Landmark Baptist

[Salty]

Found this short Wike article on Landmark Baptists

Do you think it is a fair assement?

Anything incorrect?

What would you add

Salty

As a disclamer - indicate if you consider yourelf a LB

 

[evenifigoalone]

Reminds me of the pastor at my old church recomending a booklet called "The Trail of Blood", and other books that contend that Baptists and Protesants are not the same thing and that while Protestants were persecuted by the Catholic church, Baptists were persecuted by both. (Some of these books also held the idea that only Baptists are going to heaven.)
Is this true, and is that related to Landmarkism or no?

I don't consider myself strictly Baptist, so I don't believe I fall under that category myself.

 

[exscentric]

Probably a little lacking in info. Trace themselves to John the Baptist, their baptism is only valid one, authority from the linage to John. Quite often strong on submit to the pastor as in do not touch the lords anointed. Definitely not of that stripe.

 

[Zenas]

I don't think the article contains any gross errors but it is woefully incomplete so far as the Landmark movement goes. Oh yes, I am not of the Landmark pursuasion.

 

[Bro. James]

Most things Wiki have an urban legend problem which makes for serious credibility deficiencies--not unlike the New Advent Encyclopedia. All secular history has a bias--that of the victorious. Satan is still trying to pollute The Word.

Interesting any Truth rediscovered was there all along--without spot or blemish or any such thing--along with a few of the faithful. The landmarks are still there--covered by reformation, ecumenism and worldly churches. Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Going to the source

I read the wiki article. As noted, the problem with wiki is the articles are inserted by 'anyone' and can be (not always) biased by the writer.

So I looked up the website for Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, Florida. I checked the "What We Believe" page. They seem to be a basic New Testament church, relying on God's Grace and the inspired message of God. They do not mention if they feel there are other restrictions on salvation. (Like membership in their denomination, audited tithing or a special tattoo.)

The only 'restriction' I find is they are KJV only. (He said, trying to be equatable.)

So it is probably not a church in which I would thrive - perhaps not even be welcome - but I expect to see them in Heaven as much as any other group of believers in Christ who depend on grace.

 

[OldRegular]

Dr. J. M. Carroll, younger brother of Dr. B. H. Carroll founder of the Southwestern Seminary, wrote a small book, the Trail of Blood, which traces the Baptist Faith from the time of Jesus Christ.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books, Tracts & Preaching/Printed Books/trail_of_blood_jm_carroll.htm

 

[prophet]

We used to call them 'Baptist Briders', 20 years ago.
I am not one.
But there is relatively little, that ive heard from them, that i think is gross error.
Most remarkable, I guess, would be the cessation of spiritual gifts.
The gifts haven't gone away, only the 3rd church office has. The last Apostle, hand-picked on the road to Damascus, just like the first 11, died a Martyr in Rome.
John the Baptist was a Baptizer, not a Leader in a Baptist Church.
Pastoral Authority is fine, as long as every pastor is equal to every Bishop and Elder, and the only "Head" a church has, is Jesus:
Rev 2:6

6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

 

[Tom Butler]

I have some Landmark tendancies but stop short of being a Baptist Brider.

I do believe that the concept of the Universal Church is a fantasy.

And I do believe in church perpetuity, although not always known as Baptists. God has always had a witness on this earth. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" you know.

Baptist successionism is a bit more difficult, so I won't die on that hill.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Landmarkism is the Baptist/Protestant equivalent of Romanist apostolic succession, both fables.

 

[exscentric]

"I do believe that the concept of the Universal Church is a fantasy."

Not seeking discussion, just info. Most that believe in universal church see it as all church saints, dead and alive. Why do you not believe in it when you seem to realize it exits when you say. "God has always had a witness on this earth. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" you know."

 

[Tom Butler]

"I do believe that the concept of the Universal Church is a fantasy."

Not seeking discussion, just info. Most that believe in universal church see it as all church saints, dead and alive. Why do you not believe in it when you seem to realize it exits when you say. "God has always had a witness on this earth. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" you know."

One must ask, for what purpose does the Universal Church exist? It does nothing. It does not assemble, does not worship together, does not have a teaching function, sends no missionaries, gives no money, prints no Bibles, distributes no Bibles. When was the last time the Universal Church observed the Lord's Supper"

Then, we must example the Greek word translated "church." Ecclesia has as its original meaning a "gathering of citizens called out from their homes to a public place (Thayer's Lexicon). The simple meaning is "assembly." When it is used in the New Testament, that's what it means.

The problem comes when people confuse the church and the Kingdom.

Thomas Paul Simmons, in his book A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine (1935) makes the following points:

(1) The church is an assembly; the kingdom is the domain of the King.

(2) The church as an assembly is necessarily local; the kingdom is universal.

(3) The church is spoken of as that which was to be built (Matt. 16:18); the kingdom is never thus spoken of.

(4) Christ said: "Tell it to the church" (Matt. 18: 17); no such command is ever given concerning the kingdom.

(5) The church is called a body (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1: 18; 1 Cor. 12:27); the kingdom is never thus spoken of.

(6) The church is a democracy under the headship of Christ..... the kingdom is a monarchy.

(7) Therefore the church has organic character, being visible and having officers (1 Cor. 12:28); the kingdom is neither organic or visible (Luke 17:20).

(8) Church membership is subject to the democratic action of the body (Rom. 14:1; Acts 9:26; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6); while God, purely independent of church action, puts men in His kingdom by the new birth (John 3:5; Col. 1:13).

(9) The kingdom was preached and, at one time, was announced as at hand (Acts 20:25; 28:31; Mark 1:15); but such language is never used with reference to the church.

(10) We read of the gospel of the kingdom (Mark 1: 14; Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14); but never of the gospel of the church.

On occasion we will find ecclesia used in the abstract institutional or generic sense, in the same way we use terms such as home, marriage, family, man.

For instance, I Corinthians 12:28:

And God hath set some in the church......

Another: Ephesians 5:25

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

Individual husbands love real, concrete, individual wives, not some generic wife or universal wife.

There is a prospective sense, as well. Hebrews 12:23

To the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits ofT the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

This is an obvious reference to heaven, since it refers to an assembly. This assembly of all believers can take place in only one place. It has never been true on earth. So this is used prospectively.

I know this has been long, but wanted to do justice to a sincere question.

 

[prophet]

One must ask, for what purpose does the Universal Church exist? It does nothing. It does not assemble, does not worship together, does not have a teaching function, sends no missionaries, gives no money, prints no Bibles, distributes no Bibles. When was the last time the Universal Church observed the Lord's Supper"

Then, we must example the Greek word translated "church." Ecclesia has as its original meaning a "gathering of citizens called out from their homes to a public place (Thayer's Lexicon). The simple meaning is "assembly." When it is used in the New Testament, that's what it means.

The problem comes when people confuse the church and the Kingdom.

Thomas Paul Simmons, in his book A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine (1935) makes the following points:


On occasion we will find ecclesia used in the abstract institutional or generic sense, in the same way we use terms such as home, marriage, family, man.

For instance, I Corinthians 12:28:


Another: Ephesians 5:25


Individual husbands love real, concrete, individual wives, not some generic wife or universal wife.

There is a prospective sense, as well. Hebrews 12:23


This is an obvious reference to heaven, since it refers to an assembly. This assembly of all believers can take place in only one place. It has never been true on earth. So this is used prospectively.

I know this has been long, but wanted to do justice to a sincere question.

I believe you accomplished your goal, sir.

 

[Salty]

One must ask, for what purpose does the Universal Church exist? It does nothing. It does not assemble, does not worship together, does not have a teaching function, sends no missionaries, gives no money, prints no Bibles, distributes no Bibles. When was the last time the Universal Church observed the Lord's Supper" ...

I am a member of our local city assocation of evangalical churches.
Yes, we do a lot of things
We do assemble for Thanksging, Advent, Ressurection Sunday Sunrise service.
We have a joint Vacation Bible School ( most churches in the village/town are very small)
During VBS we help support a missionary and we work together on Christmas packages
We support the Giedions ( distribuiting Bibles)

Call us the universal church or anything you want.
Yes, some of our doctrine is different - but the one thing we have in Common is that salvation is by grace thur faith.

 

[exscentric]

Thanks for the reply Tom, have heard many times that there is no universal church but have never seen anyone take the effort to lay out reasoning.

 

[Tom Butler]

I am a member of our local city assocation of evangalical churches.
Yes, we do a lot of things
We do assemble for Thanksging, Advent, Ressurection Sunday Sunrise service.
We have a joint Vacation Bible School ( most churches in the village/town are very small)
During VBS we help support a missionary and we work together on Christmas packages
We support the Giedions ( distribuiting Bibles)

Call us the universal church or anything you want.
Yes, some of our doctrine is different - but the one thing we have in Common is that salvation is by grace thur faith.

I don't see a problem here. It's a bunch of assemblies assembling together. Churches, but not the Church.

 

[OldRegular]

The Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 writes of the Church in Section VI as follows: The New Testament speaks also of the Church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Sounds like Universal Church to me! The Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians speaks of the Church as the Chaste Virgin Bride of Jesus Christ. The Apostle John in the Book of Revelation speaks of the Church as the Bride of Jesus Christ and as the New Jerusalem!

Addendum:
[Just a thought. The Southern Baptist including the redeemed of all ages in the Church sort of puts the "quietus" in the Dispensational doctrine of two peoples of God and the "Parenthesis" Church; does it not? Who would have thunk with all them dispensationalists among the Southern Baptists!]