What do you think?
Rate this book
The Church That Jesus Built
If Jesus started His church while here on this earth, where is the church today? This book, written in 1923, cuts through a cloud of confusion to clarify the connection between Christ's ministry and the local churches of today. A great book for someone searching for a Biblical and historical explanation of the local New Testament Church.
136 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1951
13 people are currently reading
28 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 4, 2020
First of all, I read this book after it was recommended to me following a review I did on John Christian's book, "A History of the Baptists". It was suggested that this book was a better history. That, it most certainly was not - and without a doubt wasn't intended to be by the author.
I will admit, I was immediately turned off by the first paragraph which I thought was rather mean-spirited. I do not like articles or books that take aim at others in the first few lines. I much prefer the truth to be presented from the text and then let others evaluate it. In Mason's defense, he ended the book much better than he began it. He said, "I do not wish to convey the impression that Baptists are to be selfish, churlish, unsociable, unkind, or anything of the sort. They should rejoice when Christ is preached by whatever sect or denomination. They should rejoice at every soul that is saved. Their spirit should never be that of hostility or unkind controversy." To that, I can only say AMEN and AMEN! Baptists (and all believers today) would do well to have such an attitude.
Without question, on the surface Mason's book seems considerably more "conservative" than Christian's book. However, that is more likely because it lacks the depth and the massive amount of information that Christian's book does.
He begins with a good explanation of ekklesia (the Greek word translated "church"). Yet, as he progresses through the book, he seemingly abandons a local view of the church by examining church groups or sects or denominations (of which Baptists are one). I would much have preferred him to look at individual churches and pastors that preached the truth. That information was available in his day, such as other Baptist histories (like Christian's) provide.
I have found Baptist histories to cast a wide net in who they are willing to declare "Baptist". Mason's Baptist standard is no better. He writes, "Second, only two doctrines are essential to a New Testament church. The way of salvation and the way of baptism. If a group of churches are sound on these two cardinal points they may properly be called Baptist churches." (page 89) Every reference to proper baptism in the book hinges on the mode (immersion) and the subject (a believer). What a low standard!! Now, I just read Christian's book. So, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were churches that met these two criteria that had a plethora of other problems which most (if not all) Baptists today would reject. Elsewhere Mason writes, "In our day, I have known of Baptist churches in the North having woman for pastor, and I have known churches to adopt various unscriptural plans for the carrying on of their work. but the point is, none of these things kept them from being New Testament churches." (page 85).
I will be perfectly honest, if the above statements were on the first page, I may not have finished this book. Without a doubt, Mason casts a much wider net than Baptists today in who he includes as Baptist. And he lists "irregularities" that that include erroneous view relating to the Sabbath, foot-washing, women pastors, unscriptural missions, extravagant ideas about he Second Coming of Christ, etc. And, if he had delved half as deep as John Christian, without question he would have said more. But he reaffirms repeatedly that his only two requirements for a church to be deemed a Baptist church is the right Gospel and immersion as the mode of baptism. By this standard, there are a number of churches (like Grace Community Church which John MacArthur pastors as I write this) which, if stuck in history, are far more "Baptist" than the Baptists Mason claims.
All that said, I am glad I read the book. I do think he did a good job in some areas. As with Christian's book, it is well proven that there have always been churches apart from the line of Roman Catholicism which preached salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone AND immersed mature believers. I believed that before I read this book and I still believe it.
As I said in my review of Christian's book, "One thing I certainly walk away from this book wondering is how 'Baptists' today split over things like singing modern hymns or singing off screens or head coverings or Bible versions, etc. There are obviously much more major (and serious) doctrinal variants in 'Baptist' history than those things. And oddly enough, these groups are accepted as orthodox Baptists. Perhaps many have simply assumed this book (and others) say things that it doesn't - and haven't actually read the book for themselves." Certainly Mason is more pointed and (maybe) more narrow than Christian, but he still embraces a far wider crowd as "Baptist" than today's most ardent and strict Baptists do. It really was amazing to me the men he was willing to quote that clearly didn't hold such a view as you come away believing he held (Christian, Jarrel, Neander).
More could be said good and bad, but I'll leave it at that. There are better Baptist histories, if that's what you are actually interested in.
One last thing - and admittedly this is near and dear to my heart since the church I pastor has been often black-balled because we are not KJVO. Mason slams the Douay-Rheims as a poor translation -and he is correct in that estimation. However, he freely quotes the ASV and RV more than once. But perhaps the greatest statement as to his position on Bible translations was on page 126. I'll end with his quote - "For instance, the English-speaking world is indebted to Baptist for the most accurate version of the Bible that is printed in their tongue. I refer to the American Bible Union Version, which was translated by Baptists." Such continues to prove that KJVO among Baptists is a recent position, not an old one.
I will admit, I was immediately turned off by the first paragraph which I thought was rather mean-spirited. I do not like articles or books that take aim at others in the first few lines. I much prefer the truth to be presented from the text and then let others evaluate it. In Mason's defense, he ended the book much better than he began it. He said, "I do not wish to convey the impression that Baptists are to be selfish, churlish, unsociable, unkind, or anything of the sort. They should rejoice when Christ is preached by whatever sect or denomination. They should rejoice at every soul that is saved. Their spirit should never be that of hostility or unkind controversy." To that, I can only say AMEN and AMEN! Baptists (and all believers today) would do well to have such an attitude.
Without question, on the surface Mason's book seems considerably more "conservative" than Christian's book. However, that is more likely because it lacks the depth and the massive amount of information that Christian's book does.
He begins with a good explanation of ekklesia (the Greek word translated "church"). Yet, as he progresses through the book, he seemingly abandons a local view of the church by examining church groups or sects or denominations (of which Baptists are one). I would much have preferred him to look at individual churches and pastors that preached the truth. That information was available in his day, such as other Baptist histories (like Christian's) provide.
I have found Baptist histories to cast a wide net in who they are willing to declare "Baptist". Mason's Baptist standard is no better. He writes, "Second, only two doctrines are essential to a New Testament church. The way of salvation and the way of baptism. If a group of churches are sound on these two cardinal points they may properly be called Baptist churches." (page 89) Every reference to proper baptism in the book hinges on the mode (immersion) and the subject (a believer). What a low standard!! Now, I just read Christian's book. So, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were churches that met these two criteria that had a plethora of other problems which most (if not all) Baptists today would reject. Elsewhere Mason writes, "In our day, I have known of Baptist churches in the North having woman for pastor, and I have known churches to adopt various unscriptural plans for the carrying on of their work. but the point is, none of these things kept them from being New Testament churches." (page 85).
I will be perfectly honest, if the above statements were on the first page, I may not have finished this book. Without a doubt, Mason casts a much wider net than Baptists today in who he includes as Baptist. And he lists "irregularities" that that include erroneous view relating to the Sabbath, foot-washing, women pastors, unscriptural missions, extravagant ideas about he Second Coming of Christ, etc. And, if he had delved half as deep as John Christian, without question he would have said more. But he reaffirms repeatedly that his only two requirements for a church to be deemed a Baptist church is the right Gospel and immersion as the mode of baptism. By this standard, there are a number of churches (like Grace Community Church which John MacArthur pastors as I write this) which, if stuck in history, are far more "Baptist" than the Baptists Mason claims.
All that said, I am glad I read the book. I do think he did a good job in some areas. As with Christian's book, it is well proven that there have always been churches apart from the line of Roman Catholicism which preached salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone AND immersed mature believers. I believed that before I read this book and I still believe it.
As I said in my review of Christian's book, "One thing I certainly walk away from this book wondering is how 'Baptists' today split over things like singing modern hymns or singing off screens or head coverings or Bible versions, etc. There are obviously much more major (and serious) doctrinal variants in 'Baptist' history than those things. And oddly enough, these groups are accepted as orthodox Baptists. Perhaps many have simply assumed this book (and others) say things that it doesn't - and haven't actually read the book for themselves." Certainly Mason is more pointed and (maybe) more narrow than Christian, but he still embraces a far wider crowd as "Baptist" than today's most ardent and strict Baptists do. It really was amazing to me the men he was willing to quote that clearly didn't hold such a view as you come away believing he held (Christian, Jarrel, Neander).
More could be said good and bad, but I'll leave it at that. There are better Baptist histories, if that's what you are actually interested in.
One last thing - and admittedly this is near and dear to my heart since the church I pastor has been often black-balled because we are not KJVO. Mason slams the Douay-Rheims as a poor translation -and he is correct in that estimation. However, he freely quotes the ASV and RV more than once. But perhaps the greatest statement as to his position on Bible translations was on page 126. I'll end with his quote - "For instance, the English-speaking world is indebted to Baptist for the most accurate version of the Bible that is printed in their tongue. I refer to the American Bible Union Version, which was translated by Baptists." Such continues to prove that KJVO among Baptists is a recent position, not an old one.
March 15, 2022
Very Enlightening
Explains how the Baptist faith is the faithful successor to the Church that Jesus Built. No other denominations meet the criteria set forth in the Bible.
Explains how the Baptist faith is the faithful successor to the Church that Jesus Built. No other denominations meet the criteria set forth in the Bible.
March 6, 2014
Best baseline book on church
I read this book twice and use it for teaching on the church. Overall it covers the church word, doctrine, mode, operation, purpose, and history.
Mr. Mason uses the bible as the premise of his teaching.
I read this book twice and use it for teaching on the church. Overall it covers the church word, doctrine, mode, operation, purpose, and history.
Mr. Mason uses the bible as the premise of his teaching.
September 17, 2013
“This is a "Must Read" for all Baptist church members. One of Brother Mason's best efforts.”
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews