Featured What distinguishes a Landmark baptist from the rest?

No, brother. That was the Baptist position (not all Baptists are Landmark Baptists).

 

I believe that a church is an assembly of Christians who assemble as a community of believers gathered in the name of Christ and to function as a local body of Christ. I believe that the local church is the means that God uses in reconciliation. While God can, of course, I don’t believe that God substitutes religious societies for the local church in kingdom work.

Then I look at churches and men God used in the past. The churches of John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards all practiced infant baptism. I realize that God could have used unchurched men, unorthodox men, heretics in practice who forsake the true assembly and remained apart from the “Ecclesia” …. I just don’t find that He did a reasonable conclusion.

I don’t have to leave believers baptism behind any more than I have to leave male leadership behind because I believe that true churches can also err. I don’t rationalize having it both ways because I don’t have it both ways. The notion of condemning churches (or “churches”) who gather under the name of Christ and hold a true gospel but are outside of our denomination and practice is a bit nauseating to me. When I do that, I almost feel as if I’m judging the servant of Another. I don’t defend their justification of infant baptisms or the latter confirmations. I think that they are wrong. But insofar as their assemblies, I do believe that they are servants of Christ and that the Spirit works in their assemblies. There is a difference between a true church and a church being true to what has been commanded.

Do you believe that the Spirit was at work in the churches of Knox, Wesley, Whitefield and Edwards? If not, then how do you account for the revivals and what seemed to be legitimate works of God in their assemblies? If so, then do you believe that there are two types of local “organizations” that functions as the Body of Christ…religious societies and churches?

 

We have an example in Acts (that those who believed and were baptized were added to the church). In Acts 4 baptism is left out, although I believe it implied. But the accounts tell what happened. They do not prove Landmarkism.

Then you can examine the literal word "baptism" and insist it means to be immersed. I agree. But others will insist that it is symbolic (that it symbolizes immersion). Some insist on running water. Some insist that one who cannot be baptized (for what ever reason) can still be a part of the New Testament church. Fact is that there is no direct passage that commands men be baptized before being considered members of the local assembly. So what we are left with is our interpretations and opinions.

I agree with your conclusions about Baptism, which is why I am a Baptist. I disagree with your definition of "church" when it applies to the local assemblies of other denominations. I don't believe that God has two types of "bodies" on this earth...churches and "non-church assemblies" functioning as the Body of Christ. I do believe that the churches (which you would call fake churches) and the pastors (which you'd call fake pastors) like Knox, Wesley, Whitefield and Edwards were used by God because they constituted churches of Christ.

I don’t find any biblical basis for Christians to accept doctrines developed outside the Body of Christ (teachers, preachers, etc. were given to the church….not to religious societies). Unless, of course, what you are saying is that there is the visible church and then there is the “invisible church”, both comprising the Body of Christ here on earth. Is this what you mean?

 

I agree. I think that one must use other formulas as well (soteriological, eschatological, etc) to appropriate communicate those matters. It gets a bit dicey, though when we start judging other denominations on our criteria. I simply disagree with the claim that Wesley, Whitefield, Knox, Edwards, etc. were not really pastors but instead unchurched heretics working against the true church (putting forward "fake churches". I stand firm that Baptism is absolutely essential for church membership. My disagreement is that I believe other "churches" are legitimate churches while being disobedient on the issue.

God gifts teachers and preachers to the church. The church disciples and builds the member of its body. Looking back, I simply don't see those Christian figures to be outside of the church looking in. I do not believe God gifts religious societies those things intended for the church. And I do not believe that there are two types of organizations functioning as the body of Christ on this earth. So I view all assemblies of Christians, gathered for the purpose of the Kingdom and in Christ, to be churches even when there is error. Jesus did the same, BTW, in Revelation.

 

The Spirit being at work in the hearts of men does not constitute a church. The Spirit moves as He Sovereignly pleases. Are you suggesting the Omnipresent Spirit of God can only work through a church, even one that falls short of the biblical definition?

 

This is my point, Biblicist. You are saying that John Knox, John Wesley, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, etc. are pastors but that they are false pastors of false churches (the position of pastor or “overseer” was gifted to the churches, not to religious societies). Not only that, but the single doctrine that prevents the New Testament instructions to the churches as applicable to them is their understanding of a symbolic act. You are saying that Paul’s instructions to the church in Corinth does not apply to them insofar as it addresses churches not because they reject the gospel (they affirm and teach the gospel), not because they gather under a false god (they gather in the name of Christ), not because they gather for themselves (they gathered for Kingdom work), not because God did not use them (God used them greatly…just as much if not more than many Baptist pastors), but because they misinterpret what you believe to be symbolic.

By your claim Wesley, Knox, Calvin, Edwards, Whitfield, etc. are false pastors leading false churches who held views over a symbolic act that prevented their own congregations from being the local expression of the Body of Christ. And you are wrong.

Like I said when we were discussing Howell’s rejection of Landmarkism, the problem is not necessarily the doctrine but the application.

 

No, I am not suggesting that the Omnipresent Spirit of God can only work through a church. I am suggesting that God has chosen to work through the church as the local expression of the Body of Christ. God can redefine the flock and gift pastors to a social club, or a religious society, or the local PTA. He can gift them the gift of tongues, of prophesy, of healing. But He doesn’t. It is not a matter of God’s omnipresence or omnipotence. It’s a matter of God’s immutability and His faithfulness. Instead I believe God has chosen a people set aside for His purposes that function as local churches.

If those men (Whitefield, Wesley, Knox, Calvin, Edwards, etc.) were indeed false pastors leading false churches (if they are those we are warned of in Rm. 16:17) then we do not need to entertain their teachings, There are men on this very forum who call themselves "Baptists" while at the same time claiming to be "Calvinists"...attributing as God given truth the words of false preachers to false churches.

I personally don't believe that, although I can see no other conclusion from your arguments. I believe that those men were indeed faithful pastors of churches and God used them within the context of His own people even through their doctrine and understanding was less than perfect. What they had right - the gospel of Jesus Christ and their purchase by His precious blood - was enough to overcome misunderstanding and error associated with a symbolic act and they are churches (regardless of their error).

 

Yes. The biblical church. The local, organized, assembly of baptized believers.

Is He faithful to His church or to Man's church? Look what God calls these "churches" in Revelation. The Great Whore and her Harlot Daughters. 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Yes, He has. An organized assembly of baptized believers.

Then you have failed to understand the argument.

We are not talking about perfection. We are talking about false doctrine.

Anyone who calls himself "pastor" is a pastor and any group that calls itself "church" is a church?

 

John, my bible teaches that baptism symbolizes the death/burial (buried with Him in baptism) and resurrection of Christ (raised [resurrected] to walk in the newness of life).

Could you please show me how sprinkling a few drops of water on a baby's head symbolizes death/burial? Have you ever been to a grave side service portion of a funeral? Did the minister lay the body on the grass and sprinkle some dirt on the departed's head and proclaim, "There! He's buried. Let's all go home?"

How about resurrection. How does sprinkling a few drops of water on the head of an infant symbolize the resurrection of Christ.

You keep calling baptism a "symbol" but symbols are only valid if they symbolize a truth.

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the symbol of that which saves us, the resurrection of Christ.

So, again, how does sprinkling symbolize His resurrection?

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

And how does sprinkling symbolize His death/burial?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Sure (sorry, I don't do well with multiple posts).

I do not agree that this is the Landmark position as applied by J.R. Graves (which is what I was speaking of). While I applaud Grave’s intent and believe that his concern is applicable today, throughout history there is no evidences that any one church held firmly a New Testament doctrine of the church. But I do believe that throughout history there have been true gospel churches that held to true Baptism. Often, however, those churches would have rejected what we refer to as Baptist churches.

I think you meant #67:

I agree that the woman would not be a true biblical pastor. But the reason is that I do not believe God would give her the gifts required, nor ordain her to that position, as she is not qualified.

I believe that God ordained Wesley, Whitefield, Knox, and Edwards for the position that they served, as pastor. I also believe that they were gifted by God for the positions they assumed as pastor over those churches.

Perhaps that is because you have failed to grasp that I have not rejected those biblical doctrines you proclaim. I don’t even object to the doctrines upon which Landmarkism was founded (neither did Howell, come to think of it). I simply think that you are applying biblical doctrines unbiblically. So there are no passages that prove me right and you wrong just there are no passages that prove you right and me wrong. We agree on Scripture but disagree in application.

To illustrate with another issue Howell faced – I agree with the Scripture and doctrines that formed the base for the anti-mission’s movement (I hold a Calvinistic soterioilogy), but I detest the application as unbiblical.

I do understand the symbolism of baptism. Where I disagree is that I do not believe those paedobaptists (men like Wesley, Knox, Edwards, Calvin, Whitfield, etc.) teach a false gospel because of their misunderstanding of baptism. But if they do, then I do not understand why so many here seem to glean truths from false teachers. These men should be exposed for the evil you think they have done (teaching another gospel, forwarding a counterfeit church). I just don’t see the level of conviction that your words should generate on the topic.

Sure I can. I believe Arminianism, free-will theology, hyper-Calvinism, the idea that Jesus spiritually separated from rather than relied on God at the Cross, and a probably a few other things to diminish the gospel itself but I still call those congregations who hold those errors churches.

I don’t know who Jesus or Paul would or would not appoint as pastors. Neither do you. At my church, we would appoint people that adhered to our doctrine. We wouldn’t have Knox, Calvin, Whitfield, Wesley, Edwards, or even Tim Keller preaching from our pulpit as they do not represent our beliefs. But I’d recommend their books.

If we excluded a gifted man from our congregation would he still be gifted? Here we may disagree. I believe that God calls people to positions and that He makes them what it is He has called them to be. If we excluded a man from our congregation who God had ordained and gifted to our congregation then I’d suspect we’d be in the wrong.

I get overwhelmed when people respond with post after post without opportunity to respond. When this happens I go into skim mode. I’m the same way with loud conversations (more so now than a decade ago, for some reason). You have my apologies for not responding and I hope I’ve addressed your inquires sufficiently.

 

Tom, I do not believe that there is a substitution for baptism by immersion. Always aiming to settle those inquiring minds.

Edited:

I don’t know for certain, but I always wondered if those who “sprinkle” perhaps associates this with forgiveness (e.g., Ezekiel 36 when God says He will “sprinkle clean water on them ”). If so, then I suppose it incorporates the means of God’s forgiveness (just as some have associated faith in God’s provision for OT saints with faith in Christ). Just an idea. To find out, I suppose you need to ask someone who believes other modes of baptism are sufficient.