Featured What Doctrines should we separate over?

Post reported.....

Everyone's doing this, so I figgered I pull the trigger, too... :tongue3::saint::laugh::love2:

And no, I didn't report this most wonderful post...

 

I am not calling you anything. But I agree with Landmarkism about as much as I agree with Calvinism. Which isn't much.

 

Just keep those posts coming.

 

There are essentials that must be embraced and confessed by a person in order to be recognized as a New Testament Christian. There are also essentials that must be embraced and confessed by a group of professed Christians to be recognized as a New Testament congregation. The former has to do with the individual and salvation while the latter has to do with the institution and public service.

Study the use of the phrase "the house of God" as used in the Old Testament and you will discover it ALWAYS refers to the PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL HOUSE OF WORSHIP where gospel ordinances are properly administered by a properly ordained ministry. That is precisely the context of 1 Tim. 3:1-13 which proceeds the phrase "the house of God" in verse 15.

It is not bigotted to demand the proper essentials to be recognized as a true child of God while refusing to recognize as "Christians" those who do not measure up to those standards. For example, if a person claims to be a christian based upon being physically born into a religoius home, it is not bigotted to refuse to recognize that as a true salvation characteristic.

Likewise, it is not bigotted to demand from an institutional "congregation" in order to be recognized New Testament assembly such assemblies that do not measure up to the New Testament standards that characterize "the house of God" as an institution for PUBLIC worship. For example, if they sprinkle water upon professed saved people that is a complete perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ and it is not bigotted to refuse to recognize that as a true New Testament public house of worship with a proper ordained ministry or ordinances.

Yes, it separates and draws a line that excludes public recognition as a New Testament public house of worship but it does not deny the personal salvation of any member in that institution. Yes, but find any congregation in the New Testament made up of unbaptized believers!

 

Baptists have existed in every age from the apostles onward, perhaps not by the name Baptist, but by the doctrine which today we call "Baptist." God has never left himself without a witness, and that witness has never been the Catholic Church.

Anabaptist simply means to "baptize again." There was a wide spectrum among the "anabaptists," some more "baptistic" than others.

You are both blind and naive to the truth, perhaps willingly so.
If you want proof I will give it to you.

And other information listed:

http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm
Hopefully that is enough information; enough proof, and you won't demand it again.
He murdered and tormented others. It is a hard pill to swallow. In spite of the good he did, there was a lot of evil to accompany it. That is the result of a state-run church.

 

Very insightful post. You have done a good job standing up to this irrational nonsense, and I am saying that to the very person that has given me an infraction for a post I made to this exact same person.

Of course there were Baptists long before Calvin, or local churches of like faith and order. How else could the NT church be preserved? Of course Calvin was exactly the character you describe, plus believing at least 40% outside the realm of Baptist distinctives.

The situation becomes clearer as time passes. Either the person is here to disrupt and destroy, or, if the posts are sincere which I doubt, the individual has an agenda of promoting ecumenical ideals at the least and maybe into aspects of the RCC.

 

I have quoted reputable Church historians/scholars who would deny that most forcefully: Jim Renihan,Michael Haykin, James E. McGoldrick,Nathan Finn,W.Morgan Patterson and Leon McBeth.

Certainly God has not left Himself without a witness. Yet within the Roman Catholic communion many fine Christians have been produced throughout the centuries such as Bede,Gottschalk,Robert Grossetete,Thomas Bradwardine,John Wycliffe,John Huss and Jerome of Prague to name just a few.

Many to most were heretics.

That is an unmitigated lie DHK. Do not slander.

These are the words of a poster here made on 5/23/13:
"This is an actual area of research I worked on during my PhD Seminars I challenge you to name one person Calvin personally condemned or personally executed in Geneva.

Listen,I'm not a huge fan of Calvin nor his theology...but i do respect him and his place within theology. There are aspects of his conduct that I have problems with but I do not accept the accusations,like this one against Calvin.

Again, you have to name names for me to believe you. Cite names,instances,and examples. Being a murderer is a huge accusation. Also,please note that the Consistory was not, this is agreed by almost all reputable historians,controlled by Calvin."

Phillip Schaff,certainly NOT a Calvinist,said regarding John Calvin :"He must be reckoned as one of greatest and best men God raised up in the history of Christianity."

"All impartial writers admit the purity and ingegrity, if not the sanctity of his character..."

 

DHK:Why dwell in ignorance when it comes to Church history?

Here are some completely false things you have said in your revisionist tendencies:

John Huss was a Baptist.
Erasmus had more in common with the Baptists than he did with the Catholics or the Lutherans.
Westcott and Hort were Unitarians.
I never considered Calvin a Godly man,after reading history.
I don't don't consider Augustine a Godly man.
If Spurgeon was a Calvinist (a big "if").
Spurgeon is not a 'Reformed source.'
Whitefield wasn't a Calvinist.
John Gill denied the Great Commission.
John Gill thought that the Great Commission was totally irrelevant.
John Gill was a super-hyper-Calvinist to the extreme...
The people of his day considered him [John Gill] a borderline heretic.
Calvin plagarized Augustine.

 

The Landmark Controversy: A Study in Baptist History and Polity by Fred Moritz

An informative, educational essay concerning Landmarkism.

 

I present facts --you call them nonsensical --how typical of you.

And your evidence is ...nonexistant. Do yourself a favor and dig into the works of real church history scholars of the stature I mentioned earlier :Renihan,Haykin,McGoldrick,Finn,Patterson and McBeth.

Of course my posts are sincere. You live in so much mendacity you wouldn't recognize truth if it hit you between the eyes.

There you go lying again. You can't help yourself. Shame on you once again.

Here are some of your own words coming down on you Michael:

"This apology is to the entirety of Baptist Board for having to endure the posts of my creation to one individual whom I have deep seated and serious problems with that only the Lord can heal." (11/15/2013)

"A deacon is a great honor bestowed by a local New Testament church on an individual who shows humility and spiritual maturity." (7/1/10)

 

No kidding.

 

Post Reported.

 

We can now use the term "post reported" as an official BB greeting. It was decided by a majority member count just last night. :smilewinkgrin:

 

It could become the next "War Eagle".

 

The Baptist historians you quote adopt a certain VIEW of history. These historians have adopted the 1640 view of Whitsitt which Dr. John T. Christian thoroughly and completely exposed to be ignorance of the historical facts.

The Protestant historians you quote have adopted the Roman Catholic VIEW of history but there are many other Protestant and Baptist historians that reject that VEIW.

The bottom line is that there are TWO PRIMARY INTERPRETATIVE VIEWS of church history. My church history professor in Seminary was honest enough to admit that two different views were legitimate. He likened it to two trees and all the historical evidences as fruit that could be place on one or the other tree depending upon the interpretative view of the historian. Some historians attempt to combine the two views in different degrees.

Modern Baptist historians have taken the Roman Catholic interpretative view along with Whitsit's view of the origin and history of Baptists. If that is the view you wish to adopt, then fine! However, it is dishonest to claim there is not another legitimate historical view of the evidences as there are many historians both Baptist and Protestant that hold to the other "free church" view of history.

 

This is a very flawed essay and there are many others just like it. Others scholars have debunked the idea that Landmarkism was the natural response to Cambellism. Indeed, Graves himself provided historical evidence that his position was held long before he put forth the Cotton Grove resolutions.

More significantly, this idea fails to understand and righly interpret the Great Commission which is by nature and grammatical necessity the promise of organic succession of like faith and order until Jesus comes again.

1. This is a commission to make "disicples" and a disciple by definition is NOT one who embraces another faith and order but goes preaching the very SAME gospel (Mk. 16:15) administering the very SAME baptism and teaching the very same faith and order (Mt. 28:20) as demanded by the words "whatosever I have commanded" NOT whatsoever I have not commanded. Hence, the very goal demands reproduction of like faith and order.

2. This is a commission incapable of being obeyed apart form organic succession. For example, they must organically make contact with those they are sent to preach the gospel unto. They must make organic contact in the administration of baptism with those who are converted by their preaching and they must make organic contact with teaching "them" to observe all things commanded. Notice it is the same "them" who were converted previously by going to the them with the gospel that are immersed and taught.

3. This is a commission that demands the constitution of New Testament assemblies. Matthew 28:20 is impossible to obey outside the membership of a New Testament assembly and Acts 2:40-41 proves this. You cannot teach them to observe Matthew 18:15-18 apart from actual membership in a New Testament congregation.

4. This is a commission that demands organic succession of like faith and order until Jesus returns. Not only is there a natural organic succession of like faith and order as those coverted, baptized and assembled to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded, but in addition to the natural succession there is the divine promise that "I will be with YOU all the days until the end of the age" (literal translation). The kind of assembly He built and commisson and empowered on Pentecost is promised to reproduce after its own kind = make disciples - until Jesus comes again.

The kind of assembly required to obey the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is by necessity a local visible body of baptized believers covenanted together to observe whatsoever Christ has commanded.

 

I said earlier that I believe God has always had a people faithful to His word. I have no reason at all to disagree with the way you have expressed what I believe.

 

^^^Agree with you about 90-95% here Biblicist!!!^^^^:wavey:

I'm obviously not with you on certain topics.......

But your Ecclesiology is DEAD-ON:thumbsup:

These particular statements are RINGINGLY ACCURATE:

Ironically, I am willing to bet it is more "Arminianistic" or "Non-Calvinists" who will support you in your Ecclesiology than Calvinist types....but not exclusively.

But you are dead ringer on this Biblicist...ringer.....:jesus:

 

You are a thinking man...

I'm willing to bet that your particular experience and exposure to so-called "Landmarkism" is somewhat skewed....

I'd encourage you to re-think it.

There are MANY persons who ascribe to it who are odious and un-savoury characters, I grant you.

But, as an Ecclesiastical view of what the Scriptures teach about the "Church" and what it is, and what composes a true New Testament "Church"...coupled with a knowledge of History....
You may find that "Landmarkism" is not so deranged a concept as you might think. Give it a second work-through with some educated and (sane) proponents....and, it's possible that it will begin to make sense to you. It's not as deranged as you might think.

I hate admitting it....but Biblicist's post #98 does a pretty good job of summing-up the Theological impetus of the idea, and it's quite powerful I.M.O.
D.H.K. has also offered some powerful insight into what the specific tenents of "Landmarkism" really is.

 

Just like the Catholics I debate; they use only RCC tried and tested historians--all one sided. That doesn't say much for your "objectivity" when it comes to history, does it?

One is either a Roman Catholic by doctrine or he is not.
In the RCC the new birth = baptism.
One is regenerated by baptism.
If that is how you qualify Godly doctrine producing Godly individuals, then I will leave you alone. You don't belong in the Baptist section of this board.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese in Switzerland?
If I determine you are a heretic, does that give me the right to behead you?
It did, according to Calvin. He beheaded those whom he declared heretics.
He enforced the death penalty. That is murder. He set himself up as a god--judge, jury, and executioner.

What lie?

I have already provided the evidence. Anyone can find it. They can find it in two ways. The first way is very easy. It is done with the click of a mouse and a couple of search words. It only takes a few seconds.
The other way is to diligently study Baptist History; not just church history, but Baptist History. And stay away from your "one-sided" view of Baptist History or you will forever be ignorant about the true story of the Baptists.

I gave you enough evidence to go on. Philip Shaff is one of the sources that I referred to. Is not he reliable enough. He seems to be for everyone else. Again, this is what he said (in part)

To simplify it:
Rippon, you are a heretic.
Rippon, you deserve to die.
Rippon, I am coming with my axe tomorrow to behead you, for the Bible commands that heretics should die. Remember I am just carrying out Biblical commands. Don't blame me if you die tomorrow. :smilewinkgrin: