Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?


John81
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would say going strictly by Scripture the best guess would be the earth is about 6,000 years old. However, since the Bible doesn't specifically tell us the age of the earth, such would simply be an educated (based upon Scripture alone) guess.

There are some who try and make far too big a deal of this. They go to the point of proclaiming that those who don't agree with their interpretations of various things from the Creation account and other aspects from Genesis just might not be right with God. Some declare that without a proper (meaning their) interpretation of Genesis one can't be a solid Christian, can't witness properly and can't really believe the Bible.

Unfortunately there are more and more in this area who are actually willing to twist words and actual scientific data while at the same time inventing "truths" in order to make their Creation claims seem to have more solid backing than it does.

Was Leviathan a dinosaur, a rhino, an elephant, a mythical creature or perhaps something else? For most it's a detail that's not important enough to get hung up on, especially since God didn't see it as important enough to make it very clear; yet for many in the young earth Creationist movement, they will declare with absolute ceretainty Leviathan was a dinosaur and provide a plethora of reasons for their stance but without any true, concrete proof. However, they declare their reasonings and assumptions themselves constitute proof and often will viciously attack anyone who quetions them or especially if they dare to offer an possible alternative.



Thank you sir,
I've been trying to say that myself for a long time.

.....don't forget...'Behemoth' was a dino too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I have recently read The Romance of Biblical Chronology by Martin Anstey. Mr Anstey wrote that there is a complete chronology in the scripture from Adam to Christ and plots the scripture references. He does not attempt to find the age of the earth, just the years of man which he names as An Hom starting with Adam as an hom 1. Mostly I agree with him, but in several places I doub't that he is correct, mainly from the crossing the Jordan till the start of the Judges (he gives 20 years) and the length of the Judges period.

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ussher wrote a chronological history of the world based upon Scripture. His work was so well respected, many KJBs used to contain references to his work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • Members

Could someone please explain the use of the word "day" in these verses.

Genesis 2:4,5

4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

It says in the "day" the heavens and earth were made and also it includes the plants but the plants did not show up until the third day.

Could you please tell me what the word "generations" means (especially since this is the first mention).  Also...do you suppose that there may be a DIFFERENCE between the word "MADE" and "CREATED"...seeing as how they are different words (hint:  things that are different are not the same)?

Edited by jarhed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ussher wrote a chronological history of the world based upon Scripture. His work was so well respected, many KJBs used to contain references to his work.

Right....well, for starters the WORLD is 6,000 years old...but Jesus made the "WORLDS" (see Hebrews 1).  The EARTH is the planet that the WORLD is on.  The Earth can exist without a world, but the world (current economy) cannot exist without the earth.  Things that make you go..."hmmmm."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Could you please tell me what the word "generations" means (especially since this is the first mention).  Also...do you suppose that there may be a DIFFERENCE between the word "MADE" and "CREATED"...seeing as how they are different words (hint:  things that are different are not the same)?

 

"generations" (Hebrew toledot) can essentially be equated to "history" and/or "descendents".  In Genesis it is essentially used as a delimeter between subjects.  You'll notice that anytime you find a "[these] are the generations of..." the focus of the narrative shifts.  Examples:

 

- In Genesis 2:4 exhibits a shift from the general outline of the Creation week to a narrower focus on Day 6 and the creation of man.

- In Genesis 5:1, the narrative shifts from the story/stories of Adam and his immediate family to a broad overview history of Adam's descendents to Noah and gives broad descriptions of the condition of the world

- In Genesis 6:9, the narrative shifts again from the broad and quick generational list to a narrower focus on Noah and the Flood

- In Genesis 10:1, it zooms back out and gives a generational list of Noah

- In Genesis 11:10, moves from a generalized Noah descendency to focusing on Shem's offspring and then subsequently narrows further in 11:27 to Terah and begins the Abraham narrative

 

This pattern can be followed throughout the book of Genesis.

 

Regarding the difference between made and create, there certainly is one.  Create (Hebrew bara) is only ever done by God in the OT and implies that there was no substance from which to fashion the creation; from whence we get the term creation ex nihilio or creation out of nothing.  In contrast, make (Hebrew asah) is used as a universal description of fashioning something such as a potter making a jar out of clay.  However, regarding God's acts during Creation week in Genesis 1:1-2:3, they are often used in conjuction and many things were both created AND made, implying a degree of interchangeability (see Gen 2:4 and compare Gen 2:7 with Gen 5:1-2).  I recommend the following article that charts out the different usages:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

"generations" (Hebrew toledot) can essentially be equated to "history" and/or "descendents".  In Genesis it is essentially used as a delimeter between subjects.  You'll notice that anytime you find a "[these] are the generations of..." the focus of the narrative shifts.  Examples:

 

- In Genesis 2:4 exhibits a shift from the general outline of the Creation week to a narrower focus on Day 6 and the creation of man.

- In Genesis 5:1, the narrative shifts from the story/stories of Adam and his immediate family to a broad overview history of Adam's descendents to Noah and gives broad descriptions of the condition of the world

- In Genesis 6:9, the narrative shifts again from the broad and quick generational list to a narrower focus on Noah and the Flood

- In Genesis 10:1, it zooms back out and gives a generational list of Noah

- In Genesis 11:10, moves from a generalized Noah descendency to focusing on Shem's offspring and then subsequently narrows further in 11:27 to Terah and begins the Abraham narrative

 

This pattern can be followed throughout the book of Genesis.

 

Regarding the difference between made and create, there certainly is one.  Create (Hebrew bara) is only ever done by God in the OT and implies that there was no substance from which to fashion the creation; from whence we get the term creation ex nihilio or creation out of nothing.  In contrast, make (Hebrew asah) is used as a universal description of fashioning something such as a potter making a jar out of clay.  However, regarding God's acts during Creation week in Genesis 1:1-2:3, they are often used in conjuction and many things were both created AND made, implying a degree of interchangeability (see Gen 2:4 and compare Gen 2:7 with Gen 5:1-2).  I recommend the following article that charts out the different usages:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

Yes, I believe so. Sometimes the Book of Genesis is called the book of "beginnings" and that is sort of  what "generations" means.

 

Word Origin & History

generation 

c.1300, "offspring of the same parent," also "body of individuals born about the same period" (usually 30 years), from L. generationem(nom. generatio), from generare "bring forth" (see genus). Generatorin the sense "machine that generates power" first recorded 1794; insense
of "machine that generates electric energy," 1879. Generation gapfirst recorded 1967; generation x is 1991, from Douglas Couplandbook of that name. The verb generate is attested from 1509;originally "to beget;" in ref. to natural forces, conditions, substances.etc., attested from 1563.
 
A "Generation" is the act or process of 'begetting' or "bringing forth" something. A "generator", for example, brings forth electricity. But the way it is used most of the time, is in the "body of individuals..." sense such as the "60's generation" or "this perverse generation". That is not the basic meaning. For instance; the Bible says that Noah was "perfect in his generations", that's plural. If it were speaking of the "body of individuals born about the same time period", it would only need to say that Noah was "perfect in his generation"; singular. But it's plural and I believe that it is saying is that Noah was "perfect in his bringing forth" or "perfect in his begetting". Go back to Genesis 5 and you find "These are the generations of Adam" meaning" "these are what Adam begat" or "produced".
Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Thank you sir,
I've been trying to say that myself for a long time.

.....don't forget...'Behemoth' was a dino too.

 

I beg to differ sir, Behemoth was my first mother in law. Maybe my second mother in law also, or was she mastadon? I can't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"[these] are the generations of..."

 

I learned from Hovind that these statements also meant a change in authors.  Only Adam could have recorded the first couple of chapters for example but it was Moses who put the whole book together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When God and Satan had their conversation in Job chapter 1, who heard and recorded that? Likewise, Moses neither had to be there nor did he need any writings from Adam in order to write down what happened in Genesis chapters 1 through 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

True, God doesn't need any man to do his work but we see different authors by their writing styles and they seem to change every time "{these} are the generations of...".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"[these] are the generations of..."

 

I learned from Hovind that these statements also meant a change in authors.  Only Adam could have recorded the first couple of chapters for example but it was Moses who put the whole book together.

 

This would necessitate that Moses would have had to recieved tablets from Adam, Noah, and others.  It's more likely that the Israelites preserved their tradition orally and Moses wrote down what God told him to in the same manner as Leviticus.  Attemption to show different authors in Genesis is primarly rooted on the various forms of textual criticism that gave us the loathed Documentary (JEDP) Hypothesis that completely strips Moses of all authorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This would necessitate that Moses would have had to recieved tablets from Adam, Noah, and others.  It's more likely that the Israelites preserved their tradition orally and Moses wrote down what God told him to in the same manner as Leviticus.  Attemption to show different authors in Genesis is primarly rooted on the various forms of textual criticism that gave us the loathed Documentary (JEDP) Hypothesis that completely strips Moses of all authorship.

Agreed. We have to keep in mind that the Holy Ghost instructed the human writers of Scripture. If there are differences in style, they were placed there by the Holy Ghost.

 

This reminds me of the debate over the "authorship" of the book of Hebrews. There are those who say the style of Hebrews is that of Paul, while there are those who say the style is very different from Paul's. The important point is that Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

 

Sometimes I cringe when I hear a pastor commenting upon some portion of Scripture and their comments focus entirely upon the human penman, making comments that make it seem as if the human writer is fully responsible for the writing, and making  a deal out of something. Totally neglected is that what's written there is ultimately there because of the Holy Ghost, not that human writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Right....well, for starters the WORLD is 6,000 years old...but Jesus made the "WORLDS" (see Hebrews 1).  The EARTH is the planet that the WORLD is on.  The Earth can exist without a world, but the world (current economy) cannot exist without the earth.  Things that make you go..."hmmmm."

Actually, I disagree that the earth could survive without the world, as it were:

 

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else." (Is 45:18) If the Lord created the earth to be inhabited, then it makes sense it was created exactly as Genesis says it was: in six literal days, with man being created the sixth literal day, to inhabit the earth God made to be inhabited. Thus, the earth is only 5 days older than the 'world'. Hmmmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hello ye all,

If God has established at least some parts of this creation for ever and ever (The non material creation) and they are not going to pass away, what is the chances that the earth is only 6000 or 12000 years old? that would make this the first 6000 years of a creation which will last for ever and ever.

Ps 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
Ps 148:6 He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

They shall be changed into a new heaven and a new earth.

Ec 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we can be sure how much God told Moses, and how much was written or spoken history, I tend to think written more than oral, Job made reference to writing and Job might be the oldest book.

Ex 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This would necessitate that Moses would have had to recieved tablets from Adam, Noah, and others.  It's more likely that the Israelites preserved their tradition orally and Moses wrote down what God told him to in the same manner as Leviticus.  Attemption to show different authors in Genesis is primarly rooted on the various forms of textual criticism that gave us the loathed Documentary (JEDP) Hypothesis that completely strips Moses of all authorship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67f2JjeZ_84 Tares among the wheat has a good portion on the history of textual criticism, and its connection to the Jesuits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • 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...