Landmarkism: What is it?

[taisto]

In The Baptist Heritage, H. Leon McBeth lists these positions as illustrative of Landmarkism’s stance on the church:

1. Baptist churches are the only true churches in the world.
2. The true church is a local, visible institution.
3. The churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous.
4. There must be no “pulpit affiliation” with non-Baptists.
5. Only a church can do churchly acts.
6. Baptist churches have always existed in every age by an unbroken historical succession.

As you can see, Landmarkism places much emphasis on the practice and position of the church. The extent of those positions has led many to dub them “Baptist Briders”, as their belief that only Baptist churches are the true churches and therefore only they must make up the Bride of Christ.

Landmarkism: The Original Fundamental Baptists? – BaptistBasics.org

This article helps me understand why my dad, an Independent Fundamental Church of America (IFCA) proponent, was so put off against being a Baptist. I have no experience with Landmarkism so when the name came up it was something I hadn't heard of before.

 

[37818]

What is Landmarkism? What is “Baptist Bride” theology? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Alan Gross]

Well, the Lord happened to slip this one in on everybody, I believe.

This gotquestions article demonstrates the heritage of any and all Baptists, that are even close to being sound in faith, or used to be, is traceable back to Biblical times, historically.

They say that Baptist-type believers all came up from the time of Jesus Christ. In other words, not of human origin, but Divine.

That's "Landmark" Doctrine, but that is what is also Bible Doctrine, Historical Baptist Doctrine from the word go, and Christian Doctrine, because who do you think it was that kept the faith down through the centuries?

Those who killed millions upon millions of God's children, thinking they were doing the Will of God?

Or, "Christians", doing what God told them to do?

Gotquestions gives a pretty good snapshot of the realities in Christian History that shows those holding and practicing Baptist-type doctrines started right out in the first century

and that there is every reason to believe there have always been these faithful and true witnesses of Jesus and New Testament doctrines, including the doctrines of authority and church organization, until today.

Like begets like is where I came from. Adam. I don't need a pedigree from history, to know I originated in the Garden.

Like begets like, then, is an explanation for the existence of like faith and order church assemblies conducting the Business of God, no matter what untill some along the way were slaughtered and decimated by their "religious" enemies,

and it explains why there are those today, still in existence that possess like faith and order beliefs and practices of their New Testament beginnings.

From: What is the Baptist Church, and what do Baptists believe? | GotQuestions.org

They do pretty good, until they get to Roger Williams, which is one of many instances where Baptists and their faith and practices and lineage and authority all survived,

in spite of what 'historians' ignorantly claim regarding Roger Williams and by Baptists actually not having had anything to do with Roger Williams or him with Baptists.

You can dig into this and get the explanation about Roger Williams and John Clark, if you want:
Baptist Succession
....

"Depending on whom you ask, the Baptist church can be the oldest of all traditions, or a newcomer hanging on the coattails of the Reformation.

"It can be the standard-bearer of old-time, orthodox doctrine or the breeding ground of heresy.

"The truth is that the answer depends on whether you are examining a particular group or the fundamental doctrines of that group.

"Each Baptist group can trace its history to a particular starting point as an organization, but the roots go back to the very beginning of the Christian faith.

"Tracking down the origins of the Baptist Church in general is an exercise in ancient church history.

"From the days of the apostles, there was one Church of Jesus Christ, with a single body of doctrine taught by the apostles.

"The various local churches preached repentance and confession of sins, along with baptism by immersion as an outward sign of the new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4)", etc., etc.

More: What is the Baptist Church, and what do Baptists believe? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Alan Gross]

What is Landmarkism? What is “Baptist Bride” theology? | GotQuestions.org

What is Landmarkism?

Did they mean to leave out, "contend for"(?)!

“The faith which was once delivered unto the saints” "(Jude 3) is their heritage.

"Landmark Baptists see themselves as safeguarding the purity of the church, as originally established in the New Testament.

"It is this purity which will be rewarded with being selected as the Bride.

"The landmark Baptists’ original goal—to stem the tide of encroaching liberalism—was admirable.

"The problem is that landmarkism, in its attempt to fight error, has fallen into error of a different and more egregious kind—the misinterpretation of Scripture.

"Here are a few points that landmark theology fails to acknowledge:

"1) The “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 is not a water baptism, but a spiritual one."

Do they have the Internet?

If so, they can type in "Google calculator", and try to put the number "1" for "water baptism" in there, as being "Baptism #1"

and then, when they are ready, they can go right on ahead and add another "1", for, "Spirit baptism", as "Baptism #2", to that first "1", for, "Baptism #1",

and then if they will hit the, "equal button".

We can find out what they get.

Did you try it?

What did you get?

Are the results in, yet?

Anybody get the answer to be,"1",

so as to not contradict, "The “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5?

Silly website.

They're trying to trick me, aren't they?

"one baptism".

That's what they're talking about isn't it?

But, "1" + "1" = "2".

When, "water baptism", that they talked about and so we know they are aware of it, as most any Christian would be, and, "Spirit baptism", are both added together, as a couple of "baptisms", we don't get "one baptism", anymore.

Brother.

What happened to,
"The problem is that landmarkism, in its attempt to fight error, has fallen into error of a different and more egregious kind—the misinterpretation of Scripture.

"Here are a few points that landmark theology fails to acknowledge:

Am I missing something?

I made an egregious misinterpretation of scripture and failed to acknowledge something somewhere, I bet, didn't I?

Maybe, I forgot to tell them that, "The Holy Spirit" has never "baptized" anything.

That makes them saying,

"1) The “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 is not a water baptism, but a spiritual one"

as collosal a fail, as you'd ever want to see posted on the Internet.

I guess they do have the Internet, then.

But, God put Ephesians 4:5 in the Bible, to counter this evil kind of mastermined contrivance.

He doesn't need His Eternal Plan of Salvation mocked, with men adding to His Word, and saying there has ever been such a thing as "the Spirit of God" "baptizing" anything.

"Spirit baptism"?

Come on.

Not in the Bible.

Jesus was the Administrator of baptising, or immersing, His Divine church institution He had Divinely originated, with the Holy Spirit, as the Element of that baptism on the Day of Pentecost,

when Jesus baptized and anointed the Most Holy with the Holy Spirit Shekinah Glory, as Another Comforter, and publically inaugurated and announced;

"How and Where God is to be Worshipped
all during this present New Testament Age of Churches".

But "Holy Spirit baptism"?

That's evil to even think about.

Not taught.

Where do these aberrations come from, that get into people's heads and become part of their testimony and religion?

Even far worse, after first saying something that never happens is credited to be a portion of the salvation experience, by saying the soul is, "spiritually baptized",

then?...after that saint of God, claims that they have been, "baptized by the Spirit of GOD"..., secondly,...

...they say that "the Spirit baptized" them,

"INTO"?...something that doesn't exist and was only able to be fabricated to ever pretend to exists to start with,

AFTER men tampered with the Greek word in the Bible meaning, "locally assembled together",

and added their own bright idea to the original word, meaning, "locally assembled together"

and claimed that it also has a meaning(?) that gives it the perfectly opposite definition(?) of: "globally distributed apart".

If you want to??? or what?

Is that where we're at?

Are you kidding me?

When has God ever given us words that have two possible meanings that are the exact opposite of each other?

And after buying all that, grown children of God say that this "Spirit baptizes them INTO" A State of UNIVERSAL WORLD-WIDE INVISIBLE People, "locally assembled together",

I mean, INVISIBLE People, "globally distributed apart".

There you go. It's the devil, according to me.

The devil did it.

And, who would ever guess that it's all one big false, fake, demonic stronghold, from which they don't even know they need Jesus to Deliver them from?

Now, they're giving worship to the devil, in a Fraudulent "church" fantasy, while the Worship of God is SUBJUGATED.

see next:

 

[canadyjd]

What is Landmarkism?…….

He doesn't need His Eternal Plan of Salvation mocked, with men adding to His Word, and saying there has ever been such a thing as "the Spirit of God" "baptizing" anything.

"Spirit baptism"?

Come on.

Not in the Bible…….

…..But "Holy Spirit baptism"?

That's evil to even think about.

Not taught…..."

Luke 3:16 John the Baptizer said when Jesus came He would baptize with The Holy Spirit and with fire.

Read it and then explain how it’s not taught in scripture and evil to even think about it.

peace to you

 

[Alan Gross]

You remember when we were talking about:

"How and Where God is to be Worshipped
all during this present New Testament Age of Churches."

Children of God blew that one.

The changes to His Word has disenfranchised them
from comprehending what the Bible had actually said.

Before, they changed it.

All because of the decision of accepting the Word of God
being adulterated and contaminated with the words of man.

Here is exactly what they have entirely missed out on:

Try reading it like this (with commentary added) for the full effect of what Jesus actually was simply saying, using words that He intended for them to mean what He said.

NOT TO MEAN THE ABSOLUTE POLAR OPPOSITE
OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING!!!!!

And NOT TO BE DENYING AND CONTRIDICTING HIMSELF,
by HIS VERY OWN Words the Son of God Himself
was SAYING THAT HE MEANT!!!!!

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,

"and upon this rock

"I will build my":

local, visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers,

covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern
of a “one member, one vote,” Spirit-led democracy;

whose purpose is the carrying out of the Great Commission
of Matthew 28:16-20"

"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18.

That's what God had said about:

"How and Where God is to be Worshipped
all during this present New Testament Age of Churches."

The word Jesus uses in Matthew 16:18, when He says, "I will build my church",
means that He was saying He was building a, "locally assembled together", institution and organization to Worship Him and to do His Business and that is the kind of, "locally assembled together", institution and organization that He would not let the gates of hell prevail against it.

Unfortunately, the gates of hell have apparently prevailed against those who have embraced the idea that Jesus had something to do with having built something where there are:
UNIVERSAL WORLD-WIDE INVISIBLE People, "globally distributed apart", where "all saved people are."

I wouldn't form too close of an alliance with that absurd a false religious monstrosity.

Jesus didn't build anything like that.

And Jesus never said or indicated He would build, or anything like that.

Someone did, however.

...

*Daniel 9:24g; "and to anoint the most Holy."

 

[canadyjd]

You remember when we were talking about:……

Try reading it like this (with commentary added) for the full effect of what Jesus actually was simply saying, using words that He intended for them to mean what He said…..

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,

"and upon this rock

"I will build my":

local, visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers,

covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern
of a “one member, one vote,” Spirit-led democracy;

whose purpose is the carrying out of the Great Commission
of Matthew 28:16-20"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjugate
"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18…..
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjugate
That's what God had said about:…."

Ok, I think I understand part of what you are saying…

Jesus intended the “church” to be a local assembly of believers devoted to Jesus and the Great Commission.

Any attempt to acknowledge a world wide group of believers devoted to Jesus and the Great Commission is not biblical.

Do I understand that part correctly?

You will have to show me from scripture the “biblical pattern” where Jesus intended the local assembly (church) to be a “one member, one vote democracy”.

peace to you

 

[37818]

“The faith which was once delivered unto the saints” "(Jude 3) is their heritage

Baptist not Landmarkism Baptist.

 

[canadyjd]

Luke 3:16 John the Baptizer said when Jesus came He would baptize with The Holy Spirit and with fire.

Read it and then explain how it’s not taught in scripture and evil to even think about it.

peace to you

Ok, Alan, you stated Holy Spirit baptism was not taught in scripture and that it was “evil” to even think about it.

I pointed to scripture, Luke 3:16, which says Jesus will Baptize with the Holy Spirit.

You haven’t commented yet. I’m hoping you have changed your mind to conform with scripture.

peace to you

 

[Alan Gross]

Jesus intended the “church” to be a local assembly of believers devoted to Jesus and the Great Commission.

That's the most glorious post I've seen on the BB, yet.

Awesome!

That's His Words.

You've got Book on it!

Any attempt to acknowledge a world wide group of believers devoted to Jesus and the Great Commission is not biblical.

That's akin to saying, "what if a big line of people show up at my front door, wanting to get to know me better?

Well, in all likelihood they're not going to, so I probably shouldn't worry about it.

The Lord goes about His Business of establishing His kind of local assemblies in an organized way.

Anybody that wants to preach Jesus has the go ahead, and what's going on with them and the ordinances, and the prospect of them, "teaching all things", and all that, I hope they at least know to teach, "Jesus intended the “church” to be a local assembly of believers devoted to Jesus and the Great Commission" and that they can skip the "Spirit baptism" slide show part.

I’m hoping you have changed your mind to conform with scripture.

Ahhh, no.
...

explain how it’s not taught in scripture

You already did.

The "He" in your verse you gave is Jesus.

He would be the One Who was going to be doing the baptizing.

Jesus is the One that is said to be the Administrator of that baptism, with the Holy Spirit being the Element used in that baptizing Jesus was to do.

The same entity wouldn't be both The Administrator and Element.

I pointed to scripture, Luke 3:16, which says Jesus will Baptize with the Holy Spirit.

when Jesus baptized and anointed the Most Holy with the Holy Spirit Shekinah Glory, as Another Comforter, and publically inaugurated and announced;

"How and Where God is to be Worshipped
all during this present New Testament Age of Churches".

"The Holy Spirit" has never "baptized" anything.

But, "1" + "1" = "2".

When, "water baptism", that they already talked about and so we know they are aware of it, as most any Christian would be, and, "Spirit baptism", are both added together, as a couple of "baptisms", we don't get "one baptism", anymore.

That makes them saying,

"1) The “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 is not a water baptism, but a spiritual one"

as collosal a fail, as you'd ever want to see posted on the Internet.

"Spirit baptism"?

Not taught.

...

 

[Alan Gross]

evil to even think about it.

It is what's called, "a lie".

And it is not God Who comes up with lies.

When there is no record in the Bible that has God speaking or teaching about a particular subject, if we are to Honor Him and His Word, we will know that it is senseless and not what He has called to do, if we are somehow tempted to just start making things up and creating new teachings and doctrines out of thin air.

In this particular instance, to try to create and invent the idea of "Holy Spirit Baptism", would immediately put us at odds with the plane teaching we already have to go by, which is, "one baptism".

so as to not contradict, "The “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5

But, God put Ephesians 4:5 in the Bible, to counter this evil kind of mastermined contrivance.

"One baptism" just needs to be placed in front of a few million people, who are inspired with enthusiasm while practicing anything on that topic as a false religion.

Where do these aberrations come from, that get into people's heads and become part of their testimony and religion?

He doesn't need His Eternal Plan of Salvation mocked, with men adding to His Word, and saying there has ever been such a thing as "the Spirit of God" "baptizing" anything.

Adding to God's Word is a horrifying thing to consider doing.

Look what happened when men said. "oh, we need to change that" and basically added and attached another word to go along with the word, "church" and then had to do the same thing with the word, "body".

A simplification of those words, by taking them down to have them just say they are referring to something that is "local and contained", then got added to them what amounts to the word "Kingdom", which is going to produce an entirely different expression, as in "global and un-contained".

And those two meanings are complete opposites.

Question.

Which meaning did God think we were supposed to use and for which verses?

"Church" is mentioned 114 times in the New Testament.

What percentage of them am I going to choose and pick right?

And then, what percentage is the next person going to pick and guess just right?

The crying shame all the way around is that "I will build my kingdom" doesn't give us any new revelation of anything. The Kingdom of the Son with Jesus as King was already a reality.

Then, who can imagine the Triune Godhead seeing that ridiculous editing of the Bible smothering, obscuring, and voiding out their message regarding the local assembly, which was to be suited and equipped for Worshipping and serving Him, as their Divine Institution to be their witness, just like the Tabernacle and Temple were in the Old Testament.

Men have subbordinated Jesus' local assembly, and submitted to and given acceptance to the work of the devil, and have given their New fangled Universal Invisible Church prominence, priority, reverence, superiority, preeminence, and homage relatively speaking, compared to the now unessential bother of local-yocal religiosity, with its old wet baptisms and all that stuff.

What's the point? After all, they're already a global phenomenon that's hit the big time and are able to conjure up entire religions on their own, that are, "invisible".

Cool, huh?

And, they are, "real".

Not so with God, you can bet.

saying something that never happens is credited to be a portion of the salvation experience, by saying the soul is, "spiritually baptized",

then?...after that saint of God, claims that they have been, "baptized by the Spirit of GOD"..., secondly,...

...they say that "the Spirit baptized" them,

"INTO"?...something that doesn't exist

grown children of God say that this "Spirit baptizes them INTO" A State of UNIVERSAL WORLD-WIDE INVISIBLE People, "locally assembled together",

I mean, INVISIBLE People, "globally distributed apart".

If you don't think Satan is involved and HIGHLY INVESTED in maintaining people's devotion and distracting them away from Worshipping God, then try talking to some of these folks that otherwise might have a little sense and try telling them, "1+1=2", but, "1+1 does not equal 1" and see how far you get.

And, who would ever guess that it's all one big false, fake, demonic stronghold, from which they don't even know they need Jesus to Deliver them from?[/QUOTE]

Now, they're giving worship to the devil, in a Fraudulent "church" fantasy, while the Worship of God is SUBJUGATED.

Unfortunately, the gates of hell have apparently prevailed against those who have embraced the idea that Jesus had something to do with having built something where there are:
UNIVERSAL WORLD-WIDE INVISIBLE People, "globally distributed apart", where "all saved people are."

Jesus never said or indicated He would build, or anything like that.

Someone did, however.

There you go. It's the devil, according to me.

The devil did it.

 

[taisto]

There is one baptism. The immersion that the Holy Spirit does when he places us into Christ at the moment of redemption.

(Galatians 3:27)
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

(Romans 6:3-4)
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

(Colossians 2:10-13)
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

If a person says that this is water baptism, then the argument is made that baptismal regeneration happens via immersion into water. This goes contrary to all Baptists as we all teach that water baptism is an physical confession of what God has already done spiritually. Therefore the immersion (baptism) that the Holy Spirit accomplished at regeneration when we are immersed into Christ is the baptism that truly regenerated us. Water is a symbolic ordinance of the spiritual work that the Holy Spirit has done.

Does Landmarkism teach baptismal regeneration via water?

 

[canadyjd]

John said Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.

You said there is no Holy Spirit baptism. That is simply untrue, according to scripture. We can debate what Holy Spirit baptism means, but it is biblical and therefore it is not a lie, nor is the idea evil.

You called God Holy Spirit an “element”. Are you denying God Holy Spirit is a person within the Trinitarian Godhead?

God Holy Spirit is a Person within the Godhead. He is not an “element”.

peace to you

 

[Alan Gross]

. Therefore the immersion (baptism) that the Holy Spirit accomplished at regeneration when we are immersed into Christ is the baptism that truly regenerated us.

You're worrying me this morning.

I have never in my life ever dreamed that someone could believe anything like you're saying.

It's actually a surreal moment for me.

Wake up call.

Where DOES this stuff come from???

Somebody told you that the word "baptism" can be associated with the experience of salvation somewhere?

Or that the words "baptism" and "Holy Spirit" are going to have some sort of association between them where we see that they can be connected and bound together into a combined unit working together in unison somewhere?

And, whether they did or not, before we get too far, who told you that The Holy Spirit of God is mentioned or written about, in any of those verses that you're trying to teach this stuff to us from?

Where's it at?

Weird.

Then, you know I have to go ahead and ask you if anyone has ever shared with you that when reading the words in the Bible, it says that there is only "one baptism"?

That's God's Word, taisto. Right?

You've read that, right?

Then, what are doing here anyway?

Speaking of "one baptism", I noticed that you are trying to say that word "baptism" means something to you sometimes, when you say, "immersion (baptism)".

Very good.

That is actually the definition of "baptism" that you have finally come to, but then as soon as you got that definition right, you took off on me full speed ahead and changed that meaning on us that you started to give to it, right in midstream!

You're making my head spin.

In fact, you actually did go right ahead and change the meaning of "baptism",
RIGHT IN MID SENTENCE, during the course of one single statement you make, below.

That's really, really messed up.

I'm sorry that has to be in your mind that way.

Where'd you come up with that?

Are you going to try to say that this is just another case where man decided a word in the Bible might as well have some other new meaning added to it, if they can't make out the understanding of a scripture in their mind any other way?

Then, why on earth are you trying to feed me this sentence that is requireing you to concoct a second meaning to "immerse" in it, before you even get done talking?

Sounds like some kind of wishy washy double dealing going on.

Slick.

Write off the bottom of the deck.

Why did I wake up to this garbage?

It's O.K., though.

Until, it looks like you are going to expect to try and pull off that kind of double talk, to foster a snappy bait and switch right quick, thinking you can force that double trouble interpretation into God's word in those verses like it's nothing, coming up.

Not good.

Can't change the words in the Bible, anytime you want to.

The immersion that the Holy Spirit does when he places us into Christ at the moment of redemption.

baptized into Christ[/QUOTE]

baptized into

Don't do this.
...

Does Landmarkism teach baptismal regeneration via water?

Mesmerizing us with this kind of guesswork that you think is going to be some kind of devastating equation of smart philosophy is just as boring as it can be.

More thinking of the mind of man, again.

14 + 24 doesn't equal a negative 863.
...

I see that making a conjecture, or two or three and maybe many more coming up, is all there is to all this misinterpretation and grasping at straws to attempt a mistaken case of presuming upon God a foreign new Doctrine by adding it in while re-authoring His Word as you go along, instead of just reading it.

Water is a symbolic ordinance of the spiritual work that the Holy Spirit has done.

We have now come full circle with this heresy.

You are actually saying that "water (baptism)", and immersing someone,

is "symbolic",

"of the spiritual work that the Holy Spirit has done."

I think you may have to win the Biggest Blasphemy of the day, for that wicked wretchedness.

See what happens when you monkey around changing the Word of God, like that's supposed to be O.K. to do, or something.

Nope, no, no, no, no, no.

 

[taisto]

You're worrying me this morning.

I have never in my life ever dreamed that someone could believe anything like you're saying.

It's actually a surreal moment for me.

Wake up call.

Where DOES this stuff come from???

Somebody told you that the word "baptism" can be associated with the experience of salvation somewhere?

Or that the words "baptism" and "Holy Spirit" are going to have some sort of association between them where we see that they can be connected and bound together into a combined unit working together in unison somewhere?

And, whether they did or not, before we get too far, who told you that The Holy Spirit of God is mentioned or written about, in any of those verses that you're trying to teach this stuff to us from?

Where's it at?

Weird.

Then, you know I have to go ahead and ask you if anyone has ever shared with you that when reading the words in the Bible, it says that there is only "one baptism"?

That's God's Word, taisto. Right?

You've read that, right?

Then, what are doing here anyway?

Speaking of "one baptism", I noticed that you are trying to say that word "baptism" means something to you sometimes, when you say, "immersion (baptism)".

Very good.

That is actually the definition of "baptism" that you have finally come to, but then as soon as you got that definition right, you took off on me full speed ahead and changed that meaning on us that you started to give to it, right in midstream!

You're making my head spin.

In fact, you actually did go right ahead and change the meaning of "baptism",
RIGHT IN MID SENTENCE, during the course of one single statement you make, below.

That's really, really messed up.

I'm sorry that has to be in your mind that way.

Where'd you come up with that?

Are you going to try to say that this is just another case where man decided a word in the Bible might as well have some other new meaning added to it, if they can't make out the understanding of a scripture in their mind any other way?

Then, why on earth are you trying to feed me this sentence that is requireing you to concoct a second meaning to "immerse" in it, before you even get done talking?

Sounds like some kind of wishy washy double dealing going on.

Slick.

Write off the bottom of the deck.

Why did I wake up to this garbage?

It's O.K., though.

Until, it looks like you are going to expect to try and pull off that kind of double talk, to foster a snappy bait and switch right quick, thinking you can force that double trouble interpretation into God's word in those verses like it's nothing, coming up.

Not good.

Can't change the words in the Bible, anytime you want to.

Baptism is a very common term in greek. It means "to immerse/to dip into."
All who are born again are immersed into Christ.

Question: Who immerses us into Christ?

Is it the Holy Spirit who immerses us into Christ?

Is it the pastor who immerses us in water?

If it's the latter, then water baptism is a means of regeneration and has a supernatural effect on the recipient.

If it's the former, then the Holy Spirit is the means of regeneration and has a supernatural effect on the recipient.

Water baptism, then, is an outward symbol of what the Holy Spirit has done.

Alan, if you have never heard this then I can only imagine you have been living a hermits life of isolation. I provided 3 separate passages that express the work of the Holy Spirit in immersing us into Christ at our salvation.

Water baptism is an ordinance to show the world what the Holy Spirit has already done in our lives. Like communion, it is a remembrance of what God has done on our behalf.

I take your shock as one who is misunderstanding something. (Can you admit you maybe wrong?)

 

[37818]

Question: Who immerses us into Christ?

Is it the Holy Spirit who immerses us into Christ?

Mark 1:8, ". . . he [Jesus] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. . . ."

1 Corinthians 12:12-13, ". . . For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. . . ."

Ephesians 1:12-14, ". . . That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. . . ."

 

[Alan Gross]

You can't have it.

Jesus won't let me give you that alteration to the text.

We can debate what Holy Spirit baptism means, but it is biblical and therefore it is not a lie, nor is the idea evil.

Reconstructing this wording that says, "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost", from Matthew 3:11, to fabricate its transformation into a completely unrevealed, unwritten, unheard-of new combination of words, "Holy Spirit Baptism", is a departure of too great a magnitude from where you found it.

There is no debate as to the meaning of a fictitious alteration to the Word of God, right before our very eyes.
...

There is one baptism. The immersion that the the Holy Spirit does when he places us into Christ at the moment of redemption.

Then, why don't any of the passages you quoted mention the Holy Spirit?

You you should probably know before you try to flagrantly dispense with the literal "one baptism" in the Bible, as being "water baptism", and toss it into an imaginary non-existent oblivion and omitting it from the Bible,

in order for you to substitute your imaginary non-existent newly formed and created "baptism" you call the, "immersion that the Holy Spirit does when he places us into Christ at the moment of redemption", that has suddenly appeared out of oblivion and has never even been thought to be employed by the writers of the Bible in a figurative way, to associate it with redemption in any way:

In a literal sense the Bible teaches only one baptism, that is, one kind of baptism, as a New Testament ordinance.

This is immersion in water of a born-again believer by the ministry of a New Testament church for the purpose of providing a symbol or figure of the faith they are professing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Along with other no less than Divinely Authoritative uses of the word "baptism", as being "water baptism" listed below, such as in Matthew 3:11;
"I indeed baptize you with water",

that text and those below describe the one water baptism of the New Testament to be authorized as a continuing ordinance of God.

First administered by the John the Baptist on direct command from heaven,

it was continued under the direction of Jesus by the disciples constituting the first church founded by Jesus Christ,

and finally committed to that same church for administration to the end of the age.

"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?. . ."
(Matthew 21:25.)

A right answer to this question must lead to a recognition of the Divine Authority of Jesus as Head of His churches and away from those who are the head of an effort directed at usurping His Authority in replaceing His Word with their own contrived words of man.

Jesus Christ said that there was "not a greater prophet"
(of God, obviously) "than John the Baptist."

27 "This is he, of whom it is written,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way before thee.

28 "For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women
there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist:

John the Baptist was "a man sent from God".

John 1:6; "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."

The Sovereign Lord God of the Universe,
God the Father, sent John the Baptist to "baptize".

John 1:33; "And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water,
the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending,
and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."

Jesus had All Power and The Authority of God in Heaven and Earth.

Matthew 28:18; "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Jesus compared and equated His Authority as being the Authority of God
and that Authority was given to Him from God,
to the Authority in "the baptism of John."

Mark 11:27 "And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,

28 "And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things?
and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

29 "And Jesus answered and said unto them,
I will also ask of you one question, and answer me,
and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

30 "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

31 "And they reasoned with themselves, saying,
If we shall say, From heaven; he will say,
Why then did ye not believe him?

32 "But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people:
for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

33 "And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell.

"And Jesus answering saith unto them,
Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."

Jesus Christ called "the baptism of John", "the Counsel of God."

29 "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans,
justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

Luke 7:30; "But the Pharisees and lawyers
rejected the counsel of God against themselves,
being not baptized of him.

Jesus walked 70 miles to be baptized by John the Baptist.

Matthew 3:13 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John,
to be baptized of him.

Jesus said that for Him to be baptized by John the Baptist
fulfilled "all righteousness".

Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying,
I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now:
for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

The only appearance of The Triune Godhead
manifested together in the Bible
is at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist,

where the Holy Spirit witnessed to His approval of it
when John saw, "the Spirit of God" descended on Jesus "like a dove,
and lighting upon him"

and God the Father Personally voiced His approval of Jesus
having been baptized by John the Baptist, from Heaven itself,
"saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

John 3:15b; "Then he suffered him.

16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized,
went up straightway out of the water:

"and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him,

and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove,
and lighting upon him:

17 "And lo a voice from heaven,
saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

I'm going to say as a Bible believer,
that I have to go with John's water baptism being the one literal baptism
referred to as "one baptism", in Ephesians 4, as being my standpoint
of Biblical Christianity,

and that the replacement of God's Institution of water baptism
with a counterfeit null and void forgery on its face
has to place you and those who influenced you on this
in direct opposition to the Bible record and the Triune Godhead.

 

[canadyjd]

Alan, you said God Holy Spirit was an “element”.

Please state directly whether or not you believe God Holy Spirit is a person within the Trinitarian Godhead.

If you acknowledge God Holy Spirit is a person, please explain how He is an “element”?

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

You can't have it.

Jesus won't let me give you that alteration to the text.

Reconstructing this wording that says, "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost", from Matthew 3:11, to fabricate its transformation into a completely unrevealed, unwritten, unheard-of new combination of words, "Holy Spirit Baptism", is a departure of too great a magnitude from where you found it.

Ok, so you see a major difference between “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit” and “Holy Spirit baptism”.

Is that what you are saying?

1 Corinthians 12:22 says we are “by one Spirit baptized into one body”. Is the Holy Spirit baptizing us into one body according to this passage? If not, what else could it mean?

You called God Holy Spirit an “element”. Do you acknowledge the personhood of God Holy Spirit as a member of the Triune Godhead and if so, why would you call Him an “element”?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

In The Baptist Heritage, H. Leon McBeth lists these positions as illustrative of Landmarkism’s stance on the church:

1. Baptist churches are the only true churches in the world.
2. The true church is a local, visible institution.
3. The churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous.
4. There must be no “pulpit affiliation” with non-Baptists.
5. Only a church can do churchly acts.
6. Baptist churches have always existed in every age by an unbroken historical succession.

As you can see, Landmarkism places much emphasis on the practice and position of the church. The extent of those positions has led many to dub them “Baptist Briders”, as their belief that only Baptist churches are the true churches and therefore only they must make up the Bride of Christ.

Landmarkism: The Original Fundamental Baptists? – BaptistBasics.org

This article helps me understand why my dad, an Independent Fundamental Church of America (IFCA) proponent, was so put off against being a Baptist. I have no experience with Landmarkism so when the name came up it was something I hadn't heard of before.

Landmarkism arose in the SBC (J.R. Graves) as a reaction to progressivism that was starting to affect Baptist churches. Arguments for and against the movement are interesting (see letters of J.R. Graves vs R.B.C. Howell for a good example).

Basically Landmarkism presented the claim that they were the true catholic church (using Grave's words...catholic not meaning Catholic),their doctrine pure, and their church preserved throughout generations.