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.

Large Block Capital Letters in KJV


Bro. West
 Share

Go to solution Solved by Pastor Scott Markle,

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother West,

Claiming that the King James translation provided/provides "advance revelation" on the original Hebrew and Greek is a false doctrine that strikes directly against the teaching of Holy Scripture.  

If you wish to convince me otherwise, then demonstrate FROM HOLY SCIPTURE that God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation (or through any other translation for that matter).  For if Holy Scripture itself does not teach it, then indeed my mind is already "made up" - I refuse to accept it.

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

  • Members

I am not advocating adding or subtracting to the words of God in any way shape or form, in fact I have gotten others out of translations that do just that. What I am saying can be summed up below, by John Robinson to the Mayflower.

For he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to breake forth out of his holy Word. He took occasion also miserably to bewaile the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who were come to a period in Religion, and would goe no further then the instruments of their Reformation: As for example, the Lutherans they could not be drawne to goe beyond what Luther saw, for whatever part of God’s will he had further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die then embrace it. And so also, saith he, you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them: A misery much to bee lamented; For though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them: And were they now living, saith hee, they would bee as ready and willing to embrace further [2] light, as that they had received. Here also he put us in mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Bro. West said:

I am not advocating adding or subtracting to the words of God in any way shape or form . . .

And yet, Brother West, you said the following in your above article:

On 12/19/2021 at 4:14 PM, Bro. West said:

Before we go to the Gospels and the advance revelations that only the King James Bible can establish. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

1.  You employed the phrase "advance revelations" in application to "the King James Bible," which came approximately 1500 years AFTER the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek had been completed.  It seems then that you are advocating that the King James translation has provided us with "advance [added] revelations" above that of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek.

2.  You further indicated that ONLY "the King James Bible" could establish these "advance revelations" about which you speak.  It seems then that you are advocating concerning the New Testament apostles and prophets of the first century, upon which our Lord Jesus Christ founded His church (as per Ephesians 2:20), He Himself being the Chief Corner Stone, that those New Testament apostle and prophets could not have known these "advance revelations" of truth, since they would not exist for another 1500 years after their time when the King James translation came forth.  Indeed, it seems that you are advocating that no New Testament believer throughout the first 1600 years of the church age could have known these "advance revelations" of truth, until the Lord our God brought them forth for English speaking peoples through the King James translation, since they ONLY can be established by the "King James Bible" (as per your teaching).

Now, I myself have clearly and emphatically declared this to be a FALSE DOCTRINE.  Indeed, I myself have declared it to be a false doctrine worthy of SEPARATION.  Thus I present my previous posting again:

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother West,

Claiming that the King James translation provided/provides "advance revelation" on the original Hebrew and Greek is a false doctrine that strikes directly against the teaching of Holy Scripture.  

If you wish to convince me otherwise, then demonstrate FROM HOLY SCIPTURE that God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation (or through any other translation for that matter).  For if Holy Scripture itself does not teach it, then indeed my mind is already "made up" - I refuse to accept it.

 

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

  • Administrators
On 12/21/2021 at 1:58 PM, Hugh_Flower said:

A hearty amen brothers. Now to unfortunately stir the Pot - I do believe the KJV points to further doctrinal ideas than previously “known” - I need to be careful about what I do mean here. 

This sounds very much like what the JW's teach about what they call "new light". In their case, they use it to teach that the false doctrines they hold can change to other false doctrines because of new light.

Consequently, when some doctrine they have held to for years is exposed for the error that it is, they come up with new light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

This sounds very much like what the JW's teach about what they call "new light". In their case, they use it to teach that the false doctrines they hold can change to other false doctrines because of new light.

Consequently, when some doctrine they have held to for years is exposed for the error that it is, they come up with new light.

Yeah, that’s why I said careful. I mean something exact but I can’t quite nail it , in my writing as of the moment. ( I am severely dyslexic and I do apologize. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

God gives us more light as we search and study the Scriptures - not new light in the sense that it was not in there in the first place, but could be new to us in that we never knew those truths or understood those passages and principles before (or to the extent we now do). Any light or understanding the Holy Spirit gives us today, was already always there in His Word, even though we didn't see or grasp it before. When we start thinking we have some new revelation (implying something that previously was not in God's Word, or previously not found in the underlying preserved texts), then we are already on the wrong path and perhaps in danger of departing from the faith or leading others away from the truth.

Stick with the Word of God, rightly divide it, pray for wisdom and cling to the truths you find. As you build upon your understanding of God's Word and apply it, He gives you more - but not new or advanced revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In regards to the statement that you can not fellowship with those who advocate false doctrine is rather high minded.

1. Some Baptist believe the tribulation will only be 3 ½ years other teach 7.

2. Some Baptist teach close communion and other open.

3. Some Baptist teach the gap fact or theory others do not.

In each of the 3 cases some one is teaching a false doctrine. You can not have it both ways, and of course we are not allowing damnable doctrine to enter in.

It was said or implied that I would add to or subtracted words from the TEXT. I would rather die first, that is a lie. The original post was given rather naively for I stated that I wanted to polish it and check it for errors.

But prove all things: hold fast that which is good. 1Th 5:21 I have done this over the years with men who love the BOOK more than me.

I have never said from a pulpit or a class room that a better rendering should be, unfortunately the KJV said this (Easter rather than Passover or Jesus rather than Joshua)

And when I stated in a previous post that: !Tim.3: 15, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

To use verse 16 as pertaining to the originals and disregard verse 15 is foolish. Did little Tim have the originals? My, My what a lucky kid. Only one brother acknowledged that.

The second definition of revelation is stated in Webster 1828. 12.

2. That which is revealed; appropriately, the sacred truths which God has communicated to man for his instruction and direction. The revelations of God are contained in the Old and New Testament.

John Robinson stated the same thing in his address to the Mayflower.

For he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to breake forth out of his holy Word. He took occasion also miserably to bewaile the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who were come to a period in Religion, and would goe no further then the instruments of their Reformation: As for example, the Lutherans they could not be drawne to goe beyond what Luther saw, for whatever part of God’s will he had further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die then embrace it. And so also, saith he, you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them: A misery much to bee lamented; For though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them: And were they now living, saith hee, they would bee as ready and willing to embrace further [2] light, as that they had received. Here also he put us in mind

What is Bro. Robinson is he a heretic? I wot not. He is speaking of further light and not adding, subtracting or twisting Scripture. This is new light contain in the BOOK itself.

And I would not consider him a JW nor myself. And I know that the English language is changing. Gay, prick, bowels, and suffer have been altered and debased as well as other words. I do not claim to be infallible nor a bible scholar. A scholar is one who hath mastered his subject.

I Lord willing will comment on this more later. Merry Christ------mas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In order to put to rest the overtones on advance revelations as being false doctrine, I will give just one example and one only. If more were given it would be a waste of time for if you reject this you will reject any others.

For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Act 19:37 KJV, Geneva and Tyndale also say churches.

Ever newer libel translates churches as temples when it comes to this including the NKJV.

Why did the translators of the KJV carry on this advance revelation? I mean surely they were learned in the original languages.

Do you who advocate the original languages cry error? If so, then why not.

The chapter from verse 21 to the end is about the goddess Diana which fell from Jupiter. Do you know of a pagan “churches” that worships the Queen of heaven (Jer. 44), who’s name has been changed to Mary. Now you know that pagans have churches and craftsmen as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Bro. West said:

In regards to the statement that you can not fellowship with those who advocate false doctrine is rather high minded.

1. Some Baptist believe the tribulation will only be 3 ½ years other teach 7.

2. Some Baptist teach close communion and other open.

3. Some Baptist teach the gap fact or theory others do not.

In each of the 3 cases some one is teaching a false doctrine. You can not have it both ways, and of course we are not allowing damnable doctrine to enter in.

It was said or implied that I would add to or subtracted words from the TEXT. I would rather die first, that is a lie. The original post was given rather naively for I stated that I wanted to polish it and check it for errors.

But prove all things: hold fast that which is good. 1Th 5:21 I have done this over the years with men who love the BOOK more than me.

I have never said from a pulpit or a class room that a better rendering should be, unfortunately the KJV said this (Easter rather than Passover or Jesus rather than Joshua)

And when I stated in a previous post that: !Tim.3: 15, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

To use verse 16 as pertaining to the originals and disregard verse 15 is foolish. Did little Tim have the originals? My, My what a lucky kid. Only one brother acknowledged that.

The second definition of revelation is stated in Webster 1828. 12.

2. That which is revealed; appropriately, the sacred truths which God has communicated to man for his instruction and direction. The revelations of God are contained in the Old and New Testament.

John Robinson stated the same thing in his address to the Mayflower.

For he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to breake forth out of his holy Word. He took occasion also miserably to bewaile the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who were come to a period in Religion, and would goe no further then the instruments of their Reformation: As for example, the Lutherans they could not be drawne to goe beyond what Luther saw, for whatever part of God’s will he had further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die then embrace it. And so also, saith he, you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them: A misery much to bee lamented; For though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them: And were they now living, saith hee, they would bee as ready and willing to embrace further [2] light, as that they had received. Here also he put us in mind

What is Bro. Robinson is he a heretic? I wot not. He is speaking of further light and not adding, subtracting or twisting Scripture. This is new light contain in the BOOK itself.

And I would not consider him a JW nor myself. And I know that the English language is changing. Gay, prick, bowels, and suffer have been altered and debased as well as other words. I do not claim to be infallible nor a bible scholar. A scholar is one who hath mastered his subject.

I Lord willing will comment on this more later. Merry Christ------mas

What you implied at one of the two between gap theory and non-gap and one teaching false doctrine...wrong. These are opinons, both that could be supported either way. I'm really finding it hard to take you seriously on some of the things you post. "Libel translations?" Really? UGH! Advanced revelation??? NO such critter...and nowhere supported by Scriptures!

Edited by BrotherTony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Bro. West said:

In regards to the statement that you can not fellowship with those who advocate false doctrine is rather high minded.

Is it "high-minded" to walk in obedience unto the Lord my God?  God forbid!

Romans 16:17-18 -- "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

1 Timothy 6:3-5 -- "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

Titus 1:10-11 -- "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake."

(Note:  I would think since you hold so strongly to the "advance revelation" of the King James translation, and since I equally as strongly oppose it, that you would equally determine to break fellowship from me as I have to have no fellowship with you.)

6 hours ago, Bro. West said:

1. Some Baptist believe the tribulation will only be 3 ½ years other teach 7.

2. Some Baptist teach close communion and other open.

3. Some Baptist teach the gap fact or theory others do not.

In each of the 3 cases some one is teaching a false doctrine. You can not have it both ways, and of course we are not allowing damnable doctrine to enter in.

It should be noted that in each case wherein I have expressed myself on the matter of separation from your false doctrine, I have communicated that I believe your false doctrine is one that is WORTHY of separation.  I do not view every doctrinal difference from my own as worthy of separation.  Indeed, I would view that doctrinal difference as wrong; for if I viewed it as right, I would hold to it, rather than reject it.  However, I do not view all doctrinal differences as those which "cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine" (as per Romans 16:17-18) or as those which are contrary to a walk after godliness (as per 1 Timothy 6:3-5) or as those which deceive and spiritually subvert less mature believers (as per Romans 16:17-18 & Titus 1:10-11).  On the other hand, I most certainly do view your false doctrine concerning the "advance revelations" of the King James translation as a false doctrine that IS worthy of separation.

Now, concerning your examples above:

1.  I have only encountered one individual who has taught a 3.5 year tribulation as opposed to a 7 year tribulation.  I do indeed view this as a false doctrine.  Concerning that individual, I believe that he himself is somewhat confused in his Bible study.  However, considering other things which that individual holds, which I would also consider false, it is likely that I would indeed separate from him over his body of false ideas.

2.  I do not view the "Baptist" conflict over "closed," "close," or "open" communion (with various definitions thereof) as being worthy of separation.  However, depending on the manner in which some might communicate or press the issue to cause overmuch division, offences, and strifes, I might choose to separate therefrom.

3.  I have indeed encountered Baptists who hold to the "gap theory" concerning Genesis 1:1-2.  Depending on how far they apply the matter or how hard they push the matter, I could indeed come to the place wherein I might break fellowship with them.

(Note: Attempting to undercut or oppose the Biblical doctrine and practice of separation will not work effectively with me.  It most certainly will not turn me aside from my opposition of your false doctrine concerning the "advance revelations" of the King James translation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

It was said or implied that I would add to or subtracted words from the TEXT. I would rather die first, that is a lie.

What was said (not at all implied, but directly said) was the following:

On 12/23/2021 at 9:37 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  You employed the phrase "advance revelations" in application to "the King James Bible," which came approximately 1500 years AFTER the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek had been completed.  It seems then that you are advocating that the King James translation has provided us with "advance [added] revelations" above that of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek(emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Now, in your above posting you have employed the word "TEXT" without any modification or definition.  As such, your usage of that word "TEXT" can be misleading.  Are you using it as a reference to the Hebrew and Greek "text" of Scripture?  Or are you using is as a reference to the King James English "text" of Scripture?  Knowing the context of your doctrinal position, it seems clear to me that your usage of the word "TEXT" in your statement above is a reference to the King James English "text" of Scripture.  In fact, based upon the manner that you have presented your doctrinal position on the matter, I do indeed believe that you would be willing to die before you would be willing to alter one "jot or tittle" of the  "text" of the King James English translation.  Yet NOONE has accused you of seeking to alter in any way the English "text" of the King James translation.  Rather, the accusation against you is that it is a false doctrine to claim that the King James English translation ("text") is itself advance revelation upon the Hebrew and Greek original "text" of Scripture.  No lie has been spoken against you.  You yourself did INDEED state that the King James translation provides "advance revelations."

______________________________________________

11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

The original post was given rather naively for I stated that I wanted to polish it and check it for errors.

And I proceeded to point out one of those errors in your original presentation.  Indeed, I proceeded to declare that it was "a foundational doctrinal error that I view as a separational offense.  Even now, I stand by my accusation.

11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

I have never said from a pulpit or a class room that a better rendering should be, unfortunately the KJV said this (Easter rather than Passover or Jesus rather than Joshua)

 Good for you; neither have I.

11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

And when I stated in a previous post that: !Tim.3: 15, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

To use verse 16 as pertaining to the originals and disregard verse 15 is foolish. Did little Tim have the originals? My, My what a lucky kid. Only one brother acknowledged that. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

In your statement above, you again employ a word in a misleading manner.  I refer to your usage of the word "originals."  By your usage of this word are you referring to the "original" manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament?  Or by your usage of this word are you referring to the "original" writings of the Hebrew Old Testament?  Contextually, by your added sarcastic statement, "My, my, what a lucky kid," in reference to "little Tim," it appears that you were indeed referring to the "original" manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament.  By your further claim that "only one brother acknowledged" this, I do not know to which brother you refer; but I can provide my own statement within this very thread discussion concerning the matter, as follows:

On 12/20/2021 at 3:40 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, I agree that the original penmen of the Hebrew and Greek were directly inspired (as per 2 Peter 1:20-21) by God the Holy Spirit.  Furthermore, I would agree that the Lord our God promised to preserve those original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures/Writings (not the original manuscripts, but the original writings from those original manuscripts) in a "jot and tittle" manner unto EVERY generation of His own people.  Thus I would hold that unto 1611 and even unto this very day the original writings of Hebrew and Greek from the original manuscripts (although NOT the original manuscripts themselves) STILL exist among the Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies that have been passed down from generation to generation.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So then, you ask the question - "Did little Tim have the originals?" (And for that matter, did his grandmother and mother, who taught Timothy the truth of the Scriptures?)  If you are referring to the "original manuscripts," then the answer is - NO.  But if you are referring to the "original writings" from those original manuscripts, as preserved from generation to generation by the almighty power and providence of God, then the answer is a hearty - YES!!!

 

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, Bro. West said:

I do not claim to be infallible nor a bible scholar. A scholar is one who hath mastered his subject.

Nor have I ever claimed to be infallible or a Bible scholar.  Nor have I ever claimed to have "mastered" the subject of Biblical doctrine.  However, I am more than willing to claim that I am a Bible STUDENT, who ever seeks to diligently study and grow in the understanding of God's truth and wisdom from His Holy Scriptures, that I might show myself "approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Bro West, you stated above that you basically put this article here to be gauged by the other posters here to test what you were saying - yet nowhere in this thread that I can see have you actually modified or changed your position when others have stated they disagree with some of what you are saying.

And you have tried to confuse the waters a bit too. Getting more light out of the Word of God as we study it and grow in our walks with the Lord is a world apart from getting any kind of advanced revelation from it. The first one brings out what is already in God's Word as we learn more, the second one brings out things that were never in there - bit frankly, are all in the minds of those that think they can one-up on God and find out things He never said, in the Hebrew, Greek, or faithfully translated English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, Bro. West said:

In order to put to rest the overtones on advance revelations as being false doctrine . . .

In my case it is not simply "overtones;" rather, it is a very direct accusation.  (And I am not shy to acknowledge it as such.)

8 hours ago, Bro. West said:

. . . I will give just one example and one only.

Except that I have not asked for an "example" of a place wherein you think that the King James translation has provided "advanced revelation" upon the original Hebrew and Greek.  Rather, I have asked for you to provide actual doctrinal truth FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE that the Lord our God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation.  Indeed, above I provided the following challenge:

On 12/22/2021 at 5:15 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Claiming that the King James translation provided/provides "advance revelation" on the original Hebrew and Greek is a false doctrine that strikes directly against the teaching of Holy Scripture.  

If you wish to convince me otherwise, then demonstrate FROM HOLY SCIPTURE that God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation (or through any other translation for that matter).  For if Holy Scripture itself does not teach it, then indeed my mind is already "made up" - I refuse to accept it.

_______________________________________

However, let us consider your presented "example." --

8 hours ago, Bro. West said:

In order to put to rest the overtones on advance revelations as being false doctrine, I will give just one example and one only. If more were given it would be a waste of time for if you reject this you will reject any others.

For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Act 19:37 KJV, Geneva and Tyndale also say churches.

Ever newer libel translates churches as temples when it comes to this including the NKJV.

Why did the translators of the KJV carry on this advance revelation? I mean surely they were learned in the original languages.

Do you who advocate the original languages cry error? If so, then why not.

The chapter from verse 21 to the end is about the goddess Diana which fell from Jupiter. Do you know of a pagan “churches” that worships the Queen of heaven (Jer. 44), who’s name has been changed to Mary. Now you know that pagans have churches and craftsmen as well

1.  The King James translators did NOT "carry on" any "advance revelation" in their translational choice to use the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37.  In fact, if the word "churches" in this verse actually is "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny), then the King James translators only continued the "advance revelation" that had already been revealed through the 1526 Tyndale translation (as you yourself admited above).

2.  No, as an advocate of the "original languages," I do NOT "cry error" to the translational choice of the King James translators for their usage of the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37.

3.  Yes, the King James translators certainly were "learned in the original languages," just as they were quite learned in the English language as well.  So, let us consider the English word "church."  In its etymology the English Word "church" comes from the Middle English "chirche, kirke," back through the Old English and the German ultimately to the Greek word "kuriakon."  Now, the meaning of the Greek word "kuriakon" is "a temple or religious building dedicated unto a god."  Even so, the most basic meaning for the English word "church" is "a building set apart or consecrated for public worship."  The particular deity for whom this building is consecrated is NOT specified in the word, only that the building is consecrated for the religious worship of some deity.  As such, the English word "church" is an English synonym for the English word "temple."  So then, why does the English word "churches" find its place in the translation of Acts 19:37?  In the King James translation the whole English phrase "robbers of churches" translates the single Greek word "ierosulos."  Now, the Greek word "ierosulos" was formed by the joining of the Greek noun "ieron" (translated by the English word "temple" throughout the King James translation) and the Greek verb "sulao" (meaning "to rob").  Even so, the basic meaning for the Greek noun "ierosulos" is "robbers of religious buildings."  Considering then the basic meaning of the Greek word in Acts 19:37 and the basic meaning of the English word "church," the King James translators were quite accurate in their translational choice, as per their superior understanding in both the Greek language and the English language.  We have no need to view them as being in some form of error.  Nor do we have any need to view them as presenting "advance revelation."  They simply translated the Greek that already existed with an accurate English phrase.

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

  • Members

because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance

 

To say that these learned translators were humble would be an understatement.

And to think that the Holy Spirit was not there is quite foolish. For if God puts his word above his own name (Psa. 138:2) would he let them pick out English words at random? I believe that the order of the books in the Bible, the placement of chapters, verse numbering and words were guided by God. And yes, I know there is a difference between inspiration and preservation, but there is also providence where “Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people”. While I can not give you a verse that states God had a hand in placement of books, chapters and verses numbering and words as he deems necessary. This obviously was done in order to keep them out of ignorance and not have (they Popish) it chained to a pulpit or forbidden to the common plow boy.

And yes, I read your critique of the word churches and your labor evolved. However, I have software also (boy are we spoiled at one time I would have to count by hand how many times a word appeared) and can do the same. The KJV haters attack this reading (Acts 19:37) like a mad dog. The passage reveals that pagans have churches. The Mormons and Catholicism testify to that. If you translate it temples you will not see that.

Martin Luther in his Bible translated it “Kirchenrauber” which means church robbers in German. He could have translated it temples.

Another passage you might consider is 1John 2:23.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

The last 10 words are in italics, which you know means they had no manuscripts to justify this reading. Were they taking liberty with the word of God by adding these or is this advance revelation? We have them now, but they did not. Even the stinking NIV has to have this. This reading must drive KJV haters nuts. I bet dollars to donuts they wish no support was found.

 

Happy New Year

I should of send you my poem for Santa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

italicized words AREN'T advanced inspiration...NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO PUSH IT!

I do not recall using the term advance inspiration.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

These last ten words were originally written by the Apostle John, that is inspiration. They without manuscript support wrote down what the inspired original said, that is revelation. Had they had what we have now there would be not need of italicized words. They were not writing something as in the “Lost books of the Bible” and claiming inspiration.

There only 3 possibilities: they just made it up. It came from the devil or The Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them. We are not talking about one or two words to transfer from one idiom to another, but a complete sentence. Had they left out these 10 words critics now would have a field day. Had they left these off verse 23 would of flowed into verse 24 without any problem. Question, where did they get these 10 words? You have 3 options, pick one.

Happy New Year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Bro. West said:

italicized words AREN'T advanced inspiration...NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO PUSH IT!

I do not recall using the term advance inspiration.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.] 1John 2:23

These last ten words were originally written by the Apostle John, that is inspiration. They without manuscript support wrote down what the inspired original said, that is revelation. Had they had what we have now there would be not need of italicized words. They were not writing something as in the “Lost books of the Bible” and claiming inspiration.

There only 3 possibilities: they just made it up. It came from the devil or The Holy Spirit REVEALED it to them. We are not talking about one or two words to transfer from one idiom to another, but a complete sentence. Had they left out these 10 words critics now would have a field day. Had they left these off verse 23 would of flowed into verse 24 without any problem. Question, where did they get these 10 words? You have 3 options, pick one.

Happy New Year

Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.

.

Edited by BrotherTony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/29/2021 at 8:28 AM, Bro. West said:

I believe that the order of the books in the Bible, the placement of chapters, verse numbering and words were guided by God. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

While I can not give you a verse that states God had a hand in placement of books, chapters and verses numbering and words as he deems necessary. This obviously was done in order to keep them out of ignorance and not have (they Popish) it chained to a pulpit or forbidden to the common plow boy. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So, you believe that which you (admittedly) cannot support directly from Scripture.  By definition this seems to mean that you have chosen yourself (your own belief) as your final authority in this matter.

However, I myself am NOT AT ALL bound to accept you (your particular beliefs that you cannot support directly from Scripture) as my authority for doctrine.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To all,

At present I am encountering a difficulty with handling the discussion to the extent that I desire.  For the past few days, I have been unable to access my OnlineBaptist account from any computer at my own house.  On the other hand, I AM able to access my account from other people's houses, which is what I am doing at present (at my in-law's).  This has happened before and lasted approximately a week.  I believe that it is a problem either with my router or with my internet provider.  Therefore, having to access my account at other's houses limits my response-ability, because I do not have regular daily access.

___________________________________

To Brother West,

You posted the following on my personal profile:

Quote

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

Until the concluding two paragraphs, this presentation seems to be a response to the opening quote -- "Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles."  To this quote you then stated to me -- "I really do not know where you are going with this."  The problem is that I myself did not present the original quotation.  That original quotation was made above in this thread discussion by Brother Tony, not by me, as follows:

On 12/29/2021 at 2:24 PM, BrotherTony said:

Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.

Therefore, I cannot tell you where Brother Tony intended to be "going with this" statement.  In order to know that, you have to talk to Brother Tony about it, not to me.

__________________________________________________

Now, concerning your closing paragraph of that posting on my personal profile, as follows:

Quote

  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?

First, let us recognize that chapter and verse divisions for the entire Old and New Testament Scriptures did NOT first begin with the King James translation.  Although they were not included in the 1526 Tyndale translation or the 1537 Matthews translation, they were included in the 1560 Geneva translation.  Even so, if for the sake of the argument we grant that these chapter and verse divisions were "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny as true doctrine), then the King James translators did NOT themselves receive that "advance revelation."  Then the King James translators were only continuing the "advance revelation" that had originally been granted to the Geneva translators.  In addition, if we grant that such "advance revelation" can occur and be added through a sequence of English translations (which I emphatically deny), then there would be no grounds for claiming that a more modern English translation has not possibly also provided us with even further (and/or corrective) "advance revelation."  What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that such "advance revelations" that occurred in the Tyndale translation, then in the Geneva translation, then in the 1611 King James translation, then in the four further editions of the King James translation, has ended with the 1769 edition of the King James translation?  What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that God has not provided additional "advance revelations" in one or more of the English translations from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s?    

Second, since I would definitely deny that these chapter and verse divisions are "advance revelation," and since there is no direct Scriptural support for them, you ask whether I would reject them altogether.  In answer I would say - No, there is no need to reject them altogether.  These chapter and verse divisions serve as very useful TOOLS in locating specific statements of Holy Scripture for both Bible study and Bible memorization.  Even so, there is good reason to retain them, and not to reject them.  However, since these chapter and verse divisions were man made and were not a part of the original inspiration or divine preservation of the Holy Scriptures, they should NOT be viewed as carrying the "jot and tittle" authority of the very Holy Scriptures.  Thus if a preacher or teacher indicates that a particular chapter division or verse division is "unfortunate," he is only expressing disagreement with a man-made tool, not with the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Scriptures themselves.

 

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

  • 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...