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.

Fornication and divorce question


Roselove
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

When Jesus says the only way you can divorce your wife and it be permitted, is if she commits fornication (either before or during betrothal, I suppose), is it a situation where the woman would be married to the person she had relations with, in God’s eyes (relations=marriage?) or was it not something that had to be done, but would be permissible for other reasons? 

Basically, what if the woman was truly repentant of her past actions and truly loved and wanted to be a good wife to the man. Would the man have to not be with her, to be in God’s will, because by God’s law, it would be forbidden, or is it something you can choose to do, if you decide that you can’t trust her or it was shameful in appearance or something? 

Also, is a marriage only legitimate if one of them is saved? I think I’ve heard that, but wanted clarification. 

I hope my question makes sense! 

Thank you

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking about fornication and divorce.

Regarding marriage...my belief is that whether the couple are both Christians, if neither of them are Christians, or only one of them is a Christian...they are bound to one another in God's eyes. He ordained marriage without specifying the couple's belief system. There may be biblical and secular reasons for divorce..."but from the beginning it was not so." (Matthew 19:8)

If I'm wrong, I will both accept it and acknowledge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Relations do not equal marriage. 

God may have permitted this divorce ‘because of the hardness of their hearts’, as Jesus said, but we see fairly clearly that He hates divorce. I believe it’s safe to say that divorce is never mandatory in His eyes; if the union can be saved, He wants that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

“But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7:28‬ ‭KJV‬‬
 

What does this mean? Is it a sin then, for a non-virgin woman to be married to someone besides the man that had relations with her, first? 

Well, I also have read the virgin in regards to a woman can just mean “maiden”, too. So maybe I was interpreting it wrong. Not sure.

Edited by Roselove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

That specific section relates to Paul's opinion that it's  better to stay single rather than get married, but that in the end, it's not a sin to get married. 'Trouble in the flesh' is just a fact of binding two sinful people together (in that everyone is a sinner, not that those two in particular committed fornication). This passage doesn't refer at all to fornication and the consequences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I've heard it so many times that it's considered"fornication" only premarital or during the "betrothal" period. But I know of three (3) families, baptists, in which the husband went to prison for molesting the children. If that isn't "fornication" I don't know what is. It would be so with an offending wife as well.. The Bible says ''except it be for fornication'';' otherwise, marriage is always holy and legitimate.

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 12/20/2019 at 8:31 AM, heartstrings said:

I've heard it so many times that it's considered"fornication" only premarital or during the "betrothal" period. But I know of three (3) families, baptists, in which the husband went to prison for molesting the children. If that isn't "fornication" I don't know what is. It would be so with an offending wife as well.. The Bible says ''except it be for fornication'';' otherwise, marriage is always holy and legitimate.

That is so, horrible. That would be such a horrifying thing to learn of someone at your church, especially! 

Are you saying a person that’s ever committed fornication of any kind, isn’t allowed to ever be married, though? I still think it could be allowed if found out, but not sure if it would actually make the marriage, illegitimate? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members

Is there no room in the marriage room for mercy, repentance, forgiveness or grace?

For IBs to place marriage into a topic which is so hard and fast that all prohibitions and labels always apply actually gives Seventh Day Adventist arguments for an unchanging Sabbath validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Spd1275 said:

Is there no room in the marriage room for mercy, repentance, forgiveness or grace?

For IBs to place marriage into a topic which is so hard and fast that all prohibitions and labels always apply actually gives Seventh Day Adventist arguments for an unchanging Sabbath validity.

I fear this post makes no sense to me.

Mercy, repentance, forgiveness and grace are always available. However, none of the 4 have actually have anything to do with the consequence of sin.

You can have an affair, get aids, repent and beg for forgiveness from God and man, fully receive that forgiveness, but you still have aids.

Get drunk, drive and hit someone. Can you get forgiveness? Yes. Are you still going to jail? Yes.

Break the holy bond between man and woman set up by God. Will you be forgiven? Yes. Is there mercy? Yes. Are there still consequences? Yes.

I have counseled so many people over the years that although their cheating spouse gives grounds for divorce, they biblically may not re-marry. I've always been ignored. Always. Everyone of them has an unhappy, unfortunate second marriage today. One of those is my baby sister. Her second husband was an IFB pastor. Who had been divorced himself before salvation. He left his pulpit a couple of Sundays ago after the morning message where he "pastors" his IFB, KJV only baptist church , went home and told her out of the blue he wants a divorce.

Not every command or prohibition of God is easy. But they all bear consequences if ignored, reasoned and explained away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Weary Warrior, thank you for responding. Of course sin has consequence. Always. 
I grew up in a church that relegated the divorced/remarried to a back row. Regardless of their own guilt, they were branded and tarnished forever. Of course those who passed judgement were the gossips, strict legalisms and probably unsaved membership.

i am sorry you have never met a happily 2ndmarriage couple tho. I happen to be one of those. Ya see, I was a pastor, and I fell. That was 25 years ago. I have not preached since, nor would I. But I later did remarry, and we celebrate 25 years in a few months.

God has used me in other ways after my brokenness and repentance. Unfortunately for most of us IBs, we have historically branded our fallen with a giant A on the forehead, then taken them out and shot them.

And THAT extreme is what I refer to as the SDAdvenist line of reason for insisting on Sabbath worship.

 

Edited by Spd1275
Misspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 minutes ago, Spd1275 said:

Weary Warrior, thank you for responding. Of course sin has consequence. Always. 
I grew up in a church that relegated the divorced/remarried to a back row. Regardless of their own guilt, they were branded and tarnished forever. Of course those who passed judgement were the gossips, strict legalisms and probably unsaved membership.

i am sorry you have never met a happily 2ndmarriage couple tho. I happen to be one of those. Ya see, I was a pastor, and I fell. That was 25 years ago. I have not preached since, nor would I. But I later did remarry, and we celebrate 25 years in a few months.

God has used me in other ways after my brokenness and repentance. Unfortunately for most of us IBs, we have historically branded our fallen with a giant A on the forehead, then taken them out and shot them.

And THAT extreme is what I refer to as the SDAdvenist line of reason for insisting on Sabbath worship.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I have met happy second marriages, just not those I have counseled away from it. And I do not believe that happy constitutes right.

I do fully agree with you that a person who finds themselves in the position in life is not to be cast aside, and that God absolutely can use them, although not in the pastorate. I also fully agree that we in the IFB have had a general propensity over the years to shoot our wounded and fallen.

To me, one of the greatest challenges to face the church today is how do we find balance? Balance between standing uncompromisingly for Biblical truth, while maintaining grace for those who, like all of the rest of us, have come up short.

For example, it is just as unbiblical for some IFB pastor in Arizona (who shall remain unnamed) to preach God hates gays and that they can't get saved as it is to preach God loves everybody and gays are welcome in the church, unrepentant and unchanged. It's a drastic example, but I guess it illustrates (maybe) how my thought process runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Finding balance is a difficult road because it requires us to practice Biblical Church Discipline. That is tough when your head deacon is “sharp” in his financial dealings, or when your church secretary (that everyone loves) is also Queen Gossip. It is simple to keep an LBGT out.

And we really need to get think Biblically. I suppose you are welcoming of ALL, but just as nit-picky as can be who is allowed to formally join and serve. And our problem likely originates in the 5 minute professions we rack up as we beat the doors of the neighborhood down. If a pastor has never been burned by some instant convert someone made a deacon the next week, then they just haven’t lived long enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 minutes ago, Spd1275 said:

Finding balance is a difficult road because it requires us to practice Biblical Church Discipline. That is tough when your head deacon is “sharp” in his financial dealings, or when your church secretary (that everyone loves) is also Queen Gossip. It is simple to keep an LBGT out.

And we really need to get think Biblically. I suppose you are welcoming of ALL, but just as nit-picky as can be who is allowed to formally join and serve. And our problem likely originates in the 5 minute professions we rack up as we beat the doors of the neighborhood down. If a pastor has never been burned by some instant convert someone made a deacon the next week, then they just haven’t lived long enough.

Yep. I welcome all through the doors, and all are welcome to sit and hear the truth. "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick". However, it's takes a clear testimony of salvation, Biblical baptism and 3 months of faithful attendance to apply for a voting church membership. And public service in the church (music, teacher, deacon, secretary/treasurer etc.) are much more restricted. I consider church ministers of any kind to be much like a wife or a mule. A good one is priceless, but anything less is a $3.00 nightmare, and I'm better off without 'em. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members
On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 11:04 PM, Roselove said:

When Jesus says the only way you can divorce your wife and it be permitted, is if she commits fornication (either before or during betrothal, I suppose), is it a situation where the woman would be married to the person she had relations with, in God’s eyes (relations=marriage?) or was it not something that had to be done, but would be permissible for other reasons? 

Basically, what if the woman was truly repentant of her past actions and truly loved and wanted to be a good wife to the man. Would the man have to not be with her, to be in God’s will, because by God’s law, it would be forbidden, or is it something you can choose to do, if you decide that you can’t trust her or it was shameful in appearance or something? 

Also, is a marriage only legitimate if one of them is saved? I think I’ve heard that, but wanted clarification. 

I hope my question makes sense! 

Thank you

 

Apostle Paul stated to us that God views the marriage between a lost and saved as legit, and that the believer must try to make it work out, but if the unbeliever decides to depart and divorce, that person now freed to remarry again a saved person....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, DaChaser said:

Apostle Paul stated to us that God views the marriage between a lost and saved as legit, and that the believer must try to make it work out, but if the unbeliever decides to depart and divorce, that person now freed to remarry again a saved person....

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

It doesn't exactly say "freed to remarry" does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Fornication, simply, is any sexual act outside of the marriage relationship. 

On 2/5/2020 at 8:06 AM, heartstrings said:

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

It doesn't exactly say "freed to remarry" does it?

Well, it DOES say the believer is not bound, (ie, the bond of marriage) to the unbeliever, which would naturally imply they are free to marry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...