Before Campbell ? Rumney Marsh and Bow Lane

[Walkingfreely]

I am seeing several hard-line coc post assertions that they existed prior to Alexander Campbell in the 1800s

They site two groups that merely made mention of the Church of Christ” but I suspect they would have damned those groups to hell.

Rumney Marsh - 1710
Bow lane 1500s

http://churches-of-christ.ws/bowlane.htm

I am assuming there are doctrinal things they practiced that the modern day “church of Christ” would call heresy so I am wondering if you knew of these objections coc likes to tout and if you had any info on what these past churches actually taught ?

Otherwise, did these groups believe and practice as the COC does now?


It seems they want to grab on to any mention of “church of Christ” as evidence they existed as a group with their doctrine intact and I’m looking for refutation.

Not discounting that even if it were true they still can’t account for 1500 years.

I also seee it on a site called “traces of the kingdom.”

Any help appreciated.

[Opie]

I can't locate my source at this time, but way back in the cobwebbed corners of my memory I seem to recall that these churches practiced infant baptism. Regardless, the CoC is grasping at straws. The CoC refuses to admit that they are an American denomination that had it's earliest beginnings with Barton Stone at Cane Ridge, KY in the early 1800s.

Unfortunately there are some members of the CoC who are so desperate to come up with a compelling story of an unbroken line stretching back to the first century church, that they are willing to be intellectually dishonest with history.

[Shrubbery]

Otherwise, did these groups believe and practice as the COC does now?

Even the early coc didn't believe and practice as the coc does now.

When my NICOC homeschool group did a church history series of lectures from a local-ish preacher, I don't think he mentioned those early groups at all (I missed some lectures, but I have the DVDs that I never looked at). He talked about the two movements that began around the same time - Stone and Campbell - and how they combined and proceeded from there. The lecture series went from the first century beginning of the church through the Catholic/Orthodox split and the Catholic/Protestant split, on into the Great Awakening stuff. Obviously, he presented it as the first century church being correct, then people falling away from first century teaching, then Stone-Campbell movement bringing it back.

I suspect the two groups you mention are probably only believed to be coc by fringe groups. I have never heard them even mentioned in a sermon in the last 20 years. And I've heard preachers make some really out there arguments about various topics. Looking at the link you posted, they were Anabaptists, which I guess shared some similarities with modern coc, but I doubt they really looked like coc. For one thing, the Anabaptists appear to have been more into the Holy Spirit interacting with them and charasmatic stuff.

[gordie91]

It looks like the one in Mass. baptized children and had one elder or pastor. Though in the charter they acknowledge possibility of more than one elder. As best I can tell these independent groups, since Luther's time, were emboldened even compelled by their new freedom to strike out on their own. So as these groups were formulating their doctrines and beliefs many times they would resemble what later would become the CoC of the restoration movement.

The point that always seems to come through in tracing out the various denominations in history is the frame of reference. The original protestation was against a very flawed and damaged Roman Catholic church. Luther's main assumption was that a simple man with the bible was more powerful than a pope and his councils. This is important because authority for right doctrine is shifting from a recognized church to the individual. This individual now has the power and according to Luther the capacity to determine what God wants strictly on the basis of the written words of the bible and his own intellect. This is beneficial and for sure the individual must be able to discern things about religion but the next logical step is division and parties and ultimately denominations.

So as these groups were striking out on their own and establishing their own particular doctrines based on how they interpret scripture makes it highly probable that these groups would resemble the Restoration churches we know because of the various philosophies and modes of interpretation. The name or designation "Church of Christ" is and was not new or even foreign to these protestants. Both the nicene and roman catholic creeds end with that phrase as the proper name of the one church. So it stands to reason some groups would adopt the shorter Church of Christ name instead of the one, holy, apostolic, church of christ.

[B.H.]

On a previous incarnation of this board I made a several posts about this. CoC preachers are so desperate to find the CoC in history before Campbell they grab onto any historical group that may have one doctrinal similarity, like baptize for immersion for forgiveness of sin, or call themselves Coc, but when you look into each group they hold other beliefs the CoC of today would run away from and disclaim as part of their own.

There was one CoC preacher who was hounding Petros on his blog about church history or something and I got involved. Petros was too much a gentleman to tell him he did not know what he was talking about and stfu. I am not a gentleman when dealing with stupid preachers and I asked the man "Please give me a second century Church of Christ preachers name, not a Catholic "father" but a church of christ preacher and I'll look into his writings nad see what he says". The man gave me Clement. . I just laugh and go pull up some of Clements works which were very Catholic in doctrine and point this out to the preacher. He left Petros blog and has not been seen there defending the "troof" anymore.

One thing I remember was many CoC say the restoration movement was not started by Campbell but by James O'Kelly in the late 1700's and that he was CoC. Okay, let's see what O'kelly believed. Oops. Used sprinkling for baptism.

I always knew CoC preachers would lie about history. The mainstream preachers would lie about the non-class brethren all the time and out of their butt. They would say the non-class folks split the church when often times they would be willing to worship where there was sunday school as long as they didn't have to go to it, just the assemblies. The preachers or elders wouldn't tolerate them being different and would kick them out or make them not feel weclome. I'm sure they lied about the premill people and the non-institutionals too.

[Shrubbery]

There was one CoC preacher who was hounding Petros on his blog about church history or something and I got involved. Petros was too much a gentleman to tell him he did not know what he was talking about and stfu. I am not a gentleman when dealing with stupid preachers and I asked the man "Please give me a second century Church of Christ preachers name, not a Catholic "father" but a church of christ preacher and I'll look into his writings nad see what he says". The man gave me Clement. . I just laugh and go pull up some of Clements works which were very Catholic in doctrine and point this out to the preacher. He left Petros blog and has not been seen there defending the "troof" anymore.

I, too, have to laugh when the coc cites the early church fathers as reason to believe xyz, and yet they don't believe most of what those *bishops* actually taught. The 27 book canon of the NT was listed by a bishop sending an Easter letter to the churches under his control. So the coc takes the 27 books as being correct, but the role of that bishop and the celebrating of Easter are wrong (and even damning!). There is not a single early church father that they would say had "the truth", yet they use these people as evidence of the authorship of certain books of the Bible, etc. Just this morning, I got to hear how Papias had talked about the gospel of Matthew and that was proof of authorship. Um... Papias mentioned a book written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and said it was "sayings". That does not describe the Gospel According to Matthew that is in our English Bibles today, originally written in Greek. And then the notes say that "logos" ("sayings") seemed to have been a code word for "gospel". HUH? I'm pretty sure "sayings" was "sayings". We have the Gospel of Thomas that is just that... "sayings", not an extensive narrative.

[gordie91]

Hey guys,

the use of the "fathers" is quite prevalent even outside the CoC. My FIL sent me an article about sola scriptura, and wanted me to comment. The article used quite a few quotes from some serious Fathers to hold up sola scriptura. Of course, a little context and history would tell any second rate scholar that all of the men quoted had lots to say against this evangelical apologist. The apologist turns out to be heavily anti-catholic and calls himself pastor when obviously he should be called minister. I have not received a response from the FIL, I pointed out a few things and inconsistencies but no response.

The bottom line, when the premise is sola scriptura, then opinions, and denominations rule the day with no way to appeal to any higher authority. This is the problem my FIL has, he can speak all day about how to read scriptures but at the end of the day why is his opinion any better than someone else? They both claim to the same source yet arrive at different conclusions. So they have to twist the fathers now in order to support their viewpoint.

[bnot]

I am seeing several hard-line coc post assertions that they existed prior to Alexander Campbell in the 1800s

They site two groups that merely made mention of the Church of Christ” but I suspect they would have damned those groups to hell.

Rumney Marsh - 1710
Bow lane 1500s

http://churches-of-christ.ws/bowlane.htm

I am assuming there are doctrinal things they practiced that the modern day “church of Christ” would call heresy so I am wondering if you knew of these objections coc likes to tout and if you had any info on what these past churches actually taught ?

Otherwise, did these groups believe and practice as the COC does now?


It seems they want to grab on to any mention of “church of Christ” as evidence they existed as a group with their doctrine intact and I’m looking for refutation.

Not discounting that even if it were true they still can’t account for 1500 years.

I also seee it on a site called “traces of the kingdom.”

Any help appreciated.

They are reaching on this site, especially to protect the 'plan of salvation' by stating it was in use in the 1500's, so they can discredit Walter Scott who developed it in the U.S.A. in 1827. Aside from that, the coc view of 'baptism for the remission of sins' was implemented by Alexander Campbell in 1823 (in the U.S.A.) as he first made mention of it in the Campbell/Mcalla debate in the same year (The Restoration Movement, Bob L. Ross 1981). I have not read that debate yet, but the author lists page numbers for that as well. Plus, instrumental music did not become a big issue until 1860. He did put in a nice little summary of his points at the bottom of the web page, and one point that makes me shake my head every time is autonomous churches: " They were autonomous, and had a plurality of elders/deacons." The bible makes clear that churches were not autonomous with Paul being in charge of churches, which is obvious from his letters, and so was Titus who was appointed by Paul: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you"—(Titus 1:5). Hardline coc folks will never accept that the coc was born and developed in the United States, and defend their characteristics even when they are flat out wrong.

[ena]

There was one CoC preacher who was hounding Petros on his blog about church history or something and I got involved. Petros was too much a gentleman to tell him he did not know what he was talking about and stfu. I am not a gentleman when dealing with stupid preachers and I asked the man "Please give me a second century Church of Christ preachers name, not a Catholic "father" but a church of christ preacher and I'll look into his writings nad see what he says". The man gave me Clement. . I just laugh and go pull up some of Clements works which were very Catholic in doctrine and point this out to the preacher. He left Petros blog and has not been seen there defending the "troof" anymore.

I, too, have to laugh when the coc cites the early church fathers as reason to believe xyz, and yet they don't believe most of what those *bishops* actually taught. The 27 book canon of the NT was listed by a bishop sending an Easter letter to the churches under his control. So the coc takes the 27 books as being correct, but the role of that bishop and the celebrating of Easter are wrong (and even damning!). There is not a single early church father that they would say had "the truth", yet they use these people as evidence of the authorship of certain books of the Bible, etc. Just this morning, I got to hear how Papias had talked about the gospel of Matthew and that was proof of authorship. Um... Papias mentioned a book written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and said it was "sayings". That does not describe the Gospel According to Matthew that is in our English Bibles today, originally written in Greek. And then the notes say that "logos" ("sayings") seemed to have been a code word for "gospel". HUH? I'm pretty sure "sayings" was "sayings". We have the Gospel of Thomas that is just that... "sayings", not an extensive narrative.

I found this rich with points. BH the early church father were concerned with heresies because you had many. Marcion of Synope was a shipping magnate and had quite a following as well as money. His bible consisted of Luke with all Jewish references taken out and the writings of Paul. We don't have his work yet as they were probably burned by the consolidated church under Constantine. With Clement you have to be careful. There are two. One is listed as a pope. Not sure always which is is which. The CoC could not exist because there was no universal agreement on what was authoritative scripture. There was no one with a King James Bible walking around. There was NO paper in the western world. We do have examples of 2nd century Chinese paper. In the West there were dried denuded animal skins called vellum and papyrus which a reed pressed or pounded in a cross hatched fashion. It looks woven but it is not. The reed are glued together with it's pith. It is sticky initially. Other groups were causing trouble such as the Gnostics. This is an umbrella term covering many groups. Gnostic comes from Greek term Gnosis which means to know. They believed special knowledge was important for salvation. You find interesting things like Jesus hand a wife, Mary Magdalene was an apostle or Judas and Jesus had a special deal. There are many writings that did not make into our Bible. Some were believed to be scripture by some groups. Some seem to be good but many come from the second century.

[ena]

I, too, have to laugh when the coc cites the early church fathers as reason to believe xyz, and yet they don't believe most of what those *bishops* actually taught. The 27 book canon of the NT was listed by a bishop sending an Easter letter to the churches under his control. So the coc takes the 27 books as being correct, but the role of that bishop and the celebrating of Easter are wrong (and even damning!). There is not a single early church father that they would say had "the truth", yet they use these people as evidence of the authorship of certain books of the Bible, etc. Just this morning, I got to hear how Papias had talked about the gospel of Matthew and that was proof of authorship. Um... Papias mentioned a book written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and said it was "sayings". That does not describe the Gospel According to Matthew that is in our English Bibles today, originally written in Greek. And then the notes say that "logos" ("sayings") seemed to have been a code word for "gospel". HUH? I'm pretty sure "sayings" was "sayings". We have the Gospel of Thomas that is just that... "sayings", not an extensive narrative.

Shrubbery I did yours separately because the system times out. The first mention of the 27 books of the NT was in the 39th festal letter of Athanasius a Bishop of the early church in 367 CE. This is not a cannon but a suggestion of what he thought was worthy. The CoC is affected by the Church it condemns. Papias was very early on the scene. I find his comments on Judas insightful. Judas both hanged himself and fell headlong and burst assunder. He was saved from strangulation and then fell and burst assunder. Judas was very fat and infested with worms. The area still reaked in his day. Interesting link in wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

Gospel of Thomas is interesting.