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.

New sites for King James Bible believers


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Greetings saints. As some of you may know Geocities recently shut down all its online sites and they are no longer accessible. Both brother Marty Shue and myself have had two online sites for a few years now that defend the King James Bible as being the only inspired, complete, preserved and 100% true words of God. We have both written many articles defending The Book and showing where all modern versions are inferior and corrupt.

So we have both moved our sites to new locations.

My site, Another King James Bible believer, can be found here:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/

And Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Both brother Marty Shue and myself have had two online sites for a few years now that defend the King James Bible as being the only inspired, complete, preserved and 100% true words of God.


Brand,

As you've said many times before, words mean things and it makes a very big difference in how something is said. Did you mean to say it is the "only" translation in English that meets this standard? Or are you in fact saying it is the only one period?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thanks Will for the update on your sites. I hope you were able to transfer all the studies to the new sites before the old one shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Brand,

As you've said many times before, words mean things and it makes a very big difference in how something is said. Did you mean to say it is the "only" translation in English that meets this standard? Or are you in fact saying it is the only one period?


Hi trc. I am saying that the King James Bible is the ONLY complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language, and the Standard by which all others are to be measured. If you know of another one, could you please tell us where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to the KJB to see the differences and similarities?

Gracias,
Will K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Thanks Will for the update on your sites. I hope you were able to transfer all the studies to the new sites before the old one shut down.


Hi Jerry. Thanks. Yes I was able to transfer everything but it took hours upon hours to do, and then I had to go back and change about 200 links that no longer worked. But defending God's Book is something that I enjoy doing and I am thankful the Lord lets me do it when I can.

God bless,

Will K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
But defending God's Book is something that I enjoy doing and I am thankful the Lord lets me do it when I can.


:amen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Hi trc. I am saying that the King James Bible is the ONLY complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language, and the Standard by which all others are to be measured. If you know of another one, could you please tell us where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to the KJB to see the differences and similarities?

Gracias,
Will K


If that is the case, I find it ironic that the one page at the top of Mr. Shue's site is indeed not the KJV! Just a curious OBservation, prOBably not important to anyone; but you did say the ONLY one is the KJV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hi trc. I am saying that the King James Bible is the ONLY complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language, and the Standard by which all others are to be measured. If you know of another one, could you please tell us where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to the KJB to see the differences and similarities?

Gracias,
Will K


If that is the case, I find it ironic that the one page at the top of Mr. Shue's site is indeed not the KJV! Just a curious OBservation, prOBably not important to anyone; but you did say the ONLY one is the KJV.


Hi Trc. I happen to know Marty Shue pretty well and he is definitely a King James Bible onlyist. What you see at the top of his page is an unnamed Greek text of the New Testament. You asked me about "the Bible", which is far more than just the N.T. It is 66 books combined into one Book. I and many others believe that only the King James Bible is the true, complete, preserved, inspired and infallible words of God. You questioned that statement and now seem to be misdirecting attention away from answering my direct question to you.

My question to you is found in the first part of this post. Would you like to attempt to answer it, or do you choose rather to avoid making a commitment of any kind regarding the Bible version issue?

Please let us know. Thank you.

Will K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I am saying that the King James Bible is the ONLY complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language


I guess the translation of scripture into other languages is a waste of time. :shootme:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I believe the King James Translation of the Bible (all 5 or 6 versions) to be the inerrant, verbal, plenary inspired Word of God for me, an English speaking person.

I have friends and acquaintances from around the world who speak various languages. I believe they have translations that are the inerrant, verbal, plenary inspired Word of God in their native languages.

Therefore, yes there are other translations that fit the bill and I can not honestly say that the King James Translation is the only 100% pure Bible.

I further understand the foundation for the KJV is the Textus Recptus and I embrace that totally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tools for the Ministry

I believe the King James Translation of the Bible (all 5 or 6 versions) to be the inerrant, verbal, plenary inspired Word of God for me, an English-speaking person.

I have friends and acquaintances from around the world who speak various languages. I believe they have translations that are the inerrant, verbal, plenary inspired Word of God in their native languages.

Therefore, yes there are other translations that fit the bill and I can not honestly say that the King James Translation is the only 100% pure Bible.

I further understand the foundation for the KJV is the Textus Recptus and I embrace that totally.


Not that often we agree, so I thought I'd better put it in writing trc. Very good OBservations here (Minus the 5 or 6 versions part as we all know that the only thing changed in those "versions" were typos and updated grammar and spelling and no actual "changes" were made to the translations). The KJV is the PRESERVED Word of God for English-speaking people and does not carry any individual inspiration. However, the TR is the INSPIRED Word of God in its original state (while yes, the only thing we have are COPIES of the originals and not any actual originals). There are other bibles in other languages that are also accurately translated........and the KJV should not be the standard to judge them by, but the TR. If that opens up the door for attacks from those of you who consider the KJV to carry inspiration and place it above the TR, so be it. Just note that the created cannot be greater than the creator and, while the TR did not create the KJV, it was the base for its translation. The TR will always be the INSPIRED Word of God, but the KJV will always be the PRESERVED Word of God for ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE and the standard for any past or future English translations.

God Bless,

Futurehope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Not that often we agree, so I thought I'd better put it in writing trc. Very good OBservations here (Minus the 5 or 6 versions part as we all know that the only thing changed in those "versions" were typos and updated grammer and spelling and no actual "changes" were made to the translations). The KJV is the PRESERVED Word of God for English speaking people and does not carry any individual inspiration. However, the TR is the INSPIRED Word of God in it's original state (while yes, the only thing we have are COPIES of the originals and not any actual originals). There are other bibles in other languages that are also accurately translated........and the KJV should not be the standard to judge them by, but the TR. If that opens up the door for attacks from those of you who consider the KJV to carry inspiration and place it above the TR, so be it. Just note that the created cannot be greater than the creator and, while the TR did not create the KJV, it was the base for it's translation. The TR will always be the INSPIRED Word of God, but the KJV will always be the PRESERVED Word of God for ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE and the standard for any past or future English translations.

God Bless,

Futurehope


Hi Futurehope. Are you aware of the FACT that there is no "the" TR? The Textus Receptus that underlies the KJB did not exist in book form before the King James Bible. Rather, it was the specific texts God used to make up the King James Bible that determined the particular Textus Receptus you are now defending. Don't put the cart before the horse.

As for foreign language versions, they should match as much as possible the texts and meanings found in the King James Bible. It is the Standard by which all others are to be measured.

Could you name any specific foreign language version that you believe IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible?

Go for it. Give it a shot. Name one please. Then I will have some more specific questions for you, like whether or not two totally different readings can both be in the same place and in the same way the infallible words of God.

Gracias,

Will Kinney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I believe the King James Translation of the Bible (all 5 or 6 versions) to be the inerrant, verbal, plenary inspired Word of God for me, an English speaking person.

I have friends and acquaintances from around the world who speak various languages. I believe they have translations that are the inerrant, verbal, plenary inspired Word of God in their native languages.

Therefore, yes there are other translations that fit the bill and I can not honestly say that the King James Translation is the only 100% pure Bible.

I further understand the foundation for the KJV is the Textus Recptus and I embrace that totally.


Hi trc. Two things. First of all, you have your facts backwards. The foundation for the TR is not the KJB. The KJB is the foundation for the particular Textus Receptus you are prOBably referring to. There are several varieties of what are called Textus Receptus. Stephanus had one. Tyndale another. Then we have Beza, Elziever and the TR that came out of the KJB.

Secondly, can you name for us a specific foreign language bible that you believe is the complete, inspired and infallible words of God? Does God have different texts or non texts that are all inspired and infallible for different peoples? I trow not.

Let's see what specific version you come up with that you really believe is the perfect and 100% true words of God in any other language. OK?

Gracias,

Will K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tools for the Ministry



Hi Futurehope. Are you aware of the FACT that there is no "the" TR? The Textus Receptus that underlies the KJB did not exist in book form before the King James Bible. Rather, it was the specific texts God used to make up the King James Bible that determined the particular Textus Receptus you are now defending. Don't put the cart before the horse.

As for foreign language versions, they should match as much as possible the texts and meanings found in the King James Bible. It is the Standard by which all others are to be measured.

Could you name any specific foreign language version that you believe IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Bible?

Go for it. Give it a shot. Name one please. Then I will have some more specific questions for you, like whether or not two totally different readings can both be in the same place and in the same way the infallible words of God.

Gracias,

Will Kinney


Wow! Next you will tell me what a great man Ruckman is. The fool despises wisdom. You actually believe that the KJV is the base, while the texts it was taken from were all completed over 1200 years prior to its penning?? Sad a man can become so led astray.

As for the alternate languages, you are essentially telling me that ONLY people who can speak English can have the Word of God. Yet again sad. You believe the English is superior to the Hebrew and Greek it came from and that God has denied others based on the language they speak.

I will presume now that your response will be filled with more of your Ruckmanite philosophy and, if it is, I will more than likely not waste my time responding to a man who foolishly denies the truth and worships a man and his heresies. However, if you want to recognize the Word of God as what it is, we might be able to converse further in this matter. Your cart currently has no horse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Aren't foreign language bibles also translated from the TR (Greek) and the Masoretic text (Hebrew)? Or are you saying that the English text of the KJV is superior to the TR and Masoretic text and foreign language bibles need to be translated from the English text in the KJV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Future hope posts:

Wow! Nest you will tell me what a great man Ruckman is. The fool despises wisdom. You actually believe that the KJV is the base, while the texts it was taken from were all completed over 1200 years prior to it penning?? Sad a man can become so led astray.


Hi fh. Yes, I believe the KJB is the Standard. Could you please tell us all exactly where we can get a printed copy of these "texts that were completed 1200 years prior" to the KJB?

Do you happen to have a copy of any Bible in any language you can refer us to that you honestly believe is the complete and 100% true words of God? If so, please tell us where we can either get one too or at least see it online. Will you do that for us or are you just another theorizing bible agnostic?

As for the alternate languages, you are essentially telling me that ONLY people who can speak English can have the Word of God. Yet again sad. You believe the English is superior to the Hebrew and Greek it came from and that God has denied others based on the language they speak.


Don't confuse Word of God with words of God. The Word of God is the Lord Jesus Christ who died on a cross, rose from the dead and is coming again in glory. The words of God are His revealed written and spoken words. They never died on a cross and are not coming again in glory. They are already here. That is your first mistake.

Secondly, can you tell us exactly where we can get a copy of "the Hebrew and Greek" the KJB or any other bible translation came from? No, you can't and won't. It really appears that your "righteous indignation" is based on ignorance rather than carefully thought through facts.



I will presume now that your response will be filled with more of your Ruckmanite philosophy and, if it is, I will more than likely not waste my time responding to a man who foolishly denies the truth and worships a man and his heresies. However, if you want to recognize the Word of God as what it is, we might be able to converse further in this matter. Your cart currently has no horse.


I doubt you will respond anyway, but it won't be because of what you refer to as my Ruckmanite philosophy. I never even mentioned the man. You prOBably won't respond because you are posting out of ignorance and are not able to consistently defend your vague and undefined inspired and 100% true "words of God".

I'll bet you are actually just another Bible Agnostic hiding under the pretense of being a genuine Bible believer.

Tell us exactly where we can get a copy of your 100% true "words of God" in any language so we can compare it to whatever we are reading now to see the differences and similarities. Will you do that for us?

Not a chance. You will dodge the issue; make a pious remark about "so sad" and
then pretend I never answered your questions.

Will K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

All right Will, what about Scrivener's TR, and the Gomez Spanish Bible?


Hi Samer. Do you think either of these is the 100% perfect Bible? Scrivener's TR is not an entire Bible and Scrivener got his Greek text FROM the King James Bible. He basically back translated the KJB texts into Greek.

The Reina Valera Gomez is about the closest thing in Spanish I know of, but his stated purpose in making that translation was to make it as much as possible like the King James Bible. Again, the KJB is the Standard.

By the way, do you speak and read Spanish?

Thanks,

Will K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Aren't foreign language bibles also translated from the TR (Greek) and the Masoretic text (Hebrew)? Or are you saying that the English text of the KJV is superior to the TR and Masoretic text and foreign language bibles need to be translated from the English text in the KJV?


Hi Linda. Foreign language bibles are all over the board. Most modern ones do not follow the TR variety and often reject the Hebrew readings if they are done by people who support versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman stuff.

There is no "the" TR text, and even the Masoretic text has some significant textual differences. See for example Joshua 21:36-37; Psalm 22:16; 1 Samuel 13:1.

And Yes, it is my view that foreign languages should follow a combination of both the exact same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the KJB and keep the same meaning as found in the King James Bible.

Most missionaries in history who did translation work went directly from the KJB into a foreign language. Most of todays modern missionaries who do translation work do not know how to read Hebrew or Greek. They use a version like the NIV or something similar and try to translate from English into the target language as best they can. I personally know some of the Wycliffe translators working today in foreign fields, and this is what they do.

The KJB is the Standard. That is what I believe.

What is your Final Standard of Written Authority? Can you tell us where we can get a copy?

Thanks,

Will K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Prayer Warrior
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Thumb's Up
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...