____________________________________________________ THE GOSPEL OBSERVER "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). ____________________________________________________ November 9, 1997 ____________________________________________________ Denominationalizing the Church (Part Eight) by Roy E. Cogdill In previous lessons we have emphasized the Lord's plan for the government of the church by the appointment of qualified men as elders, bishops, or pastors over the local church. The divine plan is a plurality of these in every church. They have the ``rule'' of the church committed into their hands by the Holy Spirit. It must not be done by their own arbitrary will, or by lording it over the church; but God has committed to them the ``oversight'' of the flock and charged them with the responsibility of directing its affairs in harmony with his will. We have suggested that it takes two things to make a man an elder in the church of the Lord: qualification and appointment. When men are thus selected, they are made ``bishops'' by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28) just like men are made Christians and deacons or evangelists by the Holy Spirit; that is, through the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit through divine truth, of course. When elders are thus selected and appointed, what do they oversee? Frequently we come across someone who has the idea that the spiritual affairs of the church are under the oversight of the elders but that the deacons are to have charge and the oversight of the material affairs of the congregation. This puts the facilities of the congregation in the way of physical equipment and the financial affairs of the congregation under the direction of the deacons according to this conception. Such an idea is not found in the word of God. The scriptural arrangement is for the elders to have the oversight of the church in all of its work and worship. There is no part of the church that has not been given to the oversight of the elders. Deacons have the oversight of nothing in the church. They may be made directly responsible for some work under the supervision of the elders, but it must be under the supervision of the elders. The preacher, as a special servant to do the work of preaching and teaching the Word of God, is in the same position as a deacon or any other member under the supervision or oversight of the elders. All are responsible, first of all, to the Lord, of course. What then, do the elders oversee? First they have the oversight of the members and must watch for their souls as they who shall give account unto God. Heb. 13:17, ``Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.'' Second, they are responsible for the teaching and safeguarding of the truth. This is taught in the required qualification for an elder, Titus 1:9, ``Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.'' Then again, Paul charged the Ephesian elders with the special responsibility of protecting the church -- Christians for whom they were responsible -- against false doctrine and every departure from the truth (Acts 20:28-32). Third, they were to oversee the distribution of benevolence to the destitute of the congregation under their charge. When the disciples of Antioch sent relief to the ``brethren in Judea,'' they delivered it by the hands of Barnabas and Saul into the hands of the elders. This gave the elders the responsibility for its distribution or the oversight of its distribution. Of course, our institutional and liberal brethren like Guy Woods, B. C. Goodpasture, and others contend that the elders cannot oversee a program of ``relieving'' the destitute and that such work necessarily requires a ``Board of Directors'' or some other organization which they incorrectly and deceptively call a ``home.'' So they set themselves squarely against the divine pattern. In fact, they deny that there is one and thus invalidate, or attempt to do so, the plain teaching of the word of God. But do not other brethren do the same thing when they put the direction of the local church under a ``committee,'' ``preacher rule,'' or in the hands of a majority? What would be the difference? If we can set aside the oversight of elders in ``every church'' in any matter, then by the same token we can set it aside in any other. It is not difficult then, to see that the elders have the oversight of the work of the local church. To this fact we must add that the elders have the oversight of the edifying of the church. This is very definitely taught by Peter in I Peter 5:14. They are to ``shepherd,'' ``tend,'' ``feed,'' or ``pastor'' the flock which they are bishops. They are responsible, therefore, for the instruction, sustenance, growth, security and development of the flock under their care. Moreover, the elders are to take the oversight of the disciplining of the flock. This is definitely implied in the demand that members must be subject to them, that they must watch for their souls, that they must be able to convince the gainsayer, etc. All of this has to do with preventive discipline; and in the administering of corrective discipline as in Corinth (I Cor. 5), the elders would be responsible for taking the lead and having the oversight of this public action of the church in withdrawing from the ungodly. This gives, by scriptural authority, the oversight of the members, resources, worship, work, and discipline or fellowship of the local church into the hands of the elders of the local church. They can delegate none of these to another eldership, for to do so would pervert the local nature of the organization God designed. By the same right that they could delegate one part of their oversight, they would be able to delegate all of it; and this would make elders or bishops over more than just one local church. It would likewise destroy the autonomy, equality, independence, and sufficiency of the local church. It takes ``all of the parts to make a whole.'' When any of the parts are given away, the ``whole'' does not remain -- rather, a ``hole'' is left and a deficiency is created. Page the Fort Worth brain trust of Warren and Deaver! They must endorse this conclusion to their own argument! The simple facts of New Testament Church organization are these: (1) Qualified men appointed as ``elders'' in every church. (2) These qualified men to have the ``rule,'' or have the oversight of all the affairs of the local church. (3) Elders to have oversight of just one local church. (4) Elders to have the oversight of no other organization in their jurisdiction as elders. (5) Elders to have the oversight of no function that does not belong to the local church. That is how simple God's plan for the government of His church is, and He will countenance no perversion or corruption of it. To depart from it is to apostatize and denominationalize the church. -- February 3, 1966 ___________________________________________ Miracles of the Bible by Tom Edwards There are many ``modernists'' today who deny the actual miracles of the Bible. Recently, I heard of one such woman, who is supposed to be a ``Biblical scholar,'' refer to the miracles of the New Testament as being merely ``stories for children'' -- and nothing more than fictitious tales to convey important lessons. The death, burial, and resurrection of Lazarus, for example, this woman explained away as being nothing more than a figurative way of expressing Lazarus' excommunication from an Essene group; but who was then brought back into its fellowship. According to her, Lazarus had not literally died; but his excommunication, as she points out, was often carried out on others, as on Lazarus, by having them to wear grave clothes and actually putting them in a tomb to symbolize their disassociation (or figurative ``death'') from the group! For when they first joined the Essenes, they were said to have received ``life'' -- they were ``born again'' -- so their ostracism from this group was a type of ``death.'' Therefore, according to her account, Jesus's going to the tomb of Lazarus was merely to let him know that he had been restored to fellowship with that group he had been formerly excommunicated from. This was just one of the bizarre and farfetched interpretations she gave concerning the Bible, but let us consider the actual account of Lazarus as seen in John 11: We note in verse 3 that Lazarus had been ``sick.'' In verses 11-14, Jesus says that Lazarus had ``fallen asleep,'' which, of course, is a figurative way that the Lord sometimes referred to death; but the disciples did not so understand this at first. They said, ``Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.'' So the following verses go on to say: ``Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then Jesus therefore said to them plainly, `Lazarus is dead.''' Verse 17 shows that Lazarus had been in this tomb four days. Are we to assume, as this lady would have us to, that he was merely sitting around their in grave clothes due to his ``excommunication''? Martha tells the Lord that if He had been there, her brother would not have died (v. 21). Does this mean that Christ could have prevented Lazarus from being ``withdrawn'' from? Martha goes on to say -- thus indicating her faith in God -- that she knew her brother would ``rise again in the resurrection on the last day'' (v. 24). Had she given up on the possibility of his ``restoration to the group he had been `excommunicated' from'' (if our modernist friend is right)? Listen then to the powerful answer Jesus gives in verses 25,26: ''...I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?'' Christ is saying here that the one who truly believes in Him will never cease to have true life in God -- even though the individual's body does die and returns to the dust. For example, Matthew 22:32 teaches that God is the ``God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'' The same verse then goes on to say that ``God is not the God of the dead but of the living.'' So the inference we make from this is that though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died physically, their true spiritual essence (or soul) continues to live on -- and in communion with God. Getting back to Lazarus, however, and considering more of the account to see if it even comes close to the speculation about his simply being ``excommunicated'' and then ``restored to fellowship,'' what about the part in which Martha said concerning her deceased brother, ``Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days'' (v. 39)? Did she simply mean that he had merely been sitting around in that tomb for four days and hadn't had a bath -- or that his body had already begun to decay? Lastly, verse 45 shows that this incident had caused many of the Jews to believe in Christ. Doesn't this also indicate that it must have been more than merely one person going to another to let that person know that he had been ``restored to fellowship''? Why would that cause others to believe in the one who would say so? But when we take this account for what it is -- a genuine resurrection of one who had been literally dead for four days -- it is easy to see why many would be led to believe in Jesus Christ, as He truly demonstrated the reality of His statement that He is ``the resurrection and the life.'' In addition, why should one find it so difficult to believe in the miracles of the Bible? As I've often mentioned to the brethren, if one can believe in God's amazing ability to simply speak the universe into existence, why should one really find it too difficult for the Lord to have worked any of the miracles recorded in the Scriptures -- whether directly or through an individual? If the recorded miracles of the Bible are not genuine, how does one explain John 20:30,31? It reads: ``Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ; and that believing you may have life in His name.'' Does this really mean, ``And these fictitious tales have been written so that you might believe''? Of course not. Consider also Mark 16:20, ``And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.'' Again, does this mean that Jesus proved or authenticated the message proclaimed by simply telling pleasant little fables? First of all, Christ was not on earth at this time -- but, rather, at the right hand of God in heaven -- when the apostles' message was being confirmed. Therefore, it was the ``power of the Holy Spirit'' sent from God -- and by whom Jesus was able to confirm His word -- that had indwelt the apostles and worked through them, performing these miraculous signs. Throughout the Bible we read of numerous miracles; and their main purpose being to substantiate, authenticate, and confirm the message proclaimed and give credence to the proclaimer. The Hebrew writes states: ``how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will'' (Heb. 2:3,4). And in speaking to the Corinthians, Paul writes, ``The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles'' (2 Cor. 12:12). 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 speaks of miraculous gifts that existed in the early church. How can one explain these away? Many of these gifts had been necessary for the conveyance of God's word to man, which is now recorded for us in the Scriptures. How could one even begin to imagine that Jesus, the apostles, and many in the early church ``confirmed the word of God'' by simply telling fictitious ``stories for children.'' How could a fable be used to establish the authenticity of God's truth or give credibility to the messenger? Nicodemus told Jesus, ``Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him'' (Jn. 3:3). Yes, these ``signs'' or miracles of Christ were a testimony in themselves toward Christ's authenticity; and Jesus would sometimes point to the miracles He performed as a ``witness'' to Him (Jn. 10:25,37,38; 14:11). He states in John 5:36, ``But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.'' Though the Bible doesn't record all the miracles that have been performed on this earth, there is certainly enough to help one become even more aware of the awesome power of the Lord, and to be able to fully agree with the words of Jesus that ''..with God all things are possible'' (Matt. 19:26). Because of the miracles that brought God's truth to man and confirmed that message once and for all, we now have that divinely inspired revelation, which we can read, understand (Eph. 3:3-7), and be saved by -- through our faith in and obedience to that glorious message recorded for us in the New Testament (Mark 16:16; Rom. 6:17; Heb. 5:9), and which has been inaugurated by the precious blood of Jesus Christ Himself (Heb. 9:16-18,23-28). ________________________________________ Tri-State CHURCH OF CHRIST 713 13th Street, Ashland, Kentucky 41101 Sunday: 10:00 A.M. Bible class 10:50 A.M. Worship 6:30 P.M. Worship Wednesday: 7:30 P.M. Bible study evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (606) 325-9742 e-mail: tedwards@zoomnet.net Gospel Observer web site: http://www.zoomnet.net/~tedwards/go ________________________________________