Twelve Marks Of The Apostolic Church... The 1st Mark... Membership

[tyndale1946]

This is going to be a continuing twelve part series... Taken from Hassells History Of The Church Of God. We shall discuss each and every point individually and encourage all to participate. There are sure to be disagreements and others may see these twelve point somewhat different but that is ok as we are not here to examine each other but to examine biblical truths and that is our only goal... And to find that truth wherever it is.

The first mark of the Apostolic Church... The Apostolic Church consisted only of those person who had been convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, and who had given signs of repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

The first and chief mark of the Apostolic Church was a regenerated or converted membership, who had been born of The Spirit of God, who had a vital, revealed, experimental religion, who were quickened, the circumcised in heart, the new creation, saints, beloved of The Lord, children of God, the saved, added to the church by The Lord, the elect vessels of mercy, who worshipped God in The Spirit, living stones built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praises of Him who had called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.

This must be remembered and we will look into it further in the second mark of the Apostolic Church... Christ and not water baptism, is the only Savior of both infants and adults. He calls children not to the baptismal waters but to himself.

Another point in regard to that... The Old Covenant was natural and temporal; the New Covenant is personal and spiritual. "None were circumcised until they were naturally born; so none should be baptised until they are spiritually born... Brother Glen

& Sister Charlotte

For those of you who want to read and digest the whole twelve points... And follow along as these are just hightlights and the piece is out of a chapter from a book... Which is 58 pages long... Please feel free to do so we are in no hurry here and this should be a very interesting and enlightening study. The History Of The Church Of God by Sylvester Hassell can also be purchased if you would like to add this book to your library.

The following is the website... http://www.pbministries.org/History/S.%20Hassell/church_of_god_09.htm

[ April 11, 2003, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[Frogman]

I also believe this would be profitable. Here is an excerpt taken from the introduction to this particular chapter which I can say that I am in full agreement with:

The church of the first century forms the standard and example for the church of all future ages. Should there now exist on earth a body of professed Christians who occupy the same ground in faith and practice as that of the church of the first century, they are RIGHT; and if any should be found occupying a different position then they are WRONG. The true church of Christ and false or merely nominal churches are to be distinguished by a comparison with apostolic standard

It is the opening of the chapter, prior to the piece I have quoted here that I think is, if not a core issue, at least a very important one. Here is what Hassell has said:

church of the first century was a spiritual kingdom set up in the world by The Son of God in fulfillment of the Jewish economy

I disagree with the teaching that the church is an extension, or fulfillment of Israel. You guys may think this is irrelevant, yet it is this 'spiritualization' that brings us to the heart of the controversy as to whether the succession is 'spiritual' or 'practical' through the baptism.

Thus, because I do not believe the church is equated to Israel I disagree with statements such as the above and the one following:

It takes up its permanent abode with our fallen race, to transform it gradually, without war and bloodshed, by a quiet leaven-like process, into a kingdom of truth and righteousness.

The particular aspect I disagree with is that this {church} will usher in the Kingdom; rather I believe the Kingdom shall be brought in only at the return of the King, to believe the former over the latter is, to me, saying the King is in exile; who is able to exile the Christ of God?

Sorry about that if you read it and view it as a digression; however, I had to get this statement out in my initial post on a thread such as this in order that all may know how I approach the topic.

Now perhaps we can move on to the Characteristics of this church. Thanks for the topic, I for one am going to enjoy an in-depth study.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[tyndale1946]

I'm glad Brother Dallas added what he did... As I said this covers 58 pages in the book. If other want to add excepts from the chapter fine. If they would like to refer us to other sources that is fine also. I would also like us to stay on the topic at hand as there are twelve marks.

We are looking for truth here in the light of Jesus Christ... This is not only important but this is crucial. Not only do I agree that Christ set up a church and as scripture states that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There is a heavenly kingdom and there is an earthly kingdom... The church may be identified by name but that is not the criteria that identifies the Aposolic Church... The measuring rod that all is measured by is true doctrine... Sorry I made an error and only said doctrine... All churches have some form of doctrine but what we are looking for is true doctrine... Brother Glen

& Sister Charlotte

[ April 10, 2003, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[Frogman]

Thanks brother Glen, I wasn't trying to hijack the post. I will stick to the 12 marks, and I am glad you have opened it to other like sources.

I have a question, I hope you all will take as an honest one, because it is.

I fully agree with what you and Hassell assert to be marks of the apostolic church, as being primarily doctrine.

As Christ gave to the church he founded the ordinance of baptism, would it follow then that the baptism is as important as the doctrine?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[tyndale1946]

Okay now we are getting ahead of ourselves now... No fair... No peaking ... Brother Glen

& Sister Charlotte

 

[tyndale1946]

Brother Dallas is not baptism doctrine?... Or does it fall under practice?... Or is it something else entirely?... Brother Glen

& Sister Charlotte

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Glen,

I would call the baptism a doctrine. In a very true sense because Christ gave it to the church that it be taught. While at the same time it is practical as we are commanded to baptize those who believe. I think because of this that the true doctrine can be had without the proper baptism.

Does this explain anything about what I believe?

Hope so. It is for this reason that baptism is the means for entrance into the church.

My next post will look more at Hassell's work but this is why I feel there is a connection in the baptism; if we have lost this, then we have lost the baptism Christ set into the church and thus we are not fulfilling his command to us. I believe it is His words that give the authority for the perpetuity of the baptism. {If we have lost the baptism He submitted to, then we are not able to teach the full doctrine and any man has an authority to baptize, even to baptize himself...there are many more problems with this than there are with not being able to 'physically' trace the baptism.}

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

I also posted this under 'Close Communion' any further references to the study of Baptism will be brought here, I knew this thread was here, but forgot it sorry.

We must also be reminded that almost all early Baptists rejected a successionist view. John Smyth was one of these, as can be seen in his writings: “I deny all succession except in the truth” and “There is no succession in the outward church, but that all succession is from heaven.”[15]


Third, with his newfound position on baptism, a whole new concern arose for these “Baptists”. Having been baptized as infants, they all realized that they would have to be re-baptized. Since there was no other minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself and then proceeded to baptize his flock.

These quotes taken from A Primer on Baptist History The True Baptist Trail

In the first, John Smyth denies all successionism except spiritual succession; In the second it is shown that he baptized himself; The first quote is stated only in a defense of his baptism. This latter being administered by himself, it is not reminiscent of that which Christ received at the Jordan River from John, is it? Consider these other difficulties:


If Christ meant to change the Baptism of John into a 'Christian' baptism, why did he submit to John's Baptism?
If Baptism changed between this time and the time of the Acts of the Apostles, then why did Philip baptize the Ethiopian Eunich? It
is obvious that the Ethiopian could have baptized himself, even if Philip denied him baptism, right?
Ok, now look at Paul, why was Ananias sent to Baptize Paul, why did the Lord not say that the baptism had been changed since his ascension, and then command Paul to Bapitize himself?

These are much more difficult questions than the supposed lack of evidence for the succession of the baptism has ever been. In fact, it is the acceptance of a different baptism that has permitted such schism in the church and yet this is said of the view I hold. Truth causes little pain, except where it is refused.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ April 11, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

[Frogman]

The apostolic churches were Baptist Churches, because composed of baptized believers; and, even if no intervening links were discoverable, it would be absolutely certain that the churches of the Bible Baptist of the nineteenth century originated from, and are the only spiritual successors of, the apostolic churches. The learned Mosheim said of the Baptist of his day that “their origin was hidden in the remote depths of antiquity.” This was quite complimentary to them as coming from a Lutheran historian, of course, but not complimentary enough after all; for, although they originated in the remote depths of antiquity, their origin was not hidden at all. It was apparent and conspicuous as the noonday sun. Did that bright luminary of heaven cast his brilliant rays in the first century over Asia, Africa and Europe? So was the progress of these Primitive Baptist as clearly seen in, Palestine, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Mysia, Macedonia, Greece, Italy, and the islands of the Sea. Nay, verily they were not hidden, but were as a city set on a hill which could not be hid

This came from his second mark; Here Hassell seems to agree with me on baptism as being the distinctive mark; what do you think?

Bro. dallas

 

[tyndale1946]

I think we better start the second mark!... Brother Glen

& Sister Charlotte