Featured Constitution changes at my IFB church:

The Lord explained the situation very precisely. Between the point of the announcement of pending nuptials, and the actual consummation, there is the time in which a divorce is allowed (hence that point "except fornication"). However, after, "what God has joined together..." there is no Scriptural divorce.

It is so very unfortunate that the vast majority of folks think of the husband and wife relationship as a contract between them. That is not true. The vows are not taken as an oath to each other, but before God, in the presence of witness. God takes such vows most seriously. Also, looking at the typical vows, the statements do no allow for divorce even in the matter when adultery is found.

Such also follows why Paul was also very specific concerning the spouse that left and that no permission to remarry was extended to either person. Because of Paul's own history, he would have also been married. Either his wife had died, or she had left him when he converted. In either case, he remain unmarried. My personal opinion is that she left him when he was converted. There is no Scripture nor any records of history to take into account other then the members of the Sanhedrin (pharisees) had to be married. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin.

The Scriptures are just as clear about intoxicants. Of course, the modern church wants to give way on this issue, but the Scriptures do not state that wine is a mocker if you allow yourself to be intoxicated. Wine is a mocker - intoxication or not. Strong drink is raging - no matter the state of inebriation.

Some point to the Christ as having partaken. But such thinking again is just totally wrong. He did not. "NEW wine" was not an intoxicant. And "old wine" was a bitter vinegar used for cleansing of wounds, purification of water, massaging ointment. There is more to this issue, but the thread isn't about intoxicants. Except one other point. The Scriptures do approve of when one is to be given an intoxicant. It is to be given to the person that has no hope. That would be one who perhaps is in great pain with no hope of relief, no other medical assistance to mediate the pain and suffering. Also, along that line is that very small amount that was to be taken as a medicine suggested by Paul. Such would be in our modern time that in a cough medicine. But, ultimately, there is not permission given in the Scriptures for the consumption of intoxicants being approved, nor did the Lord Jesus Christ consume intoxicants.

 

The Presbyterian-contrived 'lay elder' position is.
Feel? One reads that Bible churches had bishops and deacons, often referred to collectively as the elders of the church.

Deacons and bishops are distinguished. Some oversee church ministries so others can devote themselves fully to the ministry of the Word and prayer.
One does not read that any Bible church had "elders and deacons."

I've asked several times just where you're getting the ideas and terminology you're trying to implement. Not sniping, just curious. Is laity a Bible/Baptist term or concept?

 

So, what will you do when they demand alcoholic wine at communion?
If a family's covered dish for potluck is a keg?

 

I gave you the Scripture context. Was the Lord addressing believers when He addressed the issue? Certainly, Paul was, and that is why he placed the qualifier that if there is an unbelieving spouse who leaves, then let them go, but do not think you are free to remarry.

Such a standard might hairlip every camel in the Middle East, but it is that which both The Christ and Paul established as the truth.

As far as the world and worldly, why would I even attempt to word a doctrinal statement of a church to conform to some worldliness?

Well, you have obviously already made up your mind on the issue, and so it is really pointless to continue the discussion.

It is enough to state that the Baptist tradition has long stood against intoxicants, and it is truly sad that some think that the Scriptures teach that such is permissible.

I will also include that should you have to take a month long journey to get to the church in which you must eat what is available then it is again permissible (medically) to take a strong drink. BUT such is not the situation, and therefore such does not apply to your situation and cannot be used as an excuse or even permission. IF someone in the fellowship is under medical care in which the physician appoints such to be used as medicinal that would be according to both the statement in the Dueteronomy and the Proverbs.

You do know that there is a condemnation in the Scriptures given to those who serve an intoxicant?

But, such is the modern fluff church and believers that seek to use any excuse to quench the Holy Spirit in favor of the spirit that has only one desire, to control and pervert judgment and justice.

 

The Deacons in Acts were administrators. They handled the daily operations so the pastor\bishop could attend to spiritual duties.

 

1) What one does prior to conversion is not erased by conversion. Life is not a clean slate in which previous consequences to behavior are no longer considered.

And of course the standard is violated on a regular basis by assemblies, because just as in the days of Moses, the standard is considered either unimportant or unattainable.

2) Like I stated, I am done trying to get you to change your thinking about intoxicants.

It is sad that the Baptists are confused by those who are presenting a false witness about the matter of intoxicants.

 

My IFB church has but a few "constitutional " rules:

1.) The BIBLE is the highest source of authority in our church til Jesus returns.

2. ) No man-made doctrines of worship & faith, nor man-made rules of worship are accepted. This includes "regenerational baptism", "name it/claim it", the KJVO myth, no pants on women, no tattoos, no long hair on men, & all the other man-made "isms" that Satan has invented to pollute Christianity. One's use of alcohol, tobacco, etc. are between that person and GOD.

3.) EVERYONE is accepted! For a Christian, one's past sins before he/she became a Christian are not held against him/her by us, any more than JESUS holds them against anyone who comes to Him. If any member "strays", but confesses his/her sin, he/she is welcomed back as the "prodigal son" of Jesus' parable was. Again, that person's actual repentance is between that person and GOD.

 

I think some people have a problem with a division between 'clergy' and 'laity,' seeing it as a hangover from the Roman Catholic priesthood and also based on Matthew 23:1-12.

However, I suppose that I am a 'lay elder' since I am not in receipt of a stipend. Early on in my Christian life I felt a call to preach but due to various circumstances I was unable to take up full-time Christian work. I was encouraged in this by my former church and have for a long time been an itinerant preachers in the many tiny churches in rural Devon UK which cannot afford a Pastor. Shortly after moving to my current church I was appointed a deacon but have in fact been doing the work of an elder for a number of years. Last year I was appointed elder by the congregation at the proposal of the pastor.

I regard my work as being to support the Pastor, not to be a rival to him. I help him with the ministry, lead Bible studies and help with church discipline. He has had a number of family difficulties (nothing in any way sinful) and I have stood in for him when he has had to drive 300 miles to be with his dying father or 100 miles to comfort his daughter. He now proposes to take a three-month sabbatical from October and I shall be in charge of the shop during that time. We are too small a church to have more than one paid person.

So that's what a 'lay elder' does. I am not crazy about the term, but I suppose that's what I am.