The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration — John Shaqi
The Church, the Falling Away, and the RestorationShepherd, J. W. (James Walton)
Religion
The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration
Shepherd, J. W. (James Walton)
Churches of Christ -- Doctrines; Disciples of Christ -- Controversial literature; Disciples of Christ -- Doctrines
During a great part of this century, all churches continued to be as
at first, independent of each other, or were connected by no
consociation or confederation. Each church was a kind of small
independent republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at
least sanctioned by the people. But in the process of time it became
customary for all the Christian churches within the same province to
unite and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth; and in the
manner of confederated republics, to hold their conventions at stated
times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the whole
confederation. (Ibid, page 116.)
Of the independence of the apostolic churches, Prof. Lyman Coleman says:
These churches, whenever formed, became separate and independent
bodies, competent to appoint their own officers, and to administer
their own government without reference to subordination to any central
authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the history of
these primitive churches is more fully established or more generally
conceded, so that the discussion of it need not be renewed at this
place. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 95.)
From this we learn: (1) That during the first century and the early part
of the second the churches were independent; and (2) that so soon as
they confederated for the common interest their independency was
destroyed and a tyrannical ecclesiasticism established. Much more might
be given to establish the face of the congregational independence of the
apostolic churches, but as that is so well established and so generally
admitted, it does not seem necessary.
ELDERS
In every fully-developed church in apostolic times there was a plurality
of elders or bishops. Luke says: “And from Miletus he [Paul] sent to
Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the church. And when they were
come to him he said unto them, ... Take heed unto yourselves, and to all
the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the
church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts
20:17-28). From this we not only learn that there was a plurality of
elders at Ephesus, but they were also called bishops, which clearly
proves that the terms “elder” and “bishop” are used synonymously. Of
Paul and Barnabas it is said: “And when they had preached the gospel to
that city [Derbe], and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra,
and to Iconium, and to Antioch, confirming the souls of the
disciples.... And when they had appointed for them elders in every
church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on
whom they had believed” (Acts 14:21-23). From this we learn that
_elders_ were appointed _in every church_. That there were a plurality
of elders in every fully-developed church is abundantly proved by
historical testimony.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account