A Smaller Church

[Thomas Helwys]

Really? I have never seen you post any yet.

And that's why I asked you earlier if you could read.

 

[12strings]

If I post Scripture for you this fourth time will you be honest enough to answer it.
Secondly, I care not for some man's confession. I can refer you to many Baptists websites to show where you are wrong. It is in dispute whether Helwys was actually a Baptist.

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--In every church that Paul started (over 100) he appointed elders or pastors. The elder is the overseer of the church (1Tim.3ff). He has oversight of all that is done in the church and that would include overseeing the Lord's Table and baptism.

Q. Did Paul write out the qualifications for a bishop and deacon for naught?
What was their purpose?

To whom does he address many of his letters:
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

And of course there are the pastoral epistles: Titus and Timothy, pastors, to whom he also writes. The fact is that every epistle he writes he writes to a local church or the pastor of a local church.

What happens in Acts chapter 20?
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
--He calls together the pastors of this church and gives them encouragement and advice. Apparently Ephesus was another large church. As the verse indicates it had a plurality of pastors, of whom Timothy was the most senior.

Paul spent a year and a half in Corinth. Study Acts 18. And when he left he left in charge Apollos, who then became the pastor of the church after him. It was at that time that he wrote to the church his first letter, and numerous times he uses the expression: "when you come together." The word church is translated from the Greek "ekklesia" which means "assembly." When the church assembled together, they were to take disciplinary action on erring members (1Cor.5ff). When the church assembled together they were to celebrate the Lord's Supper in an orderly manner (1Cor.11). This was all done under the supervision of Apollos, the overseer of the church. It was not done at random.
God is a God of order, and not of confusion. He had just finished teaching them those principles in the first half of chapter 11. Why would he contradict himself in the latter half of the chapter? It is no coincidence that in the same chapter as the Lord's Supper one finds this verse:

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
--headship, order.
Again, Apollos is the pastor of the church. In the very next chapter we see others that were envious of that position.

1 Corinthians 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
--The Corinthian church, according to 1:7 were not lacking in any spiritual gift. They had them all. We see here there were gifts of administration. Some had the gift to administer the church but not all.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
--Some desired other positions in the church. They didn't want to be "the foot" or use the gift that God had given them. They desired other gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
--He is rebuking those who want to be the head.
--This was a divisive and carnal church where Paul had to address many problems.

These are all good verses stating that there is leadership in the NT Church, but not specifically addressing the ordinances.

 

[Yeshua1]

Those terms necame "vested " in a meaning different than intended by the Lord when written due tochurches needing to establish a hierarchy in their midst for 'spiritual authority" like the RCC!

Similiar to when so many misuse the term "baptism", as it should have been transalted by the KJV as "immersion!"

that also caused many different meanings toget vested in that term!

 

[DHK]

These are all good verses stating that there is leadership in the NT Church, but not specifically addressing the ordinances.

Let's apply the common sense that is being used on this thread.
"Anyone can administer the Lord's Table."
Can they? Any teen, pre-teen, person with drug addiction problems, recently saved and still not baptized, just anyone???
I don't want to be a part of a church where chaos reigns and people don't know what they are doing. It is not true that just "anyone" can administer the elements of the Lord's Table.

I have consistently said that the pastor is the overseer of the church, as the name "bishop" or overseer implies. That means the responsibility for its administration is given to him. He will give account to God how it is administered and how the church as a whole is administered.

Let me give you an example.
The Bible clearly puts forth the responsibility of the education of children directly into the parents' lap. It is your responsibility to educate your own children. That doesn't mean you cannot relegate that responsibility to someone more qualified than yourself, as a teacher who is much more able then yourself. If you don't have the skills to homeschool your child then there is nothing wrong with giving that responsibility to someone better qualified then yourself. But you will still be the one that stands before God accountable for the education of your children, not the teacher to whom you passed off your children to. Does that make sense?

The care and oversight of the local church is given to the pastor as both shepherd and overseer. And as such he is accountable for the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper. The way he does that is up to him, but he is the one who will give account to God.

 

[nodak]

And again, historically the authority resides in the church among the Baptists.

So no, an ordained preacher from some other church cannot come into our church come Sunday and decide to baptise or serve the Lord's Supper.

It requires the church authorizing him to do so.

Teens, drug addicts, etc? Really? Really think a church will authorize that?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Let's apply the common sense that is being used on this thread.

"Anyone can administer the Lord's Table."
Can they? Any teen, pre-teen, person with drug addiction problems, recently saved and still not baptized, just anyone???

I don't want to be a part of a church where chaos reigns and people don't know what they are doing. It is not true that just "anyone" can administer the elements of the Lord's Table.

I have consistently said that the pastor is the overseer of the church, as the name "bishop" or overseer implies. That means the responsibility for its administration is given to him. He will give account to God how it is administered and how the church as a whole is administered.

Let me give you an example.
The Bible clearly puts forth the responsibility of the education of children directly into the parents' lap. It is your responsibility to educate your own children. That doesn't mean you cannot relegate that responsibility to someone more qualified than yourself, as a teacher who is much more able then yourself. If you don't have the skills to homeschool your child then there is nothing wrong with giving that responsibility to someone better qualified then yourself. But you will still be the one that stands before God accountable for the education of your children, not the teacher to whom you passed off your children to. Does that make sense?

The care and oversight of the local church is given to the pastor as both shepherd and overseer. And as such he is accountable for the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper. The way he does that is up to him, but he is the one who will give account to God.

That is not what is being said, and you know it. You deliberately distort and mischaracterize in order to try to defend the indefensible. That is a tactic of yours that I have noticed. Sorry, but it won't work this time. Scripture and Baptist history prove you wrong.

 

[DHK]

And again, historically the authority resides in the church among the Baptists.

So no, an ordained preacher from some other church cannot come into our church come Sunday and decide to baptise or serve the Lord's Supper.

It requires the church authorizing him to do so.

Teens, drug addicts, etc? Really? Really think a church will authorize that?

Contrast the two opposing statements.
"Anyone can administer the Lord's Supper."
Really, anyone?

My consistent answer is that the two ordinances have been given to the local church. You can find that in any set of Baptist distinctives.
The above statement has been opposed in this thread.
However, I have also stated, that given the above statement is it not only right to assume that seeing that the pastor is the overseer of the local church he would be the one to administer the Lord's Table, or at least oversee the Lord's Table. Am I wrong in this?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And again, historically the authority resides in the church among the Baptists.

So no, an ordained preacher from some other church cannot come into our church come Sunday and decide to baptise or serve the Lord's Supper.

It requires the church authorizing him to do so.

Teens, drug addicts, etc? Really? Really think a church will authorize that?

That is simply his false and dishonest way of trying to slander the opposition to try and give his views credibility, a cheap and underhanded debating tactic which will not work. Everyone can see it for what it is.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Contrast the two opposing statements.
"Anyone can administer the Lord's Supper."
Really, anyone?

My consistent answer is that the two ordinances have been given to the local church. You can find that in any set of Baptist distinctives.
The above statement has been opposed in this thread.
However, I have also stated, that given the above statement is it not only right to assume that seeing that the pastor is the overseer of the local church he would be the one to administer the Lord's Table, or at least oversee the Lord's Table. Am I wrong in this?

Yes, you are wrong.

No one is denying that one duty of the pastor is to administer the ordinances, just that this function is not limited to the pastor or other ordained clergy. That is the Baptist and scriptural position.

 

[DHK]

That is not what is being said, and you know it. You deliberately distort and mischaracterize in order to try to defend the indefensible. That is a tactic of yours that I have noticed. Sorry, but it won't work this time. Scripture and Baptist history prove you wrong.

Thomas your participation in this thread has been weak and lame, relegated to name calling and condescension.
You say you have provided Scripture. You provided a quote which had a couple references to the Bible. It wasn't even your own words. You haven't provided any Scripture that I have noticed in any of your posts. You haven't provided a Scriptural defense of anything. So either bow out of the discussion or provide something that is Biblically based. IMO you have been very hypocritical saying that one is not Scriptural when you never provide Scripture to demonstrate it.

 

[DHK]

Yes, you are wrong.

No one is denying that one duty of the pastor is to administer the ordinances, just that this function is not limited to the pastor or other ordained clergy. That is the Baptist and scriptural position.

Again, my point is proved.
You state opinion not scripture.
Your opinion is not worth two cents. What does the Bible say Thomas?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Thomas your participation in this thread has been weak and lame, relegated to name calling and condescension.
You say you have provided Scripture. You provided a quote which had a couple references to the Bible. It wasn't even your own words. You haven't provided any Scripture that I have noticed in any of your posts. You haven't provided a Scriptural defense of anything. So either bow out of the discussion or provide something that is Biblically based. IMO you have been very hypocritical saying that one is not Scriptural when you never provide Scripture to demonstrate it.

My arguments have been strong, and you can't answer them scripturally or historically, thus you resort to the kind of words that I have put in bold. I am on to you. You have no credibility or integrity. It was you who first introduced name calling into the discussion by using using the word "cult" in reference to me. When you thus point a finger at me, you have three of your own pointing back at you.

It is you who should bow out of the discussion because you are the one who is guilty of what you have falsely charged me with.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Again, my point is proved.
You state opinion not scripture.
Your opinion is not worth two cents. What does the Bible say Thomas?

You have no point. You have posted a lot of scripture which does not support your view. There is no scripture which does. Thus it is you who states mere opinion with not one verse of scripture to back you up.

The scriptural doctrine of priesthood of the believer shoots your prelacy out of the water. You lose.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Hey DHK, look at the poll results so far. The two non-Baptists who have voted agree with you while all the others agree with me, scripture, and historic Baptist doctrine and principles. :laugh:

As I said, better restrict yourself to posting in the Other Denominations section.

 

[DHK]

Hey DHK, look at the poll results so far. The two non-Baptists who have voted agree with you while all the others agree with me, scripture, and historic Baptist doctrine and principles. :laugh:

As I said, better restrict yourself to posting in the Other Denominations section.

Post after post but no Scripture. That is sad.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hey DHK, look at the poll results so far. The two non-Baptists who have voted agree with you while all the others agree with me, scripture, and historic Baptist doctrine and principles. :laugh:

As I said, better restrict yourself to posting in the Other Denominations section.

You WILL get...... ahhh, you know LOL

 

[DHK]

And again, historically the authority resides in the church among the Baptists.

So no, an ordained preacher from some other church cannot come into our church come Sunday and decide to baptise or serve the Lord's Supper.

It requires the church authorizing him to do so.

Teens, drug addicts, etc? Really? Really think a church will authorize that?

No, I don't. But apparently some do.
"Anyone can administer the Lord's table."

I have consistently said that the ordinances have been given to the local church. If you look back to the OP, it is about "a smaller church," and just what is a church. Can just two or three be considered a church meeting over coffee in Starbucks? Is that a church? I say no, and I have been consistent in that also. But according to Thomas logic two or three meeting together for fellowship is a church. I disagree.

Take it a step further. Can two or three drug addicts meeting together be a local church? Can one of them administer the Lord's Supper? Why not?
Isn't this what Thomas is advocating. Go to the OP and read it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No, I don't. But apparently some do.
"Anyone can administer the Lord's table."

I have consistently said that the ordinances have been given to the local church. If you look back to the OP, it is about "a smaller church," and just what is a church. Can just two or three be considered a church meeting over coffee in Starbucks? Is that a church? I say no, and I have been consistent in that also. But according to Thomas logic two or three meeting together for fellowship is a church. I disagree.

Take it a step further. Can two or three drug addicts meeting together be a local church? Can one of them administer the Lord's Supper? Why not?
Isn't this what Thomas is advocating. Go to the OP and read it.

It is not what I'm advocating. Your assertion is ridiculous, and you know it. It is a deflection. It makes you look silly.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Post after post but no Scripture. That is sad.

I have given scripture. You disagree with it and with historic Baptist doctrine and principles, all the while claiming to be a Baptist. That is what is sad.

P.S. I notice you haven't voted in my poll. Are you afraid someone will call you an Anglican since the two who have voted in favor of your position are Anglicans?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You WILL get...... ahhh, you know LOL

Yeah, I know. But I'll risk it to stand for the truth.