Are you a Landmark Baptist

[Jon-Marc]

Do you consider yourself a Landmark Baptist

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Dale-c]

If there was one shred of evidence or even common sense, I might not think the whole teaching was man-made nonsense.

In other words, NO

I agree totally.

There was an excellent program on this on The Narrow Mind a while back with Dr Jim Renihan who is a Church historian and a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido CA.

It clearly exposed the Landmark belief for the untruth that it is.

 

[Dale-c]

There is a big gap between believing that Baptists did not come out of the Reformation to we go back to the Apostles.

I always think that if Baptists did not come out of Rome in the reformation, then they still need to come out of it

Do people believe that NO baptists came out of the Roman Church during the Reformation?

 

[Tom Butler]

I have no idea what that means.

Rather than go into detail, let me recommend that you go to the General Baptist Discussions and look for a thread 'Historians debate the reasons for the rise of Landmarkism in the 19th Centuiry."

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=56487

It'll give you an overview of Landmarkism and some spirited discussion on its validity.

You might even find yourself in agreement with some of it. Or not.

 

[RustySword]

Not landmark at all - the primary reason why we are Southern Baptist is that, of the churches in our area, its doctrines are the closest to what we believe.

 

[Thermodynamics]

I don't really adhear to Landmarkism as a theology. However, in terms of succession I do think there is something to the idea. I do not believe that the Baptist denomination existed throught Church history, but I do believe that all valid belief held by Baptists can be traced back to the New Testament. I also believe (but can't prove) that there has been an unbroken succession of people from AD 30 until today who have held to these beliefs.

 

[TCGreek]

As far as denominations are concerned, I reject all Landmarkist notions.

 

[Jarthur001]

I also believe (but can't prove) that there has been an unbroken succession of people from AD 30 until today who have held to these beliefs.

Don't worry about proving it. No one else can prove it either.

 

[Salty]

Don't worry about proving it. No one else can prove it either.

Opps - cant count your opinion unless you are a Baptist - per BB rule # 1

 

[Thermodynamics]

This generation of believers was taught by the generation before them, they were taught by the previous generation and so forth. It seems logical that that goes all the way back to the first generation of Christians and that God has always provided some true believers as a balance to the false teachings of this world.

 

[Jim1999]

If one truly studies Luther and his reasons for the Catholic Reformation..which didn't happen and Luther was eventually excommunicated and baptist doctrines coming from that mess is more unbelievable than the few questionable links along Landmarkists lists.

Still, it is not worth losing fellowship with anyone. Just an interesting study of history.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TCGreek]

If one truly studies Luther and his reasons for the Catholic Reformation..which didn't happen and Luther was eventually excommunicated and baptist doctrines coming from that mess is more unbelievable than the few questionable links along Landmarkists lists.

Still, it is not worth losing fellowship with anyone. Just an interesting study of history.

Cheers,

Jim

What's to gain spiritually from being Landmarkist?

 

[Jim1999]

Personal interest. I think I said that a number of times. And to get away from the myths of the Catholic Reformation.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Tom Butler]

Those who look down their noses at Landmark ecclesiology as if it is some backwoods cornpone idea should understand the implications of what they're saying.

They're saying that at some point, there ceased to be an identifiable group which held to New Testament theology and practice. That until the 16th century, no such group existed. That there was no such thing as a local church.

Which one could take to mean that the gates of Hell actually did prevail against the church Jesus built.

Whoa, you say, I believe what Jesus said in Matthew 16. Good, so do we all.

But understand, to accept that truth means you are at least partly a Landmarker.

 

[Jim1999]

ok,,confession,,I had two professors in seminary who were landmarkists; systematic Theology and Biblical Theology. Oddly they were also Americans; Virginia and Kentucky..........I just wanted to get high marks by becoming a landmarkist...........:laugh:

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jarthur001]

Those who look down their noses at Landmark ecclesiology as if it is some backwoods cornpone idea should understand the implications of what they're saying

.
I never thought of it that way, and see no need to think of it that way. WV is as back woods as one can get. yet I'm not a landmarker.

They're saying that at some point, there ceased to be an identifiable group which held to New Testament theology and practice. That until the 16th century, no such group existed. That there was no such thing as a local church.

I'm not sure that those that deny the Landmark belief also would claim there were no good churches before the 16th century. I know I would never claim this. I'll say it now, that there were many local churches before the 16th century

Which one could take to mean that the gates of Hell actually did prevail against the church Jesus built.

Not at all. There are a number of problems with this statement. Let me point to just one now.

In this passage, is the text talking about a local church? If so, do you know of any local churches that were once around, and now are not? If so, that local church failed.....if you will. In my small town alone I can think of many local churches that no longer exist, that once were... in my life time alone. They were once good churches at that.

If you were to claim that this is talking about all the local churches as a group through out all of time and in all places, then you now have a universal church in nature.

The fact is, I'm not sure one can say with a firm dogmatism that this passage supports a local church. I do believe in the local church, but it is my view that there is no support for it in this passage.

 

[Tom Butler]

James, you make my case for me, since you hold that there were local congregations prior to the 16th century.

And it's obvious you don't agree with Landmarkism but don't have the attitude I described (the corn-pone one).

Some of the posters say their extensive research into Landmarkism fails to find proof of successionism, or that modern Baptists churches are descendants of those NT churches. What I read into those posts (not yours) is, there's no proof, so they didn't exist. Or, some of those groups claimed as progenitors were pretty weird, are you sure you want to claim kinship with those wackos?

Landmarkers get trashed on the basis that their evidence is thin. Yet you yourself believe that such churches existed. That makes you at least 10% Landmark, maybe even 20%.

 

[Tom Butler]

I think the one thing that gets non-Landmarkers bent out of shape more than anything is the Landmark contention that there's no such thing as the Universal Church--that the Bible tells of only two kinds: The local congregation on earth, and the General Assembly in heaven

The word "church" is sometimes used generically or institutionally, such as the "family." But both take concrete expression in real churches and real families. But that's another thread. (Come to think of it, it already is another thread).

 

[Ehud]

Yes and No

Don't worry about proving it. No one else can prove it either.

This is not true. there is plenty of Church History out there if one wants to read Although not a succession in name but defiantly a succession in doctrine.

We have now seen that the Baptists,who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who have long in history received the honor of the origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community that has stood since the days of the Apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all the ages.—History of the Dutch Reformed Church, Vol I, p. 148.

: John Ridpath, a Methodist, had this to say of Baptists:
“I should not readily admit that was a Baptist church as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then as all Christians were
then Baptists.” —

Jarrel's Church Perpetuity, p. 59. We are thankful for the heritage passed down to us by our Baptist forefathers. Many of them gave their lives during the Dark Ages because they refused to baptize their child or because they loved God’s Word too much to compromise.


One thing man never learns from history is that man never learns from history.:tonofbricks:

Ehud

 

[Jarthur001]

Some of the posters say their extensive research into Landmarkism fails to find proof of successionism, or that modern Baptists churches are descendants of those NT churches. What I read into those posts (not yours) is, there's no proof, so they didn't exist. Or, some of those groups claimed as progenitors were pretty weird, are you sure you want to claim kinship with those wackos?

Landmarkers get trashed on the basis that their evidence is thin. Yet you yourself believe that such churches existed. That makes you at least 10% Landmark, maybe even 20%.

Tom,

As has been said before by other posters and I may have said it as well....You will not find Baptist churches before a 16th Cen time. The reason no one will make a list of what a "Baptist is", is that when we take that list side by side with these other groups, all of them will be rejected. All of them? I think so. But...you could prove me wrong by showing a group that was indeed Baptist as we know it.

I think you will find the best word to use that allows most all of these group under one label is not Baptist, but protestant.