Featured A Smaller Church

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

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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