Featured Are all Baptists into Congregationalism?

I don't know about it being an oxymoron, but I would say it is disgusting heresy. I think membership in a Masonic Lodge should be grounds for immediate discipline and removal from the church.

 

Maybe if you reversed your emphasis?

"...most Baptist Churches I have visited...."

 

Oh, they do have elders—their pastors and deacons—just not the nonbiblical Reformed scheme of "elders" on which you're apparently fixated.




A survey of Baptists' understanding of biblical elders as the church's pastors and deacons:



SBTS's Greg Wills, "The Church: Baptists and Their Churches in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries":

"the pastor and deacons jointly constituted the eldership. South Carolina’s Tyger River Baptist Association, for example, judged in 1835 that "the eldership of the church" consisted of "the ministers and deacons."



Shaftsbury Baptist Association, 1804 Circular Letter:

"These are both called Elders, 1 Timothy 5:17. . . .By these Elders, we understand Bishops and Deacons; and we have not learned from the scriptures, but that these two are the only officers to be ordained in the Christian Church."



American Baptist Magazine, 1829:

"The term elder was, probably, a general term equivalent to our word officer; and thus it could be applied to a pastor, or to a deacon ; and the elders of a church included the pastor or pastors and the deacons."



In Charles Spurgeon's "The Sword and Trowel", 1866:

"the term elder is applied both to bishops and deacons"



Spurgeon's predecessors concurred:

William Rider, Laying on of Hands Asserted, 1656:

"in the word Elders is comprehended all officers in the Church, with the Ministerial work also, . . . and so Elders is distinguished into several offices in the Church, as Bishops and Deacons . . . . Philip. 1.1 vers. where the Apostle writeth to the Saints, with the Bishops and Deacons: so Paul to Timothy writes of the qualifications of the Bishops and Deacons ; not Elders and Deacons ; you shall never in all the Scripture find Elders and Deacons expressed."



Benjamin Keach, Gospel Mysteries Unveil'd [1701]:

"Moreover, the Deacons are to be helps in Government. Some think Paul calls the Deacons Elders, when he speaks of Elders that rule well [I Tim. 5:17] (as our Annotators observe)"

 

Deacons are not now nor have they ever been elders.

 

:thumbsup::thumbs::applause::thumbs:

 

Acts 6:1-4 NAS77

1 Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.
2 And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
3 "But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.
4 "But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word."
​

Elders attend to the spiritual needs: prayer and the ministry of the Word. Deacons are "table" servers. That in no ways diminishes the importance of deacons in the church but their role is quite different from that of the elders.

 

The missing ingredient in most churches is not the pastor or the deacon. This ingredient is: The Spirit The Holy--who baptized the first New Testament Church on the Day called Pentecost.

He is referenced as the candlestick in Rev., Seven Churches of Asia. The Lord says to repent or He will remove His candlestick. Obviously many have not repented in every generation. Their candlesticks have been removed--if they ever had one. They no longer have the Holy Spirit to lead guide and direct them in all Truth. Without the Holy Spirit, men are blind guides leading the blind.

The mystery of iniquity was already at work in the first century. The deeds of the Nicolaitans (over throwing the laity) was working; resulting in Constantine and Helena foisting a quasi-pagan religion throughout the Roman Empire in the 4th century. This is a bizarre combination of the philosophy of Aristotle and the hierarchy of Rome. It showed up in Constantinople too.

These folks are still around, in fact still in control--and they have a sizeable progeny--reformed and re-reformed of course.

These are not Holy Spirit led religions folks. Now what?

Jesus promised to never leave nor forsake His little flock.

"They that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution".

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Was Steven only a "table server"?

 

In confessional, Reformed Baptist circles there is elder rule, but even elder rule is not monolithic. It still maintains some aspects of congregationalism. Presbyterian ecclesiology is a different matter. Elders may be a part of Presbyterian polity, but a governing body outside of the local church is certainly not a Baptist distinctive.

 

Acts 6:5 NAS77

5 And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.​

Well, I guess he was at that!

Let me repeat what I said earlier, "That in no ways diminishes the importance of deacons in the church but their role is quite different from that of the elders." Obviously, in this case, it meant martyrdom preceded by a bold proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The primary role of the elder is prayer and the ministry of the Word. The primary role of the deacon is service. That does not exclude one from the other. Stephen did not complain that his role as a servant was demeaning. I believed he marched right into eternity " man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit" and a servant.

If Stephen's only task in the church was to scrape gruel out of wooden bowls he would have done it with the same spirit in which he suffered and died for the cause of Jesus Christ.

I've been in enough churches to have come across the Deacon or two who thought the title should come with a miter and a scepter. Stephen, the model deacon, accepted his role with genuine humility. Being a "table server" is not a demeaning task. It is a place of honor and great responsibility among the men of God.

 

You mean Presbyterianism? That's your opinion. I am quite convinced that, while elders are biblical, authority over a local church by an outside ecclesiastical body is not biblical.

 

As well as Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas. (Acts 6:5)

 

This governance dilemma has been around a long time. It is closely related to our human failings of respect of persons and hierarchy. It probably goes back to when someone decided he was Christ's vicar on earth. This was back in the days of Pontifex Maximus.

Church can be a real money making operation. Somebody has got to keep the books. Maintaining a clerics school is expensive.

All believers are priests capable of offering spiritual sacrifices--with or without vestments.

Why is church so convoluted and complicated? A little child should be able to understand.

The account of replacing the bishopric of Judas Iscariot in Acts 1 surely seems to indicate a congregation of at least 120 choosing between two candidates by following the leadership of the Holy Spirit. That is a pure theocratic democracy. Now we have boards, synods, and other steering committees. This seems to negate the sovereignty of The New Testament Church. The clerics are taking over--again.

The Lord still has a remnant, without spot or blemish or any such thing.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James