BEFORE the event of Acts 8:18-23, the opening line of Acts 8:13 reports, "Then Simon himself believed also."

He certainly did!  Baby Christians have to be admonished, rebuked, chastened and corrected because we all do dumb stuff, just like Brother Simon. As a personal testimony, I myself did not repent of a list of sins, or any specific sin that I recall. I DID repent of being what I was: a low-down sinner. Repentence, in salvation, is simply turning to Jesus from sin and self. Not a step one, step two, step three thing. At least it was for me.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

He certainly did!  Baby Christians have to be admonished, rebuked, chastened and corrected because we all do dumb stuff, just like Brother Simon. As a personal testimony, I myself did not repent of a list of sins, or any specific sin that I recall. I DID repent of being what I was: a low-down sinner. Repentence, in salvation, is simply turning to Jesus from sin and self. Not a step one, step two, step three thing. At least it was for me.

Brother Wayne, I myself would agree (I think).  For I would contend that the repentance necessary for salvation includes, NOT a repentance from individual sins of unrighteousness (per se) unto a walk of righteousness, BUT a repentance from utter sinFULness in character unto the Savior from all sinfulness.  (1st Note: I also believe that the repentance for salvation includes a repentance toward God (unto the truth) and a repentance from dead works (as a means of salvation).)  (2nd Note: I would acknowledge that a confrontation of an individual sin may be the means by which a lost sinner comes to recognize his or her utter sinFULness, as per the case of the Samaritan woman in John 4.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne, I myself would agree (I think).  For I would contend that the repentance necessary for salvation includes, NOT a repentance from individual sins of unrighteousness (per se) unto a walk of righteousness, BUT a repentance from utter sinFULness in character unto the Savior from all sinfulness.  (1st Note: I also believe that the repentance for salvation includes a repentance toward God (unto the truth) and a repentance from dead works (as a means of salvation).)  (2nd Note: I would acknowledge that a confrontation of an individual sin may be the means by which a lost sinner comes to recognize his or her utter sinFULness, as per the case of the Samaritan woman in John 4.)

certainly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, Brother Wretched, it makes sense . . . IF we are parsing sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance, and IF the wickedness of Simon was the sinful attitude of unbelief.  However, I myself would take issue with this for the following reasons:

1.  I would NOT parse sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance.  Rather, I would contend that the matter of repentance encompasses any and all sinfulness, including BOTH sinful actions and sinful attitudes, BOTH sinful speech and sinful thoughts.

2.  I would contend that Simon's wickedness was NOT the sinful attitude of unbelief, but was the thought that spiritual blessings can be purchases with carnal money (in principle - the thought that carnal means are the way to spiritual progress).  Consider Acts 8:18-23 -- "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of GodRepent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.  For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."  Throughout this I do not see any place wherein Peter accuses Simon concerning the sinful attitude of unbelief.  Rather, it appears to me that Peter accused Simon concerning the sinful attitudes of materialism (as the means for spiritual progress) and of bitterness.  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God itself reports that Simon DID believe.  Even so, BEFORE the event of Acts 8:18-23, the opening line of Acts 8:13 reports, "Then Simon himself believed also."

I understand your stand brother and respect it. I simply view it from the standpoint of consistency in the NT and I correlate it to tares which God's Word also tells us "believe". But this belief is only in the mind and not in the heart. Mental belief lasts only as long as it is reinforced from without, heart belief results in the new birth. I believe this is why our end days "churches" are filled with tares constantly being reinforced from without but the hearts are not right in the sight of God. These receive a "gospel" with the costs already counted for them and then repetitiously reinforced.

Take it from a former tare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/7/2019 at 11:57 AM, wretched said:

I understand your stand brother and respect it. 

Brother Wretched, I certainly appreciate your respect toward me (now and in the past).  Although we have not always agreed, I have definitely come to respect you a great deal through our various interactions.  Even so, I desire that the following post not be taken as disrespectful; for I do NOT intend it as such.  Nevertheless, I do intend it to be somewhat corrective (which some take as disrespectful).  (Note: I have pondered much on how to present the following.  I pray that it will truly be "good to the use of edifying.")
 

On 12/7/2019 at 11:57 AM, wretched said:

I simply view it from the standpoint of consistency in the NT and I correlate it to tares which God's Word also tells us "believe". But this belief is only in the mind and not in the heart. Mental belief lasts only as long as it is reinforced from without, heart belief results in the new birth. I believe this is why our end days "churches" are filled with tares constantly being reinforced from without but the hearts are not right in the sight of God. These receive a "gospel" with the costs already counted for them and then repetitiously reinforced.

Take it from a former tare

With your linked phrase (tells us "believe"), you make reference unto the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  In relation to the parable of the sower, you speak about "tares" and seem to indicate that "they on the rock" should be viewed as such "tares."  However, I am compelled to contend that there are NO "tares" whatsoever at all in the parable of the sower.  The ONLY seed sown in the parable of the sower is the "good" (incorruptible - see for reference 1 Peter 1:23) seed of God's Word; and the ONLY sower in the parable of the sower is a "good" sower of the incorruptible Word (as implied by the fact that he is sowing the "good" seed of God's Word).  From my perspective, to indicate or imply that the incorruptible seed of God's Word can produce (germinate into) "tares" is somewhat offensive against the incorruptible character of God's Holy Word.

On the other hand, the only place wherein "tares" are directly referenced in the New Testament is in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43.  In the parable of the tares, there are TWO DIFFERENT kinds of seed that are sown: (1) "the good seed" and (2) the "tares" seed.  Furthermore, in that parable there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the good sower of the good seed, "the Son of man," and (2) the "enemy" sower of the "tares" seed, "the devil."  If we seek to correlate the two parables, it would seem to me that the correlation between them is at the point of "the good seed," the incorruptible seed of God's Holy Word.  This good, incorruptible seed of God's Word produces (germinates into) wheat, NOT tares.

Thus I would further contend that the "belief" presented in Luke 8:13 is genuine faith in the gospel of Christ, through which the Word of God germinates in their hearts and through which they pass from death unto life (as indicated by the very fact that there IS plant growth).  The germination and LIFE of God's Word in an individual's heart is itself an evidence that an individual is "born again." (See for reference 1 Peter 1:23)

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wretched, I certainly appreciate your respect toward me (now and in the past).  Although we have not always agreed, I have definitely come to respect you a great deal through our various interactions.  Even so, I desire that the following post not be taken as disrespectful; for I do NOT intend it as such.  Nevertheless, I do intend it to be somewhat corrective (which some take as disrespectful).  (Note: I have pondered much on how to present the following.  I pray that it will truly be "good to the use of edifying.")
I will do the same brother Scott but must share this with you and cannot find a gentler way to express it. Please do not take it as a personal attack in any way but a pleading for you to give an ear for just a moment.

With your linked phrase (tells us "believe"), you make reference unto the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  In relation to the parable of the sower, you speak about "tares" and seem to indicate that "they on the rock" should be viewed as such "tares."  However, I am compelled to contend that there are NO "tares" whatsoever at all in the parable of the sower.  The ONLY seed sown in the parable of the sower is the "good" (incorruptible - see for reference 1 Peter 1:23) seed of God's Word; and the ONLY sower in the parable of the sower is a "good" sower of the incorruptible Word (as implied by the fact that he is sowing the "good" seed of God's Word).  From my perspective, to indicate or imply that the incorruptible seed of God's Word can produce (germinate into) "tares" is somewhat offensive against the incorruptible character of God's Holy Word.

Please consider the possibility that you have inserted an idea from I Peter 1: 23 plucking it out of its intended context to change the direct context of the Parables of the Sower and Tares. The sower and the tares are directly linked in the Gospels and are a continuation of each other. Please study prayfully the context in Matthew chapter 13 The context of the incorruptible seed of 1 Peter you linked is not related to the parables of the sower, seed and tares as I have bolded in the passage below.

Matthew 13: 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

On the other hand, the only place wherein "tares" are directly referenced in the New Testament is in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43.  In the parable of the tares, there are TWO DIFFERENT kinds of seed that are sown: (1) "the good seed" and (2) the "tares" seed.  Furthermore, in that parable there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the good sower of the good seed, "the Son of man," and (2) the "enemy" sower of the "tares" seed, "the devil."  If we seek to correlate the two parables, it would seem to me that the correlation between them is at the point of "the good seed," the incorruptible seed of God's Holy Word.  This good, incorruptible seed of God's Word produces (germinates into) wheat, NOT tares.

Please consider that your definition of "good seed" and "bad seed" is exactly what I am referencing above and explain thoroughly in What is a Tare. The "good" is the Word of God in it contexts as God intended as transcribed; the "bad" seed is His Word corrupted by its misuse. One of these misuses is plucking passages from His Word out of their direct contexts to negate the direct context of other passages. The "seed" is the Word of God in its context throughout the Parables of Sower and tares, It becomes corrupted or "bad" when plucked out, isolated or misapplied as God intended. This is corruption and religion and "theology". Satan misused God's Word at every turn, is the father lies and theology and religion.

Thus I would further contend that the "belief" presented in Luke 8:13 is genuine faith in the gospel of Christ, through which the Word of God germinates in their hearts and through which they pass from death unto life (as indicated by the very fact that there IS plant growth).  The germination and LIFE of God's Word in an individual's heart is itself an evidence that an individual is "born again." (See for reference 1 Peter 1:23)

Brother Scott, this is what I mean here when I warn men not to see and use God's Word as a reference for their already settled, "theological ideas" but to treat it as God intended as the Bread of Life; The Living Water.

Please believe me my dear friend when I tell you that I do not want to win temporary debates on forums, I want all of us who have received seed to win the war satan has waged on our souls through the traditions (theology) of men.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 hours ago, wretched said:

Brother Scott, this is what I mean here when I warn men not to see and use God's Word as a reference for their already settled, "theological ideas" but to treat it as God intended as the Bread of Life; The Living Water.

Please believe me my dear friend when I tell you that I do not want to win temporary debates on forums, I want all of us who have received seed to win the war satan has waged on our souls through the traditions (theology) of men.

Indeed, Brother Wretched, I also am not concerned about winning debates, but am much concerned about exalting Biblical truth.

Even so, I must contend that my primary point from my posting above still stands - (Even if we remove any reference unto 1 Peter 1:23)  There are NO tares in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  You implied that there were, but our Lord Jesus Christ Himself NEVER mentioned them therein.

Indeed, in relation to this my primary evidences also still stand:

1.  In the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is ONLY ONE seed that is sown.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined that ONE seed as the Word of God.  (Luke 8:11 -- "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."  Mark 4:14 - "The sower soweth the word.")  However, in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, there are TWO DIFFERENT seeds sown: (1) The good/wheat seed and (2) the tares seed.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined the good/wheat seed as "the children of the kingdom" and defined the tares seed as "the children of the wicked one."  (Matthew 13:38 - "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.")  It is worthy of notice that our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT even define the "good" seed from each of these two parable in the same way.  In the parable of the sower, the "good" seed is the WORD of God; whereas in the parable of the tares, the "good" seed are the CHILDREN of the kingdom.  (For your consideration, our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT define the two different seed in the parable of the tares as: (1) the Word of God rightly divided and (2) the Word of God corrupted by misuse.  Indeed, I would plead with you to consider your own warning above about seeing and using God's Word as a reference for already settled "theological ideas.")

2.  In the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is ONLY ONE sower of the seed.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did not directly define this one sower, but He did only reference ONE sower.  However, in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the sower of the good seed in his own field and (2) the enemy who sowed tares among the wheat.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined the sower of the good seed as "the Son of man" and defined the enemy as "the devil."  (Matthew 13:37 - He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man."  Matthew 13:39a - "The enemy that sowed them is the devil.")  Now, in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is NO enemy sowing a different seed than that of the "good" sower of God's Word.  Indeed, the wicked one, Satan, the devil IS present in the parable of the sower; however, he is NOT sowing any seed in that parable.  Rather, he is taking AWAY the seed of God's Word out of individual's hearts.  (Matthew 13:19 - When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.  This is he which received seed by the way side."  Mark 4:15 - And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts."  Luke 8:12 - Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.")  

So then, since there is ONLY ONE seed sown in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the seed of GOD'S HOLY WORD - IF there are tares in the parable of the sower, then the seed of God's WORD had to produce (germinate into) those tares.  Furthermore, since there is ONLY ONE sower in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the "good" sower of God's Word - IF there are tares in the parable of the sower, then the "good" sower had to be responsible for sowing them.  Yet since in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, the ENEMY who sowed the tares is the devil, and since in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the devil is NOT SOWING ANY SEED, but is actually STEALING AWAY the good seed of God's Word, then we have NO grounds for inserting the idea of tares into the parable of the sower.  The correct context for tares is the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, NOT the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  Thus I repeat again - There are NO tares in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15

__________________________________________________________________

Concerning any correlation between the seed in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the seed in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, and the seed in 1 Peter 1:23, consider the Biblical definition for the "good" seed in each case -

1.  The case of the parable of the sower: Luke 8:11 -- "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."  Mark 4:14 - "The sower soweth the word."

2.  The case of the parable of the tares: Matthew 13:38 - "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one."

3.  The case of 1 Peter 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

It appears to me that in BOTH the case of the parable of the sower and the case of 1 Peter 1:23, the "good" seed is Biblically defined as the same thing, as "THE WORD OF GOD."  However, it appears to me that in the case of the parable of the tares, the "good" seed is Biblically defined as something completely different, as "the children of kingdom."  So then, I would ask -- Of the three cases, IF there is any correlation, which cases correlate between better with each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, Brother Wretched, I also am not concerned about winning debates, but am much concerned about exalting Biblical truth.

Even so, I must contend that my primary point from my posting above still stands - (Even if we remove any reference unto 1 Peter 1:23)  There are NO tares in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  You implied that there were, but our Lord Jesus Christ Himself NEVER mentioned them therein.

Indeed, in relation to this my primary evidences also still stand:

1.  In the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is ONLY ONE seed that is sown.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined that ONE seed as the Word of God.  (Luke 8:11 -- "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."  Mark 4:14 - "The sower soweth the word.")  However, in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, there are TWO DIFFERENT seeds sown: (1) The good/wheat seed and (2) the tares seed.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined the good/wheat seed as "the children of the kingdom" and defined the tares seed as "the children of the wicked one."  (Matthew 13:38 - "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.")  It is worthy of notice that our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT even define the "good" seed from each of these two parable in the same way.  In the parable of the sower, the "good" seed is the WORD of God; whereas in the parable of the tares, the "good" seed are the CHILDREN of the kingdom.  (For your consideration, our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT define the two different seed in the parable of the tares as: (1) the Word of God rightly divided and (2) the Word of God corrupted by misuse.  Indeed, I would plead with you to consider your own warning above about seeing and using God's Word as a reference for already settled "theological ideas.")

2.  In the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is ONLY ONE sower of the seed.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did not directly define this one sower, but He did only reference ONE sower.  However, in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the sower of the good seed in his own field and (2) the enemy who sowed tares among the wheat.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined the sower of the good seed as "the Son of man" and defined the enemy as "the devil."  (Matthew 13:37 - He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man."  Matthew 13:39a - "The enemy that sowed them is the devil.")  Now, in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is NO enemy sowing a different seed than that of the "good" sower of God's Word.  Indeed, the wicked one, Satan, the devil IS present in the parable of the sower; however, he is NOT sowing any seed in that parable.  Rather, he is taking AWAY the seed of God's Word out of individual's hearts.  (Matthew 13:19 - When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.  This is he which received seed by the way side."  Mark 4:15 - And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts."  Luke 8:12 - Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.")  

So then, since there is ONLY ONE seed sown in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the seed of GOD'S HOLY WORD - IF there are tares in the parable of the sower, then the seed of God's WORD had to produce (germinate into) those tares.  Furthermore, since there is ONLY ONE sower in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the "good" sower of God's Word - IF there are tares in the parable of the sower, then the "good" sower had to be responsible for sowing them.  Yet since in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, the ENEMY who sowed the tares is the devil, and since in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the devil is NOT SOWING ANY SEED, but is actually STEALING AWAY the good seed of God's Word, then we have NO grounds for inserting the idea of tares into the parable of the sower.  The correct context for tares is the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, NOT the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  Thus I repeat again - There are NO tares in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15

__________________________________________________________________

Concerning any correlation between the seed in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the seed in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, and the seed in 1 Peter 1:23, consider the Biblical definition for the "good" seed in each case -

1.  The case of the parable of the sower: Luke 8:11 -- "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."  Mark 4:14 - "The sower soweth the word."

2.  The case of the parable of the tares: Matthew 13:38 - "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one."

3.  The case of 1 Peter 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

It appears to me that in BOTH the case of the parable of the sower and the case of 1 Peter 1:23, the "good" seed is Biblically defined as the same thing, as "THE WORD OF GOD."  However, it appears to me that in the case of the parable of the tares, the "good" seed is Biblically defined as something completely different, as "the children of kingdom."  So then, I would ask -- Of the three cases, IF there is any correlation, which cases correlate between better with each other?

I respect your decision brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Members

If the meaning of repentance is a change of mind from unbelief to belief, is the sinner who repented already has exercised belief in Christ when he repented?  If so, why did Paul give a distinction to repentance and faith if repentance is the same as belief in Christ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If repentance of sin is not for the wicked, why did God command the wicked to repent of their sinful way and thoughts?  

 

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
(Isaiah 55:7 KJV)
 

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
(Ezekiel 33:11 KJV)


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

WHAT IS IN THE MIND OF THE WICKED

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
(Genesis 6:5 KJV)

The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.
(Psalms 10:4 KJV)

Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
(Isaiah 59:7 KJV)

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
(Jeremiah 6:16 KJV)

Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.
(Jeremiah 6:19 KJV)

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
(Matthew 15:19 KJV)

The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.
(Psalms 94:11 KJV)

SAMECH. I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.
(Psalms 119:113 KJV)

The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words.
(Proverbs 15:26 KJV)

The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.
(Proverbs 24:9 KJV)

If thou hast done foolishly in lifting up thyself, or if thou hast thought evil, lay thine hand upon thy mouth.
(Proverbs 30:32 KJV)

O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?
(Jeremiah 4:14 KJV)

Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.
(Jeremiah 6:19 KJV)

If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
(Jeremiah 18:8 KJV)

WHAT IS THE COMMAND OF GOD TO THE WICKED?

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
(Isaiah 55:7 KJV)

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
(Ezekiel 33:11 KJV)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I like Brother James L. Melton's simplified view of the issue and the linked articles give a good balance view of repentance.

"REPENTANCE ISSUE SIMPLIFIED

There are generally three views of repentance, and only one is correct. Sure, one can offer up a dozen views, but they will all end up being very similar to one of the following . . .

The EMPTY-BELIEVE view. Just pray a prayer and make a profession. You get eternal life as a Christian because you professed to have changed your mind about believing, even though your sinful life never changes and you bear no fruits of the spirit.

The WORKS-BELIEVE view. You profess to believe on Christ, but you also mingle that belief with turning from your sins TO BE saved. The fruit becomes the root, which amounts to salvation by works.

The BIBLE-BELIEVING view. Seeing no hope in any self effort, you receive Christ and become a new creature, born of His Spirit to now live a new life with the fruits of the Spirit manifesting themselves as you grow in the Lord.

If you want it all stewed down to three simple explanations, there they are. If you need Scripture references, see our web site: http://www.biblebaptistpublications.org/doctrineofrepentance.html?fbclid=IwAR2A-HM8WkpDW1NgF5gPqQV-0yH7PngpB1h8g5ustUzq3xoL8pQ4NrgAcHI "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Luke 18:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Sin

Righteousness

Judgement

You must deal with "sin, rigteousness and judgement". You must turn to God from your sin, knowing that God is going to judge you in Hell and that you DESERVE it. . I've heard it put like "taking God's side against yourself".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Members
Quote
On 12/7/2019 at 10:35 AM, heartstrings said:

As a personal testimony, I myself did not repent of a list of sins, or any specific sin that I recall. I DID repent of being what I was: a low-down sinner. Repentence, in salvation, is simply turning to Jesus from sin and self.

 

Same here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C 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...