and how many of the pastors of the 2400 SBC churches had to learn a new lanuage to preach at a Ky church?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Autonomous
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
The answer is...any pastor not originally from Kentucky....
Two years full time of Japanese language school; a total of 35-40 hours a week (including personal study) on vocabulary, grammar, honorifics, kanji (Chinese characters), ping pong. Two hours into Tokyo one way; standing on a rush hour train down in Tokyo so crowded I could not raise my vocabulary cards up to see them if I did not start that way. And loving it!!!
Two of the best years of my life, making friends with Chinese from all over, the SBC missionaries, Australians, a colonel in the Thai Army, Koreans, and many others.
So are you saying you did not start preaching the week you first arrived in Japan?
I wonder if Charismatic and/or Pentecostals pastors have to have 2 years of schooling????
If only!
You bet they do! At the beginning of the Pentecostal movement, they sent out missionaries to China and other lands, they believed the missionaries would not have to learn the language, but would have it miraculously. It didn't happen.
Last edited:
Wow
My OT/Hebrew Prof took like 8-9 yrs of Japanese. I want to say 12 but I know for sure around 10
The answer is...any pastor not originally from Kentucky....
the sign in my hometown says “Welcome to the best town on Earth”
it’s a lie, but hey, it ain’t my lie
I have written elsewhere that my church has taken over the building of a failed church in the next town.
At the present time my church is running whatever meetings go on in that building. But that situation will continue only as long as necessary. When the new church is up and running, we shall establish it as an independant congregation.. We ssall propose suitable men as elders and the congregation will vote for them. If it doesn't, I suppose we will carry on running the place, but I see no likelihood of that happening.
Every church is independent, but not isolationist. When the church at Antioch were concerned at the actions of certain people from the church at Jerusalem, they sent a delegation there and they thrashed the matter out between them. No other churches were involved; tt was two independent congregations coming together to sort out a problem that had arisen.
When a church near us had run into problems, it asked my Pastor to act as a moderator to help dort the problem out. When it was resolved, he backed off and left them to run their own affairs again under God.
At the present time my church is running whatever meetings go on in that building. But that situation will continue only as long as necessary. When the new church is up and running, we shall establish it as an independant congregation.. We ssall propose suitable men as elders and the congregation will vote for them. If it doesn't, I suppose we will carry on running the place, but I see no likelihood of that happening.
Every church is independent, but not isolationist. When the church at Antioch were concerned at the actions of certain people from the church at Jerusalem, they sent a delegation there and they thrashed the matter out between them. No other churches were involved; tt was two independent congregations coming together to sort out a problem that had arisen.
When a church near us had run into problems, it asked my Pastor to act as a moderator to help dort the problem out. When it was resolved, he backed off and left them to run their own affairs again under God.
There are some that prefer to be isolationist!
Indeed so. We have isolatonists in Britain, and it's not a good thing when the churches are weak.
Besides
it’s just a little white lie
and Momma says “a little white lie never hurt anything”
Or does it?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Notes of reference to OP.
From: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/hisel.bapt.hst.ntbk.chpt2.html
1. Church Government Changed
In developing his church Satan began by corrupting the doctrinal teachings of the Lord's church from within. He has his servants in all churches. The first corruption came in his seeking to change the form of church government that Christ gave. His subtility is seen in this.
There was a plurality of elders (preachers) in the early churches. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church" (Acts 20:17). It seems that today we have a scarcity of preachers but not then. These elders were to be equal, one was not to lord it over another. "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder. . . . Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over
[p. 10]
God's heritage (clergy), but being ensamples to the flock" (I Peter 5:1-3). See our Lord's instruction on equality (Matthew 23:1-12).
Early in history Satan led some away from that truth. Diotrephes is an example given in III John 9. We read in Revelation 2:15, "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which thing I hate." Without being positive what this doctrine was, I think the meaning lies in the name. It comes from two Greek words. The first is nikaw which means "to conquer." The second is laos which means "people." So then it means to conquer the people or laity. Thus we have a ruling clergy. Thus developed an episcopal church government in place of a congregational one. What kind of government is this? "Episcopacy, Episcopal." These terms are derived from the Greek episcopos, meaning 'bishop.' They refer accordingly to that system of church government in which the principal officer is the bishop."1
Big Preachers - Big Churches
Thus, some bishops with big egos began to feel more importance attached to them than to others. Their strong personalities helped them "climb the ladder." Bishops of the larger city churches became known as Metropolitans. They began to preside over the smaller country churches. The development of this kind of church government was gradual. The result is what we see in Roman Catholicism in the past and today.
I will quote from the Lutheran historian, Mosheim, who is known as the father of modern church history:
"Let none, however, confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church with those of whom we read in the following ages; for though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed in many respects. A bishop during the first and second century was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which, at that time was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted, not so much with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and
[p. 11]
diligence of a faithful servant. He instructed the people, performed the several parts of divine worship, attended the sick, and inspected the circumstances and supplies of the poor. He charged, indeed, the presbyters with the performance of those duties and services, which the multiplicity of his engagements rendered it impossible for him to fulfill; but he had not the power to decide or enact any thing without the consent of the presbyters and people; and though the episcopal office was both laborious and singularly dangerous, yet its revenues were extremely small, since the church had no certain income, but depended on the gifts or oblations of the multitude, which were, no doubt, inconsiderable, and were moreover to be divided among the bishops, presbyters, deacons and poor.
"The power and jurisdiction of the bishops were not long confined to these narrow limits, but were soon extended by the following means. The bishops, who lived in the cities, had, either by their own ministry, or that of their presbyters, erected new churches in the neighboring towns and villages. These churches, continuing under the inspection and ministry of the bishops, by whose labors and counsels they had been engaged to embrace the Gospel, grew imperceptibly into ecclesiastical provinces, which the Greeks afterwards called dioceses. But as the bishop of the city could not extend his labors and inspection to all those churches in the country and in the villages, he appointed certain suffragans or deputies to govern and to instruct these new societies; and they were distinguished by the title chorepiscopi, i.e. country bishops. This order held the middle rank between bishops and presbyters.
"The churches, in those early times, were entirely independent, none of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed by its own rulers and its own laws; for, though the churches founded by the apostles had this particular deference shown to them, that they were consulted in different and doubtful cases, yet they had no juridical authority, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for them. Nothing, on the contrary, is more evident than the perfect equality that reigned among the primitive churches; nor does there even appear, in the first
[p. 12]
century, the smallest trace of that association of provincial churches, from which councils and metropolitans derive their origin. It was only in the second century that the custom of holding councils commenced in Greece, whence it soon spread through the other provinces."2
From: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/hisel.bapt.hst.ntbk.chpt2.html
1. Church Government Changed
In developing his church Satan began by corrupting the doctrinal teachings of the Lord's church from within. He has his servants in all churches. The first corruption came in his seeking to change the form of church government that Christ gave. His subtility is seen in this.
There was a plurality of elders (preachers) in the early churches. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church" (Acts 20:17). It seems that today we have a scarcity of preachers but not then. These elders were to be equal, one was not to lord it over another. "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder. . . . Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over
[p. 10]
God's heritage (clergy), but being ensamples to the flock" (I Peter 5:1-3). See our Lord's instruction on equality (Matthew 23:1-12).
Early in history Satan led some away from that truth. Diotrephes is an example given in III John 9. We read in Revelation 2:15, "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, which thing I hate." Without being positive what this doctrine was, I think the meaning lies in the name. It comes from two Greek words. The first is nikaw which means "to conquer." The second is laos which means "people." So then it means to conquer the people or laity. Thus we have a ruling clergy. Thus developed an episcopal church government in place of a congregational one. What kind of government is this? "Episcopacy, Episcopal." These terms are derived from the Greek episcopos, meaning 'bishop.' They refer accordingly to that system of church government in which the principal officer is the bishop."1
Big Preachers - Big Churches
Thus, some bishops with big egos began to feel more importance attached to them than to others. Their strong personalities helped them "climb the ladder." Bishops of the larger city churches became known as Metropolitans. They began to preside over the smaller country churches. The development of this kind of church government was gradual. The result is what we see in Roman Catholicism in the past and today.
I will quote from the Lutheran historian, Mosheim, who is known as the father of modern church history:
"Let none, however, confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church with those of whom we read in the following ages; for though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed in many respects. A bishop during the first and second century was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which, at that time was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted, not so much with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and
[p. 11]
diligence of a faithful servant. He instructed the people, performed the several parts of divine worship, attended the sick, and inspected the circumstances and supplies of the poor. He charged, indeed, the presbyters with the performance of those duties and services, which the multiplicity of his engagements rendered it impossible for him to fulfill; but he had not the power to decide or enact any thing without the consent of the presbyters and people; and though the episcopal office was both laborious and singularly dangerous, yet its revenues were extremely small, since the church had no certain income, but depended on the gifts or oblations of the multitude, which were, no doubt, inconsiderable, and were moreover to be divided among the bishops, presbyters, deacons and poor.
"The power and jurisdiction of the bishops were not long confined to these narrow limits, but were soon extended by the following means. The bishops, who lived in the cities, had, either by their own ministry, or that of their presbyters, erected new churches in the neighboring towns and villages. These churches, continuing under the inspection and ministry of the bishops, by whose labors and counsels they had been engaged to embrace the Gospel, grew imperceptibly into ecclesiastical provinces, which the Greeks afterwards called dioceses. But as the bishop of the city could not extend his labors and inspection to all those churches in the country and in the villages, he appointed certain suffragans or deputies to govern and to instruct these new societies; and they were distinguished by the title chorepiscopi, i.e. country bishops. This order held the middle rank between bishops and presbyters.
"The churches, in those early times, were entirely independent, none of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed by its own rulers and its own laws; for, though the churches founded by the apostles had this particular deference shown to them, that they were consulted in different and doubtful cases, yet they had no juridical authority, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for them. Nothing, on the contrary, is more evident than the perfect equality that reigned among the primitive churches; nor does there even appear, in the first
[p. 12]
century, the smallest trace of that association of provincial churches, from which councils and metropolitans derive their origin. It was only in the second century that the custom of holding councils commenced in Greece, whence it soon spread through the other provinces."2
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Again
Concerning the Doctrines and Ministers of the Church, and the Form of its Government.
"The form of ecclesiastical government, whose commencement we have seen in the last century, was brought in this to a greater degree of stability and consistence. One inspector, or bishop, presided over each Christian assembly, to which office he was elected by the voices of the whole people. In this post he was to be watchful and provident, attentive to the wants of the church, and careful to supply them. To assist him in his laborious province, he formed a council of presbyters, which was not confined to any fixed number; and to each of these he distributed his task, and appointed a station, in which he was to promote the interests of the church. To the bishops and presbyters, the ministers or deacons were subject; and the latter were divided into a variety of classes, as the state of the church required.
"During a great part of this century, the Christian churches were independent with respect to each other; nor were they joined by association, confederacy, or any other bonds than those of charity. Each Christian assembly was a little state, governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least, approved by the society. But, in the process of time, all the Christian churches of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate states, assembled at certain times in order to deliberate about the common interests of the whole. This institution had its origin among the Greeks, with whom nothing was more common than this confederacy of independent states, and in the regular assemblies which met, in consequence thereof, at fixed times, and were composed of the deputies of each respective state. But those ecclesiastical associations were not long confined to the Greeks; their great
[p. 13]
utility was no sooner perceived, then they became universal, and were formed in all places where the gospel had been planted. To these assemblies, in which the deputies or commissioners of several churches consulted together, the names of synods was appropriated by the Greeks, and that of councils by the Latins; and the laws that were enacted in these general meetings, were called canons i.e. rules.
"These councils of which we find not the smallest trace before the middle of this century, changed the whole face of the church, and gave it a new form: for by them the ancient privileges of the people were considerably diminished, and the power and authority of the bishops greatly augmented. The humility, indeed, and prudence of these pious prelates, prevented their assuming all at once the power with which they were afterward invested. At their first appearance in these general councils, they acknowledged that they were no more than the delegates of their respective churches, and that they acted in the name, and by the appointment of their people. But they soon changed this humble tone, imperceptibly extended the limits of their authority, turned their influence into dominion, and their counsels into laws; and openly asserted, at length, that Christ had empowered them to prescribe to his people authoritative rules of faith and manners. Another effect of these councils was the gradual abolition of that perfect equality which reigned among all bishops in the primitive times. For the order and decency of these assemblies required, that some one of the provincial bishops, meeting in council, should be invested with a superior degree of power and authority; and hence the rights of Metropolitans derive their origin. In the mean time the bounds of the church were enlarged; the custom of holding councils was fallowed wherever the sound of the gospel had reached; and the universal church had now the appearance of one vast republic, formed by a combination of a great number of little states. This occasioned the creation of a new order of ecclesiastics, who were appointed, in different parts of the worlds as heads of the church, and whose office it was to preserve the consistence and union of that immense body, whose members were so widely dispersed throughout the nations. Such were the nature and office of the patriarchs,
[p. 14]
among whom, at length, ambition, having reached its most insolent period, formed a new dignity, investing the bishop of Rome, and his successors, with the title and authority of prince of the patriarchs."3
Concerning the Doctrines and Ministers of the Church, and the Form of its Government.
"The form of ecclesiastical government, whose commencement we have seen in the last century, was brought in this to a greater degree of stability and consistence. One inspector, or bishop, presided over each Christian assembly, to which office he was elected by the voices of the whole people. In this post he was to be watchful and provident, attentive to the wants of the church, and careful to supply them. To assist him in his laborious province, he formed a council of presbyters, which was not confined to any fixed number; and to each of these he distributed his task, and appointed a station, in which he was to promote the interests of the church. To the bishops and presbyters, the ministers or deacons were subject; and the latter were divided into a variety of classes, as the state of the church required.
"During a great part of this century, the Christian churches were independent with respect to each other; nor were they joined by association, confederacy, or any other bonds than those of charity. Each Christian assembly was a little state, governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least, approved by the society. But, in the process of time, all the Christian churches of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate states, assembled at certain times in order to deliberate about the common interests of the whole. This institution had its origin among the Greeks, with whom nothing was more common than this confederacy of independent states, and in the regular assemblies which met, in consequence thereof, at fixed times, and were composed of the deputies of each respective state. But those ecclesiastical associations were not long confined to the Greeks; their great
[p. 13]
utility was no sooner perceived, then they became universal, and were formed in all places where the gospel had been planted. To these assemblies, in which the deputies or commissioners of several churches consulted together, the names of synods was appropriated by the Greeks, and that of councils by the Latins; and the laws that were enacted in these general meetings, were called canons i.e. rules.
"These councils of which we find not the smallest trace before the middle of this century, changed the whole face of the church, and gave it a new form: for by them the ancient privileges of the people were considerably diminished, and the power and authority of the bishops greatly augmented. The humility, indeed, and prudence of these pious prelates, prevented their assuming all at once the power with which they were afterward invested. At their first appearance in these general councils, they acknowledged that they were no more than the delegates of their respective churches, and that they acted in the name, and by the appointment of their people. But they soon changed this humble tone, imperceptibly extended the limits of their authority, turned their influence into dominion, and their counsels into laws; and openly asserted, at length, that Christ had empowered them to prescribe to his people authoritative rules of faith and manners. Another effect of these councils was the gradual abolition of that perfect equality which reigned among all bishops in the primitive times. For the order and decency of these assemblies required, that some one of the provincial bishops, meeting in council, should be invested with a superior degree of power and authority; and hence the rights of Metropolitans derive their origin. In the mean time the bounds of the church were enlarged; the custom of holding councils was fallowed wherever the sound of the gospel had reached; and the universal church had now the appearance of one vast republic, formed by a combination of a great number of little states. This occasioned the creation of a new order of ecclesiastics, who were appointed, in different parts of the worlds as heads of the church, and whose office it was to preserve the consistence and union of that immense body, whose members were so widely dispersed throughout the nations. Such were the nature and office of the patriarchs,
[p. 14]
among whom, at length, ambition, having reached its most insolent period, formed a new dignity, investing the bishop of Rome, and his successors, with the title and authority of prince of the patriarchs."3