Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 10

Characteristic marks of the apostolic church 1/12

The apostolic church consisted only of persons that have been convicted by the Holy Spirit of their sins and have repented their lives to follow God’s will. --Hassell

The first mark of the apostolic church describes membership qualification, because the quickest way to destroy a church is to fail to keep the walls and boundaries that God has given for his kingdom.

Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following. Psalms 48:12-13

The bliss and peace we hope for in the immortal glory of heaven is possible only because God does not allow any trace of sin there. He has also given his church a kingdom in this world where we may enjoy a measure of bliss and peace as the earnest of our inheritance, because there are defensive measures (towers, bulwarks) he has placed in it to limit the destruction of sin. He has given a command of repentance and baptism for all those who desire to live in that peace.

This mark is proved by showing first the necessity of baptism before becoming a member of the church, and secondly by showing the pre-requisites for baptism. Notice in Acts 2, below, that there was conviction and repentance before baptism, then as a result they were added to and continued in the fellowship of the apostolic church.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:37-42

Now I give a long quote on baptism being the initiation into the church from Lemuel’s Potter’s synopsis of Close Communion, in which he is quoting an unnamed learned writer.

“The principal and most comprehensive design of this ordinance appears, from the scriptures, to be a solemn public and practical profession of Christianity.  Thus Paul sums up the baptism of John, Acts 19:4, ‘John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ!’  And thus he describes his own Gal. 3:27.  ‘As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.’ To the same purpose are the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost: ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ.’ Hence also a rejection of baptism is by our Lord called a rejection of the counsel of God, that is, of Christianity.  Luke 7:30. And the reception of baptism is represented as the act by which we justify God; that is, practically approve his method of salvation by faith in the Messiah.  Luke 7:29. Hence, whatever may be said of baptism as it is now generally understood and practiced, and of the personal religion of those who practice it, it is certain that it was originally appointed to be the boundary of visible Christianity.  But this general design of baptism comprehends many particulars.  Christianity consists partly of truths to be believed, partly of precepts to be obeyed and partly of promises to be hoped for, and this, its initiatory ordinance, is rich in significancy in relation to them all.  We are taught to regard it: 1. As a solemn profession of our faith in the Trinity, and particularly of our adoption by the Father, of our union to the Son, of our sanctification by the spirit.  2.   As a public pledge of the renunciation of sins.  3.   As the expression of our hope of a future and glorious resurrection.  4.   As a visible bond of union among Christians.”

This shows why I resist extremes in denying baptismal regeneration. I think some evangelicals go too far by making baptism merely a symbol of something that has already happened. While baptism doesn’t make Christ’s baptism on the cross effectual for the subject, it is a pledge that publicly admits him into Christ’s kingdom on earth and is a requirement before admittance to the Lord’s supper. Baptism has real consequences so it’s not merely a symbol.

No one denies that faith and willingness are taught for adult candidates for baptism. This mark is against mainly pedobaptism. There is no infant baptism mentioned in scripture. There are a couple cases where it refers to baptism of entire households which is sometimes given as an example of infant baptism. Given the clear pattern showing belief and repentance required prior to baptism, reference to a household doesn’t provide any reason to abandon the pattern. Even if there were infants present in the household, the term “all that were in his house” would be understood to mean all that it applies to. For example, if I went to a man’s house to register him to vote and said that I registered his whole family, you would naturally understand without confusion that I meant all those who were of a voting age and not the infants.

We don’t find any clear teachings of infant baptism in history until the middle of the third century. That’s two hundred years too late to be apostolic. Even then, it doesn’t appear to be in general use within the catholic church until the fifth century (Hassell p. 271). Catholics justify it based on the authority of the church to make changes like that. However, that isn’t applying principles from Christ’s teachings to new and evolving circumstances; that’s changing the definitional boundary of the church as taught and practiced by the apostles. A clean break.

Some say Ireneus taught infant baptism, but the quote is only teaching infant regeneration/salvation which Primitive Baptists believe. Baptismal (water) regeneration must be presupposed to interpret Ireneus to teach infant baptism. He doesn’t mention water here, but that infants are born again through Christ. Tertullian wrote in the early third century, c. 200 A.D. that baptism of children should be delayed until they can demonstrate a full understanding of the seriousness of the rite. Some say that means that the practice of infant baptism was in practice at the time for him to be writing against it. But all that he was arguing against is baptizing little children for merely being able to answer some basic questions or recite some creed. He was just concerned that they were baptizing children too hastily. There may be other quotes from Church fathers, but there is no clear evidence they were referring to physical water baptism or that the children were too young to be conscious or consensual. 

Baptizing infants seems to be introduced under the pretext that water was required to be born again and fit for heaven. This is against the teaching of Christ in John 3 regarding spiritual birth that it is like the wind in that it blows wherever it will and we can’t tell from whence it comes and where it goes. Water baptism obviously depends on the will of man and it is given for everyone to see. However, the fear of what might happen to their babies without baptism evidently drove the first practice of pedobaptism. 

A consistent view of the church as the enjoyment of the kingdom on earth would not lead anyone to fear someone dying without water baptism. So, we infer that sacramentalism preceded infant baptism. That is to say that the ordinances of the church were seen to be channels of divine grace that allowed people to live in heaven when they die—sacraments. This is a fundamental, definitionally different way of viewing what the church is. The apostles taught salvation by grace without works; that our eternal heavenly inheritance is based on the covenant faithfulness of God alone. This means that participation in the rituals of the church is for our understanding and fellowship here in this fallen world and are not doors into heaven after death.

Very often in reading history, we will see groups of people called Anabaptists. This is not one particular people, nor did they all believe the same things nor worship the same way. Anabaptist is a blanket term referring literally to one who rebaptizes. It’s not a name they would call themselves, but it was given to them by people who resent the practice. Anabaptists held that getting an infant wet didn’t constitute baptism and this infuriated all the pedobaptists—especially to the extent they believed anabaptists were denying their dying children an escape from hell or purgatory. Pedobaptists love to quote our Savior saying, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Ironically, it is the doctrine of sacramentalism or baptismal regeneration that denies that little children have access to heaven if they haven’t been washed in water. Primitive Baptists believe this scripture shows that deceased infants shall all be gathered to the Lord, and forbids anyone teach that heaven is denied to anyone for lack of water baptism. I think by an by the practice just became a tradition and doesn’t necessarily imply infant damnation today, but in reading the earliest discussions about infant baptism, there is a strong reference to the danger of one dying without water baptism or the vital cleansing received from the holy water.

Protestants obviously can’t justify infant baptism from church authority because they hold to the principle of sola scriptura. Therefore, they teach a complex doctrine that ties baptism to a continuation of the practice of circumcision. This doctrine is necessary to them because they were unwilling to share in the reproach of the Anabaptists and submit to their baptism. They liked the idea that people could be coerced into the church against their will and didn’t want to stray too far from the practice they were raised in but needed a new scriptural argument to sustain it. I believe the scripture’s plain teaching of baptism is simple enough and don’t have a problem identifying with those hated anabaptists who preserved the tradition against violent opposition from the Catholic church. So, consider the following simple arguments instead of a complete analysis of that doctrine. 

• If baptism is to be understood as a continuation of circumcision in some way, then Acts 15 would be the perfect place to find that explained.
• Circumcision applied only to males, but baptism is given to male and female.
• There is a similarity in that circumcision was the formal entry into the Old Covenant and baptism is the formal entry into the New Covenant. The covenants are different so the qualifications to enter it are also different.
• Interest in the Old Covenant was based on one’s genealogy, so natural birth to the right parents qualified those for entry into that church. Interest in the New Covenant is based on having God’s law put into our mind and written in our hearts by God, so spiritual birth is a prerequisite to water baptism. Heb 8, John 3:3.
• The Old Covenant also encompassed a natural inheritance and civil laws, so everyone in the nation was subject to it. The kingdom Christ established is not of this world, it is spiritual, so those without spiritual life are not subject to this kingdom. John 18:36, Rom 8:7, 1Cor 2:14.

I will not exhaust this subject, nor do I think the above arguments haven’t already been dealt with to the satisfaction of pedobaptists. My primary aim is to identify the apostolic church as a church that did not extend membership based on natural birth or on the faith of others in their behalf. I also tried to emphasize how fundamentally the practice of infant baptism changes the nature and identity of the church. It goes from being the fellowship of the subjects of Christ the King who have been born of his Spirit, to a channel of grace that offers to all of mankind to mediate the redemption purchased by the blood of Christ and make them children of God. The first and most important mark of the church is a regenerated and converted membership.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 9

 Sylvester Hassell wrote a comprehensive history of the Primitive Baptists. Published in 1886, it is still the definitive church history for us today. Chapter IX of that work is called the Characteristics of the Apostolic Church. The first eight chapters of the history covers the time from creation to the end of the first century or the death of the apostle John. The story over these years is told by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and the apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ endued with unique and special powers by the Holy Ghost sealing their authority to teach and write scripture. Tracing the history of this church after bible times requires judgment about who kept the identity of the Lord's church when splits happened.

Elder Hassell wrote this ninth chapter because it is the whole key to the argument for Primitive Baptist succession of baptism and identity as the Lord’s church. He states very clearly that the standard for who is the true church is the apostolic church. The church described by the Apostles in scripture is true and correct. Nothing that is opposed to the apostolic doctrine and practice is correct. He gives twelve identifying marks, or characteristics, that are taught in scripture and are useful for identifying the true church in every successive generation.

Based on the promises of God, principally given in Dan 2:44 and Mat 16:18, we believe that the kingdom identified by the teaching of Christ and his apostles is still in existence today, has always been in existence since the day of John the Baptist (Luke 16:16), and will be preserved by God for those exercising biblical church discipline. We cannot go to history to prove the continued existence of the church if we don’t already believe it by the promise of God. Uninspired, extra-biblical history is valuable and interesting, but it is secondary to scripture.

The data from history is woefully incomplete compared to all the people and events that took place over time. This makes tracing the identity of the church through history comparable to watching a train. We may see it start off from the station and then it may enter a tunnel and be hid from our sight for long stretches of time. But when it emerges out of the tunnel here or there, we wouldn’t doubt that it survived in an uninterrupted succession from trestle to trestle, even though we couldn’t prove it by our sight. In other words, we don’t get our belief in church perpetuity from reading history, rather we bring it into our reading of history.

By taking a clear stand that we aren’t protestants, we are making a statement that the church is of a nature where it never needed to be reformed. The fact is that the protestant reformers were excluded by the church they were trying to reform. History records pre-reformational traditions that influenced some of what Luther and Calvin believed such as the Waldenses and other Ana-baptists, but the reformers didn't leave the catholic church and join them. They started their own tradition when they were excommunicated from their church. Whether we can or cannot identify which ancient groups carried the torch we have, we surely believe that our church wasn’t started by some man in protest to the tradition he was handed.

Going forward, I want to summarize and defend each of the twelve marks that Hassell has so ably laid out in his history to show us how we relate to the apostolic church.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 8

 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. Exodus 25:22

I want to notice the opening of the book of Revelation, particularly the candlestick image. John is commanded to write a message from the Lord to seven of his churches. He turned to see the Lord and saw him in the midst of the seven candlesticks, which are the seven churches. The relevance of a candlestick is that it is a stand or platform from which light may shine. It isn’t the light, but the light dwells there. Paul refers to the church of the living God as the pillar and ground of the truth 1Ti 3:15. She isn’t the authority, but she upholds the truth she was given. I quoted Ex 25:22 because we see a mercy seat that sat in the Holiest place, and like a flame on a candlestick, God designed it for the place where he would dwell and commune with God’s people on earth.

There is one Lord but seven candlesticks here. One candlestick for each local congregation mentioned. The Lord is addressing each one independently which wouldn’t make sense if their identity was tied together as a catholic church. They are each given encouragements and commendations as appropriate and also warnings for things to change with the consequence of the Lord removing their candlestick. Removing the candlestick is something more permanent than merely removing the light. It’s conceivable that on any given day a church could be caught up in the flesh or some sin and miss the presence of the Holy Spirit for some time. That’s depressing and I wouldn’t want that at all. But removing the candlestick, means God no longer even recognizes them as a church and therefore removes the platform from which he communes with his people. God doesn’t do this unfairly or abruptly, but as he told the church of the Laodiceans, he beckons church members to repent from their own self-sufficiency. If any member will answer the knock of the Savior, he will commune with the Lord. So even a small minority dissenting from the majority and leadership of the church, carries the identity of the church forward as long they are the ones eating at the Lord’s table.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 7

 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2Co 3:17

I want to cut the core now and ask the baseline question. What really makes a church a true church? Or more to the point, Who decides who’s in and who’s out? The answer is God decides and the presence of the Spirit of God is what makes the difference between the true church and a “knock-off” or “look alike”. At the end of the day all that really matters to me is that I am where the Lord is. It’s not the name on the front of the building, it’s not the folks we fellowship with, it’s not the creeds or confessions, it’s not the degree or intelligence of the pastor, it’s not the activities for the kids, It’s where God is revealing himself in the spirit.

The work of the Holy Spirit is vital to the church. John 14:25-26; 16:7,13. Jesus taught and established his church while he was present but didn’t leave us alone when he returned to the Father. He sent the Holy Ghost to teach us the meaning of his words and guide us into all truth. Eph 4:7-14, 1Co 12:4-11. The Holy Spirit brings gifts the church needs. The presence of the Holy Spirit is conditional and a dying church is simply one that isn’t enjoying the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. A church has either both spirit and truth or neither. Spirit without the truth is the wrong spirit, and doctrine without spirit is a dead formality and not truth at all. 

Truth is alive and has a taste that goes with it. Paul said God made manifest the savor of his knowledge by his preaching 2Co 2:14. Preaching (which isn’t just speaking but is a demonstration of the Spirit and of power 1Co 2:4) makes truth evident to those who are born of God because it is the savor of life. That happens when the weight of sin melts off and the smile of God lifts your heart above all your troubles. The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life 2Co 3:6. 

There are plenty of wrong spirits. When God removes his candlestick, the only spirit available to a group of people wanting to attract members is a manufactured spirit. We experience spirit-filled events all the time in the world. There is spirit at music concerts, there is spirit at exciting ball games, comedy clubs, political debates, and so many other forms of social gatherings. There may be a lot of spirit at a church meeting, but if it isn’t according to truth, it’s just importing our own spirit, and not worship which is in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Our fellowship with this or that church is not what makes them a true church and removing our fellowship doesn’t remove the candlestick. There is no governing board that decided who’s in, God reserves that right to himself and thankfully he is long-suffering (Rev 2:5). Our responsibility is to keep fellowship with God and that means avoiding fellowship with darkness or confusion Eph 5:11, 1Jo 1:6. That’s not easy, but I think it’s that simple.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 6

Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire. Heb 12:28-29

The true church seeks to conform herself to the commands of God and doesn’t expect God to adapt to her offerings. Let’s consider how God is to be approached.

God sent Moses to tell Pharaoh to let his people go so they could hold a feast unto him. Ex 5:1. It was imperative that they worship him outside of Pharaoh’s domain. Having delivered them from Egyptian bondage with his own power, God gave his people instructions on how he was to be worshipped. He told him how to build a sanctuary: the tabernacle, instruments, sacrifices, and priesthood. Ex 25:8-9. God declared how to construct the place where he would dwell among his people. The high priest was to place a golden bell on the hem of his robe that gave a constant reminder on how seriously God expected his people to follow his instructions in worship. Ex 28:35. Nadab and Abihu were priests killed by God because they offered strange fire to God, which is defined as a step that was not commanded by God. This tells me that God’s instructions were complete and additions were unlawful. Lev 10:1-2. While disobeying God’s commands resulted in death, following them had the exclusive benefit of seeing God’s glory in the earth. Ex 29:43.

At the end of Joshua’s life, he very famously challenged the people to follow the Lord. He gave a principle about the worship of God that will be critical for finding the true church in history. In Joshua 24, he said that to serve the Lord, all the gods of the world had to be put away and forsaken. God is a jealous God, a holy God. The worship of God means doing his will without mixing it with anything from men.

When Christ came, he signaled a change in worship for the New Testament era to the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4. The woman pointed out that her people worshipped in this mountain, but the Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place to worship. While Jesus pointed to the new era, he also acknowledged that in the old era it did matter where worship was conducted. Jesus said, ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. This goes back to the division of Israel by Rehoboam and Jeroboam after Solomon died. In 1Ki 12 we read that Jeroboam was concerned of losing his power over the ten tribes of the north by them attending worship in Jerusalem. So, he established a worship that was more convenient for them. Jesus was saying that tradition was illegitimate. Today, true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. If the Samaritans put themselves outside the covenant by abandoning Jerusalem, we know that any sect—however powerful or popular—that mixes God’s word with man’s tradition is illegitimate.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 5

Part 4 Here

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.  1John 1:3,4

The Apostle John says the objective in teaching Christ is for our fellowship, which is rooted in God, and is the fulfillment of our joy. Fellowship is a vital sign of the life of the church, and I want to notice the logical order of things presented in this passage. First is fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, second is fellowship with each other, and third that our joy may be full.

Our fellowship with God is the center of worship. Fellowship with God is something we are blessed to have because of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit according to the election of the Father. Having boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus, we draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith (Heb 10:19,22). This describes worship on the individual level and is the core of corporate worship. Paul professes that fellowship with Christ means partaking in his sufferings which he was called to do and we should be ready to as well.

When we meet together, as the body of Christ, with a common desire to worship together, then that fellowship flows over to the love we share from breast to breast. This is described in Phil 2:1,2. The basis of that fellowship is the one mind and one accord that those saints share in the adorable Savior that they are praying to, singing about, and preaching about. This fellowship is what those that were baptized at Pentecost (Ac 2:42) continued in steadfastly with the apostles’ doctrine, communion, and prayers. Obviously, agreement is required for fellowship, see 2 Co 6:14-16. We can’t have fellowship with Christ and with things that are against Christ. We can have temporary fellowship with each other in this world outside of Christ, but it is fragile and unfulfilling and not the church as He established it. Prioritizing our agreement with men above or equal to our agreement with Christ, will likewise ruin fellowship. Christ said the great commandment was first to love God, and secondly to love our neighbor (Matt 22:36-40). That order is important.

Finally, John intended our joy to be full. I don’t believe we can find the fulfillment that Christ intended for us to have in this life, without worshiping in the fellowship of his church. This same apostle quoted Jesus in John 10:10 that He came that we might have life and that we may have it more abundantly. That’s two things, life and life more abundantly. Christ came to save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21) and to establish his church (Dan 2:44, Matt 16:18). Both of those things were complete when he gave up the ghost (John 19:30). I will emphasize this one more time, our life and victory over sin and death is based on the sacrifice of his own body and blood that he gave and completed on the cross (Heb 10:14-18). Life is given to the entire mystical body of Christ by grace without works or conditions on our part. Life more abundantly is given in his church. The church in this world is never for giving life, but it is for living that life more abundantly.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 4

Part 3 Here

Primitive Baptists are always astonished when we hear other people say that we believe our sect are the only people going to heaven, yet it happens from time to time. I think this could be caused by a confusion between different senses of the word Church. We believe that ultimately in heaven shall be assembled a church of people that were redeemed out of every kindred, tongue, and people, and nation (Rev 5:9; 7:9), which are more than those which give an outward profession of faith or enter a visible church in this life. So, let’s consider how our definition of church applies to a universal church.

As we said in part 3, church is translated from a word (ecclesia) that means an assembly or congregation. There are verses (18 by Hassell’s count) where church refers to the assembly in heaven (Eph 5:25; Eph 3:10,21; Col 1:18, 24; Heb 12:23). This is the legitimate universal church since it includes everyone who, after the resurrection and general judgement, will be gathered into a congregation. This is also called the triumphant church. We may also call it an invisible church since we can’t see it yet. Every other use of church refers to a local congregation. The Bible never refers to the visible church on earth as a universal entity. If it refers to the church generically—not specifying which congregation—it teaches principles that apply to all churches. However, it doesn’t mean a universal (or national or denominational) church, because a congregation (ecclesia) wouldn’t describe people that are not meeting together.

I don’t want to present a view of the church as several unrelated independent societies. There is a unity that we have between churches in which we share the Lord’s supper and accept baptism of other churches. This unity allows fellowship based on inter-church relationships with mutual obedience to Christ. We reject the unscriptural organizations that rule over local churches in every “universal” church (Mar 10:42-45, 1Pe 5:2,3).

The visible church is always a subset of the triumphant church. I don’t mean that someone couldn’t fake repentance and love for the church; in that case they would be like a virus and not a member of the spiritual body. What I mean is that most of God’s children (triumphant church) never enter the visible church on earth. Matt 7:14 teaches that few find the life that is enjoyed in the church because it is a strait and narrow way. This cannot mean that few will be in heaven, because we’ve already mentioned that a multitude will be in heaven at the end of time (Gen 15:5; Rev 7:9). It means that church (visible, local) membership is difficult and unpopular, yet our eternal destiny is not dependent on our finding the way, since that destiny has been predestined by God (Eph 1:3-6). Put another way, we believe the church on earth is a smaller number compared to other denominations, but that the church in heaven will be a  larger number than envisioned by other denominations.

Part 5 Here