Featured Trail of Blood

God has gotten through to me and given me strong impressions
concerning the enormous bolder sitting in the middle of any road I take
related to sharing any beliefs I have regarding the word "church",
in the Bible.

The problem is far greater than I would have suspected.

In a nutshell, there have been two very significant alterations to the Bible
that prevent any discussion from being on the same playing field,
and, therefore, any prospect of teaching on this subject becomes impossible.

I can't even force feed it to someone.

Men ripped a couple of words out of the Bible and replaced them with their own.

Although, God has instructions in the Bible, as to How He is to be Worshipped during the entirety of the current New Testament Era in The Church Age,
however, for example,

when Jesus said, "upon this rock, I build My church"
men have taken it upon themselves to interrupt Jesus in mid-sentence and leave us with the impression that, in effect, Jesus said, "upon this rock,....(then, interrupting Himself says) ...now, let Me tell you that what I really, really mean, about what I am about to share with you, is in reality, the exact diametrically polar opposite of what I'm going to say."

So, although the ORACLES ARE "COMMITTED" or entrusted to us and they are "the oracles of God", after all, which makes it a sin of no ordinary magnitude to pervert their meaning, men have gone right ahead and lifted out two words, (they had to do it twice),

or if they leave them in there, they have diabolically merged into the meaning of these two words, Another New Meaning! that is?....the utter denial and complete contradiction of what those words were intended to mean and then saying that when they go about adding them to the Bible those words can also have a meaning that is the exact opposite of what the Greek words, in the original language manuscripts, say they are supposed to be expressing.

They just have an initial, original meaning, as they were used and understood in the days they were spoken and recorded in God's Word, and then they both have the exact opposite meaning added in there.

Men did that.

God knows how to talk and select specific words for what His intentions are without man having to come along and stamp, "Return to Sender" on them and shove them back in His Face. That is a cataclysmic affront and offense to Him.

God would have given us words that He meant and not left man to guess which meaning goes where. Do we use the initial, original meaning, or are we supposed to read that it means the exact opposite of what it is saying?

The two words, showing the most rudimentary commonality in them, as an illustration, that men have changed in meaning, both describe something as being, "local and contained", while the words man has substituted, or added as a possible new meaning, describe something that is essentially, "world-wide and un-contained".

Those are as different as night and day.

By making those two unprecedented and monumental changes, the teachings that God has in the Bible, with reference to the word, "church" AND the word, "body", are indecipherable, obliterated, and circuvented.

They can't be seen or learned using the Bible, because for most people alive, those words and their understanding, have been changed in the Bible and, therefore, the teachings of God regarding Worship have affectively been removed.

You can't get there from here.

People are stuck right there, probably until the day they die.

To show you how it works, here's this sample statement again that happens to have both those changed words in it and you know else?,...their statement wouldn't be possible to make if the meanings of both those words hadn't been changed and, therefore, no actions that could be taken under consideration by it, could have moved forward.

"The New Testament speaks also of the church
as the body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages".

That statement is fully dependant on two words in the Bible being changed, to claim that they both now mean the exact opposite of what they are actually saying in the Bible.

What about that.

You know what else is fully dependant on both of those changes being made, and could only have been developed and fabricated from these new meanings that man added?

"The Universal Invisible Church".

That people accually say now adays and believe that they were "born into it".

Meanwhile, God's revelation has been tampered with and His instructions and purpose for writing those words in the Bible, have been circumvented.

Remember, the idea about a, "The Universal Invisible Church", had it's origin and the feasibility of coming up with and claiming anything like that, could only be constructed using words in the Bible that have been given new opposite meanings that man made up, not God.

God's revelation has been tampered with.

So, there you have it.

You have your "Universal Invisible Church", that I probably should consider as some sort of blasphemy, or something, to even say.

That has man's usurptation of God's word in it.

"he gave them their request". Psalm 106:15a.


“ But we d e sire t o hear o f th e e What tho u t hink e st ; for a s con cerning thi s sect , we kn ow t hat every -wh ere i t i s sp ok en agains t . ” —Acts 28 : 22 .

Thank you.

 

"But you ask, what are the names of these witnesses for Christ, these martyr communities, the reformers before the Reformation, these Baptist successors of the apostles?"

The Church in the Wilderness; or, The Baptists Before the Reformation, Everts, Jr.

Here are some names: Martyrs Mirror Online: Old Book (1524-1660)

"Ought not Christians to interest themselves to learn the fulfillment of those promises of Christ himself concerning his Church* and people?

"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,"
"lo, I am with you alway even unto the end."

These promises certainly secure the integrity and perpetuity of churches* of Christ in and through all subsequent ages, even unto the end of this dispensation.

Says Dr. S. Miller, "This promise seems to secure to his people that there shall be, in all ages, in the worst of times, a substantially pure Church; that is, there shall always be a body of people more or less numerous, who shall hold just the doctrines and order of Christ's house, in some good degree, in conformity with the model of the primitive Church*.

"Accordingly, it is not difficult to show that, ever since the rise of the 'Man of Sin' there has been a succession of those whom the Scriptures style:
'Witnesses for God' - 'Witnesses for the truth,'

who have kept alive 'the faith once declared to the Saints,' and have in some good degree of faithfulness, maintained the ordinance and discipline which the inspired apostles, in the Master's name committed to the keeping of the Church." *

Recommendatory Letter to Dr. Baird, p. 1.

*Having a view of scripture that some words can have two different meanings that are the complete opposite of each other, as in the post above won't cut it, in order to see and appreciate the things written about a "church", so you won't be expected to.

See: Trail of Blood

Christ's example shows that to be a fitting witness of God, one must be faithful and true, that is, spiritually reliable and accurate. A true witness of God is a reflected example of the life of Jesus Christ in word and behavior.

If I were to tell someone to "make a decision for Christ", "make Jesus the Lord of your life", or "invite Jesus into your heart", where is the subject of an individual's sin going to come in at, and some mention of the blood Atonement of Jesus, by His death, burial, and Resurrection? Don't they need to have reason the repent and something to believe, besides the password "Jesus", I'm order to have a home in heaven?

What happened to, "you must be born again"? Could I be deceiving these lost souls, by suggesting they "believe", "trust", "have faith", "pray this prayer with me"?

If I leave them with a false profession without Regeneration, it sure looks like I am.

That's false religion.

There have been multiple millions of saints of God that have come before you that believed and knew the Bible, who stood as witnesses for God that testify against you poo pooing them, their existence ,and their service and sacrifice for God, as well as certainly against rash, thoughtless error like this:

Answered here: Trail of Blood

Why didn't you say,
"he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb", in Luke 1:15, means that John the Baptist wasn't a Christian, too?

That'd be pretty sharp.

'In all the wide range of traditional reproach and prejudiced authorities, there is found no presumption in favor of the extinction of the Apostolic or Baptist Church before the Reformation; but, on the other hand, there is the strongest presumption of its continuance, sheltered in the wilderness, to our times."

The Church in the Wilderness; or, The Baptists Before the Reformation, Everts, Jr.

 

"unless I believe like you do, my religion is “man made”, No, but you need to study and learn the Bible to see what is right, to believe right. It's in there.

No, not if you don't believe like I do, it is: if your religion is "man made", then it is "man made".

Then, what if there is somebody's religion that is not "man made" at all, but is of Divine Origin? That we need to ask God about

"indispensable introduction".

"Trail of Blood that alone chronicles the “true history” of “True Christianity”: there are plenty of history sources from every strip, starting with the infidels of history, who by the way hold firm to the "Anti-Succession" Doctrine.

If you are wanting me to say that the "true history" of "True Christianity", for the first thirteen centuries, is through those who will see if your relatives and friends have enough money to get you out of Purgatory, so they can buy your salvation from them, with cash on the barrel, as one extremely mild example, I can't do that.

I'm going with the ones they martyred 50,000,000 of "of whom the world is not worthy".

"As we have said, tomes and epitomes of books, purporting to be Church Histories, have been written, and each year adds to their number, but still, not until within a few years past has a solitary effort been made upon the proper basis, or in the right direction. The Church Histories with which our book stores are crowded, were written by Paedobaptists, and they wear a falsehood upon their very title pages, as samples of their contents."

"Examine the standard Church histories of our day, and mark, they all include the history of sixteen centuries; thirteen of which belong to the Catholic and Romish Church, and only two of the sixteen to the Protestant Reformation. It is no longer strange that the world is so profoundly ignorant of Church History."

"One thing settled by the late discussion in the Presbyterian Assembly, is that no Protestant can write the history of the Christian Church! Unless he writes the history of the Romish church, he has no church to write about for sixteen centuries, - until the Reformation of Luther. He may well be asked, Had Christ no church, no witnesses in the world during the roll of one thousand five hundred years?"
...

"In the meantime we submit the following facts: - A.D. About fifty years before the birth of our Saviour, the Romans invaded the British Isle, in the reign of the Welsh king, Cassibellan; but having failed, in consequence of other and more important wars, to conquer the Welsh nation, made peace with them and dwelt among them many years.

"During that period many of the Welsh soldiers joined the Roman army, and many families from Wales visited Rome; among whom there was a certain woman of the name of Claudia, who was married to a man named Pudens.

"At the same time Paul was sent a prisoner to Rome, and preached there in his own hired house, for the space of two years, about the year of our Lord 63.x

"Pudens and Claudia his wife, who belonged to Caesar's household, under the blessing of God on Paul's preaching, were brought to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, and made a profession of the Christian religion.*

"These, together with other Welshmen, among the Roman soldiers, who had tasted that the Lord was gracious, exerted themselves on the behalf of their countrymen in Wales, who were at that time vile idolaters.

"That the gospel was extensively spread in Britain during this period, we learn from Tertullian and Origin. In the year 130 there were two ministers by the names of Faganus and Damianus, who were born in Wales, but were born again in Rome, and there becoming eminent ministers of the gospel, were sent from Rome to assist their brethren in Wales.+

That is getting pretty close to being connected to America, by Paul and his followers by the first and second century. Those Baptist preachers who came here from Wales and England, having been sent by their home churches with the authority to scripturally baptised and start New Testament Baptist churches, are a matter of history, in minute detail.

"Welsh Baptists contend that the principles of the gospel were maintained pure and unalloyed in the recesses of their mountainous principality, all through the dark reign of popery.

"God had a regular chain of true and faithful witnesses in this country, in every age, from the first introduction of Christianity to the present time, who never received nor acknowledged the pope's supremacy: like the thousands and millions of the inhabitants of the vale of Piedmont".

* 2 Tim. 4:21. Fox's Acts and Monuments, p. 137. See also Dr. Gill and Matthew Henry, on 2 Tim. 4:21. Godwin's Catalogue. Crosby's History of the English Baptists, preface to vol. 2.

+ Dr. Haylin's Cosmography, lib. pp. 257, Crosby vol. ii, p. 13, Welch Baptists by Davis.

x See Acts of the Apostles, 28: 30.

A Concise History of Baptists, by Orchard - Intro Essay by J. R. Graves, 1855

"In our view, salvation is by grace through faith alone, nothing added. All who repent toward God and trust the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour are saved, saved forever and without any further condition.

"They are created in Christ Jesus by the new birth to do good works, but any act of obedience to God must follow salvation and cannot possibly be a condition or cause of it.

"This view is held generally by Baptists and by many other evangelical Christians.

This would preclude, for example, any effect that water baptism might have upon the convert."

The Church and the Ordinances, Chapter 9

 

You've done something I've never seen before.

"You made some connection between Baptists and Roman Catholicism, as if Baptists have ever been influenced, challenged, or got the idea of Landmarkism, created a mythology to support a Catholic understanding of church, sought legitimacy from anything about them, adopted the Roman Catholic mindset of what a church is, that Baptists don't know or misunderstand what a true church is, and if that wasn't enough, that "The Trail of Blood" is a work of fiction.

As you may know, my home church is "Bryan Station Baptist Church which is a 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.

"The Bible teaches that only such a church as this is authorized and constructed to be able to do so.

"Our authority came, according to the Biblical doctrine of “church succession,” through particular New England “separate” Baptists who had sought out existing Baptist churches for this arm of authority."

From: "Spotsylvania, Va. – the Spotsylvania Baptist Church, was pastored by Elder Lewis Craig. And it is from this church, when it became the famous “Traveling Church” in September of 1781, that Lewis Craig led the whole church over the Cumberland Gap to settle in the blue grass region of Central Kentucky, that the authority for our Bryan Station Baptist Church came, organized in 1786."

"We believe we are to take our history seriously. It is a glorious history.

"May the Lord grant we live up to it."

Our History – Bryan Station Baptist Church

So, the founding of our church, by the Authority of Baptist Succession, in 1786, was 34 years before K.R. Graves was born. We were Landmarkers before Landmark was cool.

Obtaining Authority from an established Baptist church, is something Baptists and those who have been of like faith and order, by various other names, have always done, since the pattern for obtaining church authority was taught and exemplified in the New Testament.

"J.M. Carroll (younger brother of B.H. Carroll) was inspired by Graves in the writing of his historiography of martyrdom entitled The Trail of Blood (1931).

"Graves had used the phrase “trail of blood” in his book The Tri-lemma (1881) and Carroll used it as his title.

"Incidentally, James M. Pendleton first used the term “Landmark” in an 1854 essay."

J.R. Graves: Looking back at Landmarkism? - The Christian Index

 

Alan, your posts are overwhelming and confusing to me. You post so much I don’t see the connections.

Let’s attempt to narrow it a little (or a lot). You have mentioned several times the use of the word “church” by Jesus and suggested somehow congregations have adopted the opposite meaning than what Jesus intended.

Please state the definition you believe is correct and why and who do you think has changed the meaning.

peace to you

 

Anabaptist.
Tracing the Cardinal Hosius “Baptist” Quote by Ben Townsend

 

". . . Final Conclusion: This is the quote we should use from Cardinal Hosius, and not the others. Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur. (The letters of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Liber Epistolarum 150, titled "Alberto Bavariae Duci" in about 1563 A.D.)

Translation of Quote: For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing. (by Carolinne White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin) . . . ."

 

Cool. Where are their archives located

never knew about them. Will check them out 75%

Bucket list item

 

Thanks!

 

"For God to have preserved His churches by a succession of true churches, valid baptisms and scriptural ordinations would put too great a strain upon the omnipotence of God.

"But to preserve principles and practices among men would not overpower Almighty God.

"...brethren do not tell us how you can have Baptist principles and practices without having Baptist churches to carry out these principles and practices."

Just commenting on your comment, in the words of a cut & paste the had a comment about it.

The Succession Of Truth by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory

For me, I find your comment to be saying, that at any time if someone picks up the New Testament documents and gives themselves to God and obeying them that they will make that individual a Baptist.

Maybe, I'm reading too much into what you said.

I would agree with that, if you did, not to say that the succession of the Lord's churches, as governing bodies of His teachings that He has Perpetuated, is negated by that possibly happening.


The Succession Of Truth by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory

 

Landmark principals listed in the Cotton Grove doc.* and those of Landmark Baptist churches, including New Testament Church succession, date back 300 years before the RCC came about.

*Joseph Early Jr., Readings in Baptist History: Four Centuries of Selected Documents (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008), 116.

They are Bible Doctrines, as given in principal and implied in the New Testament.

The wording associated with J.R. Graves, that "churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous", if left as stated, creates a variance from the Baptist Bible position that "The Kingdom of God is comprised of all saved souls alive on earth"

and that they both share in the rule of The Kingdom of God, however, "all of the local church assemblies operating as baptized believers, are portions of and contained within the worldwide Kingdom of God, as individual unconnected governing bodies executing New Testament principles and practices, limited to their local region of ministry."

The sentiment of the wording associated with J.R. Graves, that "churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous", can only be applicable to them both sharing the common goal of advancing the cause of Christ.

The churches of the Lord Jesus are strategic centers of attack, as independent governing bodies on The Front Lines within The Kingdom of God, endeavoring to promote and enlarge the Kingdom of God and it's influence from one specific location.

One essential doctrine of all Bible believing witnesses down through history, is their observance of the proper structure of what defined a New Testament Church, organizationally, as an entity our opponents can't articulate in words, much less preach and practice.

In that, your position and that of the RCC agree.

For Baptist-doctrine-like, church assemblies of like faith and order, to be reputed as possessing a more than utterly superficial kindred resemblance to the counterfeit religions of man's origin, post Biblical times, is impolitic.

2. "The true church is a local, visible institution. Landmarkism rejects the idea of an invisible, or universal church. Each church is to be self-governing under Christ, maintaining its own discipline.

 

Landmark Baptists.

 

This Middletown Bible Church does pretty well, with the name they chosen, as far as "Middletown", while on the other hand for them to fly under a banner of "Bible" or "Church", not so good.

Their often repeated internet article couldn't be more pretentious, sophomoric, and juvenile.

Without giving reference to where their list of Landmark principals originated, the first one that they have, as someone in their own words relating what they think Landmark principals should be said to be, says:

"1. The terms kingdom and church are synonymous terms. Graves believed that the term kingdom referred collectively to all true Baptist churches. According to Graves, the kingdom announced by John the Baptist and by the Lord Jesus was to be identified with the establishment of Christ’s church. The kingdom of which John and Jesus spoke was, according to Graves, a kingdom composed of visible Baptist Churches."

If I may, regardless of whether J.R. Graves actually said these things, or if he said these things in this way, or again if he did make statements of this nature, that it could be assumed that were he to be asked about their implication being possibly misconstrued that his clarification may consist of something more akin to this statement of mine:

"The terms kingdom and church are synonymous terms", exclusively with regard to their both having a shared interest, in the Advancement the the Kingdom of God and the Cause of Christ."

Otherwise, the terms "kingdom" and "church" are essentially virtual opposites.

The proponents of the "Universal Invisible Church" theory, however, are absolutely dependant on the terms kingdom and church being synonymous terms
and therefore they generally give no credence to Bible teachings concerning the word "church", because, as we are saying, anything the Bible mentions about a "church" is equated and swallowed up by their misconception of the word "church" being no different than what they think they know already about what the word "kingdom" means, as it has existed since that time.

In fact, their presupposition and gratuitous assumption of the meaning of the word "church" equalling the word "kingdom" precludes them from any honest appraisal of anything God might be saying in the Bible with regard to the word "church", because they have already changed it, to mean "kingdom".

How could they learn anything else different?

They have already acquiesced to the prevailing traditions of man-made religions and embraced this incongruity of accepting "church" and "kingdom" having the same meaning and forfeited any general attitude faculties they may otherwise possessed.

This acquisition to capriciously accept and confirm their allegiance the highly suspect change in meaning to the word "church", to include and equal the word "kingdom", and representing them as synonymous terms is, tragically however, derived from the editing and altering by men since the time of the Bible being written, when an extraordinary and unprecedented anomaly was proposed.

And that unheard of anomaly was to revisit the Greek dictionaries and Lexicons, where the word "church" is defined, and to simply augment it's definition there TO ALSO INCLUDE an Additional Meaning that is the actual definition of the "word "kingdom".

The entire myth of a "Universal Invisible "Church" is consummately and unconditionally dependant on this man-made corruption of the Greek language.

The Bible teaches no such absurdity, which obscures and adulterates the word of God, leaving the overwhelming majority of Christianity today, completely and forever, in the dark to Biblical Church Truth, as practiced by Bible believers, since the time of Christ.

They don't know what that is.

They actually don't know what a church is or that it exists and wouldn't know the Lord's churches, if they were flying down the Interstate, at 75 miles an hour.

That is no deterrent for them to retain their vitriolic disparagements aimed at Landmark Baptists, Biblical Christianity Successionism, or publications like "The Trail of Blood".

This was my resent attempt to clarify the Sovereign Grace, Independent Missionary Landmark Baptist position, above at: Trail of Blood

"The wording associated with J.R. Graves, that "churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous", if left as stated, creates a variance from the Baptist Bible position that "The Kingdom of God is comprised of all saved souls alive on earth"

and that they both share in the rule of The Kingdom of God, however, "all of the local church assemblies operating as baptized believers, are portions of and contained within the worldwide Kingdom of God, as individual unconnected governing bodies executing New Testament principles and practices, limited to their local region of ministry."

"The sentiment of the wording associated with J.R. Graves, that "churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous", can only be applicable to them both sharing the common goal of advancing the cause of Christ.

"The churches of the Lord Jesus are strategic centers of attack, as independent governing bodies on The Front Lines within The Kingdom of God, endeavoring to promote and enlarge the Kingdom of God and it's influence from one specific location."

I briefly glanced over some of the rest of the Biblically challenged article

1) The Error of Making the "One Baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 a Reference to Water Baptism.

In this portion, there is reference made to the words "Spirit Baptism", which, as words or a concept is utterly foreign to and devoid of meaning, or mention in the Bible, and I am not obligating myself to respond.

2) The Error of Understanding 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a Reference to Water Baptism.

Passage and Greek Construction:
Matt. 3:11 He (Christ) shall baptize you in Holy Spirit
Acts 1:5 You shall be baptized (by Christ-Matt. 3:11) in Holy Spirit
Acts 11:16 You shall be baptized (by Christ-Matt. 3:11) in Holy Spirit
1 Cor. 12:13 We were baptized (by Christ-Matt. 3:11) in one Spirit into one body.

I don't know why they constructed this portion and added "in" one Spirit on the last one, but there is again a reference made to the words "we were baptized in one Spirit", which, as words or a concept is utterly foreign to and devoid of meaning, or mention in the Bible, and I am not obligating myself to respond.

3) The Error of Beginning the Church before Pentecost and before the Cross.

"We have seen from 1 Corinthians 12:13 that Spirit Baptism is that supernatural work of God whereby the believing sinner is placed or immersed into the ONE BODY of Christ. In Ephesians 1:22-23 and Colossians 1:18 we learn that the BODY OF CHRIST is identified as the CHURCH. In Matthew 16:18 the Lord Jesus referred to it as "MY CHURCH."

In this portion, there is reference made to words saying, "Spirit Baptism is that supernatural work of God whereby the believing sinner is placed or immersed into the ONE BODY of Christ", which, as words or concepts, "Spirit Baptism" and "One Body of Christ", ( in allusion to the mythical "Universal Invisible Church" theory ) are both utterly foreign to and devoid of meaning, or mention in the Bible, and I am not obligating myself to respond.

"There are serious problems involved with beginning the church prior to the cross in the days of the Lord and His disciples."

I will add here, that that certainly doesn't have much to say for Jesus Christ, does it?

 

4) The Error of Denying the Universal Church
We have already established the fact that there is "one baptism" which places every true believer (not just certain Baptist believers) into the "one body."

In this portion, there is reference made to the words "Universal Church", which, as words or a concept is utterly foreign to and devoid of meaning, or mention in the Bible, and I am not obligating myself to respond.

5) The Error which Insists that the True Churches are Linked to John the Baptist (the Successionist Theory).

"Apollos traced his roots back to John the Baptist and he was quickly corrected by Aquila and Priscilla and taught the true doctrine (Acts 18:24-28)."

Apollos was not corrected in any fashion, or by any means, by Aquilla and Priscilla regarding John the Baptist, and the "true doctrines" they were taught were not in relation to him.

Apollos knew "the baptism of John".

24 "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ."



It may interest you to know, that none of these 13 men were "baptized", at this time by Paul, or anyone else, or "re-baptized" in any way.

These 13 men were not baptized in this passage of scripture, at all.

The key to understanding this passage, to not be apart of these demonstrable errors, is that Acts 17: 4 & 5 are related and make reference to the events related to John the Baptist and those who were listening to him and it was them, in vs 5 that were baptized by John.

Acts 19: 5 is not speaking of taking place with Paul and is not a part of vs 6.

See: Landmarkism: What is it?

In this portion, there is reference made to the words "who had never been SPIRIT BAPTIZED and placed into the body of Christ", which, as words or a concepts are utterly foreign to and devoid of meaning, or mention in the Bible, and I am not obligating myself to respond, except to note:

"In Acts 19:1-7 there were about 12 men who, like Apollos, knew only of John's baptism but who had never been SPIRIT BAPTIZED and placed into the body of Christ. (No such things exist)

It is interesting that these men were re-baptized. (they were not baptized at all, nor re-baptized, at all)

John's baptism was not sufficient for the new dispensation. ( This is a blatant lie, forged from their astounding ignorance and is an unmitigated and thoughtless affront to God Who sent John, by His Own Omnipotent Authority)

They had to be baptized in the name of Christ. (They neither had to, not were they baptized in the name of Christ, or anyone else).

Thus, instead of a succession from John the Baptist, there needs to be a distinct break. (Do you know what it means when someone says, "the boy hit a baseball"? It means, "a boy landed on the moon".)

There is a distinct difference between Christian baptism and John's baptism. (Christian baptism, so called as performed by the Apostles and afterwards and John's baptism are absolutely the same and indistinguishable from one another.)

John's baptism has no place in the present dispensation." ( What business do these people think they have to even say the name, "John", or comment on anything in the Bible?)

6) The Error of Believer's Baptism Not being Recognized as Legitimate unless it is Performed by one of their Men in one of their Churches.

In this portion, there is reference made to the words "their Churches", of which, as words or a concept is utterly foreign to their comprehension, which is devoid of discerning its meaning when mentioned in the Bible, as evidenced by their own testimony above and I am not obligating myself to respond.

7) The Error of "Closed Communion" which Involves not Allowing True, Genuine, Obedient Believers to Partake of Communion merely because they are not Members of a Landmark Assembly.

In this portion, there is reference made to the words "True Genuine, Obedient Believers", of which, as words or a concept is utterly foreign to any ability we profess to possess that would enable us to make these two determinations, "True Genuine", or ""Obedient Believers", as they say in their brilliant grasp of Spiritual Reality, "merely because they are not Members of (our) Landmark Assembly" and I am not obligating myself to respond further and I am getting fatigued with their entire persecution of Jesus Christ.


Is the Landmark position in harmony with Paul's exhortation in Romans 15:7-

Yes, because Romans 15:7 is entirely irrelevant to the Lord's Supper, of which they dare to chastise.

-"Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God."

How thankful we should be that Christ has received poor, rebellious sinners such as us. If God were to act as the Landmark Baptists act, would any of us be saved?

These religious Klondikes need to stick to their own religion.

II Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen

 

Landmark Missionary Baptist Church - The Trail of Blood

 

James Milton Carroll - Wikipedia