Featured A Smaller Church

Who said it was? Not I.

I maintain that a church can be as few as two people. That's all you need to have a church. Two people can meet regularly for worship, consisting of prayers Bible study, music, teaching/preaching/expounding the scriptures, and partaking of the Lord's Supper. And if there is a need for a baptism, they can do it. No clergy is required. That is the historic Baptist position and also the earliest one taught, as I have shown.

 

That doesn't matter to me.

I have shown you from Scripture that the ordinances are given to the local church. Do you deny that?
I have shown you from Scripture that the pastor is the overseer of the local church. Do you deny that?

Perhaps you read too much into my posts.
Again, do you deny that the pastor is the overseer of the church?

You sound very confused. The ordinances have been given to the local church. If you look on various Baptist sites you will find that that is a Baptist distinctinve believed by almost every Baptist. They are given to the local church.
Now somehow you are bringing into this the priesthood of the believer, a complete non sequitor. Like I said before "the priesthood of the believer" has as much to do with the administration of the Lord's supper as it does with being the CEO of Microsoft. I have no idea what you are getting at.

It is up to the individual to decide whether or not to partake of the elements of the Lord's Table when the church does have it. That is where priesthood of the believer comes in. The believer does not decide. The pastor of the church, possibly with advice from his deacons, decides when to have it, how often to have it. But you decide according to your own conscience whether to partake.

 

Two points: One, the historic fact is that the situation in the NT churches was very fluid. Thus, there is nothing there that suggests that every church had the same organization; in other words, there was no uniformity. Unless you have studied the history of the early churches as I have, you cannot make such a statement as you have, and if you still did anyway, you would still be wrong.

Two, what we have been debating in the recent posts is that whether such elders are necessary for administering the ordinances. Scripture and the historic Baptist position is that they are not necessary, that any believer may administer them. That is what Baptists have traditionally held to right from the beginning, as I have shown. Priesthood of the believer says that there is no mediator needed between man and God, that the only mediator is Jesus, not some cleric.

DHK seems not to have been able to completely shed his Catholic past as he is advocating some kind of Pauline successionism whereby elders that he appointed could exclusively administer the ordinances. And it seems others, including you, have bought into this thoroughly non-Baptist mediatorial clericalism. Perhaps all of you should stop playing Baptist and go on over to the Other Denominations section. Strange that DHK should hold to this since he berates Catholics and those whom he thinks are not Baptist enough. And I was amazed to see him resort to the "cult" charge. Wonder if he does that every time he's cornered.

Oh, by the way, your reasoning is faulty. A flock is still a flock, regardless of whether or not a shepherd is present. If there is no shepherd, what do you suppose the flock turns into... a gaggle?

 

The above is your answer to this post of mine (I missed it).

So basically I give you Scripture, and you tell me I am Protestant and not Baptist. I don't know what kind of history you studied and where you studied it. I guess it really doesn't matter.
What matters is the Word of God. It is my final authority. The above is what God has to say on it, and it is sad to see you reject it.

 

I always find this type of reply interesting as it implies your interpretation of scripture is infallible. Do you believe this?

As I said earlier, I am a fan of small churches, 100 people or less. Once a church reaches 100 it should divide into two churches so the fellowship can continue as a close family.

 

"It is with cheerfulness that we dismiss our twelves, our twenties, our fifties, to form other Churches. We encourage our members to leave us to found other Churches—no—we seek to persuade them to do it! We ask them to scatter throughout the land to become the goodly seed which God shall bless. I believe that as long as we do this, we shall prosper. I have marked other Churches that have adopted the other way, and they have not succeeded. This is what I have heard from some ministers—“I do not encourage village stations or, if I do, I do not encourage their becoming distinct Churches and breaking bread together. I do not encourage too many young men going out to preach, for to have a knot of people who can preach a little, may very soon cause dissatisfaction with my own preaching.” I have marked those who have followed this course, and I have seen that the effect of trying to keep all the blood in the heart is to bring on congestion, and very soon the whole body has been out of health. My Brothers, if you can do more good elsewhere than you can do here, for God’s sake, go, and happy shall I be that you have gone. If you can serve my Master in the little rooms in the neighborhood—if by forming yourselves into smaller Churches you can increase the honor of my Master’s name, I shall love you none the less for going—and I shall delight to think that you have Christ’s spirit in you, and can do and dare for His name’s sake!" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Waterer Watered"

 

So where do you think this apostolic succession idea gained traction among the Baptists?

 

I can't remember being a member of a church greater than a hundred. In the area that I live in the churches are typically small. However, what you say would condemn the church at Jerusalem who saw 3,000 saved in their first day of operation. They added 5,000 more members just a few days later. It wasn't long before they grew to about 100,000 members.
The church at Antioch of Syria was roughly the same size.
What your a fan of really doesn't matter. What is Biblical does. You can always find a church that suits your needs, especially if you live in America, where in some places there's a church on every block.

Thus to say once a church reaches a hundred it should divide is not a biblical statement, but simply a matter of preference. The church that sent Paul and Barnabas out as missionaries was far bigger than that. Are you condemning them?

 

It is sad to see you reject the scriptural and Baptist teaching of the priesthood of the believer and instead embrace the Catholic and Protestant teaching of the necessity of a clerical mediator between the believer and God in order to be able to have baptism and the Lord's supper.

 

Our little church is so small as to seem insignificant to others perhaps, but we cling to timeless Baptist principles in our desire to live and spread the Good News of Jesus, just as my namesake and his small group of Baptists did as the first Baptist church on English soil. We honor their confession of faith and order our church accordingly. We have a pastor and leaders, but they are not our mediators, masters, or a separated clergy class with rights, privileges, and functions that only they may exercise. In other words, we and they are true Baptists, not Catholics or Protestants.

 

I gave you Scripture. You simply give opinion. By your statements you don't seem to know what the priesthood of the believer is. You are not debating with Scripture. You simply offer opinion. Opinion loses every time.

 

From the "Trail of Blood" people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail_of_Blood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Robinson_Graves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Christian

 

I gave historical facts and Baptist principles backed by scripture.

You have given absolutely zero scripture to prove that the administration of the ordinances is limited and exclusive to a special clergy class or even to an unordained pastor. Zero, zilch, nada.

You believe in the Catholic and Protestant position that the ordinances must be mediated exclusively by clergy. You thus deny a central Baptist principle. You have not shaken your Catholic past as completely as you think.

You cannot support your position with either scripture or Baptist principles. You lose.

 

Again, here is the historic Baptist position from the first English Baptist confession, by Thomas Helwys:

"11. That though in respect of CHRIST, the Church is one (Ephesians 4:4) yet it consists of diverse particular congregations, even so many as there will be in the World, every congregation, though they are but two or three, have CHRIST given them, with all the means of their salvation (Matthew 18:20 ; Romans 8:32; 1 Corinthians 3:22). They are the Body of CHRIST
(1 Corinthians 12:27) and a whole Church (1 Corinthians 14:23). And therefore may, and should, when they come together, to Pray, Prophecy, break bread, and administer in all the holy ordinances, although as yet they have no Officers, or that their Officers should be in Prison, sick, or by any other means hindered from the Church (1 Peter 4:10 and 2:5)."

 

Having been part of a church with 11000 members or more I can say that it is completely false that the church that large cannot be a family or intimate.

 

Do you actually equate Helwys "historic Baptist confession of faith" with Scripture? I feel sorry for you. It is a piece of paper, a document which doesn't even accurately reflect the beliefs of Baptists today. Why do you think this man speaks for all? He doesn't. He speaks for himself and perhaps for you.

I will quote this post of mine for the third time. The only response I have gotten from you is your name-calling.

How about trying to answer with Scripture this time instead of simply calling me a Protestant, and/or worse?
At least I can give Scripture, something you haven't done.