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.

What would you do?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
58 minutes ago, DaveW said:

And yet you ignore my question?

Forgive me.  I wasn't aware that it was a serious question.  I thought you were kidding.

15 hours ago, DaveW said:

Would you insist on a suit for people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea?

No, I would not insist on a suit for people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea.  However, if there was a church in that area, I would require that if they wanted to attend  services, that they start by covering up their nakedness as it defined by God and work with them from there.  I assume that if enough of them understand the Gospel well enough so that a church would need to be built and that they can be considered for membership in the church, that they would understand that turning toward Christ means to turn away from sin.  I find that once many non western cultures understand the Gospel and what repentance means, they are more willing to adopt new behaviors than western cultures are.  I have also found that indigenous cultures also tend to be hyper sensitive to issues of respect and etiquette.  I found these things to be true when I was in South Africa.

The very first thing Adam and Eve wanted to do, once they realized they had sinned, was to cover their nakedness.  They did it the best way they knew how, but it was not good enough.  God, Himself, had to cover them.  This has more to do with the requirement for the atonement for sin being the shedding of innocent blood, but it is interesting that the first example God used was also connected to modesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, Brother Stafford said:

No, I would not insist on a suit for people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea.  However, if there was a church in that area, I would require that if they wanted to attend  services, that they start by covering up their nakedness as it defined by God and work with them from there.  I assume that if enough of them understand the Gospel well enough so that a church would need to be built and that they can be considered for membership in the church, that they would understand that turning toward Christ means to turn away from sin.  I find that once many non western cultures understand the Gospel and what repentance means, they are more willing to adopt new behaviors than western cultures do.  I have also found that indigenous cultures also tend to be hyper sensitive to issues of respect and etiquette.  I found these things to be true when I was in South Africa.

Heck, the very first thing Adam and Eve wanted to do, once they realized they had sinned, was to cover their nakedness.  They did it the best way they knew how, but it was not good enough.  God, Himself, had to cover them.  This has more to do with the requirement for sin being the shedding of innocent blood, but it is interesting that the first example God used was also connected to modesty.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

Letting the world set the standards for when we draw the line in our churches is a dangerous thing because of the ever lowering of standards of decency.  

This is actually the reason I posted the question.

You are letting the world set your standard, but justifying it because you think it is a high standard.

Different cultures have different levels of "Sunday best" or formal attire.

The standard should not necessarily be "suit and tie", but "culturally formal dress".

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that the Bible sets a baseline modesty.

But formal dress is not necessarily a suit and tie.

IN YOUR AREA that may be entirely acceptable, but I can tell you that there are many people in Australia who would not darken the door of a church if a suit and tie was a prerequisite.

And I know of American missionaries whose churches here struggle because they have such a requirement.

I always wear a tie, and will wear a jacket if it is not too hot.

I lead by example, but the moment I say the men have to wear a tie is the moment that some of them will stop coming.

A friend of mine is a missionary in a south Pacific island group and he said it is the funniest thing - in official meetings the men turn up in knee length skirts and ties. No shirt - shirts are informal. Just a skirt and a necktie with no shirt.

But the men have been taught to wear a shirt to church because of modesty.

People should dress as though they were meeting their king/president/ruler.

The form that takes is different for different countries and different cultures and IS INDEED influenced by the culture of the time and region.

But in fact I broadly agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Different cultures have different levels of "Sunday best" or formal attire.

The standard should not necessarily be "suit and tie", but "culturally formal dress".

Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services.

However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings?  (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services.

However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings?  (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)

You mean wearing a suit and a tie is not evidence of being filled with the holy spirit?! haha. Agreed, I grow weary of people pushing the suit and tie culture with things like "professionals wear suits and ties" (even though in our culture that's not always true) (Besides since when do minister's of the Gospel mimic the way worldly business operates?) Then you have the "we should dress our best for God" bit as if God is impressed with our dressing up. (not saying we should dress like a slob either) Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that other people somewhat expect it, I would not feel bad at all forgoing the whole suit and tie culture, the only reason why I do it is because IFBs expect it. I honestly don't feel like there is something sacred about a suit and tie. In fact, I think our culture really is getting away from that formalism, and of course, you can argue about the reason for that change being bad or whatever, but it's still changing.

I think your question reveals a lot about this matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My biggest issue with this sort of thing is that it is soooooooo easy to wash the outside and impress people watching, but leave the heart completely unaddressed. 

I think that this one area where a church has liberty (keeping in mind the baseline modesty), and that anyone who wants to honour the Lord will submit to that church's standard.

But someone who is genuinely saved will come to what is considered God honoring dress BECAUSE of the change of their natural man to a new creature.

It may take some people longer than others because we all grow at different rates.

But any organisation has a right to demand basic good manners and basic modesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services.

However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings?  (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)

I think a thread to discuss your question would be helpful and profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services.

However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings?  (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)

While I personally agree that we should dress as DaveW said, "as though they were meeting their king/president/ruler," I don't believe that people should be denied entrance to a service if they are dressed more casually, as long as they are dressed modestly as defined by God's word.  We are commanded to dress modestly and according to our gender, but I have not yet found passages that command new testament Christians to dress formally for gatherings.  I believe that we should, as a sign of respect and devotion to our Lord, but I wouldn't set it in stone; it is just my preference.

When watching the television show, Little House on the Prairie, I wouldn't call Laura Ingalls' school dress a formal dress.  It was casual, yet biblically appropriate.  Similarly, Charles Ingalls' work clothes, although informal, should not have prevented him from attending services.  Modern day equivalents may be a t-shirt and jeans for men and a t-shirt and inexpensive, loose fitting, knee length skirt for women.  They are casual, yet modest and appropriate for each gender, which is what God commands.

I have also seen the extreme opposite, with which I disagree.  I have been to some services where people are dressed so extravagantly, in expensive clothing and costly jewelry, that I believe it also goes against Gods command against extravagance (1 Tim. 2:9).

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Here is a question I have often wondered -- If I (an American man) showed up to most Fundamental Baptist churches wearing an embroidered robe, including tassels and bells on its hem, and wearing a girdle type belt, how would I be accepted in such churches? 

As long as your robe could be distinguished as a robe and not a dress, I think that you would probably get a lot of strange looks, but I don't think that you would be denied entrance.

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, pants-wear as outerwear (on men or women) is also a cultural development.  Such also is not found within Biblical revelation.

I am aware that this is a much debated topic, which has most definitely been discussed elsewhere on this forum, but I believe that the issue of pants being a specific garment for men is in line with biblical teachings. 

There has to be clothing that is gender specific, otherwise Deut. 22:5 would be meaningless.

Breeches are mentioned five times in the Bible (Ex. 28:42, Ex. 39:28, Lev. 6:10, Lev. 16:4 and Eze. 44:18).  They are described as what would today be called men's knickers or knee length shorts.  They are only mentioned in connection with men and are therefore a male garment.  Other than a top coat or a robe, there are only two types of garments that can cover the lower half of the human body: a dress/skirt or shorts/pants; I know of no other way.  If men were to wear a dress or a skirt, nearly everyone would agree that they are wearing clothing that pertains to a woman.  The only other option that a man has is to wear pants/shorts.  If that is the only option for a man, and there are only two options, then the other option, a dress/skirt, is the only option that a woman can make.

If the argument is, "Well, there are styles of pants that are specifically styled for women and those are okay for women to wear."  If that can be true, then there should be certain styles of dresses and skirts that are specifically designed for men to wear that would be appropriate to wear.  The only example of this, of which I am aware, is the kilt worn by Scottish men and some Irish men, but they are the only ones that think so; the rest of the world mocks them for wearing women's skirts.

Edited by Brother Stafford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

While I personally agree that we should dress as DaveW said, "as though they were meeting their king/president/ruler," I don't believe that people should be denied entrance to a service if they are dressed more casually, as long as they are dressed modestly as defined by God's word.  We are commanded to dress modestly and according to our gender, but I have not yet found passages that command new testament Christians to dress formally for gatherings.  I believe that we should, as a sign of respect and devotion to our Lord, but I wouldn't set it in stone; it is just my preference.

When watching the television show, Little House on the Prairie, I wouldn't call Laura Ingalls' school dress a formal dress.  It was casual, yet biblically appropriate.  Similarly, Charles Ingalls' work clothes, although informal, should not have prevented him from attending services.  Modern day equivalents may be a t-shirt and jeans for men and a t-shirt and inexpensive, loose fitting, knee length skirt for women.  They are casual, yet modest and appropriate for each gender, which is what God commands.

I have also seen the extreme opposite, with which I disagree.  I have been to some services where people are dressed so extravagantly, in expensive clothing and costly jewelry, that I believe it also goes against Gods command against extravagance (1 Tim. 2:9).

I can express broad agreement with the above (with some reservations because I am aware that you and I hold a different view concerning Deuteronomy 22:5).

(On the other hand, my thought question from an above posting still remains -- Is there any Biblical PASSAGE which indicates that "laymen," or even church leadership, should "dress up" for church gatherings?  Please understand that I DO "dress up" and that I encourage the congregation of believers to do the same, because it is culturally appropriate and necessary as a sign of respect for the Lord our God.  However, I am asking if there is actually a BIBLICAL mandate for it.)
 

12 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

As long as your robe could be distinguished as a robe and not a dress, I think that you would probably get a lot of strange looks, but I don't think that you would be denied entrance.

By the way, my attire also includes a "beautiful bonnet."  

As far as the "strange looks," how many of those are judgmental that I am wearing the attire of a woman?  (I believe that there would be a great deal of that judgmental spirit.)

In addition, would I be permitted to be a LEADER in a Fundamental Baptist church while consistently wearing such attire?  (I greatly doubt it.)

So, why do I present such an outfit in my example -- Because such is similar to the VERY outfit that God HIMSELF designed for the male religious LEADER of Israel, the High Priest.  (I wonder, since the book of Hebrews seems to indicate that the tabernacle on earth was designed after the likeness of the heavenly, was the High Priest's attire Old Testament similar to that which our Lord Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, is now wearing in heaven?)

Finally, I would ask -- What exactly distinguishes a "robe" garment from a "dress" garment?  (Not sure that I even have a clue.) 

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

I am aware that this is a much debated topic, which has most definitely been discussed elsewhere on this forum, but I believe that the issue of pants being a specific garment for men is in line with biblical teachings. 

There has to be clothing that is gender specific, otherwise Deut. 22:5 would be meaningless.

First, it would be better to say -- "There has to be attire that is gender specific, otherwise Deuteronomy 22:5 would be meaningless."  Using the word "clothing" already biases the discussion in a direction that (I believe) is not quite accurate to the original meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5.

Second, I myself have already made clear my position on Deuteronomy 22:5, based upon extensive Bible study, in another thread, as per the following:

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440065

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440069

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440074

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440077

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440190

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440193

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440227

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440237

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440249

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440253

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440254

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440260

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440262

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440264

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440266

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440287
 

14 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

Breeches are mentioned five times in the Bible (Ex. 28:42, Ex. 39:28, Lev. 6:10, Lev. 16:4 and Eze. 44:18).  They are described as what would today be called men's knickers or knee length shorts.  They are only mentioned in connection with men and are therefore a male garment.  Other than a top coat or a robe, there are only two types of garments that can cover the lower half of the human body: a dress/skirt or shorts/pants; I know of no other way.  If men were to wear a dress or a skirt, nearly everyone would agree that they are wearing clothing that pertains to a woman.  The only other option that a man has is to wear pants/shorts.  If that is the only option for a man, and there are only two options, then the other option, a dress/skirt, is the only option that a woman can make.

If the argument is, "Well, there are styles of pants that are specifically styled for women and those are okay for women to wear."  If that can be true, then there should be certain styles of dresses and skirts that are specifically designed for men to wear that would be appropriate to wear.  The only example of this, of which I am aware, is the kilt worn by Scottish men and some Irish men, but they are the only ones that think so; the rest of the world mocks them for wearing women's skirts.

1.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" are UNDERWEAR garments.  Therefore, they would not be equivalent to men's knickers or knee length shorts as outerwear, but would be equivalent to men's boxer shorts as underwear.  

2.  By definition, since these "breeches" were underwear, they were not to be generally observable to the public eye.  Therefore, by definition they did not serve as a publicly observable attire of distinction between male and female.  (Unless one holds to the position concerning Deuteronomy 22:5 that it was about the distinction of under-garments, which in fact is the position that I was taught throughout the years of my upbringing.)

3.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" were a part of the priesthood's HOLY garments, to be worn specifically when the priest was engaged in his priesthood (sacrificial) responsibilities.  However, there is no indication that he was required to wear them when he was not engaged in these priesthood responsibilities, or that he ever did wear that when he was not so engaged.  Thus these "breeches" were a part of the Holy garments that distinguished him, not as a male from the female, but as a priest in priesthood duties, from everyone else.

4.  Exodus 28:42-43 specifically reveals the divine purpose for these "breeches," and that purpose is not given as the distinction between genders.  Rather, that specific purpose is one of modesty, to cover the priest's nakedness, which he was to wear when he came in unto the tabernacle or when he came near unto the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest someone might perchance get a glimpse up his skirt and see his nakedness, and thereby he bear iniquity and die.  (By the way, I believe that we Fundamental Baptists could learn something about modesty from this principle, that our women who wear skirt-wear in public should be wearing something similar UNDERNEATH their open-bottomed garments, since platforms and stairways are now such a common part of public life.)

5.  It is interesting to me that every time wherein I have encountered the "breeches" argument and evidence has been present to support the "pants are man's wear" position, these others points of Biblical information are NOT mentioned.  I wonder if the reason for that neglect is because it would weaken the argument of the agenda.

__________________________________

Now, it is true that there only two basic ways for the lower half of the human body to be covered --

(1) by an open-bottomed garment, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "skirt."
(2) by an split-legged garment which is divided in accord the division of the two legs, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "pant."

In the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the Israelites, BOTH the men AND the women wore garments with a "skirt."  At that time, neither the men nor the women wore a "pant" garment as outerwear.  Even so, the ORIGINAL meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 did NOT concern the matter of "skirts" as women's wear and "pants" as men's wear.  Furthermore, I myself most certainly would NOT say that a man wearing "skirt" wear is inherently wearing women's wear.  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ wore women's wear (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then the Lord God HIMSELF designed women's wear for the High Priest of Israel to wear (another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed as wearing women's wear in Revelation 1 (yet another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  No sir, the reason for so many to claim that "skirt-wear" is women's wear is founded and influenced by a few hundred years of THIS WORLD'S cultural development.  It is NOT a Biblical truth.  

Therefore, your logical argument above about the two possible options for male and female attire is built upon faulty premises.  First, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must be a form of common clothing.  Second, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must concern the lower half of the human body.  Third, it is built upon the premise that the possible attires of distinction must be through the shape of clothing, as opposed to the coloring or other decor of the clothing.  In fact, your viewpoint has to some extent been created BECAUSE OF the WORLD"S culture (from a number of hundreds of years of European culture); and now you attempt to read that culturally influenced viewpoint BACK onto God's Word.  IF you had studied the subject of clothing ONLY from the Scriptures themselves, you yourself would be wearing a garment that contains a SKIRT.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

First, it would be better to say -- "There has to be attire that is gender specific, otherwise Deuteronomy 22:5 would be meaningless."  Using the word "clothing" already biases the discussion in a direction that (I believe) is not quite accurate to the original meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5.

Second, I myself have already made clear my position on Deuteronomy 22:5, based upon extensive Bible study, in another thread, as per the following:

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440065

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440069

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440074

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440077

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440190

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440193

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440227

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440237

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440249

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440253

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440254

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440260

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440262

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440264

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440266

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440287
 

1.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" are UNDERWEAR garments.  Therefore, they would not be equivalent to men's knickers or knee length shorts as outerwear, but would be equivalent to men's boxer shorts as underwear.  

2.  By definition, since these "breeches" were underwear, they were not to be generally observable to the public eye.  Therefore, by definition they did not serve as a publicly observable attire of distinction between male and female.  (Unless one holds to the position concerning Deuteronomy 22:5 that it was about the distinction of under-garments, which in fact is the position that I was taught throughout the years of my upbringing.)

3.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" were a part of the priesthood's HOLY garments, to be worn specifically when the priest was engaged in his priesthood (sacrificial) responsibilities.  However, there is no indication that he was required to wear them when he was not engaged in these priesthood responsibilities, or that he ever did wear that when he was not so engaged.  Thus these "breeches" were a part of the Holy garments that distinguished him, not as a male from the female, but as a priest in priesthood duties, from everyone else.

4.  Exodus 28:42-43 specifically reveals the divine purpose for these "breeches," and that purpose is not given as the distinction between genders.  Rather, that specific purpose is one of modesty, to cover the priest's nakedness, which he was to wear when he came in unto the tabernacle or when he came near unto the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest someone might perchance get a glimpse up his skirt and see his nakedness, and thereby he bear iniquity and die.  (By the way, I believe that we Fundamental Baptists could learn something about modesty from this principle, that our women who wear skirt-wear in public should be wearing something similar UNDERNEATH their open-bottomed garments, since platforms and stairways are now such a common part of public life.)

5.  It is interesting to me that every time wherein I have encountered the "breeches" argument and evidence has been present to support the "pants are man's wear" position, these others points of Biblical information are NOT mentioned.  I wonder if the reason for that neglect is because it would weaken the argument of the agenda.

__________________________________

Now, it is true that there only two basic ways for the lower half of the human body to be covered --

(1) by an open-bottomed garment, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "skirt."
(2) by an split-legged garment which is divided in accord the division of the two legs, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "pant."

In the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the Israelites, BOTH the men AND the women wore garments with a "skirt."  At that time, neither the men nor the women wore a "pant" garment as outerwear.  Even so, the ORIGINAL meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 did NOT concern the matter of "skirts" as women's wear and "pants" as men's wear.  Furthermore, I myself most certainly would NOT say that a man wearing "skirt" wear is inherently wearing women's wear.  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ wore women's wear (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then the Lord God HIMSELF designed women's wear for the High Priest of Israel to wear (another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed as wearing women's wear in Revelation 1 (yet another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  No sir, the reason for so many to claim that "skirt-wear" is women's wear is founded and influenced by a few hundred years of THIS WORLD'S cultural development.  It is NOT a Biblical truth.  

Therefore, your logical argument above about the two possible options for male and female attire is built upon faulty premises.  First, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must be a form of common clothing.  Second, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must concern the lower half of the human body.  Third, it is built upon the premise that the possible attires of distinction must be through the shape of clothing, as opposed to the coloring or other decor of the clothing.  In fact, your viewpoint has to some extent been created BECAUSE OF the WORLD"S culture (from a number of hundreds of years of European culture); and now you attempt to read that culturally influenced viewpoint BACK onto God's Word.  IF you had studied the subject of clothing ONLY from the Scriptures themselves, you yourself would be wearing a garment that contains a SKIRT.   

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
30 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Please forgive me for what I'm about to say...

Folks here know my stance (I think). I see nothing wrong with women wearing pants...if they are modest. Same with dresses. Sometimes, I feel that I'm the only one who draws a parallel between modern-day IFB "rules and regulations" and the Pharisees who placed the emphasis on outward appearance.

Whitewashed tombs? Clean the outside of the cup? 

Christ certainly wasn't in favor of those who "made proselytes".

I've said it before. I'm saying it now...and I'll continue saying it...

Allow the Holy Spirit to change a person as they grow in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. When the change comes from him (and within), the change is real. When the change is forced by others...it's not real. It's done to please man.

All of this emphasis on forcing a change on the outward appearance usurps what Christ is doing on the inside. Often more than not, it forces people to seek to please man...and often more than not, it leads to man-worship.

I would much rather see a lady (who wears pants to church) yearning to know more of Christ...than to see a woman (who wears dresses only) that gives those who don't "measure up" looks of disgust and disdain, because they wear pants

...and the same for men.

Preach standards...yes! However, don't force them on people. Allow the Holy Spirit to change them through the preaching of his word.

Please? 

Now that is preaching!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

Brother Kurecki,

That is correct. BY DEFINITION, culottes are PANTS-WEAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Please forgive me for what I'm about to say...

Folks here know my stance (I think). I see nothing wrong with women wearing pants...if they are modest. Same with dresses. Sometimes, I feel that I'm the only one who draws a parallel between modern-day IFB "rules and regulations" and the Pharisees who placed the emphasis on outward appearance.

Whitewashed tombs? Clean the outside of the cup? 

Christ certainly wasn't in favor of those who "made proselytes".

I've said it before. I'm saying it now...and I'll continue saying it...

Allow the Holy Spirit to change a person as they grow in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. When the change comes from him (and within), the change is real. When the change is forced by others...it's not real. It's done to please man.

All of this emphasis on forcing a change on the outward appearance usurps what Christ is doing on the inside. Often more than not, it forces people to seek to please man...and often more than not, it leads to man-worship.

I would much rather see a lady (who wears pants to church) yearning to know more of Christ...than to see a woman (who wears dresses only) that gives those who don't "measure up" looks of disgust and disdain, because they wear pants

...and the same for men.

Preach standards...yes! However, don't force them on people. Allow the Holy Spirit to change them through the preaching of his word.

Please? 

You are not alone........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

 

I would modify that a bit to say that women who refuse to wear pants because they consider them to be men’s garments should also not wear culottes. 

If a woman does not wear pants because she considers them to be too form-fitting and immodest, then wearing culottes would not be hypocritical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Somehow we went from wearing culottes to shorts for sports activities.  At least the culottes were modest and identified one as a girl from a distance.

As to the earlier discussion, when folks in my local church tried to school an unbeliever about their immodest dress, without ears to hear with, they were offended and never came back.  Hard lesson.  When I pulled into the parking lot for the first time at our local church, my wife refused to get out of the car, saying it was a cult, all these ladies wearing dresses and long skirts!  We left but I prayed and persisted and we came back and the Lord wrought his Work on my dear wife's heart.  In the pew on a Wednesday night she leaned over and said we're home.  We did not live around women who dressed modestly.  Everything tight and or hanging out is the norm.

I had a job delivering to convenience stores once, it was tough being a child of God and going into those places with the ladies everywhere biblically naked.  I had to keep my thoughts on the Lord continually.  I loved the work but not that aspect, it was terribly stressful and soon after I was injured and could not do it anymore.

When these young ladies dress up, their dresses end barely below their belly buttons and barely the other way too!  Not a whole lot is left to the imagination.  But that is business attire, clubbing attire, its what they wear to weddings and funerals.  When not in dresses they're wearing those active wear skin tight clothes or even less.  Their momma's did too and they know no better. 

 

Only under conviction of the Holy Spirit will they begin to get curious and ask questions and have ears to hear with, then we can help win them for the Lord and get them to dress proper.

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

  • 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...