Old Arguments About Instrumental Music
Ronald D. Gilbert

One of the most important questions concerning religion is where do we get our authority? Just because a practice has been in place for several years does not mean that it is authorized by the Bible. The Bible declares that we must have authority from God’s word in matters of religion (Col. 3:17; I Pet. 4:11).

The use of instrumental music in worship can be traced back to about 600 A.D. The use of instrumental music in worship however, cannot be traced back to the New Testament. The majority of denominations today use instrumental music in their worship. Those in the denominational world seem to use the same old false arguments attempting to justify their use of it in their worship. Faithful Christians also seem to use many of the same old arguments that have been tried and proven to defeat error by showing that there is no Bible authority for the use of instrumental music in worship today. In this article I will set forth some of those old arguments in support of instrumental music and refute them.

One old argument used in support of instrumental music in worship is “they used instrumental music in Old Testament worship.” I will agree that such was used in the Old Testament (II Chron. 29:25-28; I Chron 25:1, 3, 6; I Chron. 28:8; II Chron 7:1-6; Psa. 149:1, 3; Psa. 150:3). However, II Tim. 2:15 tells us we are to “rightly divide the word of truth.” Good Bible students understand the differences in the old law and the new. All men living today are under the New Testament (Gal. 3:19-25; Gal. 5:3-4; Col. 2:14). Under the old law they kept the sabbath, offered animal sacrifices, had a Levitical priesthood, the men made annual trips to Jerusalem and a host of other things that were peculiar to that law. If instrumental music is authorized today in worship just because it was used in the Old Testament then all the Old Testament items would also be authorized by that same logic.

A second old argument used by some attempting to justify instrumental music in worship is to say, “the Bible doesn’t say not to use it.” This group seeks to justify its use by the simple fact that it is not expressly forbidden in the Bible. Those in this camp simply fail to understand the principle of the silence of the Scriptures. This principle can be illustrated from Hebrews 7:14 “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” Notice that the argument in Hebrews 7:14 is that since there was no Bible authority for one from the tribe of Judah to be a priest after the Levitical order, and since Christ was from the tribe of Judah, He could not be a priest of the Levitical order. If the Hebrew writer had used the reasoning of many today concerning the use of instrumental music in worship he would have said, “Since God nowhere specifically said that no one from the tribe of Judah cannot be a Levitical priest, then the Bible says they can.” Also think about Noah and the ark. God said for Noah to use gopher wood. Would it follow that since God did not say “thou shalt not use pine” that Noah would have been obedient to God had he used pine? What about the Lord’s Supper? The Bible nowhere says “thou shalt not use coke and pizza on the Lord’s table.” Does silence mean that pizza and coke are authorized? No, it does not! We should all remember the Bible authorizes by what it says, not by what it does not say.

A third argument used by some is to say “Instrumental music will be in heaven.” This argument is taken from a misunderstanding of Rev. 14:1-3. When we read this passage we find John said he heard a voice “as” the voice of many waters, great thunder and harpers harping with their harps. John heard “voices” that sounded like those things mentioned. If the presence or absence of something in heaven authorizes or excludes today on earth consider Matthew 22:30 where our Lord said, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Would this passage prove that marriage today is wrong? No!

A fourth old argument is for those who use instrumental music to attempt to justify it based on the statement “we like it.” They may say we get a real blessing from it, or perhaps they say people like it so much many times when we have good musicians perform we draw large crowds. This argument sounds like the people in the book of Judges “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” If the statement “we like it” authorizes instrumental music in worship then anything and everything that men like would be authorized in worship.

These and other old arguments have been around for years, however, they fail in showing that instrumental music is authorized in worship. People may like it and they may use it but the New Testament does not authorize its use in worship. We must follow only the Bible as our pattern and it teaches us to teach and admonish in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. When we do this we obey God.

Editorial

We are living in a time of new gadgets and things. Punch a button and this pops out and pull that and this takes place. The invention of computers has almost revolutionized the world. A new thing is the name of the game these days.

Has the religious world changed very much? Do we have new doctrines today? Do we have new arguments to be made for sound doctrine? Are there new arguments to be made for unsound doctrine? We here, stand and affirm that basically and fundamentally there are no new doctrines and no new arguments to be made either against the Bible or for the Bible. It is the same old, seven and six that we have heard through the years.

The Abilene Christian University crowd has no new arguments for their false positions. What they have, they got from some denominational PhD or read from some philosophical outfit that is as far from the truth as a goose’s nest is from the North Pole. The same is true for all the other universities of churches of Christ that have departed from the faith of the Bible. These folks running around with their chests stuck out and their heads as big as wash tubs talking about their originality, need to understand that there are others who have read and studied some. I have said, and continue to say, if a theologian of our day had an original thought, it would burst his thick skull wide open.

And what about the old arguments answering the supposed new arguments made for instrumental music in worship to God, premillenialism, saved before and without water baptism, saved people in denominationalism, and the list goes on? The old, sound arguments are just as good today to answer false doctrine as they have always been. They stood the test then and they will stand the test today. An older gospel preacher was talking to his son who was making a preacher, about instrumental music in worship. The son told his dad, “I have heard all of those old arguments that you are making and they do not impress me one bit.” When his dad told me about this talk I thought to myself that it is hard to impress concrete and foolishness. The question is not have we heard the old arguments, but can we answer them?

Just because a thing is old does not mean it is no good and needs to be rejected. The sunshine is old, do we need to reject it? The water is old, do we need to reject it? The air is old, do we need to reject it? Our lungs are old in origin, do we need to reject them? Our physical heart is old when it comes to creation, do we need to reject it? Old does not mean a thing is necessarily bad and must be rejected. What really matters is truth (John 8:32).

An exhortation is keep on preaching the truth, brother. Keep on standing for the truth, brother. By all means, don’t let these chiding, ridiculing, babbling, so-called scholars, intimidate you. The Bible is just as sufficient today as it always has been (II Tim. 3:16-17). I do not know about you, but I plan to study, obey, and use mine and when the end comes, heaven will be there.
—Malcolm L. Hill

Old Arguments About Water Baptism
Glenn B. Ramsey

The Scripture teaches us, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” (I Pet. 3:15). Any proper answer to a proper religious question requires that the truth of the Word of God, and the true principles of that word be applied. The subject of “water baptism” has been a point of discussion and disagreement among religious people for as long as anyone now living can remember. We will look at some of the errors of denominations concerning water baptism, and the arguments of truth that have stood the test of time in meeting these errors.

1. “We are saved by the blood of Jesus. We cannot be saved by the blood of Jesus and baptism also.” This is a frequently heard argument. The first failure of this argument is the untruth of its main emphasis. This argument assumes that the salvation by the blood of Christ excludes the necessity of water baptism. It does not. We are saved by the blood of Jesus. We are also saved by baptism. Peter said, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” (I Pet. 3:21). It is evident that we are saved by the blood of Jesus when we contact that blood. It is obvious that we contact that blood when we are baptized into Jesus’ death, the place where the blood was shed! (See Romans 6:1-5).
2. “What about the person who is on his way to be baptized and an unfortunate event occurs and he dies before he gets to the water and before he is immersed? This person had intentions to be baptized, but dies before he could. God will not hold him accountable.” This argument is like the “desert argument” or the “battlefield argument.” The assumption (false assumption) is that circumstances dictate the requirements! This may be true of men, but it has never been true of God! The obvious truth is that if a man leaves this world without obeying the commands of God he leaves a man whose soul is lost! We will be judged by what we did in the body (II Cor. 5:10). Here is a question to the denominational person who asks this question. “What if a man and a woman are to be married. They set the time and the place. All is ready. However, the man is killed in an auto accident on his way to the marriage place. Was he the husband of that woman? Will she be heir to his property?” When this question is answered then the question about receiving salvation before obeying God will also be answered.
3. “The word “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of.” So we know that one is baptized “because his sins have already been forgiven.” Any who make this argument demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the text. The same word that is translated “for” in Acts 2:38 is translated “for” in Matthew 26:28. The word in each place means “in order to” and looks forward. If one is baptized because his sins have already been remitted, then Jesus shed His blood because the sins of mankind had already been remitted! There is a word translated “for” in the English Bible that means “because of” but that word is not in Acts 2:38, or Matthew 26:28.
4. “Baptism is just an outward sign of an inward grace. One is baptized in order to get into the church, not for salvation.” This argument means that more is required to get into some churches than is required to be saved from sins. Denominational preachers do not like for this statement to be made, but it is true anyhow! The New Testament teaches that after one is baptized into Christ (has put Him on) he is then added to the church, by the Lord Himself (Acts 2:36-47). As a matter of fact the only way the Scriptures teach that one can get “into” Christ is to be baptized “into” Him. One believes ON Christ; one repents of sins; one confesses faith in Christ, and one is baptized “into” Christ, which means one is baptized into Jesus’ body which is the church of Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; I Cor. 12:13).

Friends, the truth of God is “old”. All arguments in defense of the faith must be as “old” as the book of God! The “old arguments” still work – to those who believe the Bible.

Premillennialism and Animal Sacrifices
Kerry Duke

The doctrine of a literal thousand year reign of Christ on the earth calls for the restoration of the nation of Israel as it was in the Old Testament. This means the restitution of the religion of Israel as taught in the law of Moses. Premillennial teachers say that the tabernacle will be rebuilt and used during the thousand year reign. But this doctrine has an incredible consequence these teachers are now admitting – that Israelite priests will offer animal sacrifices for a thousand years under Jesus’ supervision!

John Walvoord’s book The Millennial Kingdom is called “a basic text in premillennial theology.” He says there are many teachers of premillennialism who believe that animal sacrifices will be offered as “a memorial looking back to the one offering of Christ” somewhat like the Lord’s Supper (p. 312). He argues, “If such sacrifices were fitting in the mind of God to be the shadows of the cross of Christ, what more fitting memorial could be chosen if a memorial is desired for that same sacrifice?” (p. 315).

Another premillennial spokesman, Charle C. Ryrie, addressed this issue in an article entitled, “Why Sacrifices in the Millennium?” (The Emmaus Journal, Winter, 2002, pp. 299-310). Ryrie says these offerings will serve three purposes. One of these purposes is to provide atonement: “Jesus will be reigning visibly as Head of the theocracy, so that not only will violaters of His government be atoned for by offerings, but the righteous functioning of that government will involve sacrifices.” These sacrifices will also “point to the Messiah, not as coming in the future, but as then reigning on His throne.” Finally, offerings at the tabernacle will give believers a way to “show fruit” during the millennium.

John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, is not waiting around for the millennium before it begins observing Old Testament feasts. On September 24-26, 2004, the Cornerstone Church celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles! Their reasoning was that “it is important that we understand the feasts and how they apply to the believer” (JH Magazine, Nov/Dec 2004). The magazine also pictures a Jewish rabbi with this announcement: “Pastor Hagee, Cornerstone Church and the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston cordially invite you to a night of solidarity between Christians and Jews, with music performed by the Cornerstone Concert Choir and Orchestra honoring the nation of Israel and Jewish people of the world.” People who think premillennialism is just a harmless teaching that results from unimportant differences in interpretation need to take a look at Hagee’s church. This group shows what happens when people take this doctrine seriously. They honor people who consider Jesus Christ a liar and revert to a religion Jesus died to abolish!

Do people who believe in a rapture and a thousand year reign of Christ on earth understand the consequences of their doctrine? Do they realize that if premillennialism is true, animal sacrifices will be offered to God with His approval for a thousand years?

This doctrine is an insult to the blood of Christ. Jesus offered Himself on the cross as the perfect and final sacrifice. He died to put an end to animal sacrifices -- not to postpone them. For all their talk about the future, premillennialists are actually going back to the past. Jesus nailed the old law to the cross (Col. 2:14). But this doctrine says He will put this law into force again. Jesus offered “one sacrifice for sins for ever” (Heb. 10:12). But premillennialism says the blood of bulls and goats, which can never take away sins (Heb. 10:4), will have a comeback. Since we have real remission of sins by the blood of Christ, “there is no more offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18). But this theology says that Israelites at Jesus’ command will offer animal sacrifices, including the sin offerings the law of Moses required!

Premillennialism demotes Jesus from being High Priest because the priests under Moses’ law had to descend from Levi and Jesus was from Judah (Heb. 7:13-14). Premillennialism makes the New Testament into a temporary law for Jews who don’t accept it anyway, while the Bible says it is “the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20). Premillennialism says the nation of Israel under Christ during the millennium with all of its Mosaic observances is the ultimate fulfillment of the Scriptures on earth. But the Bible says that the law was a schoolmaster or guardian (Gal. 3:24-25) that contained shadows that pointed to their fulfillment in Christ and the church.

There is one other point. Progressive preachers in the church of Christ say we have been too hard against premillennialism. They insist that the New Testament is not a book of rules and patterns. Do they believe animal sacrifices are sinful today? Would they allow animal sacrifices in their worship? Will they join John Hagee and observe Old Testament Jewish feasts? We will see.

Old Arguments About Religious Division
David Hill

The philosopher Hegel observed, “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” This seemingly is true in general in the world and in the church as well. The battles fought in days gone by seem to have no value with some today. One of those areas forgotten is religious division. In a world of politically correct speech, unity talk is more acceptable than the reality of factual division. An example is the references to Islam both in the media and among religious people who claim to be Christians. Commentators and Americans both want to represent the Islamic people as saved, acceptable and peaceable when they worship a different God, they reject Jesus Christ as being Lord, and their history has been one of violence to this very day. Unity? No, the speech sounds good and perhaps make some feel good, but the evidence is contrary to the words spoken and people love to have it so. This is the age-old problem in the religious world and now a problem in the church. The fact is religious division exists and basically the same old arguments are still being used to try and excuse it.

One phrase used a lot in recent years by liberal youth leaders has been “we are trying to reach the unchurched.” Let them define unchurched and you will find that they are not referring to those individuals in denominationalism, because they are churched. Listen to what they say, watch the pattern of their fellowship and you will see the facts declare that they believe denominational folks are saved. That is nothing more than the age-old belief of days gone by, the belief that we all are saved by traveling different paths. It’s alive and growing in the church of Christ. In the last century great debates were held refuting this false doctrine, and the Lord’s church grew rapidly as a result. Men like the late G. K. Wallace pointed out that the Bible teaches one faith, one baptism, one body (Eph. 4:3-6). This made the message clear and the distinct marks of the Lord’s church visible to the good and honest individual.

And then, there are some among us who are very openly exchanging pulpits with denominational preachers, inviting denominationalists to participate in lectureships, etc. Their argument? The same as above, “we’re all tying to get to the same place, we’re just at different places along our spiritual journey.” This has been the argument in the church recently about mechanical instruments of music in worship. When one opposes it for lack of Bible authority, that person is met with a condescending “we’re not at the same place spiritually, and I (one using instrumental music) would not want to offend you,” implying that the one willing to go beyond God’s authority in worship is more spiritual! It is sad but true, and this is happening all over the country even around the world in churches of Christ. Is it a new thing? No. Just as Solomon of old observed there is nothing new under the sun. These false arguments have the same old lack of respect for God’s divine authority. If one can change one part of worship what is to keep him/her from changing two, three or every part? When one moves outside of the authority of the Bible there is nothing to keep individuals from changing everything if they choose and then what is right or wrong?

The contradictory “unity in diversity” movement in the church of the past two decades is nothing more than old denominationalism. In the long ago, Amos’ rhetorical question answers this issue, “can two walk together except they be agreed” (Amos 3:3)? The obvious answer is certainly not. The statement itself is self contradictory – unity in division? The apostles pleaded that we all “speak the same things,” that there be “no division” among us, that we be of the same mind and judgment (I Cor. 1:10). How much diversity is allowed? Absolutely none when God has clearly commanded in matters of faith or salvation issues. Some today try their best to muddy the water by throwing salvation issues in with matters of opinion. They will put songbooks in with instruments of music in worship, passivism, men/women wearing jewelry and women leading in worship asking will we divide over these things? These things are not equal, but the false brethren would seek to confuse individuals by mixing them altogether. Is that a surprise? The devil is the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33).

What is the answer? Study (II Tim. 2:15), study church history and learn from mistakes of history and grow thereby. The closer you look at the issues facing us today the more you’ll realize that they are not new at all, just a new group of people changing a word or two here and there. Break their arguments down and examine them, look for the conclusion to the argument, see where it leads. You’ll be a better and stronger Christian.

Religious division is not permitted in faithful service to the Lord Jesus Christ. As we sing “there is just one way to the pearly gates.” May God help us to meet there through true unity someday.

Who Is A Calvinist?
Mac Deaver

John Calvin (1509-1564) was a French reformer, a man of serious study and great influence. He was a man of intellectual ability and courage who joined himself to the reformation cause.

All gospel preachers share some views with John Calvin. When a Christian today accuses a brother or sister in Christ of being a “Calvinist,” he should be prepared to say exactly what the agreement is between the accused and John Calvin that deserves the criticism. I am not a Calvinist because I believe some things that he also believed. I am a Calvinist if, and only if, I adopt those views of his that are not Bible views which views are peculiar to him or first advanced by him which are not taught in the Scriptures.

Most of us preachers were taught to summarize Calvinism by five fundamental positions. Mead writes of Calvin, “His system has been summarized in 5 main points: human impotence, unconditional predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and final perseverance: (Frank Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, p. 174). We usually say: (1) total depravity, (2) unconditional election, (3) limited atonement, (4) irresistible grace, and (5) perseverance of the saints.

Let us take them one at a time. Total depravity is an awful unbiblical concept that involved the alleged fact that all men are born hereditarily totally depraved. Babies are born in a horrible condition. Many years ago several of us gospel preachers were involved in a meeting with some Lutheran preachers in Burkburnett, Texas. One of the Lutherans told us that he had seen signs of his own baby’s depraved condition. When asked what it was, he responded that the indication was the baby’s crying. Well, what does a baby’s crying indicate? He said it meant that the baby wanted something for himself! That was the alleged proof of the alleged claim that the baby was depraved. The crying indicated the baby’s selfish condition. Believe it who can! I do not know of any member of the church who believes in total depravity. I can read in the writings of some of our religious forbears the thought that while we are not born depraved, each of us has inherited a “fallen” nature. That point does invite further study, but no Christian believes in the total depravity doctrine of Calvinism that renders the man helpless and completely incapable of doing something about his salvation. The Catholic Augustine (354-430-A.D. – long before John Calvin’s time) had taken the view that in the fall of Adam mankind has lost the freedom to choose good. Now our choices are limited to choosing among wrong possibilities or if right possibilities are selected, men still lack the power to do good (Samuel Stumpf, Philosophy: History and Problems, p. 153). Not all wrong concepts which existed within Catholicism were discarded by the reformers. I do not believe in hereditary total depravity though I must admit that the behavior of some of the preachers among us is far from what the gospel requires.

The second concept is that of unconditional election. Of course this was based on the mistaken idea that man was now helpless to do anything about his salvation. He must be passive, waiting on God to perform a miracle on him and change his nature. The divine election of any given person has nothing to do with any condition imposed on any human creature. It has nothing to do with the character or desire of that person or of that person’s meeting any divinely imposed condition. God must grant the sinner repentance so he could then come to faith. Man could not start the process, nor maintain it, nor stop it. He is a powerless sinner at God’s disposal. If God willed the man’s salvation, that was right. If God willed the man’s damnation, that was right, too. It was all God doing it unconditionally. The election of some and the damnation of others is simply an expression of the divine sovereign will. No one is in position to prevent it or to even rightly question it. The New Testament does not teach the Calvinistic notion of man’s helpless nature, and it certainly predicates salvation upon man’s right response to God.

The third Calvinistic idea is that of limited atonement. This is the notion that Christ died only for those who would be saved. He did not die, according to this concept, for everyone. A denominational preacher once told me in my study years ago in Mansfield, Texas, that Jesus did not die for everyone. Well, then why, oh why, does the Bible plainly state that he did? According to Hebrews 2:9 Jesus tasted death for every man. No man was left out. Furthermore, verse 10 shows that not all would be saved. Most would not come to glory (cf. Matt. 7:13, 14), but God wanted to bring “many sons unto glory.” Too, in John 3:16 we learn that God so loved the world that he gave Jesus. Could anyone rightly conclude that Jesus died for a group smaller than the group that God loved? I do not subscribe to limited atonement. I subscribe to limited attainment!

The fourth idea is that of irresistible grace. That is, if a man is a part of God’s elect, he cannot prevent God from saving him. Imagine the idea: A person could not prevent his salvation even if he wanted to do so. The idea means that human salvation has nothing to do with human character, human will, human cooperation, human desire. Salvation is forced on one. It has nothing to do with the biblical concept of conversion but with the idea of divine coercion. The New Testament teaches on the other hand, that man is to search for God (Acts 17:27), find the truth (Jno. 8:31, 32; Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:13), and obey the truth (Heb. 5:8, 9; Gal. 5:7). He can resist effort, divine or human, in his behalf. God wants all to be saved (II Pet. 3:9; I Tim. 2:4), but forces salvation on none.

The fifth fundamental feature involved in Calvinism is that of the perseverance of the saints. That is, since human nature is totally corrupt, and since God is the one who must miraculously save a person if the person is a part of the elect, then that person cannot ever lose the effect of that divine miraculous intervention. He is saved forever. Nothing that he could possibly do in the future could detract from what has already occurred. If he is a part of the elect, nothing can terminate that condition. The elect cannot become the non-elect. Never! Of course, the New Testament teaches that a man once saved can yet fall back into sin. Simon did (Acts 8:18-24), Demas did (II Tim. 4:9), Hymenaeus and Philetus did (II Tim. 2:16-18), some in the churches of Galatia did (Gal. 5:4). The various warnings given indicate the real possibility of falling from grace (Heb. 3:18, 19; 4:1, Rev. 1:10). And the call to repentance extended to Christians shows that Christians can still lose their souls (Rev. 2:5, 16, 20-23; 3:3, 19).

One final point. The New Testament teaches that the salvation of a human being is a cooperative effort between God and man since it is by persuasion and conversion. There are things that only God can do, has done, and is doing. There are things that only man can do in his own behalf. But the terms of pardon are God’s. I must submit. There are passages that discuss salvation from the viewpoint of God’s effort (Phil. 1:6), and there are passages that discuss it from the viewpoint of man’s (Phil. 2:12). And there are passages that clearly show that the efforts must be combined (Phil. 2:13; Gal. 5:23). Notice that in the last two passages, God wills and works through saints and what the Spirit calls “self-control” is a fruit of the Spirit. If it is “self” control, it is my control, and yet it is Spirit produced! Indeed, God wills and works through saints. At no time does a saint lose his freedom to renounce or rebel; but that incapacity does not argue against divine help freely desired and accessed. In the days of the miraculous the spirits of the prophets were still subject to the prophets (I Cor. 14:32). Today is the day of the non-miraculous. Though every Christian has turned his will over to God (he is a servant - “doulos”), he never forfeits the capacity to leave God. He may lessen the strength of the temptation (James 4:8), but God will not crush his free will though changing it. Surely God strengthens us in our resolves to be more faithful. God’s help is neither so meager as to be ineffectual nor so mighty as to be overpowering. It fits perfectly what he knows I need while he knows that I still need the capacity to remain accountable to him. If I lose the freedom to resist by divine “takeover”, I lose accountability. A doulos is not an automoton

One Man Eldership?
Malcolm Hill

For many years I have heard of some brethren who believed and taught that one man could serve in the elderhsip alone. Here is what we are saying. Suppose there are two men in the eldership and one of them dies then the other man can carry on the eldership by himself. The argument against such an arrangement was and still is that the Bible always talks about elders, plural, therefore one man cannot serve in the eldership. But if this argument is solid and sound then the same argument can be made for the deacons. Everytime the deacons are mentioned in the Bible it is always in the plural and not in the singular. Must we therefore have a plurality of deacons (two or more) before we can have the deaconship?

The Bible is more specific than the plurality argument. The Bible teaches in another way that there must be a plurality of elders (two or more) in order for the church to be scriptural with reference to more than one elder in the eldership. In Hebrews 13:17 the Bible says, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” Please notice that the Bible teaches we are to be subject to the eldership. Now if one man can serve in the eldership alone (by himself), then how can he be subject to himself? You see, elders are to be subject to the total eldership themselves. This is one reason that one qualification is “not self-willed” (Tit. 1:7).

We believe that Hebrews 13:17 is very specific in teaching that the eldership must be composed of a plurality of qualified elders. One man cannot make up the eldership and be scriptural in so doing. With this in mind, notice the passages that nail this down. Elders were to be appointed in every church or congregation (Acts 14:23). Elders were to oversee the work of the church (Acts 20:28). They were to take heed to themselves (Acts 20:28). Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17). Notice the plurality in Hebrews 13:17. “Obey them” and “they watch for your souls” and “as they that must give an account” and “that they may do so with joy”. The sick were to call for the elders (James 5:14). Peter exhorted the elders (I Pet. 5:1). Peter was “an elder” not “the elder” (I Pet. 5:1). Elders are not to be lords over the church (I Pet. 5:3). Peter told the elders – “ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (I Pet. 5:4). The “ye” is plural.”

It is amazing how much Bible ignorance can be accumulated in a lifetime and sometimes less than a lifetime. “Study to shew theyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Tim. 2:15).