Review

by J.L. Ferguson, Barrhead, U.K. | Category: The New Testament Churches Of God (Their History, Order And | Dec 1982

Throughout the present year we have followed step by step the growth of the New Testament work of God from its beginnings in Jerusalem. We have considered how churches of God were established in "the other cities also", and have been impressed with the fact that the principles of gathering which guided the apostles in the Church of God in Jerusalem, guided also Paul and his fellow-pioneers as the work spread under the Spirit's direction.

Back of it all was the Lord's authoritative word in Matt. 28:18-20, in agreement with which the first church of God was established in Jerusalem, as witness Acts 2:41,42:

They then that received His word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and the prayers.

The pattern, the spiritual prototype which was thus established, was maintained consistently in the planting of all the New Testament churches. Disciples were baptized by immersion after conversion, added to the local church, there to continue in steadfast loyalty to the teaching and practices which were embodied in the faith of their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

In this way the law of Christ was uniformly in operation in all the early churches. Of the Church of God in Corinth one contributor wrote: "Authority to deal with failure and to insist on the Lord's will being carried out was a hallmark of the kingdom or rule of God as expressed among churches of God. The kingdom of God was in power

And as we made our way month by month through the Acts it was impossible not to be impressed by one important feature. Luke was not emphasizing the growth of the invisible Church which is His body, "My Church", but rather the development of a visible testimony by those members who were prepared to take open stand in accordance with their Lord's command. It is the record of the growth of the kingdom of God, as specifically referred to in 1:3, 8:12; 14:22; 28:23,31. The churches of God formed a visible unity known as the kingdom of God. We therefore endorse the fourth proposition in the first article of the series, that is:

God's will is that members of the Church, the Body of Christ, should, during their earthly pilgrimage, accept the obligations of discipleship and be added to a church of God. There, in association with other disciples, they have opportunity to give practical effect to their affinity in the Body of Christ.

We noted too that towards the close of the first century and onwards, the fires of the martyrs only intensified the utter personal devotion of deeply committed believers. On the other hand, the subtle process of departure from the faith was developing fast, with "false teachers" abounding in response to "itching ears". So we observed the anomaly of a vastly increasing number of churches departing completely from many of the basic teachings of the Lord through His apostles.

In the centuries which followed, theologians in their development of Christian doctrine have travelled a long way from what our studies revealed of the New Testament churches of God. What is now well established tradition presents itself in a form which is so greatly at variance with New Testament doctrine and practice that the new and searching convert is bewildered. The word of the Lord Jesus to the leaders of Israel was, "And ye have made void the word of God by your tradition" (Matt. 15:6). Is it not the case that history has repeated itself?.

This matter of the relevance in our own day of the word of authority in Matt. 28:18-20 raises several questions which merit consideration. We shall confine our study to four in particular.

Question 1. Was the form in which the New Testament churches were established based on an authority which ought still to prevail today?

We answer, Yes. The risen, sovereign Lord said, "All authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore ... and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world". No being in heaven has disputed that authority since the day the statement was made. Each is only too conscious of the glory of His continuing dominion. Then why should Christians dispute it on earth? Have they lost the vision of that glory? It was because of His consciousness of abiding, universal authority that He put the "therefore" into "Go ye therefore". That sovereign authority He has never relinquished.

And He must have had all generations of disciples in view, for He said: "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world". His word therefore, holds good until He returns for His Church. So to keep within the counsel of His will and be well-pleasing to Him, we have no alternative in our late day but still to adhere strictly to what the Lord commanded.

Question 2. Can we examine a few instances in which, down the intervening centuries, the traditions of men have made void the pattern of the New Testament churches of God?

(a)Disciple baptism by immersion

The baptism by immersion of disciples, clearly laid down by the Lord and

invariably practised in the New Testament churches, began to be abandoned before the close of the second century. This practice simply had to go in the face of popular demand. It had been a command of the Lord, a practice endorsed in the faith, a very lovely figurative presentation of the disciple's experience at conversion. But even the erudite Dean Stanley wrote "The civilized world has decided against baptism. It is a striking example of the triumph of common sense and convenience over the form of bondage and custom.

(b)Sprinkling the babe

After the abandonment of disciples' baptism, tradition rebuilt the ceremony in this way: it contended that no Jewish believer, to whom circumcision was so dear and the preservation of the integrated family unit so precious, could ever think of the babe being kept out of the parents' blessings in the New Covenant, for did not Peter say, "For to you is the promise and to your children?" So it was only a matter of time till tradition insisted that the babes must be brought into this baptism, the family unit in the fellowship of the church, just as circumcision had admitted the babe into the nation of Israel.

So three errors emerged. The immersion of the disciple was abandoned, the sprinkling of the babe was introduced, and with it came a sense of grace conferred.

(c)Clergy and laity

In the New Testament churches the ministry did not depend on educational attainment or social status or the like. It rested on the distribution of the gifts of the Spirit. Individual believers were thus gifted in several ways. In the churches the Spirit raised up men to continue the initial work of the apostles and prophets. These were the evangelists, pastors and teachers. Peter wrote, "According as each hath received a gift, ministering it among yourselves

(1 Pet. 4:10). I Cor. 14 is of interest. To no single person was committed the ministry of the Word in the church.

(d)Ritual

Throughout the present era of the Spirit's work, the service of God has moved from the material to the spiritual. But men crave by nature for the things the eye can see. The early churches of God had no material temple, no altar, no priestly vestments, no printed prayers, no prescribed liturgy. But this all gradually crept in and the simple order of the New Testament service had to yield to the demands of State, power, wealth, popularity and disinterest. Thus, and in many other ways besides, the authoritative Voice on the mountain in Galilee was set aside.

Question 3. Were the New Testament churches of God in their integrated form

a practical proposition for a world-wide work through successive centuries?.

We reply - Surely, otherwise the commission in Matt; 28 would be meaningless. But it was unequivocal. Go into all the world, make disciples, baptize them. Then clearly the disciples would require to be gathered in church formation for teaching and the due observance of all the Lord's requirements, and that till the Master's return. The resultant world-wide visible unity could at any one time be vast. One church of God in a town with as many companies in it as convenient; the church cared for by elders; churches in area groupings, in which the elders of all the churches could meet as necessary for the care of the needs of the churches; areas of a country again capable of meeting representatively to look to the well-being of all its area groupings; and an international basis for elders to meet representatively so as to ensure the uniform application of the principles of the kingdom of God throughout all the world churches. The God of all grace would suffice for the demands of His Son's requirements. The Holy Spirit would point the way of unity. It would only break down if the disciples repudiated the sovereign Master's authority.

Question 4.

We come now to the issue raised in the first article in the series. "Further, we will look at the history and order of some churches of God specifically mentioned in the New Testament, leaving aside for the moment whether any company of Christians today is entitled to claim that status. This will be considered in the final article in the series".

Our concluding question therefore is - Is there any company of Christians today entitled to claim the status (?[a church of God, on the pattern of the New Testament churches?

We reply - Yes, why should there not be? Provided its teaching and practice conform wholly to what was held and contended for by the New Testament churches of God, and is maintained in fellowship with other churches of God similarly based, so that together they form one community in unity according to the principles of the kingdom of God.

Further we believe that such churches of God are by His grace in actual existence today; and we would like briefly to summarize a few matters 6f historical significance which point the way to this conclusion.

We noted earlier that in the post-New Testament days the number of churches increased vastly, but this was accompanied by a growing departure from the simplicity of the worship and service of the early days.

The Reformation came as a mighty corrective movement of the Spirit of God. But it was not a re-formation in the sixteenth century of what the

apostles had established by the Spirit in the first century. Many of the unscriptural teachings and practices, including (a) to (d) (Question 2) above were carried over. Nevertheless it was a tremendous breaking of light.

There was another clear spiritual illumination in the early nineteenth century when the "brethren companies came into being. But in our search for a present-day expression of a New Testament church of God we find certain teachings and practices among these beloved brethren also which leave us unsatisfied in our quest, left still seeking.

How, for example, can we reconcile the reception to the breaking of the bread of unbaptized believers, in the light of Matt. 28:18-20 and Acts 2:41,42? Or on what basis can the autonomy of each assembly be insisted upon, in view of 1 Cor. 4:20-5:13? Or how can it be maintained that there is nothing of a corporate nature in the New Testament beyond the local assembly, seeing that, for example, 1 Pet. 2:4-10 shows clearly that the churches of God in five Roman Provinces were all part of God's spiritual house? (Nor was God's house the same as Christ's Church, since Heb. 3:6 indicates the conditional nature of the house of God.) Or how can we accept the scriptural propriety of sisters in some companies taking public part at the breaking of the bread and the prayers, since the women are to be silent in the church (1 Cor. 14:34)?

It was towards the close of the nineteenth century that the Spirit of God enlightened many beloved brethren and sisters regarding the truths connected with the New Testament churches of God. They were at that time meeting in the Brethren companies, but they grasped the principles of church truth outlined in the article.

So in 1892-94 these exercised brethren and sisters separated from the Brethren companies to give effect to the principles of the New Testament churches of God.

We invite interested readers to write the editor for literature which sets out clearly our understanding of the New Testament churches of God. Readers can then form their own conclusions as to whether or not there is a world-wide fellowship of churches today which should feel warranted, however unworthy, to use the term churches of God.

J.L. Ferguson, Barrhead, U.K. | Dec 1982
The New Testament Churches Of God (Their History, Order And