# "History of the Church of God"



## Gator_Baptist (Jun 16, 2009)

I just started reading this book called "The History of the Church of God" that was written by Hassell Sr, and completed by Hassell Jr. I am pretty sure that the Presbyterians would not like the book for certain reasons, but I was wondering what people on the board think of the book and I guess just Primitive Baptists in general. I just learned about the book and I at least know that Primitive Baptists are Calvinistic.

Do you think the book is a reliable source for the history of the church, and do you agree with it theologically? Also for those of you who know have the primitive baptists historically backed the reformed perspective?

History of the Church of God


----------



## galactic reformer (Jun 16, 2009)

> Twelve marks of the apostolic church: 1. A regenerate church membership—History of the unscriptural Catholic practice of infant baptism, the principle of which involves the horrible doctrine of the everlasting damnation of all unbaptized children who die in infancy. 2. The baptism (by which, of course, is meant the immersion-the word “baptism” means nothing else) of believers in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost—History of the unscriptural Roman Catholic substitute of sprinkling or pouring for baptism—



Two terrible assertions to start with.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 16, 2009)




----------



## A.J. (Jun 16, 2009)

Primitive Baptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Gator_Baptist (Jun 16, 2009)

The thing that I find interesting that the primitive baptists hold to is that Baptists aren't protestants since they cannot be traced back to Romanism. Therefore they claim that they have always existed in antiquity and never really reformed from Romanism, but actually coexisted throughout the history of the Catholic Church. The Baptists trace themselves back to the Anabaptists and the Waldenses, who cannot be traced back to Papary. If you think about it, their view would make a lot of sense if you think about autonomous structure of the Baptist church. It would be literally impossible to trace back independent congregations that had no sort of hierarchical structure. They also claim that baptists have the apostolic line of succession, but I think they just hold to the view of perpetuity and not to landmarkism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 16, 2009)

Why does this follow?


> It would be literally impossible to trace back independent congregations that had no sort of hierarchical structure.


Why would a church need a "hierarchy" to maintain a history? Even illiterate societies have maintained oral history, which in those cultures proved highly resilient. Anthropologists can explain the differences between an oral culture's mythologies and its history. They are different sets of stories.

But, supposedly we aren't even talking about illiterate people, but people with a Book, even the Bible.


And supposedly, this literate people, existing outside of Rome's "clutches" manage to perpetuate itself, having no records, just their enemies occasional slanders. Because Rome is "evil incarnate" and anyone they despise must be "virtuous"?

Human beings, who have a natural need to know where they came from and to pass heritage along to children, would not perpetuate their history to their children?

When even in the fires of Roman Empire persecution, the church maintained itself, kept its identity, and emerged intact--in possession of its own history?



Ultimately, this view is based on faith. Faith as pure in a "succession" as any papal or Eastern Orthodox version of "apostolic succession." The Baptist, James Renihan, has demonstrated the fallacious nature of this "historic" claim. He can be contacted through Westminster Seminary California.


----------



## Gator_Baptist (Jun 16, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Why does this follow?
> 
> 
> > It would be literally impossible to trace back independent congregations that had no sort of hierarchical structure.
> ...



The primitive baptists hold to the stance that the only thing that united the apostolic church was Christ, and the scriptures. There was no worldly authority that united them. This is what they believe. Here is an excerpt from the book that goes into more detail about it:



The History of the Church of God said:


> Especially does the language of Christ in Matthew 18:15-18 demonstrate that _the church is the highest and last ecclesiastical authority on earth_; that there can be no appeal, under the law of Christ, form the decision of the church to a presbytery, or synod, or general assembly, or conference, or convention, or priesthood, or prelacy, or papacy, or Association, or any other earthly authority. After a church has excluded one of it’s members, and classed him with the heathens and publicans, it is not only thoroughly unscriptural, but also thoroughly absurd, to suppose that any man or set of men can, by any exercise of authority, put back such an offender in the fellowship of that church. With true repentance, confession and reformation the fellowship will be restored; but without these exercises gospel fellowship can never be restored. Each gospel church is a separate and independent republic, having Christ as it’s only Head and Lawgiver, and not subject, in any ecclesiastical matters, to any outside jurisdiction; such, according to the ablest scholars and historians, was not only every apostolic church in the first century, but also of the second century (see works of Gibbon, Mosheim, Neander, Coleman, Whately, Burton, Barrow, Schaff, etc.). The church is repeatedly declared in the New Testament to be the body of Christ (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 6:15; 10:17; 12:27; Eph. 1:23; 4:12; 5:23,30; Col. 1:18,24; 2:17); the only Head therefore, of this body, is Christ, who guides and controls and preserves the church as His body. Hierarchies and synods are unscriptural, tyrannous usurpations, which have, through the ages, inflicted grievous wrongs upon the people. It is openly and proudly claimed by the advocates of these ecclesiastical monarchies and oligarchies that these systems are _the fruit and product of the greatest worldly experience and wisdom_; very few scholars, among these advocates, even pretend now to base these systems upon the New Testament. The apostolic church, or church of the first century, they say, was “a strictly supernatural organization, a stranger in this world, standing with one foot in eternity, and longing for the second coming of her heavenly bridegroom; but afterwards, finding that Christ did not come, she, in her new constitution, planted foot firmly upon earth, yet thus became secularized and finally Romanized, and this necessitated a reformation on the basis of apostolic Christianity.” Bible Baptists believe that, not only in the first, but also in every succeeding century, God has had on earth faithful, spiritual, unworldly, un-Romanized apostolic churches, each one of which, in it’s divinely established individuality and independence, has presented an insurmountable and indestructible breakwater against the countless tides of error, strife, and corruption setting in from every quarter; and all of which have been united by no mechanical, outward, worldly, usurping and oppressive bond of force, but by an inward, heavenly, spiritual, emancipating, purifying and elevating bond of Divine love and peace and fellowship, such as The Lord Jesus Christ, their Ever-Living, Unchangeable and Omnipotent Head, in the last solemn moments of His suffering earthly ministry, tenderly enjoined upon them and earnestly besought His Father to grant them (John 13:34-35; 15:12-13; 17:20-23). Born and taught by God, being one body, and having one Spirit, even as they are called in one hope of their calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in them all, they, not in word only, but in deed and in truth, love one another, and endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (John 1:13; 6:45; Eph. 4:1-6; 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 John 2:27; 3:14-18; 4:7-21). They have always corresponded with each other by brotherly letters and messages, and have from time to time met in a general or associational way, not to lord it over God’s heritage, but to worship God, and to edify, exhort and confirm one another in the most holy faith once delivered to the saints (Acts chap. 13-15; Phil. 2:25; Heb. 10:23-25; 12:22-29; 1 Peter 5:3-5; Jude 3:20). Scriptural Associations are only general meetings of churches, or brethren from different churches, for the purpose of Divine worship and mutual edification; and, while no church should, either in a private or general way, maintain fellowship with a church which persists in heresy or disorder, yet there is not a particle of New Testament or apostolic authority for any such general meeting assuming the functions of an individual church, such as admitting, disciplining, or excluding members of a church, or electing or disciplining church officers. It cannot be repeated too often that each gospel church is, according to Christ and His Apostles, the highest ecclesiastical authority on earth. While all gospel churches should always so live as to maintain peace and fellowship with each other, Christ nowhere in the New Testament gives the slightest authority for an organic union or consolidation of gospel churches. Such a union would be a fruitful source of corruption and oppression. The New Testament contains not a single example or intimation of the subordination of a church to any ecclesiastical authority outside of itself, whether popes, or diocesan bishops, or synods, or presbyteries, or general assemblies, or councils or associations, or conventions. The simple fact that the Apostles address their epistles, not to church officers or church judicatories, but to the churches of the called and faithful saints of God, proves both the right and responsibility of each church in respect to the management of it’s own affairs. The idea that the government of the apostolic church was presbyterial or by Elders, originated from the mistake of supposing that the Christian church was a copy of the Jewish synagogue. Bible scholars admit that neither synagogues nor the government of synagogues were of Divine institution, but that they began to be built and established after the Babylonian exile—after the close of the Old Testament canon. The only place in the Old Testament where the Authorized Version of the English Bible contains the word “synagogue” is Psalm 74:8; and the Hebrew word “_moed_” is here rendered by _Gesenius_ and the best commentators, “tabernacle of the congregation” —or “holy place” —there being no allusion whatever to any organized body of people or any method of government. Christ and His Apostles use not synagogue, but ekklesia, an essentially different governed body to denote a Christian church. Only once in the New Testament did the Greek word “synagogue” used even to denote the place of a Christian assembly, and then by the most Judaic writer in the New Testament, James (2:2). The numerous passages already cited which prove that the church, subject only to Christ, was to govern itself, disprove that elders were to govern it. Elders, bishops or pastors are to lead (_hegeomai_), oversee or preside over (_episkopeo_, _proistemi_), care for (_epimeeleomai_), and shepherd (_poimaino_) the flock (Heb. 13:7,17.24; Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 5:17; 3:5; John 21:15-17; 1 Peter 5:2) they are not to exercise the despotic authority of the Gentile and Jewish rulers (Mark 10:42-45—archon; compare Luke 8:41; 24:20; Acts 4:26), not to lord it (1 Peter 5:3—_katakurieuo_, exercise complete dominion over) God’s heritage. Even Christ Himself came not to ministered unto, but to minister (_diakoneo_, to serve: Mark 10:45); and His apostles are servants of the church for Jesus’ sake (2 Cor. 4:5). All His people are made by Him, kings and priest unto God (Rev. 1:5-6; 1 Peter 2:5,9); Christ alone is the High Priest of our profession (Heb. 3:1; 5:5-6)—He alone is the King of kings and Lord of lords. It would be disloyalty to Christ for any church to alienate from itself and delegate to any other persons or set of persons the rights and functions which Christ has committed to her; a gospel church can not have delegates, but may have messengers. But the sisterhood relationship of churches involve sisterhood obligations. They are all members of the same mystical body of Christ, permeated by the same Divine Spirit, and should be sweetly constrained by the same heavenly love to maintain the strict faith and order of the gospel, to have tender regards for one another’s feelings, and to keep the unity of The Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1-6). In temporal things each church is subject, and should be quietly submissive, to worldly powers (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-25); but in spiritual things each church is subject only to Christ (Matthew 23:8-12; 17:5; John 13:13-14).



Link

Now going under the primitive baptist assumption, if churches were truly this independent of each other, then how could the group collectively write its own history, when the congregations themselves were never collective but rather independent in respect to authorities of this world? The only way that history would be passed was from generation to generation, and this is what I believe the primitive baptists claim to this day.

Hierarchies on the other hand write their own history in a different fashion as history is dictated by authority to all of its member churches. It doesn't mean that it is wrong, it just means that the fashion is different, and so if the primitive baptist church is correct, then you would definitely see the hierarchy supporting itself with its history.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Human beings, who have a natural need to know where they came from and to pass heritage along to children, would not perpetuate their history to their children?
> 
> When even in the fires of Roman Empire persecution, the church maintained itself, kept its identity, and emerged intact--in possession of its own history?
> 
> ...



I am pretty sure that the primitive baptists take the stance that it is absolutely necessary for a church to exist in this day age that claims apostolic succession because otherwise the gates of hell prevailed against the church. They then claim that the true church can't have its roots in Romanism because then the gates of hell prevailed against the church. So they see it as absolutely necessary that churches or assemblies of believers existed alongside Rome during its reign of power and tyranny, and they of course believe that they claim apostolic succession, but I think that they recognize the reformed churches as true churches also.

So you are correct when you say that apostolic succession is based on faith. It is based on faith in the scriptures.

Now I am not sure whether I agree with the primitive baptists or not on this succession, but a friend of mine encouraged me to read the book, and I am finding it to be quite interesting.

I was just wondering if any reformed person had read it, so I could know what to expect.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 16, 2009)

OK, brother. Enjoy your reading. A person may not be a "landmarkist" and yet agree with just about everything else in their position except their being "the one true church". The position ends up being practically indistinguishable.

I would also commend to you Renihan's work (a staunch Baptist, and a keen historian),

probably anything on the subject by Michael Haykin (another A-plus Baptist historian),

and James McGoldrick's (not a Baptist) book, "Baptist Successionism," a review of which is found on this page (2nd review, scroll down) Founders Ministries | Book Reviews & Notices

As for the contrary view, Thomas Witherow's "The Apostolic Church, Which Is It?" http://books.google.com/books?id=yPgCAAAAQAAJ gives a succinct defense of a Presbyterian view, vs Prelacy or Independency.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jun 16, 2009)

McGoldrick was originally a Baptist and even held to a form of "Baptist Successionism" at one time, but rejected the belief after careful historical examination. The book is very good, but also fairly expensive.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 16, 2009)

If I remember correctly Primitive Baptist are very Hyper Calvinists. I have met some in my past and was not at all immused by them nor their understanding of scripture concerning evangelism or the body of Christ.

Tom Nettles also has some good books on the History of Baptists.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 16, 2009)

Gator, since you asked... The book is (nearly) worthless as a history of the church.

The lumping together of a ragbag assortment of heretics, and calling them "baptist" is not how church history is done.

This is Landmarkism of the worst sort.


----------



## Gator_Baptist (Jun 17, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> OK, brother. Enjoy your reading. A person may not be a "landmarkist" and yet agree with just about everything else in their position except their being "the one true church". The position ends up being practically indistinguishable.
> 
> I would also commend to you Renihan's work (a staunch Baptist, and a keen historian),
> 
> ...



Thank you very much. I'll check those out. Can they be found online or would you have to buy them?


----------



## Marrow Man (Jun 17, 2009)

Kevin said:


> The lumping together of a ragbag assortment of heretics, and calling them "baptist" is not how church history is done.



This is essentially what McGoldrick documents and concludes. The approach seems to be "see, this movement rejected infant baptism; they must have been Baptist!" Well, they also rejected the authority of Scripture and denied the deity of Christ, so I'm not sure we should be going there...


----------



## Gator_Baptist (Jun 17, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> If I remember correctly Primitive Baptist are very Hyper Calvinists. I have met some in my past and was not at all immused by them nor their understanding of scripture concerning evangelism or the body of Christ.
> 
> Tom Nettles also has some good books on the History of Baptists.



I believe they are. My friend takes the phrase "justified by the blood" from Romans 5, and says that faith in the gospel is not the means of grace but rather the blood of Jesus. I highly disagree with him, though.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jun 17, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> If I remember correctly Primitive Baptist are very Hyper Calvinists. I have met some in my past and was not at all immused by them nor their understanding of scripture concerning evangelism or the body of Christ.
> 
> Tom Nettles also has some good books on the History of Baptists.



Some are and some aren't. Some of the Primitive Churches in the hills around where I'm from are very Hardshell. Others are very evangelical. Since each church is basically autonomous it's hard to tell just what the doctrines of a particular church are. Primitive Baptists all hold to basicly similar core doctrines but beyond that it can become a mess.


----------



## galactic reformer (Jun 17, 2009)

IF, if the first, second and third century had baptists, where were they for the early councils? 

Let's think about this, historically. There were more than a dozen people...Apostles, disciples, etc., that "went out" into all the world. By 150AD we are fairly certain the seeds of Christianity had been spread as far away as Iran, India, ALL parts of Europe, Russia, much of Africa...even completely enveloping the Mediterranean. Yes, somehow, the only two histories we have are the "baptist persecuted" and the "romish persecutors"? Hardly. 

What does this say about the great comission? Did the Apostles fail to take Christianity to the world? The "only true church is a baptist lineage" notion does damage to this. The apostles went to many places, yet the "remnant", the true church was located in a very small amount of those "apostolic" churches. Christian history, wouldn't be, and the Apostles would mostly have failed. It's just a view that needs to go away.


----------

