Featured The Essential truth of Landmarkism preserves the gospel

That was not the implication of your words and you know it. You were directly comparing it to the normal meaning of "cult" used by every major Christian book on Cults. If your revised explanation is what you mean then you have defined yourself as part of a cult as you claim your church is nothing more than secondary off-shoot of Rome and I take it your kind of church does not fellowship with Rome???? Rome still has the majority of professing Christians in the world (1.2 billion out of 2.1 billion)!! So you are part of a cult???

And who do you think the Reformers were? Roman Catholic Priests that opposed various things about Roman Theology who were also persecuted by Rome. So now, you have Wyliffe simply as an early Reformed Roman Catholic who incidently, never left Rome. So, at worst you are again confirming exactly what I said - your doctrine comes from Roman Catholic Priests. So whether you want to date it with 16th century Roman Catholic priests (the Reformers) or a 14th century Roman Catholic Priest, the bottom line is still the same.

Oh, so now you want to parse words and you are moving away from the terms "universal church" to "invisible universal church" as you know very well Augustine was the first to systematically teach the "universal church" theory and it was not Wycliffe. So be honest and clear about what you are talking about. You are not talking about the "universal" church theory at all, even though that is the pretense you began under, but you are talking about an "invisible" church theory.

 

No, that is precisely what your theory demands. You must deny the most basic principles of heremeneutics. For example, your view must deny the historic usage of the term ekklesia. The most basic hermeneutical rule is that one cannot interpret any given word contrary to its normal historical meaning unless that normal historical meaning will not make sense in the context, and then only must a new meaning be sought that makes sense in the context. Furthermore, even if a new meaning does make sense in any given context that new meaning must be rejected as long as the historical meaning makes sense in that context. UIC advocates have ignorned that basic rule and must to establish their interpretation of the church.

The historical meaning of ekklesia is ALWAYS used to describe a corporeal, physical unity of people and NEVER is used to describe a non-corporeal, invisible or scattered people in Classical and Koine Greek. It is used in the plural and singular, concrete and abstract institutional sense in Classical Greek. Therefore, when any expositor of the New Testament comes to that term they must first see if any of these historical uses make sense, and only when none make sense then seek a new meaning. However, the historical sense makes sense in every single passage in the New Testament. The Greek term ekklesia is found 115 times in the New Testament. Twice it is used for the common Greek city ekkleisa (Acts 19) another 95 times it used either in the singular or plural in a context where none dispute its historical meaning. The remaining few times the historical abstract institutional meaning fits perfectly.

Another basic rule of hermeneutics that MUST be abused by the UIC advocate is violation of the usage of metaphors. A metaphor conveys representation, and the metaphor REQUIRES that both nouns FIRST be understood in their most literal sense as it is characteristics found in the LITERAL understanding that are being transferred to the other noun. For example the terms "body" and "head' used as metaphors. UIC advocates establish their doctrine on the misuse of metaphors by FORCING these terms to convey characteristics that cannot be found in the LITERAL sense of the terms. For example, the LITERAL "body" cannot be used metaphorically to convey any idea of universality or invisibility as such characteristics are not found in LITERAL bodies. Unity, members, visibility, locality are things that can be found in the LITERAL sense and thus can be characteristics conveyed metaphorically.

The UIC doctrine is built and established on the violation of these two very basic rules of hermeneutics. If you submit to these basic rules the whole doctrine vanishes into nothingness.

 

No, I don't need to be a mind reader because you were speaking about the same general time period and anyone familiar with history knows that the early 1800's those cults rose up and you made yourself quite clear in that regard.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.- 2 thes. 3:6

1 Cor. 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Paul does not exhaust the list of those who are characterized by the fruits of the flesh in verse 11 but to the Galatians he adds "heresies" (Gal. 5:19)

IF such are to be "put away from among yourselves" they are not to fellowship with those OUTSIDE their body who they would put away from themselves if they were inside their body!!!

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. - Rom. 16:17-18

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Another FALSE ACCUSATION as J.R. Graves denied such thing nor does any Landmark demand such a thing. You are grasping at straws. Like faith and order is the only prerequisite to church fellowship and constitutional acknowledgement.

Pure hogwash! 1 Cor. 6:15 proves no such body as you describe exists in the book of 1 Corinthians as the kind he speaks of consists of PHYSICAL HUMAN BODIES.

Y

That is how it goes, the one who is really wriggling and turning is charging others with that! Wycliffe NEVER renounced his Roman Catholic faith and the Reformers would have never renounced it either if they had been given a choice.

Another lie! The scripture promises that the Lord's churches would be here "all the days of the age" (Mt. 28:20 literal translation) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with providing historical data to support (although it can't prove) that promise.

You wouldn't know the truth if it stared you in the face.

 

We have some distractors on this thread who want to deal with everything but OP. No one has dared tackle the OP head on. Why? Because they cannot, that is why! They want to distract, detour, follow rabbit trails but can't deal forthrightly with the OP.

 

ALL who are "in Adam" are "in the flesh" BECAUSE they all have been "BORN of the flesh."
ALL who are "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" BECAUSE they all have been "BORN of the Spirit"

All who are "in Adam" have been CREATED in Adam
All who are "in Christ" have been CREATED in Christ - Eph. 2:1-10

This creative work of being placed "in Christ" spiritually is called QUICKENING (Eph. 2:1-10) because it is the spiritual "dead" who are created "in Christ" and that creative act reverses spiritual death (SEPARATION) with spiritual life (UNION).

No kind of baptism places one "in Christ"! No kind of church membership places one in Christ - that is the doctrine of Roman Catholic church salvation. It is false BECAUSE:

1. The church cannot precede its own "foundation" which is composed of ONLY N.T. materials as aposltes are the FIRST to be "SET IN" this church followed "SECONDLY" by prophets. Hence, if to be "in Christ" is to be in the church then all prior to the ministry of Christ are OUTSIDE of Christ and there is no salvation for anyone at anytime OUTSIDE of Christ. Hence, being "in Christ" meaning being "in the church" is a false gospel.

2. The baptism in the Spirit is an ACTION that is fixed in time as a COMPLETED ACTION on Pentecost to the Jewish church at Jerusalem and then repeated as a completed Action upon Gentiles so they could be received into the church by water baptism. In every text prior to Pentecost it is future tense proving it had no prior existence in the manner of its predicted application. In every text prior to Pentecost it is directed towads ONLY water baptized believers in Christ. It is LOCATION fixed as they must wait in "Jerusalem" and therefore it had no UNIVERSAL application to other believers located elsewhere and outside Jerusalem except those "in one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1). It occurs with EXTERNAL phenomena of both SOUNDS and VISIBLE expressions. It is the common ordinary divine accreditation that occurred historically AFTER a new house of God for public worship was completed (Ex. 40:35; 2 Chron. 7:1-3). It had to occur in Jerusalem in direct connection with the Temple or else the Jews would never have accepted it as a replacement for the temple as the public house of worship where a qualified ministry, qualified ordinances, qualified gospel mission, etc.

3.The abstract institutional use of ekklesia and it synonyms completely repudiates the Universal invisble church theory which confuses salvation with the church and baptism and confuses the family and kingdom of God with the church.

4. The doctrine of Landmarkism is essential to preserve the truth of "GOSPEL salvation" from Genesis to Revelation separating and distinguishing salvation from the church and baptism, and separating the family and kingdom from the church of God.

 

Where does the Bible say that? The promised administrator of that baptism is not the Holy Spirit but Christ read Mt. 3:11. The only baptism administered "by" or "under the direction of" the Holy Spirit is water baptism (see 1 Cor. 3:5-16). Just as Jesus, the first comforter administered baptism through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2) so the Holy Spirit administers water baptism through his servants: Read this:

5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that plants any thing, neither he that waters; but God that gives the increase.
8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are laborers together with God: you are God’s husbandry, you are God’s building.

Yeshua did you read it? The context is with regard to how the congregation at Corinth was constituted and built up They had been fighting over their human administrator of baptism. Paul's response was that all the human adminstrators of water baptism "ARE ONE" because they are "LABORERS TOGETHER WITH GOD" - meaning they are all working UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP, under ONE BOSS - The Holy Spirit and therefore "YOU are GOD'S building". Paul did not say "WE" but "YOU." Paul was not a member of that church.

You seem to be slow at discerning Scripture. Read it again slowing and see how Paul is resolving division in the church at Corinth over the administrators of their individual baptisms. Paul is sayin there really are no human administrators of water baptism to be divided over as they are all "ONE" because they are LABORERS TOGETHER with God the Holy Spirit and so the credit for their baptism is given to the Holy Spirit as "YOU ARE HIS BUILDING" not Paul's, not Apollos or Cephas, etc.

Yeshua, read it again, until you grasp what it is saying.

 

That shows how little you know about Landmarkism. We do not RELY on succession at all. We never demand proof of succession to be regarded as a true NT. Church. We demand nothing more the what Scriptures demand and that is constitution by a previous "ye" (Mt. 28:19-20) of like faith and order.

 

It seems that many want to follow every rabbit trail in order to escape dealing with Biblical evidence placed right before their face. So again I am resposting this post.

 

Here is the OP again. We will see if anyone yet will directly address the evidence.