Landmarkism: What is it?

[Alan Gross]

If John’s baptism was the same as Christian Baptism, why were these disciples (already baptized into John’s baptism) baptized into the name of Jesus?

These disciples had already been baptized with the baptism of John, by John, or followers of John, with his authority and weren't baptized 'again', 'in the name of Jesus'.

Paul was referring to those who had been listening to and had heard John preach Jesus, when Paul said,

in Acts 19:4; "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

Those were the same people, in vs 5;

5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Again, John said unto the people that heard him, when he was preaching and baptizing, "that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

When those same people, in vs 4, heard that John said that, "they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus",

those people that John had said this to, believed, because they would have had to have shown indication of their having repented and it is those same people in vs 4 that, in vs 5, after "they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

The 12 disciples are not the ones who are said to have been "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

(And, with all of this, I relied heavily on? Gill.)

Right, they did not understand they were to be baptized in the name of Jesus, since all they understood was John’s baptism of repentance which is clearly not Christian baptism.

Backing up a second to vs 3, Paul asked those 12 disciples the question; "And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized?"....

Paul has taken it for granted that they were baptized, since they were not only believers, but disciples;

and as disciples, themselves, that they had not only believed with the heart, but also had made a profession of their faith, and were followers of Christ;

but Paul wanted to know, "unto what then were ye baptized?"; either he wanted to know, "in whose name they were baptized", since Christian baptism was administered in the name of the Spirit, as well as in the name of the Father and of the Son;

or Paul was asking "what experience they had at that time, when they were baptized", and whether they knew of, or if they had had any experience similar to the Holy Spirit ever having fallen on them, to impart the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit to them.

It seems that these 12 disciples had been baptized in the name of Christ, as John's disciples were, as the apostle affirms in the words we just saw, in Acts 19:4, that we are revisiting, here;

"Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

Then Paul said,.... In reply to their answer, and that he had understood them as having already been baptized by John, or one of his authorized followers,

and so Paul started in and took up that account of John's baptism:and showed how agreeable it was to the baptism of Christ,

and that the BAPTISM of JOHN the BAPTIST was the same baptism as the baptism of Christ, that was being administered in Christ's Name: saying,

"John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance

saying unto the people that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ",

and it is there that we see that it was, "faith in Jesus Christ", that John had preached to those people, as well as John having preached "repentance towards God".

So, it is in that way, that John had preached and made both, "repentance towards God", as well as, "faith in Jesus Christ", necessary prerequisites, before he would baptize anyone.

That shows, that the baptism of John the Baptist and "Christian baptism", "in the Name of Christ" are the same.

Can you think of any passage of scripture where Paul, or anyone else said, “ wait, I know you have already had a Christian baptism but I don’t think you understood correctly, so we are doing it again”?

Paul understood that they had John the Baptist's "Christian baptism" and didn't baptize those 12 disciples 'again', or at all, whatsoever.

There is no reason to baptize “again”, if John’s baptism is the same as Christian baptism.

Right, correct and so they weren't.

It was just that, way back in vs 2, when Paul asked them, "He said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost",....

he wasn't asking about the special regenerating and sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost, because they had gotten that when they had become disciples and believers, but Paul had asked them about the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, and whether they had received anything like that,

"since ye believed?" that is, in Christ; which again is taking it for granted, that they had received the special grace of the Spirit of God, in the New Birth; for this believing of their's is to be understood as being true, spiritual, special faith in Christ:

"and they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost".

by which they could not have meant that they hadn't heard of the Person of the Holy Ghost: because they must have known that there was such a Divine Person as the Holy Ghost, from the writings of the Old Testament, with which they were conversant:

and from the ministry of John, into whose baptism they were baptized;

who saw the Spirit of God descend on Jesus, and bore witness of it;

and declared, that Christ who was to come after him, would baptize with the Holy Ghost:

so, THEN after being satisfied concerning their repentance and belief in Jesus and that their baptism was sound,

but since they just hadn't known that the Holy Spirit had now come for them to have received the special Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Spirit, it is in vs 6, that we see;

"when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
...

The passage:

Acts 19:1; "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 "And all the men were about twelve."

 

[Alan Gross]

I have no version of Landmarkism, nor Baptist Briders (appears Alan believes that).

Both are gross errors.

As to them being "gross", I personally have to take that as a great compliment.

"Errors"?, I dunno 'bout all that.

 

[canadyjd]

These disciples had already been baptized with the baptism of John, by John, or followers of John, with his authority and weren't baptized 'again', 'in the name of Jesus'.

Paul was referring to those who had been listening to and had heard John preach Jesus, when Paul said,

in Acts 19:4; "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

Those were the same people, in vs 5;

5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Again, John said unto the people that heard him, when he was preaching and baptizing, "that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

When those same people, in vs 4, heard that John said that, "they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus",

those people that John had said this to, believed, because they would have had to have shown indication of their having repented and it is those same people in vs 4 that, in vs 5, after "they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

The 12 disciples are not the ones who are said to have been "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

(And, with all of this, I relied heavily on? Gill.)



Backing up a second to vs 3, Paul asked those 12 disciples the question; "And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized?"....

Paul has taken it for granted that they were baptized, since they were not only believers, but disciples;

and as disciples, themselves, that they had not only believed with the heart, but also had made a profession of their faith, and were followers of Christ;

but Paul wanted to know, "unto what then were ye baptized?"; either he wanted to know, "in whose name they were baptized", since Christian baptism was administered in the name of the Spirit, as well as in the name of the Father and of the Son;

or Paul was asking "what experience they had at that time, when they were baptized", and whether they knew of, or if they had had any experience similar to the Holy Spirit ever having fallen on them, to impart the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit to them.

It seems that these 12 disciples had been baptized in the name of Christ, as John's disciples were, as the apostle affirms in the words we just saw, in Acts 19:4, that we are revisiting, here;

"Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

Then Paul said,.... In reply to their answer, and that he had understood them as having already been baptized by John, or one of his authorized followers,

and so Paul started in and took up that account of John's baptism:and showed how agreeable it was to the baptism of Christ,

and that the BAPTISM of JOHN the BAPTIST was the same baptism as the baptism of Christ, that was being administered in Christ's Name: saying,

"John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance

saying unto the people that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ",

and it is there that we see that it was, "faith in Jesus Christ", that John had preached to those people, as well as John having preached "repentance towards God".

So, it is in that way, that John had preached and made both, "repentance towards God", as well as, "faith in Jesus Christ", necessary prerequisites, before he would baptize anyone.

That shows, that the baptism of John the Baptist and "Christian baptism", "in the Name of Christ" are the same.



Paul understood that they had John the Baptist's "Christian baptism" and didn't baptize those 12 disciples 'again', or at all, whatsoever.



Right, correct and so they weren't.

It was just that, way back in vs 2, when Paul asked them, "He said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost",....

he wasn't asking about the special regenerating and sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost, because they had gotten that when they had become disciples and believers, but Paul had asked them about the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, and whether they had received anything like that,

"since ye believed?" that is, in Christ; which again is taking it for granted, that they had received the special grace of the Spirit of God, in the New Birth; for this believing of their's is to be understood as being true, spiritual, special faith in Christ:

"and they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost".

by which they could not have meant that they hadn't heard of the Person of the Holy Ghost: because they must have known that there was such a Divine Person as the Holy Ghost, from the writings of the Old Testament, with which they were conversant:

and from the ministry of John, into whose baptism they were baptized;

who saw the Spirit of God descend on Jesus, and bore witness of it;

and declared, that Christ who was to come after him, would baptize with the Holy Ghost:

so, THEN after being satisfied concerning their repentance and belief in Jesus and that their baptism was sound,

but since they just hadn't known that the Holy Spirit had now come for them to have received the special Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Spirit, it is in vs 6, that we see;

"when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
...

The passage:

Acts 19:1; "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 "And all the men were about twelve."

So, they weren’t baptized in water “in the name of Jesus”, as scripture says? You seem to be saying (quoting Gill) these disciples weren’t baptized in water, but were baptized in God Holy Spirit when Paul laid hands in them.

We will just have to disagree. I admire Gill and his commentary. He is in error on this passage. It very clearly states these disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus because they only knew of John’s baptism of repentance (a different baptism). They didn’t receive indwelling God Holy Spirit until after Paul laid hands in them and that was after they were baptized in Jesus name.

You never did answer my question concerning 1 Corinthians 12:13 “for by one Spirit we are baptized into one body…”

You claimed scripture never mentions being baptized by God Holy Spirit, and then claimed it was evil to even think about it.

I pointed to this passage and someone (was that you?) literally changed the words of the passage to say we are “led” by the Spirit to be baptized….”

Have you changed your mind in light of this passage that very clearly states “by One Spirit” we are baptized into one body”?

I certainly think folks can debate exactly what the passage means, but to claim scripture never says we are baptized “by” God Holy Spirit is untrue and to claim it is “evil” to even think about it is a gross misunderstanding of scripture.

peace to you

 

[MrW]

Is there even anyone on this forum that is actually an advocate for Landmarkism?

And many things label themselves Baptist that are heretical. Just as there are many things that label themselves Christian that are heretical.

Maybe Alan?

From what I know of it, not me.

 

[MrW]

This may have been posted, from gotquestions.org:

Landmark theology, or heritage theology, is the belief among some independent Baptist churches that only local, independent Baptist congregations can truly be called “churches” in the New Testament sense. They believe that all other groups, and even most other Baptists, are not true churches because they deviate from the essentials of landmarkism.

Those essentials are 1) church succession—a landmark Baptist church traces its “lineage” back to the time of the New Testament, usually to Jesus’ calling of the disciples in Galilee; 2) a visible church—the only church is a local (Baptist) body of believers; there is no such thing as a universal Body of Christ; 3) opposition to “pedobaptism” (sprinkling of infants) and “alien immersion” (any baptism not performed under the auspices of a landmark Baptist church)—all such baptisms are null and void.

Another corollary belief is that only faithful landmark Baptists will comprise the Bride of Christ. Other Christians (non-Baptists) will either be the guests or the servants at the marriage supper of the Lamb. These other Christians are called the “family of God” or sometimes the “kingdom of God.” So, in heaven will be all the redeemed (the “family of God”), but only those who have been duly baptized by immersion (in an independent Baptist church) will have the special honor of being the Bride of Christ. The landmark Baptists use the story of the choosing of Isaac’s wife to illustrate God’s choosing of Christ’s Bride (Genesis 24).

Landmark Baptists consider church membership one of the highest priorities in life; in fact, being a member of a landmark Baptist church is second in importance only to one’s personal relationship with Christ. Because of their emphasis on local church membership (and their denial of the universal Body of Christ), landmark Baptists hold a closed communion; that is, only official members of their own local church are allowed to share in the ordinance of communion. No one, not even a Baptist, can partake of the Lord’s table away from his or her home church.

Landmarkism had its beginning in 1851, when a group of Southern Baptists met to oppose the liberalism creeping into their denomination. At issue was an “open” pulpit vs. a “closed” pulpit. Was it right to welcome non-baptized preachers from other denominations as guests in their pulpits? “Here are men,” they said, “who are not baptized according to the New Testament model, men ordained by churches that do not teach salvation by grace through faith, yet we are inviting them to preach as if they were true Christian ministers of the gospel.” Out of this meeting came the Cotton Grove Resolutions, the first articulation of the tenets of landmarkism.

The term landmarkism comes from Proverbs 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (KJV). Landmark Baptists also use Leviticus 25:23-34 as support for their doctrine. Just as the Israelites were not to “remove the ancient landmark” or sell, neglect, or give away their property, Baptists today are not to remove the theological “guideposts” that separate the church from the world. “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.

2) The church did not begin with John the Baptist but with the Spirit’s baptism on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 11:15-16).

3) The baptism of John is not sufficient for the New Testament church (Acts 18:24-28; also Acts 19:1-7).

4) The church is not just a local body but a worldwide entity comprised of all believers, with Christ as their Head (Ephesians 1:21-22).

5) Scripture lists three categories of people: unsaved Jews, unsaved Gentiles, and the church (1 Corinthians 10:32). The “family of God,” therefore, is not separate from the church.

The “Baptist Bride” churches, with their emphasis on the ordinance of baptism, are surely missing the point of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. There, Paul rebukes the church for the schisms arising over who had baptized whom. Paul goes so far as to say, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” Strange words, indeed, if water baptism is what makes one part of the Bride of Christ.

 

[MrW]

Landmarkism was a nineteenth-century Baptist movement arising in the South, west of the Appalachians, which asserted the sole validity and unbroken succession of Baptist churches from the New Testament era. This exclusivistic ecclesiology promoted the idea that the term “church” always refers to a local and visible institution. This emphasis on an unbroken succession of local and visible Baptist churches as the only true churches of Christ controverted the practices of ecumenism. Landmarkers believed that Baptists, who participated in “pulpit exchanges” with other denominations, accepted immersion performed outside the auspices of a Baptist church, or celebrated communion beyond the confines of local church membership, removed an ancient landmark that was essential to Baptist identity. These ideas deeply influenced Baptist life in the South. The more radical Landmarkers withdrew from participation in the Southern Baptist Convention, either forming their own organizations or maintaining a strict localism that forbade any denominational participation beyond the local church. Other Landmarkers remained within the Southern Baptist Convention, forming one of the major traditions in Southern Baptist life, especially in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The dominant figure of the movement was James R. Graves of Tennessee, who was perhaps the most influential Baptist clergyman in the nineteenth-century South. James M. Pendleton of Kentucky and Amos C. Dayton of Mississippi joined with Graves in the promotion of Landmarkism. The three were known by their followers as the “Great Triumvirate.” Pendleton coined the term Landmark in an essay he wrote in 1854, which Graves published under the title An Old Landmark Re-set.

Suggested Reading

H. Wamble, “Landmarkism: Doctrinaire Ecclesiology Among Baptists,” Church History 33 (1964): 429-47

Marty G. Bell, Tennessee Encyclopedia

 

[taisto]

From what I can tell, and as yet it has not been denied, our primitive baptist brothers (and sisters?) here at the BB are Landmarkists and Baptist succession of faith proponents. It seems to be a small sect within the overall Baptist spectrum, yet there is a rather significant proportion posting here at the Baptist Board.

 

[Alan Gross]

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”.

The congregational, democratic form.

This type of government is clearly seen in Baptist, Congregational, Evangelical Free, Disciples of Christ, and Independent Bible churches.

Followers of this form believe no outside man or group of men should exercise authority over a local assembly.

Therefore, the government should be in the hands of the members themselves.

The pastor is considered to be the single elder, with one vote, in the church.

He is called and elected by the church congregation.

Deacons are then chosen to assist him in shepherding the flock.

To quote from Charles Ryrie:

“Arguments in favor of this congregational, democratic form of government include the many passages that speak of the responsibilities of the entire church (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27),

1 Cor. 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Phil. 1:27 "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;"

Then, there are the passages which seem to commit the ordinances of the church to the entire group, not just leaders (Mt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:2, 20),

And, the apparent involvement of the whole church in choosing leaders (Acts 6:3, 5; 15:2, 30; 2 Cor. 8:19),

And the fact that the whole church was involved in exercising discipline (Mt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:14ff.).

Under the congregational system, the pastor is usually considered to be the single elder in the church.

This is supported by the fact that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 apparently had a single leader (called the ‘angel’ but referring to a human leader),

and by the fact that in 1 Timothy 3 the first part of the passage speaks of the bishop (elder) while the latter part (vs. 8-13) mentions the deacons.

This would seem to indicate that there was only one elder in each church although there were several deacons.” (A Survey of Bible Doctrine, p. 147)

Although, not what is spelled out in these verses, they had a way of ascertaining the sentiment of the people, and a regulation that stated who was entitled to vote on various questions (Acts 6:2-6).

2 "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3 "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4 "But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5 "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6 "Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."
...

 

[canadyjd]

The congregational, democratic form.

This type of government is clearly seen in Baptist, Congregational, Evangelical Free, Disciples of Christ, and Independent Bible churches.

Followers of this form believe no outside man or group of men should exercise authority over a local assembly.

Therefore, the government should be in the hands of the members themselves.

The pastor is considered to be the single elder, with one vote, in the church.

He is called and elected by the church congregation.

Deacons are then chosen to assist him in shepherding the flock.

To quote from Charles Ryrie:

“Arguments in favor of this congregational, democratic form of government include the many passages that speak of the responsibilities of the entire church (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27),

1 Cor. 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Phil. 1:27 "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;"

Then, there are the passages which seem to commit the ordinances of the church to the entire group, not just leaders (Mt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:2, 20),

And, the apparent involvement of the whole church in choosing leaders (Acts 6:3, 5; 15:2, 30; 2 Cor. 8:19),

And the fact that the whole church was involved in exercising discipline (Mt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:14ff.).

Under the congregational system, the pastor is usually considered to be the single elder in the church.

This is supported by the fact that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 apparently had a single leader (called the ‘angel’ but referring to a human leader),

and by the fact that in 1 Timothy 3 the first part of the passage speaks of the bishop (elder) while the latter part (vs. 8-13) mentions the deacons.

This would seem to indicate that there was only one elder in each church although there were several deacons.” (A Survey of Bible Doctrine, p. 147)

Although, not what is spelled out in these verses, they had a way of ascertaining the sentiment of the people, and a regulation that stated who was entitled to vote on various questions (Acts 6:2-6).

2 "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3 "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4 "But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5 "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6 "Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."
...

Thanks for sharing, we disagree

peace to you

 

[taisto]

The congregational, democratic form.

This type of government is clearly seen in Baptist, Congregational, Evangelical Free, Disciples of Christ, and Independent Bible churches.

Followers of this form believe no outside man or group of men should exercise authority over a local assembly.

Therefore, the government should be in the hands of the members themselves.

The pastor is considered to be the single elder, with one vote, in the church.

He is called and elected by the church congregation.

Deacons are then chosen to assist him in shepherding the flock.

To quote from Charles Ryrie:

“Arguments in favor of this congregational, democratic form of government include the many passages that speak of the responsibilities of the entire church (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27),

1 Cor. 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Phil. 1:27 "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;"

Then, there are the passages which seem to commit the ordinances of the church to the entire group, not just leaders (Mt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:2, 20),

And, the apparent involvement of the whole church in choosing leaders (Acts 6:3, 5; 15:2, 30; 2 Cor. 8:19),

And the fact that the whole church was involved in exercising discipline (Mt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:14ff.).

Under the congregational system, the pastor is usually considered to be the single elder in the church.

This is supported by the fact that the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 apparently had a single leader (called the ‘angel’ but referring to a human leader),

and by the fact that in 1 Timothy 3 the first part of the passage speaks of the bishop (elder) while the latter part (vs. 8-13) mentions the deacons.

This would seem to indicate that there was only one elder in each church although there were several deacons.” (A Survey of Bible Doctrine, p. 147)

Although, not what is spelled out in these verses, they had a way of ascertaining the sentiment of the people, and a regulation that stated who was entitled to vote on various questions (Acts 6:2-6).

2 "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3 "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4 "But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5 "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6 "Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."
...

Sadly, I have seen pastors use Acts 6:2 as their reason for why they should only study the Bible and pray rather than do any visitation. They stated that visitation was for the deacons to do. These pastors also had no desire for outreach or missions. They considered their role to only be Bible study (for Sunday/Wednesday) and prayer in their office. The only time they would counsel is if the person set up a meeting via the administrative assistant. However, they would write blogs and record various messages for internet viewing.

We live in a very strange Christian world today where community outreach is minimal while prepping for a 5 minute video one hopes will be viewed is optimal.

Alan, I note that neither you, nor other primitive baptists here, deny Landmarkism as a position held by Primitive Baptists. Shall I take it that you and the others hold to Landmarkism and Baptist Succession of the Faith?

 

[Alan Gross]

Christ makes us “one”

"There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28.

Landmarkers make heaven a caste system

Are you referring to anything like this?

"Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so,

"he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven:

"but whosoever shall do and teach them,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19.)

I understand that Apostate Christianity, ultra-democratic, and communistic propaganda has so warped the minds of some Christians that they imagine a leveling off of character, a blotting out of individual differences, in the future life.

Contrary to all Bible teaching, they suppose that all Christians will be of equal rank or station in the world to come. But in our text Jesus plainly tells us that one will be least and another great in His kingdom.

Furthermore, our position in that kingdom will not necessarily correspond to our position here and now.

"But many that are first shall be last; and the last first." (Mark 10:31; read also Mark 10:35-45.)

heaven a caste system in the have/have nots

What do you mean by Landmark Baptists,
"make heaven a caste system in the have/have nots"?

What would be a "have"?, in heaven?

What would be a "have not"?, in heaven?

Landmarkers make heaven a caste system in the have/have nots in who can eat at the supper

Are you talking about this "supper".

"And he saith unto me, Write,
Blessed are they which are called
unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.

"And he saith unto me,
These are the true sayings of God." Revelation 19:9.

Where are Landmark Baptists
making "heaven a caste system
in the have/have nots in "who can eat at the supper"?

(Matthew 7:21-27), Jesus declares that the test of true discipleship is not mere lip-service, but doing the will of God.

And the will of God is not to be found in the traditions of men, in the supposed light of human reason, in the presumptions of religions hierarchies or popular theologians, "neo-orthodox" or otherwise.

No: the will of God Is to be found in the words of Jesus: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and does them, I shall liken him to a wise man . . ." (7:24.)

Of course the wise man does not first become wise by building on the rock, but builds on the rock because he is wise, though his wisdom may grow with the building.

Even so, we do not "do," obey, or put into practice the words of Jesus in order to become His disciples, but because we are such.

That is, our doing or not doing His words is the test and evidence of whether our lives are founded on Him, the Rock of Ages, or on the shifting sands of human religions.

Now, according to the text (Matthew 5:19.), if we break only one of His least commandments, and teach other men to do like-wise, we shall be called least in His kingdom.

What then shall be said of the professed Christian who says, "Lord, Lord," but habitually disobeys the words of Jesus?

He is like a foolish man building on the sand: he is no true disciple at all.

So, what do you teach other men
about "what a church is"?

 

[MrW]

Alan Gross wrote:

Are you referring to anything like this?

"Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so,

"he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven:

"but whosoever shall do and teach them,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19.)

I understand that Apostate Christianity, ultra-democratic, and communistic propaganda has so warped the minds of some Christians that they imagine a leveling off of character, a blotting out of individual differences, in the future life.

Contrary to all Bible teaching, they suppose that all Christians will be of equal rank or station in the world to come. But in our text Jesus plainly tells us that one will be least and another great in His kingdom.

Furthermore, our position in that kingdom will not necessarily correspond to our position here and now.

"But many that are first shall be last; and the last first." (Mark 10:31; read also Mark 10:35-45.)

Now, according to the text (Matthew 5:19.), if we break only one of His least commandments, and teach other men to do like-wise, we shall be called least in His kingdom.


REPLY: “Future life.” “That kingdom.” “The kingdom of Heaven.”

That raises the question: Where and what is this kingdom?

We know we are to pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, ON EARTH, as IT IS in Heaven.”

God’s will is done perfectly in Heaven, but not on Earth, for it is filled with turmoil, confusion, robberies, homosexuality, transgenderism, cursing, hatred, rapes, murders, and all manner of cruelties—ALL in complete opposition to the will of God.

We also know the prayer will be answered during the Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on the Earth, when He shall rule the nations with a rod of iron, and his faithful servants will be over many cities, and some will be over a few cities.

I submit the Lord refers to His Millennial Reign when speaking of the Kingdom of Heaven, literally, that Heaven will rule the Earth for that time period.

 

[Marooncat79]

understand that Apostate Christianity, ultra-democratic, and communistic propaganda has so warped the minds of some Christians that they imagine a leveling off of character, a blotting out of individual differences, in the future life.

@Alan Gross are you really calling me apostate and a victim of communisticcpropodanda?

come on Alan. You can do better man

 

[Alan Gross]

That raises the question: Where and what is this kingdom?

As a reference, if you want it:

"Jesus spake of his disciples as "The children of the kingdom;" and affirmed of them, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." -- John, xvii:16.

To be "not of the world," and yet "of the truth," is in a high moral sense to be of another world; that is, of the heavenly kingdom. Accordingly, of such it is said, they "Have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come." -- Heb. vi:5.

"This radical principle the Lord Jesus had often urged in the publication of his Gospel.

"In conversation with Nicodemus, only a few days previous to his trial before Pontius Pilate, he pleads its necessity, saying, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -- John iii:3.

To have spiritual perceptions of the nature and principles of the kingdom, and an appreciative realization of its elements, which are "Righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,"

a man must undergo such a radical change in his moral nature as can only be adequately expressed by the extraordinary figure of a birth.

He must be made anew; "a new creation;" after the moral image of God, "Created in righteousness and true holiness."

The same radical principle is taught in the saying,

"Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke xviii:17.

The sense of this expression is indicated by a similar declaration of our Lord:

"Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." -Matthew xviii:3.

A principle of universal application is here avowed.

The term converted is employed in its special scriptural sense, as implying the new birth. And regeneration, or a converted membership in the churches, is the radical principle urged by the Savior.

Now the disciples of Jesus were associated together in the bonds of the Gospel, as his flock, over which he presided as "the good shepherd." "Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." -- Luke, xii:32.

They were associated together in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel, as his church, over which he presided as their king and head. "I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." -- Hebrews ii:12, Psalm xxii:22.

This first church, which was designed to be the model of all the subsequent churches of Christ, was a body of true and real saints, having received the impress of the kingdom, were "not of the world," but "of the truth;" "called out," effectually separated from, and eternally divorced from the world.

There was no common ground upon which an alliance with the world could be formed. The very laws of her spiritual existence forbade it. She was bound alike in the individualities of her membership, and in her aggregated capacity as the church of Christ, to carry out the divine maxim of her king and head; "Rendering therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" -- Mat., xxii:21.

No truth was more clearly apprehended by the first disciples, than the radical principle of entire separation of the church from the world, comprised in the famous confession of our Lord before Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world."

But Jesus, in affirming that he was "a King," and in the authoritative and exclusive claim of a kingdom, enunciated a third great principle, equally radical with the former two, viz: his supreme headship of the church; and by consequence, the supreme allegiance due to him as the King of Zion.

He only reiterated the proof of Daniel's prophecy:

"And the kingdom shall not be left to other people."

He himself was "head of the body, the church," and the only Lord and lawgiver.

This great truth, which lies at the foundation of all scriptural order and government in the churches, is everywhere taught and enforced throughout the Scriptures.

It is generally conceded among Protestant Christians, though practically ignored wherever authoritative legislation is assumed.

From: THE GOOD CONFESSION A Centennial Sermon, Northbend Baptist Association (KY)

 

[Alan Gross]

I was calling you:

some Christians

because, you were strongly advocating a belief:

Contrary to all Bible teaching, they suppose that all Christians will be of equal rank or station in the world to come. But in our text Jesus plainly tells us that one will be least and another great in His kingdom.

Apostate, no. Victim, maybe:

Dunno, for sure, do I?

@Alan Gross are you really calling me apostate and a victim of communisticcpropodanda?

I just said, "some Christians".

I understand that Apostate Christianity, ultra-democratic, and communistic propaganda has so warped the minds of some Christians

Sorry, I didn't mean to be inflicting any BB Forum discomfort on anyone.

 

[MrW]

As a reference, if you want it:

"Jesus spake of his disciples as "The children of the kingdom;" and affirmed of them, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." -- John, xvii:16.

To be "not of the world," and yet "of the truth," is in a high moral sense to be of another world; that is, of the heavenly kingdom. Accordingly, of such it is said, they "Have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come." -- Heb. vi:5.

"This radical principle the Lord Jesus had often urged in the publication of his Gospel.

"In conversation with Nicodemus, only a few days previous to his trial before Pontius Pilate, he pleads its necessity, saying, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -- John iii:3.

To have spiritual perceptions of the nature and principles of the kingdom, and an appreciative realization of its elements, which are "Righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,"

a man must undergo such a radical change in his moral nature as can only be adequately expressed by the extraordinary figure of a birth.

He must be made anew; "a new creation;" after the moral image of God, "Created in righteousness and true holiness."

The same radical principle is taught in the saying,

"Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein." -- Luke xviii:17.

The sense of this expression is indicated by a similar declaration of our Lord:

"Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." -Matthew xviii:3.

A principle of universal application is here avowed.

The term converted is employed in its special scriptural sense, as implying the new birth. And regeneration, or a converted membership in the churches, is the radical principle urged by the Savior.

Now the disciples of Jesus were associated together in the bonds of the Gospel, as his flock, over which he presided as "the good shepherd." "Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." -- Luke, xii:32.

They were associated together in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel, as his church, over which he presided as their king and head. "I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." -- Hebrews ii:12, Psalm xxii:22.

This first church, which was designed to be the model of all the subsequent churches of Christ, was a body of true and real saints, having received the impress of the kingdom, were "not of the world," but "of the truth;" "called out," effectually separated from, and eternally divorced from the world.

There was no common ground upon which an alliance with the world could be formed. The very laws of her spiritual existence forbade it. She was bound alike in the individualities of her membership, and in her aggregated capacity as the church of Christ, to carry out the divine maxim of her king and head; "Rendering therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" -- Mat., xxii:21.

No truth was more clearly apprehended by the first disciples, than the radical principle of entire separation of the church from the world, comprised in the famous confession of our Lord before Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world."

But Jesus, in affirming that he was "a King," and in the authoritative and exclusive claim of a kingdom, enunciated a third great principle, equally radical with the former two, viz: his supreme headship of the church; and by consequence, the supreme allegiance due to him as the King of Zion.

He only reiterated the proof of Daniel's prophecy:

"And the kingdom shall not be left to other people."

He himself was "head of the body, the church," and the only Lord and lawgiver.

This great truth, which lies at the foundation of all scriptural order and government in the churches, is everywhere taught and enforced throughout the Scriptures.

It is generally conceded among Protestant Christians, though practically ignored wherever authoritative legislation is assumed.

From: THE GOOD CONFESSION A Centennial Sermon, Northbend Baptist Association (KY)

Christ said, “NOW is my kingdom not of this world”.

You chattered a lot but you didn’t answer the question. The kingdom of God is the millennial reign of Christ.

 

[taisto]

Christ said, “NOW is my kingdom not of this world”.

You chattered a lot but you didn’t answer the question. The kingdom of God is the millennial reign of Christ.

Alan seems to be an amillennialist so he certainly should see the kingdom as being presently in heaven where Christ is in His millennial reign.

According to Revelation and Hebrews 12, we can see the church as on body, meeting in small groups around the world. We also see each "embassy" (meeting place) as the small part of the whole, as expressed in Hebrews 12 when the writer tells us:

"No, you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to countless thousands of angels in a joyful gathering. You have come to the assembly of God’s firstborn children, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God himself, who is the judge over all things. You have come to the spirits of the righteous ones in heaven who have now been made perfect. You have come to Jesus, the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks of forgiveness instead of crying out for vengeance like the blood of Abel."
(vs 22-24)

We see the church in Revelation 7:9-10 as being from every nation, tribe, and tongue.

"After this I saw a vast crowd, too great to count, from every nation and tribe and people and language, standing in front of the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes and held palm branches in their hands. And they were shouting with a great roar, “Salvation comes from our God who sits on the throne and from the Lamb!”

We see the church as the Bride of Christ.

(Revelation 21:2-7)
And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven like a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. I heard a loud shout from the throne, saying, “Look, God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.” And the one sitting on the throne said, “Look, I am making everything new!” And then he said to me, “Write this down, for what I tell you is trustworthy and true.” And he also said, “It is finished! I am the Alpha and the Omega—the Beginning and the End. To all who are thirsty I will give freely from the springs of the water of life. All who are victorious will inherit all these blessings, and I will be their God, and they will be my children.

(Revelation 22:17)
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” Let anyone who hears this say, “Come.” Let anyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires drink freely from the water of life.

 

[Alan Gross]

The kingdom of God is the millennial reign of Christ.

I know that an expression, starting with the word "the", originated from the word for a "thousand" years that is mentioned in Revelation 20, that you're calling, "the millennial reign of Christ", but I didn't see "the kingdom of God", in Revelation 20.

I thought Jesus "must reign" (vs 25) over His Kingdom as King of kings, now, from Heaven, and that "at His Coming" (vs 23) that could happen at any second, it will be The End of Time, and that's it, when Jesus will deliver His current Kingdom over to God the Father. (24, 28);

24 Then cometh the end,
when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father;

when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

As in: I Corinthians 15:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 

[JD731]

I know that an expression, starting with the word "the", originated from the word for a "thousand" years that is mentioned in Revelation 20, that you're calling, "the millennial reign of Christ", but I didn't see "the kingdom of God", in Revelation 20.
.

Is it because you do not want to see the millennial reign of Christ in Re 20? I think so. The King comes back to earth in Re 19. He is not just the King on the earth but he is the King "of" Kings on the earth. There remains a God the Father and it is not he who is coming to the earth in Re 19. It is Jesus who is coming.He is bringing some people and angels with him.

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Followed him where? To heaven? No he is coming from heaven and he is coming to earth.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Smite the nations? Rule the nations? So he cannot rule nations who will not submit so what must he do about them? He must smite them and destroy them.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

There are no nations in heaven where God's throne is. The nations are on the earth. Kings are on the earth.

Psa 81:13 Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!
14 I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries.
15 The haters of the Lord should have submitted themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for ever.
16 He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee.

As you can see here, Our Lord Jesus is going to kill the unbelievers of the Jewish nation as well as the renegade kings of the earth who have gathered in the valley of megeddo for the final showdown between the two kingdoms on the earth. His and Satan's. His kingdom will be establish through the believers of Israel who are left, which will be few in number, but he will resurrect the righteous dead of this generation to rule with him. The Satanic kingdom will come to an end by his imprisonment for one thousand years.

If you refuse to believe the scriptures and the prophecy just say you do not believe it and do not try to convince people that there is intelligence associated with your eloborate schemes that makes no sense. You say you believe the scriptures by not believing them.

Ps 24:1 The earth is the LORD'S and the fulness thereof; the world (the globe), and they that dwell therein.

Psa 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.
17 The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.
18 But we will bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the Lord.

The resurrection of these saints in Re 20 is the completion of the harvest which was three-fold. The first-fruits, the main harvest, the gleanings. Three in one and one in three. The first resurrection.Revelation 1-20 is the time when things are completed.

Does Landmarkism not have a millennial reign of Christ on the earth over the saved nations?

 

[JonC]

Thread is closed as OP has been banned.