Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill

In our last article, we 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 be 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.

The Oversight of the Elders

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 elders 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. Of course, all are responsible, first of all, to the Lord.

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 qualifications for an elder; Titus 1:9, “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he maybe 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, 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 one 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 1 Peter 5:1-4. They are to “shepherd,” “tend,” “feed,” or “pastor” the flock over 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 at 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 created. Page the Fort Worth brain trust of Tom Warren and Roy Deaver! They must endorse this conclusion to their own argument!

Conclusion

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 of 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.

Truth Magazine XIX: 52, pp. 819-820
November 13, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Hawaii: `All the teaching I have heard concerning speaking in tongues seems to be that the apostles were given this gift to spread the gospel. If the tongues were languages in every instance, why were interpreters needed? If the tongue had to be interpreted why did not the apostles just speak in the language necessary? “

Reply:

By Way Of Introduction

First, the apostles (but not the apostles only) were given the ability to speak in tongues in order “to spread the gospel.” At least, that seems a fair implication from the events of Acts 2. Second, where the gift of tongues was employed and the hearers did not understand, interpreters were required, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church” (1 Cor. 14:28). As far as the record reveals, the apostles never spoke so as to necessitate an interpretation, but those on whom the apostles laid hands did so speak. Hopefully, this shall be clear from what follows.

Those Who Spoke In Tongues

The apostles were given the ability to speak in tongues or languages they had never learned (Acts 2:4, 6, 8, 11). Paul, an apostle, spoke “with tongues” (1 Cor. 14:18), but this ability was not restricted to the apostles as our querist’s remarks seem to imply. The gift was conferred to others by the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 8:18; 19:6; 1 Cor. 14). There are no apostles today. Consequently, none today speak in tongues by the power of the Spirit as they did then.

“What about Cornelius?” someone asks. His was an extraordinary case. His was an exception, if you will, that sustains the general rule. Cornelius spoke in languages. He was not an apostle, nor had apostolic hands been laid upon him. However, the gift of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius’ household fell “as” it had upon the apostles “at the beginning.” The purpose was specific, definitive. It occurred one time for all time. It is never to be repeated or duplicated (Acts 10:47, 48; 11:18; 15:7-11, 14-18).

Again, tongues speakers, those who spoke languages they had never learned or studied, were limited to the apostles and those upon whom the apostles laid their hands (Acts 2:4-11; 8:18; 19:6; 1 Cor. 14).

“The Language Necessary”

Unwittingly, our querist has made the assumption that the apostles did not speak “in the language necessary,” that is, the language of the hearer. Can one find a passage where an apostle ever spoke a language the hearer could not understand? When the apostles spoke in tongues, they always spoke the language of the hearer. “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding (that is, being understood by my audience-LRH), that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19).

But if the Corinthians, or anyone with the gift of tongues, exercised their gift where the audience did not understand the language, an interpretation was required, else they were to “keep silence in the church” (1 Cor. 14:28).

Now, our questioner might rephrase his inquiry thusly: “If the tongue had to be interpreted, why did not the Corinthians just speak in the language necessary?” Because tongues were for a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22), one need not speak the language of the hearer; however, there had to be an interpreter for the exercised gift to be a sign or indicator. The Corinthians were speaking in languages which were not understood, nor were they being interpreted. It was confusion!

Paul’s argument is that they were misusing their gift of tongues by speaking without understanding or comprehension on the part of their hearers. He says that all such utterance is without profit, speaking “into the air,” barbaric, unfruitful, void of edification, and madness (1 Cor. 14:6, 9, 11, 14, 17, 23). If there be not interpretation of the tongue, if none comprehend, then “keep silence.”

Consider A “For Instance”

For example, if a Corinthian could speak “in the speech (language) of Lycaonia,” he was to keep silence, “except he interpret.” What use was it to speak “ten thousand words in” a language no one understood? “It is pointless,” argues Paul in effect. This gift was given “for a sign” to unbelievers. So, why display it when it is of no benefit or profit? Why use it when none understand it? If no Lycaonians are present, or if there be no interpreter, “keep silence in the church.” The tongue was a sign to the unbeliever. One did not have to speak Lycaonian to see the miracle, but it failed its purpose if there was no interpretation. With interpretation, it could properly be used as a sign to the unbeliever. That is why the Corinthian did not “just speak in the language necessary.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 52, p. 818
November 13, 1975

By Larry Ray Hafley

It is surprising how many denominational commentators will freely, openly and casually set forth the truth of the Bible which contradicts the teaching of the denomination with which they are affiliated and associated. Certain ones state the New Testament preaching and practice with such emphasis and clarity that it seems hard to imagine they were members of a human church which just as clearly and emphatically contradicted the very word of God. But they were. The quotation below is by Augustus H. Strong. Mr. Strong was a scholar of note and renown. He was, at the time of this quotation, President Emeritus of the Rochester Theological Seminary. His religious credentials are impressive.

Concerning the organization of the local congregation, Mr. Strong, in reference to Philippians 1:1, said:

“In the very first verse you have recognized an organization of the Christian church that is noteworthy. He writes to those who recognize Christ, to the saints in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; i.e., with the overseers and deacons. Only two orders are recognized, only two sorts of officers in the Christian church. First the pastors, or overseers, of the flock, and then the deacons of the church; and I suppose we have here the outline of church organization in the apostolic time. We do not anywhere find that there are more than these two ranks, or officers, in the Christian church” (A. H. Strong, Popular Lectures on the Books of the New Testament, pp. 242, 243).

By the term “Christian church,” Mr. Strong did not have reference to the modern day denomination known by that name. He simply meant the church of the Lord, the New Testament church. His comment is as plain as it is truthful. What a shame that the simple organization of local churches is not followed as faithfully as it is set forth!

Truth Magazine XIX: 51, p. 814
November 6, 1975

By Roy E. Cogdill

Men have as much right to alter the Word of God as to remodel and redesign the structure or function of the church of God. The same prerogative that grants to man the right to do one justifies the other, also. But such right does not exist and to exercise it is to bring upon one’s self the anathema of Almighty God. Man has no right to change God’s Word and he has no right to lay his unholy hands upon the church to change it in any way. God designed it from eternity (Eph. 3:10-11). Jesus built it after the divine pattern, upon the divinely laid foundation (Matt. 16:18-20). The Holy Spirit dwells in it to give it life, strength, power and vitality (Eph. 2:19-22). It is in this body, designed by the wisdom and will of Almighty God, sent from heaven and established upon this earth by the Lord Jesus Christ, and directed by the Holy Spirit that God is to be glorified (Eph. 3:21). But this cannot be done by altering the divine pattern for the church any more than it can be done by changing the message of His Word. When men do one, they signify thereby that they would not hesitate to do the other, if they thought it would be accepted by those with whom they are in fellowship. After all, a human creed is no worse than a human organization or a human program or work and worship! Why should it be so regarded? The same passage that teaches one God, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, also teaches one body (Eph. 4:4-6)!

We have pointed out the divine organization of the Lord’s Church as it is revealed in the New Testament. The one and only organization known to New Testament scriptures is the local church! We challenge any one to produce another. There was nothing larger, smaller, or other than the local church. Through it, all of the Lord’s work was carried on by the people of God. When that organization began to be altered by the wisdom and unbelief of fallible men, apostasy ensued and out of that apostasy, human creeds and human denominational organizations grew. It is even so today!

The “Rule” of the Elders

Over each one of these local churches, God appointed that elders should “rule” or have the superintendence and oversight as bishops. This rule was not by their own authority, residual either in them as men, or in the “office” or work to which they had been appointed, but in the execution of the will of the Lord, the head over all things to the church which is his body, and therefore by his authority. It was not a delegated authority that made them “lords” over the churches. From the exercise of their own will, using the “office” to have their own way and follow their own judgment, they were precluded. A self-willed man is not qualified to be an elder (Titus 1:7). Neither did their position of responsibility give them license to act as “lords” over the heritage of God (the church). The sovereignty belongs to the Lord and everything anyone does in the church of the Lord must be done by his authority (1 Pet. 5:1-5; Eph. 1:21-23).

One extreme among brethren today, concerning the eldership, is the idea that elders, or bishops, constitute a sort of hierarchy that is almost, if not quite, infallible and that these men who have the God appointed rule have the right to determine truth for us all, lay down a prescribed rule by which we are to live, and steer the church on a course of activity from which none have the scriptural right to dissent. The common conception along this line, which is used to excuse fellowship or participation in something admittedly without Bible authority in the activity of the church, is that when the elders decide upon a course of action, right or wrong, every member must be in subjection to them and no one has the right to refuse to follow them in such a course. The infallibility claimed for the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in their “interpretation of the scriptures” and in the authority exercised by them, even to the claim to be able to forgive sins, is no more absolute than that. The Bible teaches that we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). This applies to any kind of authority, governmental, parental, marital, or congregational. The individual that is willing to violate his conscience by fellowshipping what is not in harmony with the teaching of the Lord, just because the elders think it is all right, or for any other reason, is untrue to the Lord and disobedient to his obligation to recognize the Lord as the one and only sovereign of his heart and life.

Concerning elders Paul wrote, 1 Tim. 5:17-20, “Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” This injunction was delivered to a Gospel preacher and was not idle instruction. A preacher that will not dissent and refuse to go along, even with the elders under whom he labors, as well as any others, when they depart from that which is according to truth is a time-server and man pleaser, a hireling and unworthy of Christian fellowship. Every Christian has an obligation to determine what the truth is by his own study of the Word of God and honor it above all else. Elders, if there is any difference at all, are charged with special duty to follow strictly the will of the Lord and watch against any departure therefrom, either in theory or practice (Acts 20:28-32).

That there is wide spread abuse of the eldership along this and many other lines is apparent to all who are in any wise acquainted with the true facts. Sometimes elders are jealous of their “authority” and will not take anyone, preacher, deacon, teacher, or member into their counsel, seeking their advice and help in settling even matters of judgment and expediency. They feel called upon to make every decision without considering or consulting those over whom they “rule.” This is very unwise and will eventually breed rebellion. If a father of the family should feel that it is his right and obligation to make every decision without the advice, counsel, or without even consulting the wishes and preferences of the members of the family, he will breed rebellion. Members, who are properly taught, know how to give their advice, counsel and help in such matters without trespassing upon the duty and responsibility of the elders. Elders who are competent to be recognized as elders should and will know how to keep in constant touch with the members under their supervision without either yielding their responsibility or without being “lords” and oppressive in the exercise of their duty to “rule.”

The other extreme is the presently agitated theory among some, even of the “sound brethren,” that elders have no “oversight” and cannot rightly rule except by teaching and example. There must be the right to “exercise the oversight,” “to tend,” “to take heed,” “to watch,” not by teaching of example only, but in admonition, restraint, discipline, and direction. Upon the elders this responsibility has been made to rest and their obligation to discharge it must be honored not only by them “for they must give an account unto God” for the souls over whom they watch; but it must be honored by those under their “watch,” “oversight” or “tending” by recognizing the subjection that is due them. To disrespect this or try to discredit it is not in harmony with divine authority any more than altering the government of God’s Church by enlarging their authority and jurisdiction. One is as much a departure as the other and both are spiritual anarchy against the God-given government in His church.

Truth Magazine XIX: 51, pp. 812-813
November 6, 1975