Featured A Smaller Church

That is a non sequitor.
That is about as logical as saying as: Do you plan on offering up Mass today by yourself, or will you have altar boys in attendance?

 

I don't believe that Thomas Helwys speaks for the official Baptist position.
That is even humorous. Are you trying to make a joke? Baptist churches are independent.

 

But we haven't departed from the Bible:

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Paul thought (by revelation of God) that pastors were necessary, and gave qualifications for them.

In fact, he established over a hundred local churches in his life time and this is what his practice was:

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.
--The Greek word for elders is presbuteros, and is simply another name for pastor. They ordained pastors in every church that they established.

Also in 1Tim.3, Paul gives qualifications for deacons. Do you know why?
It wasn't for the sake of casual mtgs over coffee.

 

What a gross misrepresentation! And let me remind you that you are talking to someone who knows church history.

I did not say that early churches did not have leaders. I am saying that administering the ordinances was not limited to pastors. To claim it was is not scriptural and not Baptist. This is a Catholic and Protestant position that you are holding, not Baptist. The confession of Helwys proves that. And the scriptural and Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer refutes the Catholic and Protestant position.

 

It is quite shocking to find on a Baptist board a denial of the historic Baptist position of priesthood of the believer and a defense of Protestant clericalism.

Nowhere in scripture does it say that administration of the ordinances is restricted to clergy/pastors, ordained or not. You have bought into a Protestant lie.

 

That is an insult. The sarcasm is unbecoming.

Now let's see you quote some scripture that says these pastors were a special clergy class with exclusive powers and rights to administer the ordinances, that the laity were forbidden to do so. You cannot.

You hold the Protestant position, not the Baptist one.

 

Thomas: THANK YOU for being willing to speak the historic Baptist position!

The little home church of my childhood ran around 50 people when I was a child, and yes, we had a pastor.

But it had not always been so. The first Baptist family to move to the oilfield camp had no Baptist church to attend. They began holding church in their living room, with the Lord's Supper offered and baptisms done. It grew beyond just their family--still no pastor.

They finally obtained a building and continued on. Sometimes they could afford to hire a supply preacher, sometimes not. But church continued on healthily.

Then they finally went to a full time pastor. Things still went well until the state convention back there deemed only those with seminary training, or getting it, should be called as pastors. It wasn't long until no one was willing to serve a back water tiny church that couldn't pay enough to pay off their student loans and provide a living commensurate with their education.

And the church closed.

Killed off, in my humble opinion, by clericalism.

 

This is a denial of Scripture and of history, or else you are not speaking of Biblical churches,

I already quoted you Acts 14:23. In the first century Paul went on three missionary journeys. The Bible records them. He established one hundred or more churches. This can be documented by the excellent work of the well known historian and Bible scholar Dr. William Ramsey. Read his commentaries, particularly the ones on Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians. Paul says that he ordained "elders" in every church. What do you mean to contradict the Word of God and say that they didn't have church leaders?

I fear that you don't know what the priesthood of the believer is.
The priesthood of the believer has nothing to do with authority, qualification, position, whether or not you are a qualified IT technician, or one who holds a Master of Divinity or Ph.d.
The priesthood of the believer simply means that every believer can come straight before the throne of God. We don't need a "priest" in the sense of the Levitical priest or high priest, but we ourselves can approach God at any time and any place. That is the priesthood of the believer. It doesn't make you qualified as a pastor, just as it doesn't make you qualified to be the CEO of Microsoft.
Paul set forth qualifications for pastors and deacons.
It is not for no reason at all that every epistle of Paul was written either to a local church or to a pastor of a local church. Every letter that Jesus wrote in the Book of Revelation was addressed to the pastor of that particular local church.

I don't believe you know your history as you ought.
The ordinances are given to the local churches. That is one of the Baptist Distinctives. It is an important Baptist Distinctive. You will find it in almost any list of Baptist Distinctives. If it is given to the local church, then obviously it is given to the leader of the local church, the overseer, the one who oversees the church to administer it. It is not simply carried out at a whim of anyone who desires to do so at any time and place.
"Let everything be done decently and in order."
Again Paul said. "When you gather together." He was speaking to the local church.

 

So are you saying people are not free to form Baptist churches unless ordained clergy give them the go ahead?

We believed the ordinances were given to the local church to administer. As to the person leading the service to do so, that would be whoever the local church chose gave the authority to do so.

Historically Baptist authority resided in the local church, not in the local pastor.

 

I am saying that it is clear from Scripture that it was Paul's practice that before he left an area he made sure that there was a pastor in charge of that church.
He left Apollos in charge at Corinth.
He left Timothy in charge at Ephesus.
He sent Titus to Crete.
He made sure that there were pastors in each of the churches he started.

This is further backed up in the Book of Revelation where Jesus writes to the pastors, not the churches themselves.

 

There are many churches that don't have a pastor for one reason or another, but they still have someone in charge. When a pastor resigned in a church here, a pulpit committee was left in charge. There were also deacons in the church. There were men in places of leadership when a pastor is not present.
What I am saying is that Matthew 18:20 is not the definition of a church, and never was. Two or three gathering together for an informal gathering is not a church and never was. Far too often it is an excuse to avoid pastoral authority of a church nearby.

 

My first answers are in blue in your post. I haven't yet got the hang of quoting sections, sorry.

I have a doctorate in church history and theology. Further, I know exactly what scripture and the Baptists have taught about this, and that is that the administration of the ordinances is not restricted to pastors or clerics, ordained or not. This is what Baptists have taught from their beginning, as I have shown. Perhaps you are not as Baptist as you think or claim, pleading as you do for clergy exclusivism to administer the ordinances. That is a magisterial protestant position which denies the priesthood of the believer. You are setting a pastor as mediator between the individual believer and God. That is non-biblical and non-Baptist.

 

You are absolutely correct, and those who deny this are denying Baptist history and principles, pure and simple.