Part 4 (1/2)
None of these forms of government represent the New Testament church.
The organization and government of that church was based upon the _charisma_, or divine gifts and callings, of individuals composing the church. The power and authority of an apostle or of an evangelist, for example, did not rest upon any selection or appointment made by men. The church did not act in a corporate capacity and confer ecclesiastical power and authority upon any one. All such power and authority came direct from G.o.d through the Holy Spirit, and it was in G.o.d's name and by his authority alone that they acted. The organization of the church was therefore charismatic. If, for example, the gifts of an apostle were conferred by the Holy Spirit upon an individual, he possessed apostolic responsibility and authority. The brethren recognized such gifts when these were evident, and submitted themselves voluntarily to such spiritual leaders.h.i.+p and oversight; for at this period there had not been developed that ecclesiastical system by which human election and appointment gave positions and authority to men. In fact, we shall clearly show later that the true church can not be _legally_ organized. Every attempt of men to a.s.sume the reins of authority and give governmental form and administrative direction to the church has been denominational and sectarian.
[Sidenote: Ordination]
The true church was the whole family of G.o.d directed by his Holy Spirit. Ministerial appointment, with its authority and responsibility, was therefore divine. We have seen that through the spiritual operation called the new birth, one became a member of Christ, and hence by divine right belonged to whichever congregation of the church he might be able to a.s.sociate with; but that in practical experience, such local members.h.i.+p involved recognition on the part of the other members. So it was with the divine appointment to the ministry. The only other essential to its practical operation was simply recognition of that call. Such recognition, in the last a.n.a.lysis, belonged to the whole church (1 Tim. 3: 2-7; t.i.t. 1: 6-9), but was given formally by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
[Sidenote: Plurality of local elders]
The development of ministers in an apostolic church was a divine, natural process, the inevitable result of the emphasis placed on the gifts and callings of the Spirit. This free exercise of the Spirit's gifts working in the members doubtless accounts for the plurality of ruling elders found in those local churches. See Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 5:16, 17; t.i.t. 1:5. It could not be otherwise as long as the churches were Spirit-filled, working congregations and the Spirit of G.o.d had his way. The system that limited local church government to a one-man rule originated in the apostasy, after the gifts of the Spirit had died out. It is simply one part of that great system of human organization that developed the full-grown papacy. Of this we shall learn more hereafter.
The same principles that developed local ministers produced also ministers of the general cla.s.s. While some naturally became ”pastors,”
”teachers,” and ”helpers” in the local church, particular gifts and qualifications fitted others for ”apostles” and ”evangelists,” whose particular sphere was general oversight and work in the churches. The prophet was not limited to either cla.s.s.
[Sidenote: Apostolic oversight]
As it is not germane to my present purpose, I shall not here attempt to define the various phases of ministerial work designated by various terms but all included under the one generic term ”elder.” The work described by the term ”apostle,” however, requires brief notice, on account of its bearing on the subject of church government. The fact that Paul had particular ”care of all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28) and that he gave special instructions to Timothy and t.i.tus, other ministers (1 Tim. 5: 21; t.i.t. 1:5), forms the basis for the episcopacy argument--church rule by a superior order of clergy called bishops.
”Apostle” literally signifies ”a planter.” The term belongs specifically to the first founders of the Christian faith, but is loosely applied in a more general sense to any minister who plants Christianity in a new territory. It is clear that the first apostles were especially inspired for a particular work in laying the foundations of the Christian church and in writing the New Testament Scriptures. Hence the apostolic office in this special sense pa.s.sed away with them. But there was, nevertheless, an apostolic work such as planting and overseeing the infant work in a new field, and in this sense Barnabas also was an apostle (Acts 13:46 with 14:4).
That the word ”apostle” really signified a planter and was therefore descriptive of the kind of work done is shown by the words of Paul himself: ”For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostles.h.i.+p of the circ.u.mcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles”
(Gal. 2:8). And again, he says to the Corinthians, ”If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am _to you_; for _the seal of mine apostles.h.i.+p are ye in the Lord_” (1 Cor. 9:2). In another place he says to the same church, ”Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15).
The special, personal relation that the apostle, or planter, sustained to the work which he had founded and over which he exercised general jurisdiction, was but temporary, a sort of fatherly care. He was obliged to oversee the work as a whole, including young ministers, until it became thoroughly established. After others were able for the work and the apostle's special oversight was withdrawn, there might be ten thousand other instructors, but _no more fathers_. This disproves entirely the episcopal idea as an essential feature of church government. The apostle Peter even cla.s.ses himself simply as an elder in common with other elders (1 Pet. 5:1). But with the exception of the original apostles, who were specially commissioned to reveal the doctrine and message of the gospel and to establish the Christian faith, the difference existing between elders in the primitive church was not a difference in kind, but in degree only, varying in accordance with their ability to put forth some portion of that moral and spiritual power by which alone Christ governs his church.
PART II
The Church in History
CHAPTER V
CORRUPTION OF EVANGELICAL FAITH
It is not my purpose to write an ecclesiastical history, but in order to make clear the work of final reformation, it will be necessary to present at least a brief sketch of historic Christianity, outlining particularly those leading features which show a radical departure from the true church as originally const.i.tuted by our Lord and his apostles.
[Sidenote: ”The faith”]
In the days of primitive Christianity there was something called ”the gospel,” ”the truth,” ”the form of sound words,” ”_the faith.”_ To understand its fundamental nature is not difficult, for it has been preserved and handed down to us in the writings of the New Testament.
According to this record, the gospel message, or ”the faith,” centered in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died and rose again that he might be a ”Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). ”And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). Around this central fact of salvation from sin through faith in Christ cl.u.s.tered those other truths and facts which either necessarily resulted from the new relations.h.i.+p of redeemed humanity with G.o.d or were essential to its visible manifestation and propagation. Prominent among these features were the entire sanctification of believers, holy life and conduct, the baptism, gifts, and leaders.h.i.+p of the Holy Spirit, and the visible unity and relations.h.i.+p of believers in one body, the church.
[Sidenote: An apostasy foretold]
I need not take time or s.p.a.ce to describe the wonderful successes of Christianity as long as the primitive purity and power of the gospel message was sustained and its results realized in a living, Spirit-filled church. But facts compel me to record a change from that happy condition. This transition was foreseen by those who ”spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Paul declared: ”Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1); ”Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30). Peter predicted, ”There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in d.a.m.nable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). Jesus himself declared, ”Many false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold”
(Matt. 24:11, 12).
Paul gives a more particular description of the coming apostasy in the second chapter of Second Thessalonians. a.s.serting that the second coming of Christ was not at that time imminent, he says: ”Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a _falling away_ first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called G.o.d, or that is wors.h.i.+ped; so that he as G.o.d sitteth in the temple of G.o.d, showing himself that he is G.o.d” (verses 3, 4).