The Essential truth of Landmarkism preserves the gospel

[The Biblicist]

Although, it has never been my practice to resort to the term Landmarkism to defend anything I believe, I do believe the essential truth stated in the historical definition of Landmarkism by Cathcart in his Baptist Encyclopedia is essential to preserve the Biblical doctrine of salvation from perversion.

The Universal Invisible Church theory, that is nothing more or less than the Roman Catholic doctrine of church salvation, conflates salvation with the church. The only difference between Rome's doctrine of church salvation and Reformed Roman Catholic church salvation is the term "invisible." Both teach church salvation.

Dr. John MacArthur has admitted as much, when he states that there can be no salvation outside the church conceived as the universal invisible body of Christ. To be outside membership in this kind of church is to be lost and to be inside is to be saved and it is the baptism in the Spirit that is the means which makes the difference of being inside versus outside.

However, this error has four major problems.

1. The "foundation" of the church is New Testament in ORIGIN as it consists of New Testament materials - Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28. Why is this a problem? Because it forces church salvationists to either deny pre-cross saints are saved at all, or are saved by some other kind of salvation that is inferior to present salvation.

2. The means for entrance into this church salvation is TIME FIXED so that it is non-existent as an ACTION previous to Pentecost. Removal from "in Adam" with regard to the spiritual state to "in Christ" is an ACTION that must be repeated with each individual or they remain "in Adam" according to the church salvationist theory. Fixing this action to Pentecost, again denies anyone prior to Pentecost could be removed from "in Adam" to "in Christ" and therefore they are forced to either deny anyone was saved prior to Pentecost OR come up with a salvation that is OUTSIDE of Christ and found only "in Adam" as they have no means to remove a person from "in Adam" with regard to their spiritual state to "in Christ."

3. The New Testament clearly states it is the act of quickening as a creative work of God that places a person "in Christ" rather than any kind of baptism (Eph. 2:1,5,8,10).

4. The universal problem of all mankind before and after Pentecost is spiritual SEPARATION from God. To be spiritually separated from God is to be separated from life, light, love and holiness because all of these have their only source in God who is life, light, love and holiness. Hence, the universal solution is spiritual union. If the baptism in the Spirit is the means for this spiritual union, then all before Pentecost lived and died in a state of spiritual separation - thus spritually dead, in spiritual darkness, and depravity without love and more significantly at physial death their departing spirit remained in that state. Thus they remained "in the flesh" and all who are "in the flesh CANNOT please God" (Rom. 8:8).

However, the essential truth of Landmarkism demands a distinction between salvation and the church so that they are not confused with each other and thus preserves the truth of the gospel from being perverted into Romanism church salvation. It demands a distinction between the church and the kingdom of God whereas the Romanist view confuses them. It demands the church is the visible expression of the professing kingdom of God on earth with regard to its administration of public ordinances and public worship. The bible clearly distinguishes between the kingdom and church of God.

Some Apparent Differences


Eph. 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

1 Cor. 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,

Furthermore, the following lessons will sustain these are to be distinguished from one another rather than interpreted as synonyms.


1. The difference of terminology and meaning:

a. "Family" - Greek "patria" - those fathered – lineage

b. "Kingdom" - Greek "basilea" - the rule and realm and Person of a king

c. "Church" - Greek "ekklesia" - congregation, assembly


2. The different applications

a. The Bible speaks of the “gospel of the kingdom” but never uses such language for the

family or church.


b. The Bible speaks of the “keys of the kingdom” but never uses such language for the church

or family of God.


c. The term “member” is never used in scripture to describe those in God’s kingdom or family

but only those in churches.


d. The church is called a “body” and “building” but the kingdom and family are never thus

called.


e. Jesus says “tell it to the church” but never says tell it to the kingdom or family.


f. The terms “kingdom” and “family” are only found in the singular but the term “church” is

found in the plural (36 times) and in the singular (79 times).


g. A “brother” can be placed outside the church membership by other brethren exercising

church discipline, but no human disciplinary action can remove any “brother” outside the

kingdom and family of God. – 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6,14.


h. The professing kingdom contains “tares” (Mt. 13:41) and the church contains persons like

Judas, but the family of God only contains true born again believers.


i. The Kingdom and family contain persons without water baptism (all pre-New Testament

believers and unbaptized believers in this age), but church membership is for only water

baptized professed believers – Acts 2:41-42


j. We read of ‘elders” and “apostles” in the church but no such officers are ever used to

describe those in the kingdom and family.


k. Geographical names are given to the church – “the church of God at Corinth” but no such

geographical language is ever used for the kingdom and family of God.


l. The church is described as being “built” and “fitly framed” but the kingdom is announced as

“near at hand.” Neither the kingdom or family are said to be “built” or “fitly framed.”


3. The Difference in Nature

a. The church conveys an autonomous democratic body

b. The kingdom conveys a sovereign rule by a king

c. The family conveys a paternal relationship between a father and his children


4. The difference in relationship to God

a. "Family" - relationship is defined as "children"

b. "Kingdom" relationship is defined as "citizens"

c. "Church" - relationship is defined as "members"


5. The difference in size

a. "Family" includes all saints in heaven and presently on earth - Eph. 3:15

b. "Kingdom" –Is God’s rule over the entire universe but in regard to his spiritual kingdom

on earth it includes only “the seed” presently on earth at any given time - Mt. 13

c. "Church" – includes baptized believers gathered out of God's kingdom and family on earth

who actually assemble together - Acts 2:41


6. The difference in entrance

a. "Family" is by birth "born" a child of God - I Jn. 3:18

b. “Kingdom" is by translation/birth - Col. 1:13/Jn. 3:3-6

c. "Church" is by water baptism - Acts 2:41



7. The difference in origin


a. “Kingdom” began with creation of this universe (Psa. 103:19) while the spiritual kingdom

on earth began with the first person saved from the fall (Adam) in Genesis thus born into

the kingdom of his dear son (Col. 1:13; Gen. 3:15; Acts 10:43). The professing kingdom

consists of the professed saved (true seed and tares) – Mt. 13


b. “Family” began with new birth of first child of God – Gen. 3:15 (new birth prior to

Pentecost – Jn. 3:3-11; Ezek. 44:7)


c. “Church” began with Christ’s First Advent and with the materials prepared by John the

Baptist – Acts 1:21-22; Lk. 1:17; – and first gifted officers set in the church – 1 Cor. 12:28.

First members and Foundation of church are found in the New Testament, not the Old

Testament (Eph. 2:20.


8. The difference in internal relationships


a. "Family" persons can exist outside of the church - 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6; Acts10:43


b. "Kingdom" persons can exist outside of the church - Acts 10:43; 2 Thes. 3:6


c. "Church" persons can be removed from the church but not from the family or kingdom by

discipline - 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6

 

[Van]

Yet another unorthodox view being peddled here yet again. See this writeup:

https://gotquestions.org/landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet another unorthodox view being peddled here yet again. See this writeup:

https://gotquestions.org/landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html

This is a departure from the theme of this thread which does not refer to views on the Bride, succession, etc. but how the historic definition of Landmarkism preserves the truth of the Biblical doctrine of salvation. Notice that Van does not touch on a single point in the OP. Another diversion and smear tatic.

However, should not service be the most important thing after salvation and is not the very first step of service according to the Great Commision being baptized and then assembling under instruction? Is not that the practice in Acts 2:40-41?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have really had enough of this Landmarkism nonsense, but I can't let one piece of ignorance go unchallenged.

The Universal Invisible Church theory, that is nothing more or less than the Roman Catholic doctrine of church salvation, conflates salvation with the church. The only difference between Rome's doctrine of church salvation and Reformed Roman Catholic church salvation is the term "invisible." Both teach church salvation.

The origin of a Universal Church was actually first taught by John Wyclif in direct opposition to the Church of Rome. In 1378, Wyclif wrote a book called On the Church, in which he declared that the Church was not an outward organization controlled by the Pope and his cohorts, but a spiritual body comprising those eternally elected to salvation. At any given time it was the body of true believers worldwide. It was therefore infallibly known only to God, and its Head was not the Pope but the Lord Jesus Christ. The pope, said Wyclif, could be head only of the outward church that existed in Rome.

The other nonsense is the insistence that the word ekklesia only ever refers to a single congregation.
There are many texts that refute this, and several have been pointed out on other threads. Acts 12:1 is sufficient for this one. At this time we know of churches in Samaria and in Antioch, and there must surely have been ones in Galilee and elsewhere. So the use of ekklesia here must be universal.
One can also look at multiple uses of ekklesia in Ephesians: 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 29, 32. In any of these, it was open to the Holy Spirit to use the plural, as he does in, say, 1 Thes. 2:14, but He has not seen fit to do so in these cases, which can only refer to the Universal Church..

 

[TCassidy]

The origin of a Universal Church was actually first taught by John Wyclif in direct opposition to the Church of Rome.

Uh, the Greek word for "universal" is καθολικός. The Latin word for "universal" is catholicus.

Both words predate John Wyclif by a millennium or two.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have really had enough of this Landmarkism nonsense, but I can't let one piece of ignorance go unchallenged.
The origin of a Universal Church was actually first taught by John Wyclif in direct opposition to the Church of Rome.

You talk about absolute nonsense, this takes the cake. Historically, it is Augustine that even Rome acknowledges as the first one to assert the "universal church" and it was Matthew 13 and the word "world" that he used to do so.

Let me suppose you really meant to say "INVISIBLE universal church" as your following words make more sense in that light. However, thank you for admitting it was 1300 years too late to be a New Testament doctrine.

T

he other nonsense is the insistence that the word ekklesia only ever refers to a single congregation.

Who made that claim? Not I. It is found in the plural it is found in the generic and institutional abstract.

There are many texts that refute this, and several have been pointed out on other threads. Acts 12:1 is sufficient for this one. At this time we know of churches in Samaria and in Antioch, and there must surely have been ones in Galilee and elsewhere. So the use of ekklesia here must be universal.

I see immediate context makes no difference to you. Acts 8:1-3 tells you explicitly that the apostles remained in Jerusalem. Acts 12:2-17 tells you explicitly that it was the apostles (James and Peter) who are being persecuted and they are in Jerusalem where James is located as Peter reported to James before leaving Jerusalem to Ceaserea.

One can also look at multiple uses of ekklesia in Ephesians: 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 29, 32. In any of these, it was open to the Holy Spirit to use the plural, as he does in, say, 1 Thes. 2:14, but He has not seen fit to do so in these cases, which can only refer to the Universal Church..

This is a prison epistle which epistles were commonly passed to other congregations (Col. 4:16). The abstract generic use of nouns is common in these epistles ("the husband...the wife...the servant...the flesh....the church) which made it applicable to each congregation, each husband, or each wife reading or hearing it read. Your view teaches panthesism in Ephesians 1:20-22.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Uh, the Greek word for "universal" is καθολικός. The Latin word for "universal" is catholicus.

Both words predate John Wyclif by a millennium or two.

What are you trying to prove? Do you deny what I wrote about Wyclif and his writings? The Church of Rome called itself 'Catholic' at that time (as it does today) and Wyclif stood out against it with the true doctrine of the Universal Church.

 

[TCassidy]

What are you trying to prove? Do you deny what I wrote about Wyclif and his writings? The Church of Rome called itself 'Catholic' at that time (as it does today) and Wyclif stood out against it with the true doctrine of the Universal Church.

You said,

The origin of a Universal Church was actually first taught by John Wyclif in direct opposition to the Church of Rome.

I pointed out that the origin of the Universal Church did NOT begin with Wyclif. The Church of Rome had called itself "Universal" since the reign of Leo the Great, who proclaimed himself the "Universal Bishop."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You said,
I pointed out that the origin of the Universal Church did NOT begin with Wyclif. The Church of Rome had called itself "Universal" since the reign of Leo the Great, who proclaimed himself the "Universal Bishop."

OK. I suppose I should have written ' The Biblical doctrine of the Universal Church was first taught by Wyclif.' But I think you knew quite well what I meant.

I do not care to use the word 'invisible' too much in connection with this doctrine because of the use the Presbyterians make of it. However, I agree with the 1689 Confession, Chapter 26, and I think Wyclif would have done so too.

'The Universal Church is the true Church of the elect and must be regarded as invisible, because the purest Gospel churches may have in their memberships professing Christians who are deluded, mistaken or hypocritical with regard to their spiritual standing. Equally, the Lord has true believers isolated in unlikely environments' [Dr. Peter Masters on 1689 Confession 26:1.]

 

[The Biblicist]

OK. I suppose I should have written ' The Biblical doctrine of the Universal Church was first taught by Wyclif.' But I think you knew quite well what I meant.

Rome does not believe that, as they recognize Augustine as the theologian who first systematically defended the universal church theory.

 

[TCassidy]

But I think you knew quite well what I meant.

Well, I can only read what you say. I can't read what you were thinking.

The Biblical doctrine of the Universal Church

Ah, yes, the "universal, invisible, mystical" (mythical?) doctrine that can't be found anywhere in the bible.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ah, yes, the "universal, invisible, mystical" (mythical?) doctrine that can't be found anywhere in the bible.

It's all over the Bible. None so blind as those who won't see.

 

[The Biblicist]

It's all over the Bible. None so blind as those who won't see.

As usual you don't deal with the OP or the many biblical evidences presented or the problems provided against your mythical belief. That speaks volumes about blindness.

 

[evangelist6589]

Yet another unorthodox view being peddled here yet again. See this writeup:

https://gotquestions.org/landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html

I may agree with Van here how rare that I do.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Let me suppose you really meant to say "INVISIBLE universal church" as your following words make more sense in that light. However, thank you for admitting it was 1300 years too late to be a New Testament doctrine.

Yes. Just 450 years or so before Landmarkism was invented at much the same times as the other cults.
It would be nice to see you admit my point that Wyclif produced his doctrine specifically against the Church of Rome and that therefore what you wrote at the beginning of your OP is what you would call a lie.

 

[TCassidy]

It's all over the Bible. None so blind as those who won't see.

Show me one time where the bible says "universal church."

 

[JonShaff]

Show me one time where the bible says "universal church."

Was there multiple bodies of Israel?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes. Just 450 years or so before Landmarkism was invented at much the same times as the other cults.

Are you now calling the Landmark position which believes in salvation BEFORE church membership a cult like Mormonism, JW's "as the other cults"???? We do not deny the Trinity, We do not pervert the gospel, we do deny the Scriptures as final authority. What is the basis for comparing us to JW's and Mormon's and Seventh Day Adventists as that is the clear intent of your words?

It would be nice to see you admit my point that Wyclif produced his doctrine specifically against the Church of Rome and that therefore what you wrote at the beginning of your OP is what you would call a lie.

I said the doctrine of "church salvation" was Roman Catholic in its origin and Wycliffe was a Roman Catholic priest. You have just confirmed what I said. However, you are in error about Wyciffe originating the "universal church" theory as Augustine did that and Rome acknowledges that.

 

[The Biblicist]

I may agree with Van here how rare that I do.

Van could not deal with the OP. He could not deal with the problems presented in the OP. He could not deal with the Biblical evidence presented in the OP and it seems you can't either. Instead he cited an inaccurate portrayal of Landmarkism. I didn't take the time to refute his reference as it had nothing to do with the OP. Point out where I am in error in the OP rather than simply dismissing it as error. This is a debate forum is it not?

 

[Aaron]

Landmarkism: Apostolic succession for some Baptist sects.