Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Pastoral Qualifications


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Does anyone here think it's a little odd that Paul could be a torturer of Christians before he was saved, as in the self-confessed "chief of sinners" who forced people to reject Christ under threats of only God knows what - but he could still be eligible for the role of a deacon after salvation... because he never had a divorce?

Unless, of course, Paul was eligible to write half of the New Testament but not be a deacon.

Rick you are comparing to many variable and different things in an attempt to get at a different answer than what Scripture clearly teaches. God's ways are not our ways. David was qualified for many things in his life but he was not considered qualified to build the temple.

Just because a man is not qualified to be a pastor or a deacon (and if this is true and they are following God, the Lord will NOT lead them in that direction anyway), there are many other ways they can serve God in accord with the Will and Word of God.

The arguments you are using are among the same arguments used by women and homosexuals to declare they should be pastors and deacons. (To be clear Rick, I am NOT lumping you in with them or saying you are among them; ONLY pointing out the how this same line of arguing is also used by others)

So, why can't a divorced man who may have the ability to be a great pastor be one...why can't a woman who is a gifted speaker and knows the Bible well be a pastor? The same answer, because God says it isn't to be so. That doesn't diminish their standing in Christ before God and doesn't prevent them from following the Lord's leading to serve in any number of other areas.

When we have a clear command in Scripture and we begin to say "what if...or but..." when the Bible does't, we tread on thin ice. Better to follow what is clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Does anyone here think it's a little odd that Paul could be a torturer of Christians before he was saved, as in the self-confessed "chief of sinners" who forced people to reject Christ under threats of only God knows what - but he could still be eligible for the role of a deacon after salvation... because he never had a divorce?

Unless, of course, Paul was eligible to write half of the New Testament but not be a deacon.




No, it was through Paul that God gave these qualifications for both pastor and deacon, and Paul was not a pastor of a New Testament Church, although some of the other apostles were. Do you find that odd? I don't, I take God as He tells us in the Holy Bible.

Besides, I fail to understand why you would ask such a question, the Bible is quite plain about the qualifications of a deacon.

1Ti 3:12 "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife..."

It seems your still looking for loopholes, the Scriptures are quite plain.

I know of pastors that taught that a pastor cannot be divorced, them get divorced, remarried, them change that teaching. I have no respect whatsoever for such a person.

Many times I've seen a novice installed as pastor of a New Testament Church. While the Bible is very clear.

1Ti 3:6 "Not a novice..."

It seems so hard for some to do it God's way, the just seem to think they know better than God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



Again, Rick, each man is the head of his home. And the responsibility for the spiritual health for that home lies on that man's shoulders. While we all give account for our own individual lives, husbands will give account for how they husbanded their homes. When there is divorce, the home wasn't properly husbanded (cultivated). Ergo, there is blame to assign to the man...


This is as Pharisical as it gets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

#1 - I'm not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination, Wilch, so let's not go there, okay?


I wasn't going there. I was responding to Rick's statement. That a feminist would agree with what he said. It's called "tongue in cheek".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Rick you are comparing to many variable and different things in an attempt to get at a different answer than what Scripture clearly teaches.

No, I'm not, brother. I'm trying to show the inconsistencies of saying the Bible says something that it doesn't actually say.

When we have a clear command in Scripture and we begin to say "what if...or but..." when the Bible does't, we tread on thin ice. Better to follow what is clear.

Exactly.

My point is this: it's not clear.

It says: "The husband of one wife" NOT "the husband of one wife for his entire life" (which would include before salvation) and NOT "the husband of one wife right now." It can go one of two ways. I believe there is much more evidence that it is the latter than the former.

The examples you used about gays and women preachers don't apply here - the Bible is very clear on those subjects.

--

I hope no one has been offended personally by my comments in this thread. I hate divorce and I think it's a terrible thing. By the grace of God, my wife and I will never go down that road. Self imposed rule: we're not even allowed to talk about it.

That being said, I don't see any evidence in the Bible that a divorce in the distant past, yea even in a man's unsaved life, permanently bars him from being a deacon.

I believe there are two extreme unbiblical positions on this subject. One is the "who cares" mentality about divorce and the other is "I'm holding that against you forever" teaching. I think BOTH are wrong and unbiblical. What matters is what the Bible says, not the world's standards (the former) or Baptist tradition (the latter). Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

You know, it wasn't too many years ago (well, I guess it was...time can be relative, can't it? :icon_mrgreen: ) that there was no question as to whether a divorced man would pastor (or be a deacon, or evangelist, or missionary, etc), or even, as the OP asked, a pastor be married to a divorced woman. The answer would have been no.

But we are enlightened nowadays. It's okay, because scripture doesn't really mean one wife - it means one wife at a time. And Jesus didn't actually mean what He said when He said that the one who marries a divorced woman (saving for fornication, yes) committed adultery (and, no, I don't believe it's lifelong, but the stain is still there...).

And from whence did the enlightenment come? Why, from ministries where immorality was existent, of course. From men who have been married more than once (via divorce, not death) and remained in the pulpit. Or from men who have decided that their legal wife wasn't enough woman for them...

I've known many men who have been divorced, remarried, and have pastored (or deaced, or missioned, or evangeled :) ) through the evangelist for whom I used to work (anon, years ago...back when this was coming to prominence in Christian, especially IFB, circles). They were taught in their uber-IFB school by a man who said that, when God told them they were to preach, and they said, "but wait, Lord, I got a divorce," God said, "You got a what?" because it was all under the blood. And so this place produced divorced preacher after divorced preacher...and this man? Why, he and his wife are currently serving time in prison for heinous child abuse.

Why should where he is now make any difference to things if he taught what the Bible says? Because he was living the abuse at the time he was teaching...and, I'm sorry, but someone who did what he did has absolutely NO spiritual discernment and his teachings cannot be trusted.

And the divorced preachers? Many of them are still preaching, and still faithful to the wife they found at the college. Kudos to them! But one of my college professors made a statement that has stuck with me all these years: In a situation where there has been a divorce and remarriage and the man continues to (or goes into) preach(ing), God blesses in spite of the sin, not because of the obedience. Something to think about.

But not all of those preachers have been faithful. In fact, many of them have carried on the immorality that was existent in their place of learning.

What does this have to do with anything? Simply this: We, as Christians, have lost, to a great degree, our fear of a holy God and have replaced it with man's reasonings: and those reasonings have caused a surge of divorced men in the pulpit.

We also have a surfeit of women in the pulpit...something no-one here would argue is absolutely wrong. But, hey - reasoning would dictate that if men can go into the pulpit, ignoring God's view of marriage as part of the qualifications, why cannot women go into the pulpit, ignoring God's view of women usurping men's authority in the church. Yes, I know that's faulty reasoning. But, so, too, is the reasoning that, because the Bible doesn't say in so many words: "Thou shalt not pastor or deac if you have been divorced." a man can remain in that position. Oh, wait! It does: "...husband of ONE wife." :coolsmiley:

PastorJ was right: the question of the OP wasn't about a pastor's divorce - it was about his wife's...maybe we've gone a little too far off the trail? :icon_mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

As long as the divorced man lives, the wife he divorced, as long as she lives, is still his wife, they are still "one flesh," no man can take apart what God has joined together. And take notice of the stress put on this, " let not man put asunder," "What therefore God hath joined together."

Where the Holy Scriptures says, "one wife," that is exactly what the Holy Scriptures means, the man that marries, he and his wife shall always be one flesh until one or both die.

We are not making this up, we have clearly showed what the Scriptures says about this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If a person is a missionary, they're not a pastor, of course a pastor could become a missionary. And a missionary could become a pastor if qualified. And of course a person can be an evangelist and not be a pastor nor a missionary.

Its not an attitude, its what the Bible teaches. I find it interesting the attitude some, even many, have when they disagree with someone, many times they will say that person has an attitude. Yet perhaps its an attitude within ones self that makes them think the person they disagree with has an attitude.


Allow me to change the word "attitude" to "perspective". Just to clear up any wrongly perceived under current on your part.

Your statement is not based upon any scripture. In fact, we both know the word "missionary" never occurs in the Bible. What is a man who is called of God to lead a church, care for the church, watch for the souls of that church, win the lost and baptize them into the church... Are you seriously asking me to think of myself as a "not pastor"?

You couldn't quote any scripture to support what you just said. You claim the Bible teaches that a missionary is not a pastor. I will wait for the chapter and verse on that my friend. Your perspective is common among many dear friends of mine who are in the ministry. Yet, they (and I suspect you) cannot demonstrator that perspective from the scriptures. Did Paul have any less authority over his converts than that of say, Peter? Their perspective is that since a church is a sending agency, therefore, the one snet is not on the same level as a pastor, yet I would love to hear a job description of a "missionary" that implies a "not pastor" fulfillment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Are you claiming there's no such thing as a missionary?

Ac 13:1 ¶ Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Ac 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Ac 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

In the above verses this church clearly approved of their calling, gave them the blessing, ordaining them for the work set before them by the Holy Ghost.

I will say that at times a pastor is sent forth as a missionary by a church. Usually this man is sent out with the authority from his sending church to start a church. I recall such a situation. I attended a meeting with a group of church the purpose being the sending of a pastor, as a missionary, to Nevada in the heart of Mormon country.

Thanks for changing to perspective from attitude. There is no use in us using such language towards one another, that just causes fire.

If you will read thru the New Testament you will find several that were sent, that were never pastor of a church.

By the way, I don't see no scriptural support for what you seem to claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


No, I'm not, brother. I'm trying to show the inconsistencies of saying the Bible says something that it doesn't actually say.


Exactly.

My point is this: it's not clear.

It says: "The husband of one wife" NOT "the husband of one wife for his entire life" (which would include before salvation) and NOT "the husband of one wife right now." It can go one of two ways. I believe there is much more evidence that it is the latter than the former.

The examples you used about gays and women preachers don't apply here - the Bible is very clear on those subjects.

--

I hope no one has been offended personally by my comments in this thread. I hate divorce and I think it's a terrible thing. By the grace of God, my wife and I will never go down that road. Self imposed rule: we're not even allowed to talk about it.

That being said, I don't see any evidence in the Bible that a divorce in the distant past, yea even in a man's unsaved life, permanently bars him from being a deacon.

I believe there are two extreme unbiblical positions on this subject. One is the "who cares" mentality about divorce and the other is "I'm holding that against you forever" teaching. I think BOTH are wrong and unbiblical. What matters is what the Bible says, not the world's standards (the former) or Baptist tradition (the latter).

Actually, it is clear, "the husband of one wife". Since it doesn't say "except for..."or "unless...", we should take it as it stands without trying to "clarify" if by bringing up issues and points the Holy Ghost didn't deem it necessary to go into.

As LuAnn pointed out, previous to our times the qualifications were pretty much accepted across the board. It wasn't until modernism, humanism and feminism really began permeating the churches that questions and "exceptions" came into being.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Are you claiming there's no such thing as a missionary?

Of course not. I am a missionary.

Ac 13:1 ¶ Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Ac 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Ac 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

In the above verses this church clearly approved of their calling, gave them the blessing, ordaining them for the work set before them by the Holy Ghost.

I will say that at times a pastor is sent forth as a missionary by a church. Usually this man is sent out with the authority from his sending church to start a church. I recall such a situation. I attended a meeting with a group of church the purpose being the sending of a pastor, as a missionary, to Nevada in the heart of Mormon country.

Thanks for changing to perspective from attitude. There is no use in us using such language towards one another, that just causes fire.

Not a problem, I saw where it was changing the tone of my post.

If you will read thru the New Testament you will find several that were sent, that were never pastor of a church.

I have read through the Bible over 40 times my friend. That is not the problem.

By the way, I don't see no scriptural support for what you seem to claim.

I'm not sure I'm claiming anything other than that a God called minister is a God called minister. It's men who have made through their traditions a "missionary" class servant. And that is what I cannot find in the scriptures.
In fact Paul, whom we should agree was a missionary had authority that supersedes pastors in several places.
He said he "robbed other churches" to pay the wages of the Corinthians. Brother, what and how do we explain that? He said that not only did he suffer many things at the hands of others for preaching the gospel, he also said that "Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches."
According to Hebrews 13, its pastors that have the care of the church. My point is this brother, a missionary (and I won't argue the title) is every bit as called to minister, lead, direct, care for, build up and oversee the local church as any pastor. I'm trying to say, exactly what is it that I am not authorized to do as a "missionary" that you are authorized to do as a "pastor"?
Well, that is the basic idea I was trying to get across. I found it very odd that someone seemed to suggest that if a missionary was divorced he could continue to minister, and it seemed to me that there was some sort of idea that any man called to the full time ministry does not have to meet the Biblical requirements (not standards) of the ministry.

Edited by Calvary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Calvary,

Would you agree that not all missionaries are pastors?

I agree with you that the majority of missionaries serving the Lord are Pastor's and ought to hold to the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3. However, I know of a few missionaries that are not serving as Pastors. Some examples:

Missionary Pilots in Alaska - They transport pastors from church to church.
Single Lady Missionaries - Serving in churches all over the world. They assist the pastor and usually run children's ministries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Calvary,

Would you agree that not all missionaries are pastors?

I agree with you that the majority of missionaries serving the Lord are Pastor's and ought to hold to the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3. However, I know of a few missionaries that are not serving as Pastors. Some examples:

Missionary Pilots in Alaska - They transport pastors from church to church.
Single Lady Missionaries - Serving in churches all over the world. They assist the pastor and usually run children's ministries


Absolutely. I am confining my remarks to "church planting" missionaries. My perspective is that, I have found over the years many pastors stateside don't understand the dynamic of what a church planting missionary really does. I am not alone in this thinking, as a missionary, I of course have dozens of missionary friends who have perceived the same failing in men who pastor. I do not think it is a general rule however that stateside pastors are not appreciative of the work we do as church planters and most pastors have great respect for foreign missioanries. I say that just in case this comes across as a complaint dept. :-)

My question is this:

Exactly where does a pastor"s authority differ from that of a church planting missionary on a foreign field?

Ya know, Carrie Suhl, a great lady who supplies me with Bibles for several years is a devoted missionary in Mexico. Her husband was called home to the Lord and she remained in Mexico to help local churches get Bibles free of charge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think its sad we have to have a debate on this. The world has become so desensitized to sin. How did we get so far away from God's Word so quickly? America's view of marriage has been so distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

I think its sad we have to have a debate on this. The world has become so desensitized to sin. How did we get so far away from God's Word so quickly? America's view of marriage has been so distorted.

:amen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think its sad we have to have a debate on this. The world has become so desensitized to sin. How did we get so far away from God's Word so quickly? America's view of marriage has been so distorted.


Some, do not have ears to hear with, others just fail to understand the Bible, God's way.

One thing I have noticed for most people, if they're 1st taught one thing about God, Jesus, Church, ect., they seem bent towards sticking to it till they die, no matter what anyone shows them within the pages of the Bible.

That is my humble opinion about the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Calvary,

I for one believe that most missionaries are "Pastors" in a foreign country and therefore must meet the qualifications of a pastor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Calvary,

I for one believe that most missionaries are "Pastors" in a foreign country and therefore must meet the qualifications of a pastor.


Amazing, we are finding some other things of which we agree on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...