Who Governs the Church if We Follow the Bible

Who governs the church ought to matter a great deal to all those who want to be Christians and Christians only by following what the Bible says. I know of no other way to be just a Christian, that and nothing more, other than to follow the Bible as closely as humanly possible. That means one must ignore the traditions of men in religion and all teachings that cannot be found in the New Testament.

Too often, men just inherit the past in religion. We were all born into a world full of denominations and the Roman Catholic Church. If we are not careful, we just inherit a religion from either our parents or our wife or husband and claim it for our own, all the while assuming it must be pleasing to God. The truth often is that the ones we are following after likely received their religion the same way we have when we do that.

One of the easiest ways to test one's religion is by comparing how the church of which he is a member is governed in comparison to the teaching of the New Testament on the subject. The New Testament is very clear on this matter, making it easy to find the truth and thus to see whether we are in a church that is a New Testament church. If it is not, we ought to get out of it.

"Christ is head of the church" (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) and whatever is done in the church or anywhere else is to be done "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col. 3:17 NKJV), meaning by his authority. Jesus has all authority, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." (Matt. 28:18 NKJV) We cannot step outside the authority of Christ as found in his word and set up a way of governing the church to suit ourselves. Well, let me revise that a little--we can, but if we do, we are in rebellion against the head of the church and against the one whom God the Father gave all authority to. We disrespect him and his word when we do so, and involve ourselves in sin by supporting such a setup.

Christ did provide for government, oversight would probably be a better word, within local congregations of churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16), churches over which he is head. As just stated in the prior paragraph, those who would govern within a local congregation were given no authority to step outside his word, to add to it, to take away from it, or do anything that would take away from Christ's headship of the church. His word, his authority, has to be respected by those who would be appointed as overseers of the local congregation in a locality.

While the apostles lived, they had authority in the church (they still do through their writings). To disobey an apostle who was speaking the word of God by inspiration of the Holy Spirit was the same as to be in disobedience to the one who gave the inspiration--God himself. The brethren at Corinth who received instructions from the apostle Paul were not free to disregard those instructions because he was not present with them and was not one of them. However, the apostles were only 12 in number, could not be everywhere at once or know about every group of brethren in every village throughout the Middle East, Southwestern Asia, and Southeastern Europe, nor were they going to live forever.

Church oversight or leadership was needed on the local level. This God provided for in the appointment of elders in the churches, each church having a plurality of elders, with no one single elder being the chief elder. In Acts 14:23, when Paul and Barnabas were on their first missionary journey, the text says, "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." (NKJV)

Paul wrote to Titus, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you." (Titus 1:5 NKJV) Where there was a church, a congregation, there were to be elders appointed, provided there were men within it that met the qualifications that Paul gave to both Timothy and Titus for the appointment of such men. One can read about these qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

Now, please read carefully and understand that the words elder and bishop refer to the same individual. This is easily seen in Titus 1:5 where Paul tells Titus to appoint elders and then in verse 6 begins giving him the qualifications for such men going on through verse 9 but refers to these men in verse 7 as bishops--he says, "For a bishop must…" (compare Titus 1:5 with Titus 1:7). These bishops were not like bishops in the Catholic Church today but ruled with other like bishops, or elders, in the local church only. (I add that this same group of men was also designated by words like shepherd and pastor.)

They did, however, rule in the church. This can be seen in 1 Timothy where Paul says one of the qualifications is that an appointee must be "one who rules his own house well … for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:4-5 NKJV) In the book of Hebrews, we are instructed to "obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." (Heb. 13:17 NKJV) The elders were to take care of the local church of God, of which they were members, and from which they had been appointed, ruling it in accord with God's word.

In the book of Acts, chapter 20, verse 17, Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus to come meet him at Miletus. One of the things he said to them was this, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28 NKJV) Several comments are in order on this passage.

Take note that they had a flock to oversee, and that flock was specific -- the Christians in the church at Ephesus from whence Paul had called them to come to Miletus. They were elders in the church at Ephesus. He did not tell them to go and try to oversee the flock at Colosse or the one at Derbe or any other such place. The flock they had been appointed to oversee was specific--it was the flock at Ephesus and nowhere else.

The modern-day idea people have of a bishop, as in a Catholic bishop, is nowhere found in the Bible. Remember that an elder is a bishop; they are one and the same (Titus 1:5 compared with Titus 1:7), but they were not like today's Catholic bishop. There was no such thing as a single bishop ruling over even a single congregation in the New Testament, let alone over multiple congregations spread out over a wide area. As is the case with most of Catholicism, no Bible required, none wanted for authority, will be ignored if found, and burned if we could go back to the Middle Ages, to a time when ownership was barred from the public. (You have to remember Catholics claim authority for the church and thus do not need Bible authority from their point of view.)

However, the Bible foresaw the development of Catholicism and of the bishops seeking greater power than what was granted to them. Paul, in talking directly to the elders at Ephesus (and remember an elder is a bishop, one and the same), said to them, "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:30 NKJV) Now no one can deny what Paul said, and no one can deny who he was talking to when he said it.

The second thing I want to note from the Acts 20:28 passage is the fact that these men were to be in charge of the church at Ephesus as overseers. When decisions needed to be made and plans made for the specific work of that church, it was their duty to see to it and to oversee it. It is not the purpose of this article to go into all the work of an elder, so I leave it at that. Our purpose is to define who is to govern the church.

In the third place, they were to shepherd the church of God, of which they were made overseers. The word shepherd refers to their duty to guard the flock, feed, and care for it. They were "pastors" of the church as per Eph. 4:11. But, please note that they were pastors in the plural, not the singular. The idea men have today that one man can be the only pastor of a congregation is unscriptural. Such a character cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament. No New Testament congregation ever was led by a single person, not one.

If you have a pastor in the denominational sense of the way the word is used today, you are not a New Testament church in your organization and government. Find the church that had a single pastor in the New Testament. That is a challenge. It cannot be done.

The truth is, the word "pastors" (as per Eph. 4:11, the only place it is found) means shepherds, and the Greek there (poimenas) should have been translated by the word "shepherds" to be consistent. To prove that the word pastors as used in Eph. 4:11 is the same as "shepherds," see how the Greek is translated in that passage in the English Standard Version, which I here quote. "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers." (Eph. 4:11 ESV) See also Young's Literal Translation, which also uses the word "shepherds" instead of "pastors." Barnes, the well-known Bible commentator, says this is the only place in the New Testament where that particular Greek word is rendered "pastors" rather than "shepherds."  My own research has found the same.

All of this contrasts greatly with the way most churches today are governed. In the New Testament, each congregation was self-governed by men appointed as elders after having met the qualifications given by the Holy Spirit via the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus for such. There were no national or international bodies that ruled all the churches. There were no Popes or rule by a single man designated as "the pastor" as per some denominations today. Each congregation, through its elders, made its own decisions about its work based on New Testament teaching concerning that work and how it was to be done.

God made the provision to govern the church this way, not me. Do not grow angry with me for simply pointing it out. It is his way. Man has to decide whether they are going to abide by God's way or go their own way. There is little doubt but what most will go their own way for that is their preference--my way or our way, not God's way. What this simple little study does do, even if it does not change minds, is show one whether or not he or she is in a New Testament church. You do not have to judge anyone to do it. All you have to do is look at the church's government. Who governs the church where you are?

On a personal level, I think the thing that bothers me most about this issue is that people seemingly do not seem to care about the truth. One wonders sometimes – does truth really matter with anyone anymore?

I add this as a postscript: God set up this form of church government in his own wisdom. Under this form of church government, if one church goes wrong, it does not drag others along with it, for they are not tied together administratively.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Catholicism’s Denial of The Holy Spirit’s Teaching

If the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the pages of the New Testament is truth, then whatever denies that truth is false, is false teaching and error. The thesis of this article is that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the Holy Spirit's teaching that there was an all-sufficiency of doctrine given in the first century sufficient to save the souls of humanity across all time to come.

I am sure the Catholic Church would deny this, but how can they? Reason says that if everything needed to save mankind's souls was given in the first century, there is no reason or need for additional doctrines in the centuries following. Yet the Catholic Church has piled new doctrine upon new doctrine, seemingly without end, down through the ages until our own time, and on and on it goes.

The Catholic Church has no set doctrine. The best that can be said is that it is set for a time. But time flies by and new doctrine is added. What once was, is history, is past, and the new replaces the old. The old Catholic Church is revised with each newly added teaching and thus becomes the newest edition of the church. In doing so it differs from the old and is therefore not the old.

One can go online and do a search and readily find when various doctrines came to be added to the Catholic Church. Do not think for a moment that the Catholic Church of the 21st century is the same as the one in earlier centuries; it has been and continues to be a transforming institution compounding doctrines. God does not change (Malachi 3:6), the Catholic Church does. This continual addition of new teachings flies in the face of the teaching of scripture.

Jude says as clearly as language can make it that "the faith...was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3 NKJV) When? Then! Then in the first century. Everything needed for salvation from the hand of God was delivered to mankind "then." The faith Jude speaks of is that body of doctrine given through Christ and his apostles and prophets in the first century, in Jude's lifetime. It was once for all delivered, meaning it was complete then and there. There was nothing to be added to it. That means that the Catholic Church has nothing to offer to mankind today that is of value as far as salvation goes. That was all provided for in the first century. We also must remember Jude wrote by inspiration. The book of Jude is the Holy Spirit's writing.

But Jude is not alone. Peter says, "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness." (2 Peter 1:3 NKJV) When? Then! If so, what does Catholicism's additional doctrines added down through the ages profit us? Does "all things" mean all things? Again, we have the Holy Spirit writing through human agency, through the inspired apostle Peter. If "all" means all, then we need no more than what was available in the first century and available to us in scripture.

James says in the first century the implanted word was able to save their souls (James 1:21), in that time. Are we to believe it is not able to do so in our time? What weakened it? They had the implanted word available in James' time. There was no need to wait for the development of Catholic doctrine. James' words were the Spirit's words.

Paul, speaking to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, commended them "to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified." (Acts 20:32 NKJV) When? Then! They did not need additional doctrines for salvation handed down centuries later.

Writing by inspiration, Paul says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for … that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJV) He wrote that in the first century. Paul said "scripture" made a man complete, not scripture plus church tradition. Here again, you have the element of time. You could become complete in the first century. There was no need to wait for generations to come until you could get the full deposit of Catholic Church doctrine, which is impossible anyway, for there is no end to its additions.

Paul told Timothy that "the Holy Scriptures...are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15 NKJV) That is not so if a man must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines down through the ages. Paul said by inspiration "the Holy Scriptures," not scripture plus tradition.

Were the people on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 saved when they obeyed Peter's preaching? They were not, if you must believe any of the added Catholic doctrines for salvation. You can say the same thing about all the others who believed and obeyed the gospel in the first century recorded in the book of Acts.

How is it that under Catholicism a man or woman can be saved at one time and yet at a later time another individual must believe additional doctrine to achieve the same end? If that is the case, then does not that make multiple gospels versus just one? I use the term gospel in the sense of the body of faith one must believe for salvation.

The Bible teaches there is "one faith" (Eph. 4:5), one body of truth to be believed. Which one is it in Roman Catholicism? Is it the truth of 800 A.D., 1300 A.D., 1900 A.D., or 2026 A.D.? Or, set your own dates. You will readily see things have changed, and who can believe we have seen the end of it?

The Bible teaches that the gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation (Rom. 1:16), that was the gospel taught in the first century, but that was before Catholic tradition kicked in during the later centuries. Did not Paul, the writer of that Roman passage, foresee that later Catholic tradition when translated into doctrine was essential?

In the book of Acts much is written about "the word" of God being preached, heard, believed, and obeyed. Here is a question for all who have an open mind. Did that word include any of the Marian dogmas Catholics teach today, even one word? Did it include teaching on the rosary, indulgences, transubstantiation, and the list could go on and on? An honest person knows the answer.

One might argue the book of Acts only records examples of initial gospel obedience, evangelizing. I respond, Paul spent 3 years in Ephesus, as an example, did he never preach Christian doctrine during that entire time? Several of the books he wrote were written to places he had evangelized – Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Colossae, Philippi, and Thessalonica. Did Paul preach modern-day Catholic doctrine in those locations? Be honest with yourself.

Paul, by inspiration, wrote Second Thessalonians in which he wrote of a future "falling away" (2 Thess. 2:3), other translations use the words "rebellion" or "apostasy." The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true church. If so, when is it going to fall away, or has it already? If it has, or when it does, can it be said it is the true church? One must think long and hard about that.

If I as an individual fall away from a team, a business, or an institution of any kind that I was involved in, then I am no longer a part of it. If the church becomes apostate, it is no longer the church. It becomes something entirely different, which is exactly where the Roman Catholic Church is today. Do not claim to be what you once were if you are no longer what you once were.

I believe the Roman Catholic Church grew out of the original church of the New Testament. That one church in its apostasy evolved into the Catholic Church. Paul taught that the original church would fall away (2 Thess. 2:3). If it is not what it once was, then it is not the church of the New Testament, not any longer, not in its fallen state.

The Roman Catholic Church of today is no longer similar to the church one reads about on the pages of scripture; it is not that church. As a result of its innovations, it is as much separate from true Christianity as Islam, Buddhism, or any other non-related religion. The Catholic Church readily admits scripture is not enough for them. They have their tradition, and it trumps scripture when push comes to shove. What was good enough for people in the first century is not good enough for them. They will have more and more, but one must always remember that whether having more of a thing is good or bad depends on what that thing is. More of self-will and less of God's will is not good.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]