NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH GOVERNMENT #6

 Church Government  #6

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

                      THIRD CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO

           NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER

N.E.

Self-Appointed "Minister" (Servant). "...ye know the house of

Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they

have addicted (appointed) themselves to the ministry (service) of

the saints" (l Cor. 16:15, KJV) The Greek lasso everywhere else

in the Now Testament is fixated as "appointed," "determined" or

some other decision-making word that fits its Greek meaning. 

The KJV translators and others after them have used a varied

of words in this verse that hide the true meaning; of

"appointed". They could not accept the Biblical fact that

Stephanas appointed himself to the ministry or service of the

saints. That would go against their doctrine of central

appointment of all "ministers." In reality, there is nothing

wrong with a person deciding they will serve (not be a "boss"

over) the brethren. Apollos made himself a teacher and was

accepted (Acts 18:24-28, I Cor 3:6).

MY ANSWER

     Did the KJV translators really have some clandestine,

undercover, secret cloak and dagger, plan to get all the English

speaking population of the world, to believe in a ONE MAN

AUTHORITARIAN HEAD APOSTLE/ARCH-BISHOP CHURCH 

GOVERNMENT TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY?

     All I can say is that if what Mr.Edwards wants you to believe 

about King James and his scholars, is correct, then overall they DID 

A PRETTY LOUSY AND INCONSISTENT JOB  of their translating 

of the Greek, to enslave the world with their idea of correct "church 

government."

     I was raised and educated in England, went to a "Church of

England" school all my life till I was seventeen. I faithfully

attended "Sunday school" and entered many Bible exams. I read the

word of the Lord. I was taught it in school. Listened to many

church of England priests. Never from my personal reading of the

King James Version, or from the ministers of the church of

England, did I ever get the notion, or have implanted in my mind,

the idea or teaching that the church that Jesus built(which the

church of England claims to be part of) was ever to be a

dictatorial rank pyramid eldership organization.

It was not until AFTER COMING IN CONTACT WITH AND 

BEING A MEMBER FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS in the 

Worldwide Church of God, under the "only apostle" of God on 

earth - Herbert Armstrong(as he eventually claimed), that I was 

subjugated to believe, that the NT taught a hierarchical ministerial 

rank system of church government akin to the Roman Catholic 

church.

     I certainly did not have that interpretation encased in my

mind from reading THE ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATED BY 

THE KING JAMES SCHOLARS!!

     So if those scholars translated with that object in their

minds, under the directions from King James, then they needed 

to go back to theology school, for they did a dismal inconsistent

job. Why I could have done better myself, not being a Greek

scholar! If the King James translators took WILD LlBERTY 

(which they did) with planting the word EASTER (where the 

Greek is Pascher - Passover) in Acts 12:4, for their translation, 

they sure missed the train in taking wild liberties to establish King

James' secret plan. to get everyone believing in a dictatorial

rank ministry for the church.

     I speak with some tongue in cheek, but seriously now. 

The word "Easter" was a fragrant wild liberty, not even a

transliteration from the Greek. They could have taken just

as much liberty in trying to teach a pyramid structure for the NT

church. Let me give you some examples as to what I mean.

     Come back with me to the latter half, to near the end of the

first century A.D. The apostles Peter and Paul have been

executed. Most if not all of the other early elders of the church

have died in one way or another. The original 12 apostles have

either moved far away from Palestine or have died, only the

apostle JOHN is in the confines of Judea. He is old but somewhat

famous because he was one of the specific 12 chosen by Jesus.

     The King James translators of 1611 knew the above facts.

John wrote a letter to "the elect lady" and to "the well-beloved

Gaius" (2 JN. 3 JN.). WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY THEY HAD! 

If they were conspiring with King James to slant the scriptures so as 

to hood-wink the common person (who hardly had a Bible let alone the

NT Greek manuscripts) into believing the NT church was built upon

a pyramid ministerial rank system like that of the Roman Catholic

church, they could have easily INSERTED the word "bishop" in

John's letters to then read:

"The BISHOP unto the elect lady" and "The BISHOP unto the

well-beloved Gaius."

     They paid no attention to the Greek in Acts 12:4 when they

inserted the word EASTER, so they could have ignored the Greek

for "elder" in John's letters. if they were really up to some

sneaky, surreptitious, secretive, underhanded and veiled plan

with King James to foster the doctrine of hierarchal church

government on the people.

     They could have done the same thing in Acts 14:23 - inserted

the word BISHOPS instead of "elders." It would have fit in

nicely, because they were appointing men in different churches

not just one church. If the English mind thinks of "bishop" as

some higher head minister over lower in authority ministers, and

if the translators of 1611 wanted to teach the people that their

"Church of England" system was taught in the Bible, they sure had

an excellent opportunity in this verse in Acts.

     Look they could have done this kind of clandestine move with

other verses also. They could have done it with 1 Peter 5:1 "The

bishops which are among you I exhort, who am also a bishop..."

Wow, this was Peter, surely many were already believing Peter

to be in dictatorial authority over other less ranked "ministers." 

Putting "bishop" here would have really added some weight for 

King James' church government teaching.

     The word bishop could have been used in 1 Tim.5:17, 19, and

in Titus 1:5. They did use it in Titus 1:7.

     Doing all that and leaving the word "elders" in passages

such as Acts 20:17 and James 5:14 (where you could not have

many"bishops" in a single congregation, if we take the word

bishop to mean a minister in authority over other less ranked

ministers) WOULD REALLY HELP NAIL IT HOME, that is 

King James' plan to teach hierarchal government in the church.

     So yes, the translators of 1611 could have done so IF

ignoring the Greek as they did in Acts 12:4, and if working on 

a devious false teaching that King James wanted, nay, was

demanding, to be promoted by the NT.

     Ignoring the Greek, I could have done a better job for King

James' clandestine theology than his many scholars (who had 

many minds to work his devious seductions) he hired.

     GIVE ME A BREAK NORMAN EDWARDS! It was not King 

James and his scholars who were out "to teach the world" about 

hierarchal church government from the NT scriptures. It was 

organizations like the Worldwide Church of God and individuals 

such as Herbert Armstrong, who were bent on promulgating this 

false heretical doctrine, taken right out of the theology book of the 

Roman Catholic church. And how did Herbert Armstrong do it for 

many years? Why, not from the NT, but by harping on over and over

again about the hierarchal government in ancient Israel, and

saying God is "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" (which I

covered the real truth of earlier). It was in the late 70's and 80's he 

went further into error with trying to teach the doctrine of Rome, 

namely the "supremacy of Peter" teaching (which I've also covered 

in the first part of this book).

     As I've said, I was reading the NT long before, for years

before, I ever heard of the Worldwide Church of God or Herbert

Armstrong, and I never got out of it any teaching of hierarchal

church government, not when you read all the scriptures on the

subject from all the NT. Many scriptures the scholars of 1611

translated correctly and well, and which would contradict any

planned, premeditated, conspiracy on their part to promulgate a

doctrine of Rome. Why they and King James were AGAINST 

the church of Rome and its "king-pin, above all others" minister - 

the Pope.

   They and other English scholars of the 17th, 18th, and 19th

centuries OPENLY named the Roman Catholic church as the 

WHORE of the book of Revelation - Babylon the great, the mother 

of harlots.

     Let me comment on the specific verse quoted by N.E. -

1 Cor.16:15.

     In all my years of reading this verse BEFORE and AFTER being

a member in the Worldwide Church of God, I never came close to

the same thought as Mr.Edwards - that this was part of the

conspiracy plan undertaken by the translation scholars of 1611.

     E.N. is quite correct concerning the Greek word lasso, yet I

do not understand the big deal he is making about it. To me the

KJV translators used an English word that is even more POWERFUL

than the English word "appoint" or "determined." The word

"addicted" to my mind is akin to the word "drugged" which carries

a mighty strong, super strong connotation. Being "addicted" to

wine or heroin is stronger than being appointed to the duty of

carrying out the trash for the office staff.

     Also note, if the 1611 translators were trying to promote a

doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers" they were once

more inconsistent right within the verse itself. For they

translated the Greek word for "service" (diakonian) as the

English word ministry!

     And that word to my English mind, within the context of

religion and the church, carries the connotation of teaching and

working in the eldership function with the saints. So I could

possibly take this verse not as something the 1611 translators

were trying to cover up but just the opposite, teaching that

certain ones appointed or addicted themselves to working in the

"ministry" (eldership) of the saints.

     Ah, for the semantics of words and how we understand them

one from another within any given sentence. Interesting to say

the least, and possibly confusing to others.

     Now to the nitty-gritty!

     Mr. Edwards says it was "Stephanas appointed himself" to the

ministry or service of the saints. But look at that verse AGAIN,

look at it carefully! IT DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL!  Read it, 

it say: ".......you know the HOUSE of Stephanas.......and that

THEY (more than one) have addicted THEMSELVES to the ministry 

of the saints."

     This was not one single man or person that had appointed

himself to the ministry, BUT A WHOLE HOUSEHOLD OF 

PERSONS! We are not told HOW MANY, what their AGES were, 

nor what SEX they may have been - male/female. It could have been 

persons of BOTH sexes that had appointed themselves to the ministry 

of the saints. And if I was to take the word "ministry" (as given by the 

KJV scholars) as meaning eldership or as we today often think and use

the word in religious circles, I could come up with the idea (from

the KJV) that whole families - male and female - can put themselves 

into the official function of church elders.

     Gets kind of wild doesn't it. Under this light, I could

interpret this verse not as something the 1611 scholars were

trying to conceal because they wanted to teach a doctrine of

"central appointment of all ministers" but actually the very

opposite. That whole families of male AND female could addict 

(be drugged on) themselves to serving in the "ministry" (spiritual

eldership) of the church.

     We clearly know from this verse that it was the "house of

Stephanas" the "themselves" and not just the man Stephanas who

was addicted to serving the saints. What is also just as clear is

that we are NOT TOLD the service they were doing for the

saints. We are not told if it was washing the chariots for

members of the church, cutting the grass, delivering groceries

for the elderly saints, grooming their horses or donkeys,

painting their stone fences, reading the Bible to the blind, or a

hundred and one other things a household of persons can get

enthusiastic about in serving others.

     We are just told the basic essentials, that here was a

FAMILY who had become drugged with setting themselves to 

minister - serve (and I think we all really know that the word 

"ministry" was used by the 1611 translators to mean NOT eldership 

but service, just as they used it many times this way in other verses

of the NT - (see the Englishman's Greek Concordance) in some way

or ways to the brethren of the church. AND THAT'S IT!  To

speculate any further on the service given would be futile.

     Paul was pleased with their service to the brethren, and in

verse 16 he tells his readers to respect and even to be subject

to them, but does not go on to amplify his comments. We take 

from that, that they knew what he meant by his remarks and also 

that given in verse 18.

     What's wrong with what this household did in verse 16? Why

NOTHING AT ALL! This was just an acknowledgment on Paul's part

that such families should be held is high regards for the ministry of 

work they had addicted themselves to perform for the saints. 

Nothing more and nothing less.

     The KJV translators employed by the King in the 17th century

were NOT TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING in their rendering of 

this verse from the Greek into English, nor were they trying to teach 

from this verse the doctrine of "central appointment of all ministers."

     This verse says NOTHING ABOUT MAKING ONESELF A 

TEACHER OF OTHERS.  But the verse in James 3: 1 SURE DOES!   

And quite frankly there are many going about today trying to be 

"teachers" WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING 

ABOUT, AND NEED TO BE LISTENING AND LEARNING. 

Many who were "kept under" - shackled to only "pray and pay" - 

taught to "not think" - finding themselves free from that straight-jacket, 

have become themselves "blind leaders of the blind."  

     Apollos did what every saint is at liberty to do - go to the

churches in the towns and speak the truths of God if they so

desire and are so led of the Spirit to do. His example is as one

going forth to the deceived and those in various degrees of

spiritual darkness. After he was trained even more in the truths

of God, he was accepted by the brethren to teach them and to

preach to the unconverted world. He was given an opportunity 

to "be proved" and to see if he did "desire the office of bishop"

(1 Tim.3).

     Obviously from what is stated about Apollos in the first

chapters of 1 Corinthians, and the fact that he like Paul was

called an "apostle" it is clear that he was by GOD, and by OTHER

elders and brethren called and appointed to the overseership/eldership 

within the NT Church of God.

N.E.

Selective Translations Bolsters "Bishop." The various jobs listed

in the Bible were usually described by plain, everyday words in

Greek. The KJV translators should have used plain everyday

English words to translate them. As we found with diakonos, the

translators used the "plain, everyday" words in some places, but

put in "church terminology" ("minister" or "deacon") when it

suited their purposes.. This practice leaves the English reader

to believe that the Scriptures actually support exalted "church

offices" rather than jobs for the converted people to do.

The Greek episkopos is translated "bishop" in four places where

it apparently applies to only a few men - matching the

authoritarian church concept of a boss over many congregations.

It is translated "overseer" (its true meaning) in Acts 20:28

because Paul was addressing all the elders of Ephesus (vs.

17-18). King James would not have allowed the "high office" of

"Bishop" to be mentioned in a way that made it seem nearly equal

to the "common elder" so the translators obscured it. (The

American Standard Version, produced much later, is at least

consistent and contains "bishop" here) "Overseer" would be a much

better translation for episkopos if we understand it as `"someone

that looks out for the welfare of others," not "someone that

bosses others." A similar problem occurs with the closely related

word episkope (meaning "inspection" or "overseeing"). It is

translated "visitation" in Luke 19:44 rued I Peter 2:12 where it

refers to an individual's "inspection" or "judgment", but

"bishoprick" in Acts 1:20 and even "office of bishop" in 

l Timothy 3:1 where it is made to look like a "church office."

During the first century, "overseers" were selected from elders

(older men) of the congregation to take care of the

administrative needs of a congregation."

MY ANSWER

     Are there "church offices" in the church? Well again we are

back to the semantics of words. Let's go to the human body

example that Paul used. If you want to take the function of what

the "head" does in relation to the rest of the body and call it a

"body office" then you should be free to do so. If you want to

call what the "blood" does in relation to the rest of the body a

"body office" then you have the liberty within a language to do

so. If you want to call what the "skin" does in the way of

function to the rest of the human a "body office" you have

freedom to do so.

     Language is a means of communication, to put a certain mind

thought or scene into that part of the brain dealing with concepts. 

To call the "head" a "bodily office" does not of itself mean it is 

in-heritably superior or exalted above the rest of the body. Certainly 

the body can not live or function without the head, but then again, 

the body can not function or live without the blood, or without the 

skin,  or without the internal organs and so on.

     One office of the body is not superior to another. All offices 

must be there to make a whole, and for it to be nourished

and to grow to maturity and perfection. And that is exactly how

Paul likened the church. All functions are "offices" in that

sense of how we are using the word.

     All in the church are supposed to be converted, yet we do

not all function in the  same role within the church. We have

different duties to perform. We are then in different "offices"

the church.

     We have seen the NT does indeed break down the body of

Christ into THREE OVERALL basic "offices" or functions - 

the SAINTS, the DEACONS, and the OVERSEERS/ELDERS. 

No one in any of those offices are to feel "greater" or "more 

important" than anyone else. The NT is full of verses that proclaim 

that truth.

     I believe Mr.Edwards is making a "mountain out of a mole

hill" in attributing some secret scheme to the 1611 translators.

Even if by some wild endeavour on their part they were trying to

make the NT teach a Roman Catholic type of church government

(which is hard to believe considering England had rejected Rome

and the "supremacy of Peter" doctrine), it would NOT BE POSSIBLE

by the way God had preserved His word in the Greek language

(unless the Greek itself was cast aside, and so called "religious" men 

came up with a so called "word of God" that was purely from their 

own minds and not the mind of the Lord).

     God's word is written in such a way that anyone trying to

form a false doctrine of complete harmony throughout, would

sooner or later have to reject the original inspired Hebrew and

Greek, and insert their own ideas. No one has ever proved that

the King James translators were not working from the inspired

languages of the Biblical text.

     Let's take episkopos as used in Titus 1:7. If the 1611

scholars were trying to teach from the NT that a "bishop" was a

man - a clergyman - in the church who was in rank above the other

ministers, priests, elders, and that he had authority over them

to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, then

they should have been consistent with verse 5. If that was their

aim, their teaching plan, then they should have put the word

"bishop" in verse five also. They would have had to reject the

different Greek word used there (presbuteros), but so what, they

rejected the Greek word for Passover in Acts 12:4 did they not,

yes they did!

     They did not reject presbuteros but rendered it "elders" as

they should have. Which immediately, for even those knowing NO

GREEK but only English, tells you that an Elder is also a Bishop

- one and the same individual in the church.

     Look at Philippians 1:1. If the scholars employed by King

James to do his dirty work in teaching a pyramid structure of

government in the church, wanted the people to believe a "bishop"

in the church was someone who was the "top dog" in ecclesiastical

authority over lower pries/elders, or someone over a group of

churches and ministers, they sure messed up here.

     Paul was writing to ONE TOWN! Would they have "bishops"

plural - a number of them, in one town? I do not think so, and

the Church of England as they use the word "bishop" today, do not

have a number of them in just one town!

     To avoid people questioning their "bishop" teaching from

this verse, if they had some secret agenda, it would have been

easy to have put the English word overseers in this verse, as

they did in Acts 20:28.

     The word "bishop" can have a number of meanings in English.

Look it up in a good  Dictionary. Or talk to someone from the

Mormon church and ask them how they use the word in their

organization.

     The King James translators were probably not using the word

bishop in the way it is used today in the Church of England, nor

the way Mr.Edwards wants you to believe.

     It wasn't the Church of England that deceived Norman Edwards

for many years into believing this false doctrine of the "supremacy 

of Peter" and hierarchal church government. IT WAS HERBERT 

ARMSTRONG! And as far as I know Armstrong's teaching came

from the Old Testament mainly, and later from twisting a few NT

verses as the RC church does.

     Reading the NT in its entirety, putting scripture with Scripture, 

FROM THE KJV translation, you will never come up with the 

apostolic Church of God being a pyramid or one man hierarchal

structured.

N.E.

Other Religious "Offices" Enhanced. The Greek poimen is

translated "shepherd" all other 16 times, but "Pastor" in

Ephesians 4:11 where there is a list of various functions

of the members of His body. Finally, the Greek euaggelion is

everywhere translated "gospel.'' The very similar word

euaggelistes should be translated "gospel-preacher" -

clearly connecting the relationship between the two words.

Instead, we have three references to "evangelist," assumed by

many to be an ecclesiastic rank or title, not a function."

MY ANSWER

     From the World Book Dictionary concerning the word pastor 

we read: ".......3. Archaic. a herdsman or shepherd. (< Anglo-French

pastour, Old French Pasteur, < Latin pastor shepherd < pascere to

feed) ."

     So the translators of the KJV were influenced by some

Anglo-French-Latin to render the Greek as pastor in Eph.4: 11.

Any big deal? No I do not think so, and I'll tell you why soon.

Poimen in the Greek means ".......'a shepherd, one who tends

herds or flocks' (not merely one who feeds them)......." Vine's

Dictionary.

     This is what we learn about the word evangel from whence we

derive the word evangelist, the World Book Dictionary: ".......

(< Late Latin evangelism < Greek evangelion good tidings, ultimately

< eu- good + angellein announce < angelos messenger).

     So the 1611 scholars took the Greek word and transliterated

it into the Anglo-Saxon English. Again, really NO BIG DEAL,

unless you are bent on reading something  very sinister going on

in the minds of those hired to translate the Bible by King James

- a secret plot of trying to make people believe in a Roman

Catholic church government structure. And that coming from the

minds of those who had rejected Rome is very doubtful.

     The words pastor and evangelist do not carry ANY meaning

within them from the Greek, French, Latin, or Anglo, that implies

or teaches an "ecclesiastical rank." It is just NOT THERE, period!

     Tens of thousands of people back in 1611 as today in the

English speaking world, who attend churches of various faiths, 

do not acquaint any "dictatorial rank" or "authoritarian title" -

boss you about power - to the words pastor or evangelist. Just go

and ask any average church attender what thoughts come into his

or her mind when they think of the word "pastor" or "evangelist."

Most will say for pastor, a minister who serves and shepherds the

flock of God in spiritual matters. They do not think of a minister 

who has dictatorial authority over other ministers that

he orders around.

     When those same people think of the word "evangelist" they

do not understand it as someone with some special official "rank"

in the church that has authority over "pastor" ministers. They

think of it as a minister who mainly preaches the word of God to

the outside unconverted persons in the world.

     To my knowledge, the Church of England in its ecclesiastical

structure, has never used a minister rank system that carried the

names APOSTLE, PROPHET, EVANGELIST. I do not believe 

they even used pastor or teacher, yet I could be wrong on that.

     Well to get it from the horses mouth, I have just called the

ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA, who are, they inform me, 

the same as the Church of England. I asked about their official 

structure and names used. It is: THREE TIERED - bottom rung is 

deacon - second rung is priest - third rung is bishop. These are 

separate ordinations - official appointments. They have never used 

as official ordination rank (which the previous three are in their

government) with TITLES of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor.

They do use the words pastor and evangelist, but in an un-official 

way, such as assigning a "lay member" the task to do an evangelistic 

meeting or promotion to the public.

     So the Church of England under King James and his

translators were NOT trying to teach from Ephesians 4:11 or by

using the word "evangelist" three times, the ecclesiastic rank of

church government.

     The truth is that from the very Greek words in the sentence of 

Ephesians 4:11 and the word euaggelistes, or the English words

used in the KJV, NO DOCTRINE OF "RANK MINISTERS" 

CAN BE FOUND WITHOUT SOME WILD INTERPRETATION 

FROM THE MIND OF MAN!

     IT IS JUST NOT CORRECT TO BLAME THE TRANSlATORS 

OF THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE WITH TRYING 

TO "enhance religious offices" from their use of the words pastor and 

evangelist. Trying to do so is, to put it bluntly (not meaning to offend

Mr.Edwards) - not good theology!

     There is NOTHING WRONG with the verse under discussion, 

nor with the words evangelist and pastor. What is wrong, is the false

man made interpretation of that verse and of those words, as

Norman Edwards experienced under the ministry of the Worldwide

Church of God, led by Herbert Armstrong.

     It was H.W.Armstrong who rejected his own plain truth that

he published about "Church Government" at the beginning years 

of his ministry (l have a copy of his article), to adopt a Roman

Catholic type hierarchy. And in so doing he had to twist and

pervert a few scriptures of the NT that would then fit his new

mind set on the subject, while rejecting many other verses and

passages that would sound the death bell on his "one man(he

himself) supremacy of Peter" doctrine.

It is time Mr.Edwards to put the blame of you believing such

heretical nonsense for so many years, where it belongs. Not on

the heads of the translators of King James, but on the head (one

head, though many WCG ministers followed) - the head of Herbert

W. Armstrong!

     Under his ministerial "rank" system teachers were divided

into bottom rung "local elders" then second rung "preaching

elders." After them and above them came "pastors." Above pastors

in rank were "evangelists." The rank of "prophets" was

conveniently never used as "there was none" according to HWA. 

And the rank of "apostles" did not exist he stated, that is until he

called himself "God's apostle on earth" after the death of his

wife Loma.

     So even under his interpretation of Ephesians 4:11 it was

pick and choose, change some words, leave out others, and adapt

it to his ideas of how to govern what he finally called the only

true organization of God's people on earth, which was another of

his false doctrines during his last 20 years of life (he also had

some before those years).

N.E.

Matthew 16:18 Mistranslated. This one translation error known to

many. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [petros -

small stone], and upon this rock [petra - large massive rock]

will I build my church." The Greek shows His assembly or "church"

is not built on Peter but on the Messiah. The English, with no

distinction between the size of rocks, leads us to believe that

the Congregation was built upon Peter and (by deduction) his

successors. (Most top "church leaders" in big organizations claim

to be successors of Peter in some way.)

MY ANSWER

     Was this really a translation error on the part of the KJV

scholars? Was it intended to teach the church was built upon the

apostle Peter? Does the English put no distinction between the

size of the rocks?

     Just a minute, what rocks? In the English words I do not see

but ONE rock mentioned, not two. So no one was trying to put or

not put a distinction between "rocks" plural, when translating

into the English language. The translators rendered the Greek

petros as Peter because the apostles name was Peter, and Peter

means "a stone." All this fits with what we read in John 1:42,

"....Jesus beheld him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jesse,

you shall be called Cephas (Peter) which is by interpretation, a

stone." Then they translated petra as rock because that is what

it means - huge cliff or shelf of rock.

     There is NOTHING HERE in the English for understanding the

Church of Jesus Christ was going to be built or founded upon the

apostle Peter, forever more. Paul came along later and said he was 

Subject to no man, he even had to correct Peter and that openly

(See Galatians 1 and 2).

     As a young boy (nine, ten, eleven, and into teenage) I had a

red letter NT which I read regularly, especially the words of

Christ written in red. I had read this verse of scripture many

times in those young years of my life. NEVER did it cross my mind

to take from the English translation the meaning that I was being

told by Jesus, that His church would be established upon Peter.

It was not until I was about 20 years of age that I came into the

knowledge that the Roman Catholic church used this verse to teach

the Pope was the ecclesiastical ancestor to Peter, on whom the

Church of Christ was built. Needless to say I was shocked for the

verse just does not say any such thing!

     If it did it would not have the English words it does have,

for then it would have to read: ".......You are Peter and on

YOU......." or ".......Thou art Peter and on THYSELF I will build

my church......."

     The way it is worded would not be correct English either in

1611 or today, for passing on to the English mind that a church

was to be founded on a human person such as Peter. True it

Is that at first Peter was the leading apostle as we see from the 

First chapter of Acts. So it is only for a  short time that we could

claim Peter was the rock  of  the  New Testament Church of God.

     We are not given an audio/visual playback, only audio is

presented to us. I believe the scene went something like this:

Jesus had drawn their attention to WHO HE WAS, Peter had answered

correctly, and to further demonstrate His special relationship

with the Father, Jesus looks at Peter, says: "And I say unto you,

that you are Peter (a stone, pebble - petros) AND" - now pointing

with His fingers to Himself - "on this (meaning Himself ROCK -

huge crag of stone), I will build by church..."

     As a young boy I was always puzzled as to exactly what Jesus

was meaning here because I had not yet put together the

Scriptures that clearly showed Christ as THE ROCK (i.e. 1 Cor.10:4

rock = petra). Once that came to my attention, Matthew 16:18 fell

into correct understanding like jig-saw puzzle. A little here and

a little there until the picture is whole and without

contradiction.

     The KJV scholars were NOT trying to teach in this verse that

the church built by  Christ was founded upon the apostle Peter.

The Church of England was very much opposed to Rome and the claim

of the Papacy that their Pope was the successor of Peter who was

supposed to have been the first bishop of Rome. The very English

words used by them in their 1611 translation is proof that they

did not entertain the theology of Rome on that point of doctrine.

                       To be continued

        .............................................

Church Government

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

                      FOURTH CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO

           NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER

N.E.

Hebrews 13:17 Does Not Create Hierarchy. "Obey them that have the

rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your

souls, as they that must give account...." (Heb. 13:17 KJV). The

Greek peitho ("obey") is usually translated "persuade" or "trust"

- it contains the idea of becoming friends, cooperating. The

Greek pietharcheo, used for obeying the Eternal or kings (Acts

5:29; Tit 3:1) was not used here. The Greek hegemoai ("rule") is

more often translated "count" or "think" and here means "leaders"

or "those that must give account." The Greek hupotasso,

("submit") is the same word used for "people submitting to civil

authority" and members "submitting to each other" (Rom. 13:1-5, l

Cor 16:16, Eph 5:21, 1 Pet. 5:5). If hupotasso meant "under

absolute authority," how could the believers be "under absolute

authority" to each other? While this verse does give a strong

message about cooperation with the leaders of his congregation,

it does not set up the ecclesiastical monarchy that King James 1

wanted. Our leaders should tell us what Paul did: "Imitate me,

just as I also imitate Christ" (l Cor. 11:1) We find the same

Greek word for "rule" peitho used in Hebrews 13:7: "Remember

those who rule over you, who love spoken the word of God to you,

whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct."

Again, we are to consider the outcome or fruits of a leader and

follow his faith, not his every word. If leaders stop imitating

the Messiah and  His Word, we stop imitating them! "

MY ANSWER

     I have no big argument here with Norman Edwards, I fully

agree with what he states. But I do take exception to his

statement "...it does not set up the. ecclesiastical monarchy

that King James 1 wanted." Again poor old King James is blamed

for what Mr.Edwards finds objectionable words used by his

translators.

     These kinds of words are read routinely in many churches as

they study through the NT. There are more verses in the NT to do

with the same basic teaching than just the verse in Hebrew 13.

The churches that do not teach and do not practice an iron hand,

dogmatic authoritarian, jump to my tune, ministerial system (which

is really the teaching and working of a "cult") HAVE LITTLE

TROUBLE WITH SUCH VERSES! For they do not read into them 

a "blind faith" or "stop thinking and let the elders tell you what to do,

when to do it, and how to do it" mentality.

     It is organizations and leaders of such that turn their

followers into "cult members" who give their minds over to them,

sometimes done so slowly and cunningly, they do not realize what

has happened until they are so blinded that they cannot see the

trees for the forest. Then leaders can put a false interpretation

upon words as found in Hebrews 13:17 to perpetuate the cycle of

full blind faith dominance, upon their brainwashed followers.

     Let's stay for a moment with the English words obey, rule,

and submit. How we understand them is a matter of semantics, 

and the overall context will also determine our view of them. 

Let me give you an example.

     A father writes a letter to his child who is away on a

camping holiday with the Boy Scout troop he belongs to. He 

writes to him as part of his letter: "Son, I want you to obey the 

Scout Master and those who have rule over you, and I want you to 

be submissive to them, for they watch for your wellbeing, as they

must give account to all the parents of the children in their

care."

     The child/children and all the parents are quite familiar

with the Scout Troop operation, they know how it is run, what the

teachings and overall objectives of the organization are. They

know the relationship the leaders have with the boys in the

Troop, and vice versa. The child receiving such a letter from his

father using the words obey, rule, and submit/submissive in it,

poses no threat or trepidation to the boy. For he is in full

understanding as to what his father means by those words WITHIN

THE CONTEXT of the organization he belongs to and is at ease

with. He automatically realizes his father is not talking about

"blindly following" like some mindless robot, the Scout Master or

those ruling him, if it should endanger his life.

     He knows his father is not meaning to say that if the Scout

leader should tell him to jump from a fifty foot cliff into an

eight foot pool of water, and he is not happy about doing it,

that he must, unquestionably obey the leader.

     So likewise it was with Paul and his readers. First of all,

the context was the true Church of God, not some authoritarian

mindless cult they were part of. Secondly, the context was also

talking about true faithful leaders (elders) of the Lord, not

some pompous dictatorial power hungry little Hitlers. Thirdly,

within that context everybody was living and acing as real

Christians who knew the truths of how Christ wanted His people

to interact with one another.

     The context of Paul's writing to them was as the context of

the father we talked about above, writing to his child in the

camp out with the Boy Scouts. Nothing intimidating meant and no

intimidation taken.

     Under such a context there is no fear in the words obey,

rule, and submit! Paul was writing as a loving spiritual parent

and it is written: "Perfect love casts out fear."

     It is only when these verses in Hebrews and else-where, have

been TWISTED and MISUSED by vain egotistical "do as I say, 

even to what I tell you to eat for breakfast" mind abusing cultic

leaders, that people start to fear the words obey, rule, and

submit. For those within the true church of Jesus Christ who are

all trying to function with love, in the various tasks they have

been given to do in the three overall classes of saint, deacon,

and overseer, there is no apprehension or trembling before those

three words under discussion.

     The King James translators did not have some sinister, stick

a knife in your back, hold you at gun point, make you quake and

shake in your boots, mental mind set, when they chose the English

words, obey, rule and submit. I am sorry that N.E. had to

experience for so many years the mental abuse that the Worldwide

Church of God employed with its members through a dictatorial

hierarchical church government structure, but let's put the blame

where it truly belongs - on the abuse of men with a false

semantic use of words. We need to free ourselves not only from

the captivity of that tyranny, but also from the captivity of

seeing "an evil goblin" behind words used in the translation of

the scholars employed by King James.

     The translators of 1611 did not do a perfect job by any

means, and they did a few times, fragrantly forget the Greek like

in Acts 12:4 before mentioned (which is a much more serious

mistranslation than anything Mr.Edwards talks about in his

paper), but even then in that, I do not believe they had any evil

clandestine plan in mind. I will give them the benefit of the

doubt, all will come to light in the judgment day. By and large I

praise and give thanks to the Lord for the King James English

translation of the Bible. It has and is still leading tens of

thousands of people to the light of the world and truths of God.

     It is the perverseness of religious mind controllers and their 

organizations who twist the scriptures and pollute even the

meaning of English words, that we need to watch out for and

avoid, not the words of the King James Version, imperfect as it

may be.

     I could go into a long discourse about the Greek words that

N.E. brings out in the above quote, but it is not necessary here.

You can study them, all the places where they are used etc. in

works such as Stronq's Concordance of the Bible.

     Yet I do need to touch on the truth of verses like Hebrews

13:17.

     Within the family of God which is the church of God, there

is obey/obedience, rule/guiding/overseeing. and submit/yielding.

God is the lawgiver, He lives and governs by law. He guides and

rules us in the way we should conduct our lives by law. He

expects us to yield and submit to Him and His righteousness. 

The church is composed of those who have been begotten by the

indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their minds - the very nature of

God. The church is the flock of the Lord, and over that flock as

caring shepherds to feed and lead into green pastures, persons

called overseers or elders. It is they who are responsible to teach 

in word and conduct, the way, the laws, the righteousness,

of the Eternal, to the flock. Sometimes, as we have seen in the

letters to Timothy and Titus, that leading and teaching must be

with power, strength, and correction, in season and out of

season.

     The NT, nay the whole Bible, shows very clearly that the

leading and teaching of the shepherds has to do with

righteousness and sin, NOT WITH GOVERNING THE SHEEP 

IN TRIVIAL DAY TO DAY MATTERS, such as what car to buy, 

what dress to wear for church services, what job to work at etc. 

unless of course for some reason the matter does cross over into 

the clear issue of sin and righteousness.

     The pastors of the Lord do have the responsibility the govern 

with law, the law of God. And within those clear areas of

the Eternal's laws and righteousness, they do have the right to

expect the sheep of the flock to obey! They should expect the

sheep who want to serve the Lord, who desire to grow in grace 

and knowledge, to submit when it is plainly a matter of that which 

is the commandment and law and righteousness of God.

     Examples are often the best way to teach a point of truth. I will 

give you some. A few from the NT itself, and one from my own

personal ministry.

First example:

     Turn to 2 Thessalonians chapter three and we shall begin

reading from verse ten: "For even when we were with you, this

WE (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, chap. 1:1 - elders and overseers

in the church) COMMANDED you, that if any would not work, 

neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk 

among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now 

them that are such we COMMAND and exhort by our Lord Jesus 

Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread" 

(verses 10-12).

     Just no way around this, pretty strong stuff from those

three overseers. Paul hit the nail on the head, laid the cards on

the table, and just told them the law of the Lord on this matter.

     Oh, you want to look up the Greek word here used for

command/ed to see if there is a way out. Please do! You will find

it is the word parangelloo. Here is what Vine's Dictionary says,

".......'to announce beside' (pare, 'beside,' angelloo, 'to announce'), 

'to pass on an announcement,' hence denotes 'to give the word, 

order, give a charge, command', e.g., Mark 6:8; Luke

8:29; 9:21; Acts 5:28; 2 Thes.3:4, 6, 10, 12. See CHARGE, B.

No.8."

     Ah, it is used also in verses 4 and 6 of 2 Thessalonians

chapter three. Please look them up also.

     Then turn to Mark 6:8, where this same Greek word is used in

connection with Jesus. Please read verse seven to twelve. Christ

did not "suggest" or "request" or "if you so choose" - to do, He

charged them, commanded them, to do and not to do certain things.

They went out and obeyed!

     This Greek word is no weakling - it is STRONG! Look at Luke

8:29 if you still want further proof.

     Now back to 2 Thes.3:10-12. Is Paul here talking about what

colour of shoes to buy, or what donkey to purchase for your

travels? No, not at all! He is talking about certain problems in

the church that PERTAIN TO RIGHT AND WRONG, TO SIN 

AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, TO THE LAW OF THE LORD! 

Persons in the  church going about willfully not working and being 

disorderly busybodies while living off the food of others, WAS 

CONTRARY TO THE PERFECT LAW OF GOD! And with the 

very authority of Jesus Christ the three men mentioned in chapter 

one verse one, were charging/commanding them what to do about 

this unlawful and sinful situation.

     Of course as in any breaking of any concrete law no man can

FORCE any other person to comply, unless you have a gun to their

heads. Then that would be acting as an authoritarian dictator,

and God's church is not to be governed by such commanded actions,

although some have tried to do so. Not literally maybe, but

spiritually.

     If some did not want to obey this directive from these three

elders, then they gave more commands to the saints as to what to

do in verses 4 and 6. The same Greek word!

     Again let's remember, Paul is here talking about deadly

serious matters, not "on  which side of the river do we stroll

down on a Sunday afternoon" decision at all, but spiritual life

and death matters for certain ones in the church.

Second example:

     Stay in 2 Thessalonians and chapter three. Keep reading from

verse 12, "But you brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if

any man OBEY not our word by this epistle, note that man, and

have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him

not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (verses 13-15).

     Here the Greek word for "obey" is NOT peitho as in Hebrews

13:17, it is a DIFFERENT word altogether - hupakouo. Here again

is what Vine's Dictionary has to say:

     ".......'to listen,attend' (as in Acts 12:13), and so, 'to

submit, to obey,' is used of 'obedience' (a) to God, Heb.5:9; 11

:8; (b) to Christ, by natural elements, Matt.8:27; Mark 1 :27;

4:41; Luke 8:25; (c) to disciples of Christ, Luke 17:6; (d) to

the faith, Acts 6:7; the gospel, Rom.10:16; 2 Thess.1 :8;

Christian doctrine, Rom.6: 17 (as to a form or mould of

teaching); (e) to apostolic injunctions, Phil.2:12; 2 Thes.3:14;

(f) to Abraham by Sarah, 1 Pet.3:6; (g) to parents by children,

Eph.6:1; Col.3:20; (h) to masters by servants, Eph.6:5; Col.3:22;

(i)  to sin, Rom.6:12; (j) in general, Rom.6:16."

The Englishman's Greek Concordance, page 772 lists every place it

is used in the NT. This Greek word is not the same as hupotasso

mentioned by Mr.Edwards in his above quote. You can find that

word and all places it is used on page 780 of the aforementioned

concordance.

     This Greek word of 2 Thess.3:14 is again a "hit you between

the eyes" STRONG word, no punches pulled. You will see how 

strong it can be in the verses of: Mat.8:27; MarK 1:27; 4:41; 

Acts 6:7; Rom.6:16; Heb.5:9; 11:8.

     What is the context? Having to decide what colour to paint

the house, and other trivial matters? NO! It is church matters so

LARGE  and important that if people would not submit and obey,

the rest should note and sanction by having no company with them

and admonishing them not as an enemy but as a brother. If such

persons still will not repent after such reproof then the full force 

of Matthew 18:15-20 must be put into effect.

     And that is another subject which I have covered in detail

in my study called "Disfellowshipping - What the Bible Really

Teaches" (please request it if you do not already have it).

     Yes indeed there is some strong authority at times (the

correct righteous times) invested in the overseers of the church,

as to how they are to shepherd the flock, within the LAW of the

Lord. Not man made laws, not the ideas and wishes of men who

pervert the scriptures or claim some "apostolic" inspiration as

"God's apostle on earth" or "only apostle of the Lord" mentality.

That appointed function of leading and teaching for the elders

does carry with it the necessity for the saints who are truly the

children of God to obey, not with blind faith, but with

respectful trusting faith, because such elders do watch for the

welfare of their spiritual souls, and must give account to the

Eternal one day for the job entrusted to them.

     There is an aspect, a very real one, of obeying in no

"wishy-washy" term, the overseers of the church, when they are

teaching the written in stone spiritual laws and  commandments 

of the Eternal God. It is a great responsibility to take on the duty

and function of being a guide and helper to others in their

spiritual Christians lives. Quite frankly, many should back off

and think twice before undertaking such an awesome task, that is

why James was inspired to write what he did in verse one, chapter

three of his letter. And it is no light thing, and should not be

taken lightly, for a saint to ASK FOR HELP AND COUNSEL 

on an issue of importance, from one or more of the overseers of

the church. The Lord has recorded for us the importance He places

on the subject of those coming to His chosen and appointed

guides/elders/overseers of His flock.

Turn to Deuteronomy the seventeenth chapter. Please read from

verse eight to verse thirteen.

     Wow!!! Pretty heavy stuff don't you think? Now friend, I did

not write it. This is not "and Keith Hunt said" theology. This is

from THE ETERNAL GOD of heaven! Again, we are not dealing 

here with coming to the ministers for counsel on what sheep to slay

for the evening meal, or which model of computer to buy for your

home. Many "cultic" organizations try to dictate their followers

lives this way, right down to small unimportant daily liberties.

Such is not the way of the Lord. This passage is talking about a

"matter too hard for thee in judgment." Serious matters! Notice

verse eleven - the priest(under the NT, the elders/overseers) is

to teach "according to THE SENTENCE OF THE LAW." Not 

something out of his own head or "opinion" but out "of the law" - 

that which has some teeth and grip to it.

     If you just want some other persons "opinion" on what breed

of dog to buy for your child's birthday, you do not have to run

off to the ministers to answer that question. If you do I hope

they will tell you not to bother them with such none essential

matters, as their time is more valuable than deciding for you

what dog to buy. Most of them will probably be as expert on 

dogs as they are on the "man in the moon."

     It is serious matters the priests/ministers of the Lord are

to help you in, not things you can decide for yourself or with

the help of friends or other experts in other fields and skills. 

It is in matters that pertain to the spiritual law in your life, 

and where it is too hard for you, and you need the service of 

God's chosen experts on this skilled trade - theology.

     God instructs that under those conditions, you are to arise

and get thee up to His ministers for counsel. They are to render

judgment according to the "sentence of the law which they shall

teach you." Showing you clearly from the law the answer to your

hard matter. Then if you WILL NOT DO IT, IF YOU WILL NOT 

OBEY the Eternal pulls no punches, He hammers the nail home 

friend. You can again read it for yourself. Under the Old Covenant 

such persons refusing to obey WOULD DIE! For such evil was to 

be put away from Israel.

     I think you will fully see what this is all about, if you still have 

any doubts lingering in your mind, as I give you my last example 

from my personal ministry.

Third example:

     I was pastoring a small congregation near Toronto in the

early 80's. A Few young men came into our fellowship. They were

zealous for the word of the Lord, wanting to  learn and obey the

way of God. Through the process of time, Bible studies, and

personal counselling with me, all seemed to be proper and correct

for them to be baptized. I did all I could to ascertain they were

ready to fully serve the Lord in their lives. They were baptized.

All went just fine for about one year. Then my wife and I both

noticed a few things about one of the young men, nothing really

major, but a certain gravitation to particular parts of the

Bible, and certain articles laying around our home when he came

to visit. We just "wondered" but did not think too deeply on the

matter. He did have a few male friends he introduced us to that

were in some ways a little "strange," yet we did not dwell

on....... our wondering.

     Then one time he came to me privately and wanted to know

about "homosexuality" from the Biblical point of view. I showed

him in a general way what the word said, and we talked about it

in a general way, no more was said.

     Sometime later his best friend who had been baptized at the

same time came to me quite upset. The young man in question had

finally confided to him that he was homosexual, and was keeping

company with homosexuals. He thought his friend would understand

and commiserate, but he did not, it just left him in total shock.

     He did not come to church for a while, then slowly asked to

counsel with me, which I did. I thought he was trying to see what

God's word said about such a life style. I talked with him for

many hours. I think it was the third counselling period I had

with him that things got down to the nitty-gritty. He told me he

was thinking about moving into the city of Toronto to live. He

wanted to know what to do about overcoming homosexuality. I told

him he would have to be willing to obey me on two specific

points, namely: 1. As Toronto is the second largest city in North

America with a homosexual community (second behind San Francisco),

he should not go to live there. 2. He must give up going around

with homosexual men.

     I told him that not to follow my directives on those two

points would sound the death bell for him spiritually.

     He did not listen to me. He did not obey. He went to live in

Toronto, and never came back to church again. I have never seen

or heard from him to this day.

     This was no "small fry" - just shoot the breeze matter. This

was a HARD MATTER - seriously IMPORTANT matter, one that was

clearly plain in the word of God. Practicing homosexuality is SIN! 

It is an abomination to the Lord. Under the Old Covenant it was 

punishable by the death penalty!

     The young man came to me for counsel and advice. 

I instructed him according to the sentence of the law of the Lord,

and gave him directives to follow, charged him to follow, I could

say "commanded" him to obey (but I did not use such words), if he

was going to stand any chance with the power of God to overcome

this sin. I could not make him obey, I could not force him to

follow my instructions. He and we all are free moral agents. He

went his way and chose to do his own thing, leaving behind his

fellow Christians that loved him so much. We all shed some tears

over the whole occurrence.

     There is an interesting point of slight difference between

verse seven and verse seventeen of Hebrews chapter 13.

     The Greek word for "remember" in verse seven is totally

different from the Greek  word for "obey" in verse seventeen. In

verse 7 the word is mneemonuo and means to mentally keep in the

mind something. It is found on page 503 in the Englishman's Greek

Concordance. It is used in such verses as: John 15:20; Gal.2: 10;

Rev.2:5; 18:5.

     Paul is telling his readers to keep in their mind the

leaders/guides/overseers that have taught them the word, and to

follow their conduct of character as it is in Jesus Christ. The

emphasis here is more on the conduct of life than on the words

they speak. But in verse 17 the emphasis changes somewhat to the

words that come forth from those leaders, the teaching they give

forth, as I've covered above in the three examples given.

     The word "obey" in Greek is as N.E. says, the Greek word

peitho, pepoitha. And although it may not carry the connotation

of obeying as under the authority of a dictator, such as those

obeying Hitler during the second World War. Although it is an

obedience from a trusting belief persuasion connotation, it

nevertheless is still meaning the end result is OBEYING! 

The cake of obedience is still being cut, but with a certain knife 

slicing it from a different angle than some other knife (word) 

in the Greek language.

     This word peitho and every place it is used in the NT can be

found in the Englishman's Greek Con. on pages 609 and 610. It is

translated FIVE times as "obey" - in Gal.3:1; 5:7; Jam.3:3;

Rom.2:8; and here in Heb.13:17. You would do well to look up

the verses in Galatians, James, and Romans.

     It is used by King Agrippa in Acts 26:28 when he said to

Paul, "Almost you persuade me to be a Christian." To be a true

Christian is to obey Christ. King Agrippa was close to wanting to

live as an obeying follower of Jesus Christ. Talking about Christ

in Heb.2:13, He says: "....I will put my trust in Him (the

Father)...." Jesus' trust or belief or persuasion in the Father

was manifest in obeying Him! The word peitho carries WlTHIN

itself to obey, which ever way you want to slice the cake!

     The King James translators were quite correct in rendering

peitho as obey in Hebrews 13:17. For that is exactly what Paul

was meaning to say to those reading his letter. From the whole NT

they would understand (and from what Paul and others had

personally taught in teaching and preaching) this was not a

"blind" obedience to every whim of a minister, but obeying as "in

the Lord" just like a wife to her husband, and servants to their

masters (Eph.5:22; 6:5). Obeying that which is within the holy law

of God, that does not conflict with it, and only those things

that are important issues of spiritual life and death.

     You do not have to obey a minister who orders you to wash

his car and the like. If any so called minister does that, my

advice to you is run from him as fast as you can and stay away

from him until he repents and asks your forgiveness. Such a man

is not in the true attitude of a humble shepherd of the Lord. Of

course you could try correcting him in love, but with that mind

set he has, it will probably be like water on a ducks back. Such

men with such attitudes of mannerisms have become a cult unto

themselves.

     All of the above does not contradict the truth of the matter

plainly taught in the NT, that every child of God is responsible

for studying the scriptures for themselves, in order to do as

Paul said: "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is

good." The example of the Bereans is given to us not to fill

space in the book of Acts, but to teach us a very  important

truth of the Lord. They heard things, they were preached at, they

had been taught(teaching) by two apostles and overseers (Paul and

Silas) the word (the scriptures of God, not the ideas of men).

The Bereans were willing to listen, they had no prejudice,

but they were not gullible either. They were not going to have

"blind faith" and swallow everything coming out of the mouths of

these two men who claimed they were ministers of God. What was

said to them, they would make very sure was according to the

scriptures. They "searched the scriptures daily, whether those

things were so" (Acts 17:10-1).

     Because of this correct action on their part it is written:

"Therefore MANY believed"(verse 12).

     You need to also mark with bright yellow and never forget

the verse found in Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and the testimony: if

they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no

light in them."

You need to remember that the NT (and the old also) teaches very

clearly that some elders/overseers WILL NOT REMAIN FAITHFUL 

AND TRUE TO THE WORD AND DOCTRINES OF THE 

ETERNAL GOD!! THEY WOULD FALL AWAY INTO FALSE 

AND HERETICAL DOCTRINES AND TEACHINGS, IN ORDER TO 

PLEASE MEN AND/OR GAIN A FOLLOWING AFTER 

THEMSELVES (Acts 20:17-31; 2 Tim.4:1-5; 2 Pet.2:1).

     You personally are to "work out your own salvation with fear

and trembling." You will not enter the Kingdom on the shirt tails

of the eldership, nor will Jesus entertain the excuse "well the

overseers said I could do it" or "the elders told me I didn't

have to do it."

     The eldership is put there by God to teach/lead/guide and

set you the correct example in the truth and the way that leads

to life. Your responsibility is to make sure from the word that

they are on the straight and narrow path of righteousness, in

what they teach and how they live.

     If leaders do stop imitating in word and conduct, the

Messiah, then certainly we need to do as Mr.Edwards says - "stop

imitating them!"

     The reader may want to request my article "When does a

Minister become Disqualified from the Ministry?"

     It is also the plain truth of the NT that God does have in

His church, men whom He has called and chosen and appointed to be

spiritual leaders and overseers of His people. They have been

there from the start of the NT church on the day of Pentecost.

They have been there from that time forward and are there today!

Somewhere, in some places, on this "good green earth" are men who

have not been corrupted by Satan, the world, the flesh, or human

organizations. They are standing tall for the word of truth,

teaching and living it faithfully and pleasing to God.

     It is also the responsibility not only for the shepherds to

seek the sheep who may be scattered, but for the sheep to seek,

look for, and recognize WHO THE TRUE SHEPHERDS ARE, 

for make no mistake, the Lord has them out there ready to lead, 

serve, and guide to green pastures besides the still waters.

THOSE ARE THE MAIN POINTS I HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH 

IN NORMAN EDWARDS' PAPER ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

THERE ARE SOME OTHER SECTIONS I FEEL I DO NEED TO 

SAY A FEW WORDS ON HERE AND THERE  IN HIS STUDY.

                  COMMENTS ON OTHER POINTS

Voting References Suppressed(pages 5,6).

     This is to do with that Greek word cheirotoneo. I have

covered that quite thoroughly in section or part two of this

work. There is no need to say any more here except N.E.'s

reference to the Weymouth NT translation and Adam Clarke and

other commentaries to back his assertion, really proves nothing.

I can find many more NT translations and Bible Commentaries 

in support of the opposite.

Ekklesia Translated "Church" Instead of "Congregation" or

"Assembly" (page 6).

     It is true that the Greek word ekklesia would have been

better translated as assembly, then again that is not correct

either. Ekklesia is from ek, "out of," and kleesis,"a calling"

(kaleoo, "to call"). So if we want to get real technical about

things, the best translation from the Greek ekklesia in the NT

would have been - "the called out of ones."

     The English word "church" can be from the Old English circe,

but not necessarily.

     The World Book Dictionary gives: "(Old English circe <

Vulgar Latin cyriaca < Greek kyriakon (dogma) the Lord's (house)

< kyrios master < kyros power)."

     As the above dictionary brings out the English word "church"

can be understood in DIFFERENT ways. So we are again back to

"good ol’” semantics of words. How YOU may interpret in your mind

the meaning of the word.

     I grew up with the word "church" not only from the KJV but

from all the years (starting at the age of six) I attended a

religious school and local church, the "Congregational Church"

with the word to me NEVER containing the dark sinister meaning it

seems to convey to Mr.Edwards. I never saw any plot by King

James, his translators of 1611, nor the Church of England, to

make people attend THEIR church, or support them with money. To

read that into the word "church" takes from my view point, a HUGE

imagination, flamed by a paranoia that must come from having the

unfortunate experience of being a member of an "abusive church"

(there is a book by the name of "Churches that Abuse" I recommend

you read, the author is R.M.Enroth) using the name of Church of

God.

     You want to use the words "congregation" or "assembly" or

"called out ones" that is fine with me, I have no problem, but

please allow me to use the word "church" for I also have no

problem with that word. And please keep to yourself your sinister

notions about some clandestine plot on the part of King James and

his hired scholars. For the plain truth is the King James Version

of the Bible has done LESS damage to the minds of people over

nearly 400 years, than what Herbert W. Armstrong and the

Worldwide Church of God did in 20 years (1966 to 1986). He and

his organization may have taught many truths (so does the Roman

Catholic church), but the errors and heresies, twisted and perverted 

his followers into mindless brainwashed robots, whom he himself 

called "dumb sheep." Only now are some beginning to see the truth 

of the matter and the errors he perpetuated as "God's only apostle" 

and the "Elijah to come."

Kingdom Conflict (page 6).

     No sinister plot here either on the part of the KJV scholars, 

unless you are grasping at every straw to try to build your case. 

Most people from the WCG do not understand this verse

of Luke 17:21 within its context. Nor do they understand, for

they have not been taught the Biblical truth about the TWO

aspects or fulfilment of the Kingdom of God - a present reality

aspect AND a future literal aspect. The reader can request my

article "Is the Kingdom of God 'Within' You?" and find the whole

answer from the scriptures.

What is the "Government of God?" (page 6).

     From this heading to page 12, I have very little trouble in

agreeing with what Mr.Edwards has written. There are a few

thoughts and sentences I may not fully see eye to eye on. I have

either covered them in previous pages or they are not of

sufficient importance to elucidate upon here.

What are the Qualifications of an Apostle? (pages 12, 13).

     Mr.Edwards is not the first to write on the so called

"qualifications" of an apostle, and will not be the last. Some

misunderstanding and a few hand-stands, and cart-wheels have 

been done with the scriptures in regards to this subject of

"apostles."

     First, let's look at what Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT

Words has to say in full:

" 1. apostolos is, lit., 'one sent forth' (apo, 'from,' stello,

'to send'). The word is used of the Lord Jesus Christ to describe

His relation to God, Heb.3:1; see John 17:3. The twelve disciples

chosen by the Lord for special training were so called, Luke

6:13; 9:10. Paul, though he had seen the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor.9:1;

15:8, had not 'companied with' the Twelve 'all the time' of His

earthly ministry, and hence was not eligible for a place among

them, according to Peter's description of the necessary

qualifications, Acts 1:22. Paul was commissioned directly, by the

Lord Himself, after His Ascension, to carry the gospel to

the Gentiles. The word has also a wider reference. In Acts 14:4,

14, it is used of Barnabas as well as of Paul; in Rom.16:7 of

Andronicus and Junias. In 2 Cor.8:23 (RV, margin) two unnamed

brethren are called 'apostles of the churches'; in Phil.2:25 (RV,

margin). Epaphroditus is referred to as 'your apostle.' It is

used in 1 Thess.2:6 of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, to define their

relation to Christ.

     2. apostolee  'a sending, a mission,'  signifies an

apostleship, Acts 1:25; Rom.1:5; 1 Cor.9:2; Gal.2:8.'

     Note: Pseudapostoloi, 'false apostles,' occurs in 

2 Cor.11:13."

     We note from the above the NT gives us TWENTY ONE men 

who were named as apostles, men who were sent forth!

     Really quite simple. You are functioning as an apostle for

God if the Lord personally Himself appoints you to go forth (as He

did with the 12 apostles, Paul and Barnabas. A "?" must be placed

on the other men concerning direct sending by God, for we are not

told, or if He uses the Church (as a whole) or a church (single

congregation) to send a person forth. The going forth and some

examples are by that of Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Barnabas -

journeying here and there to churches near and far, preaching

and teaching. Sometimes also doing Evangelistic work IF the 

Lord had given you that gift of ministerial function. As we saw

earlier in section one, an elder could have more than one

function of ministry, or change functions as directed by the

Lord.

     It would seem from the NT there were 21 men at least who

functioned primarily as apostolic elders in the church as a

whole.

     Did those men who were NOT OF THE TWELVE first apostles,

have to meet the qualifications that Peter gave in Acts 1:21,22?

NO, THEY DID NOT! And I will explain Acts chapter one and 

the choosing of Matthias is a moment. The point here is that IF

God directly or indirectly through the church (inspiring the

elders and others) called you to go forth to the churches near

and far, you were functioning in the eldership of the church as

an apostle. It was and is just that simple, no big theologically

complicated doctrine, for the word apostle means "to go forth" or

"one sent forth."

     The trouble for many begins when they smoke-screen this

simple truth of the NT with Acts 1: 15-26. They try to do

cart-wheels with the word in order to fit Paul (and some

others) into this context, WHEN THEY SHOULD DO NO SUCH 

THING! Paul, Barnabas, Timothy etc. were NEVER a part of the 

twelve, but they were just as much apostles as any of the twelve 

were, no more and no less.

     The TWELVE were a class of apostles quite unique from all

other apostles to come. No other apostles after them were or ever

will be a part of that distinct group of 12. They were unique as

a group of twelve apostles. But unique in what ways? Did they

have more dictatorial authority over other apostles and elders in

the church? No, they did not, as we have before proved in the

first part of this book. They had no more authority over each

other than any other elder in the church. Paul, we have seen,

certainly did not think any of them had authority over himself.

He respected them, said some seemed to be pillars in the church,

but he made it very clear he was not "under" them in authority.

     As a unique group of twelve, did they have more talents and

abilities in theology than the other elders? Oh, not at all, far

from it! Paul in theology training could have run rings around

many of them I am sure. Even Peter found some things written by

Paul "hard to understand" so he stated (2 Pet.3:16). But not

impossible note.

     Were they blessed with more of the gifts of the Spirit than

any other apostles or elders? No, they were not! Peter was able

to perform great miracles at the onset of the NT church, but we

are not told that the others of the twelve were able to do the

same. Then on the other hand Stephen and Philip, who were not

apostles did great miracles also. And Paul sure had as many gifts

of the Spirit as anyone.

     So if it was not these things that made the 12 apostles

unique, then what indeed was it?

     Three basic areas made them a special group of apostles that

will never be duplicated in the same way again.

1. They were personally picked by Jesus Christ while He was in

the flesh on this earth during His last three and one half years

of life and ministry (Luke 6:12-16), and called apostles because

He would send them forth.

2. They would be given a special commission of going forth to a

certain race of people - the "lost sheep of the House of Israel"

(Mat.10:1-6). This they did do. William Steuart McBirnie,Ph.D.

has written a fascinating book called "The Search For The Twelve

Apostles," published by Tyndale House, that verifies the facts of

history to prove they did what Jesus sent them forth to do, after

His resurrection.

3. The twelve apostles were the only persons recorded for us of

all the children of God, that were in advance told specifically

what their reward would be in the Kingdom age to come

(Mat.19:28).

     These three basic areas combined together make the original

twelve apostles unique among all apostles, elders, and saints.

     The truth of Acts chapter one should now start to become

clear. A man HAD TO FILL the position of the dead Judas Iscariot.

To be as the other eleven, the man had to be qualified as the

others were, namely part of the disciples that were the large

overall group of persons that followed and toured Palestine with

Jesus during His ministry and witnessed His resurrection.

     There is no need to try and do hand-stands with God's word

to fit Paul and Barnabas and other later apostles into these

requirements, for those requirements were not necessary to become

a member of the 12. Only the twelve were the twelve, no more

no less. It was important that another be found from the group of

men who followed Jesus from the baptism of John to the day Christ

was taken up into heaven. The twelve had to stay as twelve! And

be of the same basic bottom line qualifications - all had to

have the qualifications Peter laid down. All of them did, so the

one to replace Judas also had to have the same.

     Because he would be one of the official 12 apostles given a

main basic commission to go forth to the "lost sheep of the house

of Israel." Paul and Barnabas and other apostles were never a

part of that specific duty in the way the twelve were, so the

qualifications of Acts 1:21,22, did not have to apply to them, in

order for them to be also called apostles, with just as much a

right to the word as the twelve had. For being an apostle is a

FUNCTION of the eldership ministry, not some position of "rank."

     As we have before proved (see the appendix to part one) an

apostle is also an elder/overseer (Peter called himself an apostle

and also an elder in the same letter - 1 Peter 1: 1; 5: 1). We

have also before proved that an elder is an overseer who is a

bishop who is a shepherd of the flock(so a pastor and teacher).

All apostles are also elders, just as all Californians are

Americans. But not all elders are apostles, just as not all

Americans are Californians.

     Then there is the question to be answered: WHY did they need

to have a twelfth apostle now that Judas was dead? Why not just

leave it the way it was with eleven? Could not eleven still go to

the house of Israel, would it not be enough? Probably to cover

that specific duty Christ sent them forth to do, it would have

been enough. Yet there is one more very important reason why a

man had to be chosen to take Judas' place. Have you figured it

out yet? I have really given you the answer already.

     There had to be twelve and NOT eleven for the start of the

NT church, and to begin at least the commission Christ had for

them B E C A U S E  EACH OF THE TWELVE was given the reward in

the Kingdom of ruling over one of the TWELVE tribes of Israel!

     There were TWELVE tribes, not ELEVEN. Those specific rewards

had already been given out by Christ to 12 apostles. So there had

to be twelve not eleven original apostles of Christ.

     Paul and Barnabas could not have applied for the position,

as they had not yet been baptized as Christians, let alone as

appointed elders in the church.

     Then we must not forget perhaps an even greater reason why

someone had to be chosen to take Judas' place as one of the

twelve. IT WAS PROPHESIED, IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE 

PSALMS IT WOULD BE SO! Peter knew it must be for the 

prophecy would have to be filled and come to pass (Acts 1:20).

     Were there apostles after the first century ended and the

death of the apostle John? Are there apostles today in the church

of God? Did that apostolic function end with the death of the NT

apostles? Not at all, not by any means! Ephesians 4:11-16 is for

the church through all ages, until the church has grown up in all

things, fully mature, completely perfect. And that my friends

will not reach its pinnacle until the day of Christ's return and

the resurrection of the saints into glory and perfection.

     Are there apostles in every age and generation of the

church? Well, I did not say that! The word does not say there

will be any guarantee of that. But for sure God has had

some apostles down through the last two thousand years, who were

sent forth here and there, near and yonder, to teach and preach

to the churches of God. Who they were and if they ever had such a

functional title laid upon them by the congregations of God may

not be history. And what does it really matter, if they were

functioning as an apostle then God surely knew, and that is all

that matters. Better to have no official eldership title and

do what the Lord has called you to do and given you the means to

do it, than have some official title from men, and be sleeping at

the wheel whereby you end up in the ditch.

     For the word of the Lord makes it very clear that no matter

WHO you are, WHAT you are given to do, HOW many natural 

abilities and God given gifts you posses, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR 

YOU TO FALL AWAY AND BECOME A BLIND LEADER OF 

THE BLIND!

     The great apostle Paul talked about Pseudapostoloi - false

apostles, and the church at Ephesus was commended for trying

those who said they were apostles and were not, but were liars (2

Cor. 11: 13; Rev.2:2).

Timothy an official apostle = elder.

     Before I leave this section, it is very significant for our

proof and evidence that Timothy was an officially appointed

elder/overseer of the church, to point out 2 Thess.2:6. The "we"

that Paul talks about in this verse is Silas, Himself, and

Timothy - verse one chapter one.

     Paul clearly tells them and us today, that THEY, the three

of them (from the beginning of his letter) WERE APOSTLES! 

Paul sure knew he was, he had seen Christ, was taught by Him -

Galatians chapter two - absolutely no doubt in Paul's mind that

he himself was an apostle of Christ. He elsewhere said he

believed he had the mind of Christ, was inspired to say and write

the things he did. He knew God was with him, guiding him, and

inspiring him.

     If ANYONE should have known who the true elders and apostles

of God were in the church of God, it would have been Paul! He

plainly said Timothy (and Silas) was an apostle. As far as Christ

was concerned He had put Timothy in the function of being an

apostle. We are never told specifically HOW, whether in a direct

personal manner or through the eldership of the church (as with

Paul and Barnabas on one occasion - Acts 13). It does not matter

to our point, the fact remains Paul tells us that both Silas and

Timothy were apostles, just as he was.

     Being an apostle is ONE function WITHIN the

eldership/overseership of the church.The word elder being an

umbrella word under which lies the words and functions

of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and shepherd (pastor) / teacher.

     Timothy was an official elder of the church, recognized as

such by other elders including the great elder and apostle Paul.

He was also an apostle and at times was admonished and encouraged

by Paul to "do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim.4:5).

                       To be continued

       ..............................................

Church Government

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

                       THIS IS THE FINAL PART IN ANSWERING

          NORM EDWARDS' PAPER ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT

Prophets - In the New Testament? (pages 13-15).

     I have no disagreement here with what Mr.Edwards has

written. The "prophetic role" in the Church has often been

overlooked and misunderstood. Many even claim it does not exists

any more since the days of the first apostles. Nothing could be

further from the truth!

     The study of the function of "prophet" is a most fascinating

one.  You may like to spend some time with a Bible Concordance

like Strong's under the word "prophet."  It is not the purpose of

this work to elaborate on this function of the ministerial

eldership.

     I will recommend to the reader a book that does do

that (elaborates in detail on the function of the prophet). The

book is entitled "HE GAVE GIFTS UNTO MEN - A Biblical

Perspective of Apostles, Prophets, and Pastors"  by Kenneth E.

Hagin.

     While I do not agree with every sentence in this book,

overall it is a work that the progressive Christian who believes

in the "gifts of the Spirit" still being given today, should

read.  The wealth of information, wisdom, and experience related

by Hagin in this book, is profound and edifying.

Other Congregational Functions (p.15-19).

     Administrator, Leader, Shepherd, or Pastor

     No problem with what Norman Edwards says here. 

I have before shown that at the beginning of the NT Church, 

the apostles/leaders/overseers, were responsible for both

the spiritual and physical duties of the Church. This can be

clearly seen from chapter one to five in the book of Acts. 

When the Church was so large that physical cares were too 

great  for the apostles, they were inspired to delegate the physical

responsibilities to other persons, who had to meet certain

qualifications as directed by the spiritual leaders (the apostles

in this case).

     This was done in order that the shepherds could mainly

continue in "prayer and the word."

     Certainly if the situation arose in some very small

congregation, it would not be wrong for the Pastor/overseer to

function in BOTH the spiritual and physical duties of the Church.

But such a situation in my mind would be extremely rare today.

The principle and example given to us in Acts 6 and elsewhere, 

is that persons are chosen from the congregation who meet the

qualifications to look after the physical matters of the Church, 

and in so doing allowing the elders to concentrate on "prayer 

and the word."

Apostle

     Covered above in some detail.

Discerner of Spirits

     No disagreement with N.E.  Some do have the gift of seeing

deep into the attitude and motivation of people. Can be of great

benefit to some churches who need that gift among them.

Evangelist or Gospel Preacher

     No problem with what Mr. Edwards states.

Exhorter

Faith-filled person

Giver

Healer

Help

Knowledgeable person

Love

     I am in full agreement

Minister or Helps (service to others, physical or spiritual)

     I agree with some things stated by not with all.  The third

section of this book (also the first and second) gets to the

"nitty-gritty" of where I disagree.

Miracle worker

Merciful person

Teacher or speaker

Tongues speaker and Interpretation

Wise person

     I have no problem with what is stated.

The Role of Elder (p.19,20).

     Most of what N.E. has said under this section I have no

difficulty with. Where I may differ has been covered already in

this work.

     It is interesting to note that he does allow for Titus to

have selected the men who were to be appointed, who were to be

"elders" in every city. He goes on to say that these men had to

meet qualifications, but thinks Titus "not knowing everyone in

every city, would certainly have asked the congregation which men

were qualified, as in Acts 6."

     I have little trouble with a congregation being part of the

process, as I have previously stated earlier, under certain

situations and circumstances. I told you about Fred Coulter, the

Biblical Church of God, the two congregations I was leading at

the time, and how my appointment or ordination as an official

Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ was determined. Yet to think

that Titus, or to say that Titus did not know everyone in every

city......well that is reading into, or adding something to the

word that is just NOT THERE! We have no facts at all to say how

much Titus had worked with Paul in that area before Paul gave

those instructions to him. He may well have known every

congregation and all the leading men in each, for all we are told

about the situation. We are just not told, pure and simple, and

to guess otherwise is mere personal speculation at best, and

doctrinal dogmatism at worst.

     Acts 6 may have been applied, but we just do not know, we

are not told. Yet, if Acts was taken as a principle to be used in

other situations, as I have before proved, the last word on the

matter was still with the overseer/apostles/elders of the Church.

And in the case of appointing elders in the churches on Crete,

that would have been Titus, for he was by the authority of

Paul (one of the great men used by the Lord and inspired in

a special way) given that responsibility.

     I am in full agreement when Mr. Edwards says: "Elders are

responsible for shepherding the flock of the Eternal and to serve

as overseers. They are to be examples, not 'lords' over the

others. They are to anoint and pray for those in need of help.

They are to lay hands on others for spacial tasks. Those that do

a good job of overseeing or teaching should be paid for their

work. If leaders do sin, they should be corrected in front

of the entire congregation....."

     

     Today, some who would follow E.N's paper as a "sacred cow"

doctrine, are scared of the NT fact that men were employed full

time in the work of the Lord and lived off the people they

served, because that would make them a "special class" of

persons, different from the rest of the congregation, in their

eyes, and they would not want that. These people say "all are or

can be elders in the church (not sure if they think women can also

be) so why should some be paid and others not?"

     And with such a theology, I can see that would indeed create

problems over "paid ministers." For who would decide which men

would be full time and/or part time, with pay?  For how long? 

I'm sure many men, if having secular work problems, out of work,

not liking their work etc., would love to be employed by the

Church. Having the doctrine that all men can be elders or

ministers in the Church, could easily cause "politics" of

carnality to abound, especially as "clicks" of personality do

tend to evolve in any congregation of any size. I can see

personality pulls and lobbying tactics going on behind

closed doors, to influence the "vote" in WHO is, and for HOW

LONG, the ones to be full/part time "paid" elders.

     I would love to observe say for 10 years, a 100 member plus

congregation that teaches every man can be and is an elder, and

can help lead the congregation when his turn arrives.  I would

love to watch them as they vote in and out their overseers. I can

imagine the lobbying and politics in the corners, and the house

parties to win votes.  I would be surprised if any church

congregation could survive that kind of free for all and

still be doing any kind of work for God in ten years.

     Mr. Edwards goes through a number of OT examples and

scriptures concerning "lots."  Interesting, but besides the point

when we come down to the question of the NT Church Government. 

For to bring "lots" over into the NT Church we would have to find

NT examples and plain NT scriptures teaching us that we should,

as congregations, "vote" on who our overseers/pastors/shepherds

should be at times. And such teaching in the NT cannot be found!

     But, you say, what about Acts chapter one!  Well, let's look

at it and ask a few questions as we go.

     Did Jesus tell the disciples to wait for the promise they   

 heard from Him?  Yes, He did.

     What was the promise?

     It was the Holy Spirit (verses 1-5).

     Did the disciples continue together waiting?

     Yes, indeed (verses 12-14).

     Was Peter inspired to think about the prophecy concerning   

     Judas and its fulfilment?    

     He was (verses 15-20).

     Was there a basic qualification required to take the        

      position held by Judas?

     There was (verses 21-22).

     How many were appointed? Who did the appointing?

     Two men were appointed. It was "they" - all the disciples   

     who appointed. How it was done is not revealed.

     Then what did they do? 

     They prayed (verses 24,25).

     After they prayed what did they do?

     God was to give the answer to them via "casting lots."

     Why did someone have to take Judas' place?

     The answer can be found earlier in part three of this study.

     This is an important question.

     Were they filled with the Holy Spirit yet? 

     NO THEY WERE NOT! The majority had not yet received it. 

     A  few may have received a token of it when Jesus breathed 

     on them and said, "receive you the Spirit" at an earlier date.

     The Spirit had not yet come as it would come on the day of  

     Pentecost (Acts 2).

     What are some of the attributes of having the Spirit?

     You may think about the "fruits of the Spirit."  You may    

     remember the verses that say it is the "power" of God, the  

     "divine nature" of God, the "sound mind" of the Lord, the   

     "love of God" shed abroad in our hearts, and other

     attributes.  Jesus said that both the Father and He would   

     come and live within the believer (John 14:23).

     It would be through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that  

     they would do this. The Spirit would also GUIDE the believer

     into all truth (John 16:13).

     Now, put it all together!

     The disciples, when having to choose another to take the

place of Judas, DID NOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT!  They did 

not have the nature, the power, the sound mind, the in-dwelling of 

the Father and Christ in them. They did not have the Spirit that

would lead into all truth. They, in their natural state, could

not decide which of the two men God wanted to fill the position

and place held by Judas. They acted in this situation as others

had acted over the centuries under the Old Covenant. They

resorted to casting "lots" and praying to God to give the answer

by this method.  They were without the Spirit and so without the

mind of Christ. They were very much still carnal humans without

the nature of God in them.

     The Eternal did honor this use of an OT system, BUT IT WAS

FROM THE OLD COVENANT!

     After the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy

Spirit, when the very mind and nature of God was implanted within

the leaders of the Church and all the saints, WE NEVER READ 

OF OR HEAR ABOUT, WE ARE NEVER INSTRUCTED IN 

THE USE OF THIS "CASTING OF LOTS" AGAIN TO KNOW 

THE WILL OF GOD, FOR ANY MATTER OR DECISION WITHIN 

ANY CHURCH CONGREGATION!

     Under the New Covenant, the Spirit of the Lord should be

quite sufficient, along with prayer and fasting, as NT examples

show us (i.e. Acts 14:23; 13:1-3).

     I cannot see ANY need to ever have a congregation "vote" on

anything except the issue of having to "disfellowship" a person

from the church's fellowship. That subject I have covered

in-depth with a separate study.  I am here talking about the

spiritual affairs of the Church, not the color of the carpet etc., 

which possibly may need a general vote on.

     With the Elders overseeing  the spiritual matters in the

Church, and certainly the doctrines and truths of the Lord are

not "up for vote" but MAJOR issues being solved as in Acts 15.

With official servers or deacons taking care of the physical

matters, and all the saints with differing gifts of the Spirit

being used for all the needs and benefits of the Church and

community. With the Spirit of the Lord in every baptized 

member, WHY would VOTING ever have to be resorted to?

     It was used, and worked well under the OC, but the vast

majority in Israel did NOT HAVE the Holy Spirit united with t

heir minds.  Today, under the NC, every begotten child of God 

in the Church, has both the Father and the Son living within them. 

Surely the Spirit of the Lord is able to guide the different people 

in different functions within the body of Christ to administer their 

duties wisely and correctly, especially when the "checks and balances" 

are in place, so no abuse can take hold (as much of this study has 

been about abuse and false doctrines). 

     Then couple all that with "prayer and fasting"..........and

I see that voting to know the will of God is old and passed away.

It was physical and carnal for a physical and carnal people, but

today God is to be worshipped "in spirit and in truth, for the

Father seeks such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and they that

worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" (John

4:23,24).

Bible Teaches Attitude not Form (p.22-23).

     I have no large disagreements with what Norm Edwards says

under this heading.

     If Everyone is Free to Disagree, Can Anything be Accomplished? 

(p.23-25).

     I agree fully with the basic understanding and teaching that

E.N. puts forth here.

What Happens when Serious Disagreement Arises? (p.25-26).

     No problem here, I agree with that is stated.

When Should a Person be "Put Out'? (p.26-28).

     I am in agreement.

Conclusion: How should the Congregation

be Governed (p.28-30).

     I agree with the overall teaching of attitude, but as this

book of mine shows, I would disagree with some specifics in

actual functioning of government within the Church of God.

Is it "Rebellion" Not to Follow an 

Established "Church Leader"? (p.30-31).

     Fully agree.

Was not "the Government of God" the First of the

18 Truths Restored by Herbert Armstrong? (p.31-32).

     I again agree with most of what Mr. Edwards says here. I

have personally never seen the list of these so-called 18 Truths

Restored by Herbert Armstrong. If Church Government was 

supposed to be the first on the list, then all I can say is the list

starts off with a HUGE error!  HWA did not restore the truth on

NT church government, he CORRUPTED and PERVERTED 

it from the truth he once knew and wrote about!

     E.N. talks about the last 20 years of the life of HWA as if

it was OTHER men who were to blame for the corruptions in the

WCG, and not HWA also.  I guess when you stay with an

organization until well after the death of HWA you will blind

yourself to the reality of the man heading that organization.  

To the idea that HWA did not know what was going on, I say,

nonsense, absurdity, tomfoolery, fiddle-faddle, balderdash, and

big files of garbage.

     Don't kid yourself for one minute!  HWA knew exactly what he

was doing once he had Stanley Rader off his back, out of the way,

and unable to blackmail him any more. He knew exactly what he was

doing after his wife died in 1967 and on into the 70's.

     From 1966 to 1986 HWA allowed a few new truths, some little

"growing in grace and knowledge" of our Lord and Savior to

continue in the WCG, but all that was FAR OUT WEIGHED  BY 

THE MANY FALSE TEACHINGS, PERVERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE, 

CORRUPTIONS, AND CULTIC ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES, 

THAT WERE EXHIBITED BY HIMSELF PERSONALLY AND THE 

ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE.

Other Misunderstood Scriptures (p.32-34).

     I fully agree with what is written by Mr. Edwards in this

section.

So ends my critique of Norman Edwards' paper.

            .....................................

Written 1996