Is this a Landmark Baptist Church?

[evangelist6589]

THE CHURCH
1. We believe that the local church, which is the body and the espoused bride of Christ, is solely made up of born-again persons. (1 Cor. 12:12-14; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:25-27)
2. We believe that the establishment and continuance of local churches is clearly taught and defined in the New Testament Scriptures. (Acts 14:27; 20:17, 28-32; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-11)
3. We believe in the autonomy of the local church free of any external authority or control. (Acts 13:1-4; 15:19-31; 20:28; Rom. 16:1, 4; 1 Cor. 3:9, 16; 5:4-7, 13; 1 Pet. 5:1-4)
4. We recognize water baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the Scriptural ordinances of obedience for the church in this age. (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:41-42; 18:18; 1 Cor. 11:23-26)

SEPARATION
We believe that all the saved should live in such a manner as not to bring reproach upon their Saviour and Lord. God commands His people to separate from all religious apostasy, all worldly and sinful pleasures, practices, and associations, and to refrain from all immodest and immoderate appearances. (Rom. 12:1-2; 14:13; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 1 John 2:15-17; 2 John 9-11; Lev. 19:28; 1 Cor. 6:19-20)

--

They are not KJVO which seems odd as I thought LandMarks were all KJVO but maybe I am wrong as there are so many varieties and flavors of IFB Churches. If it is a LandMark church then we will stay there for the time being but I won't join. In due time we will go to a 9 Marks or so SBC Church Lord willing.

I also used to be like this but the Lord taught me that Heaven will be populated by more than just separatist Baptists.

 

[Salty]

Heinz 57 Baptists - Have you ever heard that term!
From the link: the name Baptist has about lost any definite meaning!! It is used by so many different folks and covers such a wide variety of beliefs that it would be difficult to answer, What is a Baptist? The name Baptist covers the area from the Hard-shell to the extreme Armenian, from the Modernist to the Fundamentalist, from the Convention to the Independent, from Close Communion to Open Communion, from Pre­millennialism to Post-millennialism, from the Universal Church theory to the Local Church, from foot-washing to no foot-washing, from acceptance of all immersion as Baptist to only an acceptance of Baptist baptism, from anti-missionary to missionary, from Seventh-Day Baptists to Sunday Baptists, from anti-tithing to tithing, etc. You name it, and somewhere, somebody called Baptists have it! Baptists have developed into a Heinz 57 varieties!

One word of advice - before you and the better half tie the knot - you best agree on what church, not only to attend but to actively serve in w/o reservation.

 

[RLBosley]

Could be. Sounds like any other separatist baptist church to me, not necessarily landmarkist. That being said, I was in my last IFB church for over a year before it became clear that the pastor was a "baptist-brider/Landmarkist."

So tread carefully.

 

[saturneptune]

Landmarkers and Catholics should form a club since they all go back the the apostles.

 

[RLBosley]

Landmarkers and Catholics should form a club since they all go back the the apostles.

Mormons too... Man that would be an interesting club meeting to sit in on...

 

[evangelist6589]

They may not be which is good news.

 

[Tom Butler]

You know, this is interesting. Landmarkers get dumped on regularly here, but I'm waiting for a detailed rationale for such trashing. What's wrong with that view?

By the way, I know some Landmarkers who are not Baptist Briders. And while we're at it, what's wrong with the Baptist Bride view?

 

[RLBosley]

You know, this is interesting. Landmarkers get dumped on regularly here, but I'm waiting for a detailed rationale for such trashing. What's wrong with that view?

By the way, I know some Landmarkers who are not Baptist Briders. And while we're at it, what's wrong with the Baptist Bride view?

They (the views) twist scripture to fit doctrine and create pride in the hearts of believers?

http://www.gotquestions.org/landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You know, this is interesting. Landmarkers get dumped on regularly here, but I'm waiting for a detailed rationale for such trashing. What's wrong with that view?

By the way, I know some Landmarkers who are not Baptist Briders. And while we're at it, what's wrong with the Baptist Bride view?

:thumbsup::thumbsup:Yes....Perhaps the "Baptist Bride" doctrine is false. But frankly, I've not ever seen anyone explain why Scripturally. The only argument I've ever really seen is one of incredulity. That likely is all you will see here. You are also right that "Landmarkism" and the "Baptist Bride" are two different ideas and they do not necessitate each other although usually they go hand in hand. I've known many "Baptist Briders" and "Landmarkers" over the years, and these railing accusations of their arrogance and the trashing of their personal characters is unfounded. In my personal experience....they've been the most quality people I've personally ever known.

But you will see nothing but vicious unfounded personal attacks on them here, I imagine.:tear:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

They (the views) twist scripture to fit doctrine and create pride in the hearts of believers?

http://www.gotquestions.org/landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html

UMMM.....no....uh....not really. The "Got Questions" people really don't know what they are talking about here. On numerous levels. They have some good answers to a LOT of questions. But frankly, that link gets a 3 out of ten:tonofbricks:

 

[evangelist6589]

UMMM.....no....uh....not really. The "Got Questions" people really don't know what they are talking about here. On numerous levels. They have some good answers to a LOT of questions. But frankly, that link gets a 3 out of ten:tonofbricks:

It was very informative and I liked it. Its short, simple, and to the point. I gave it a 10/10. But then again I have never taken a class in Ecclesiology other than what systematic theology taught. I have not read books on Church Government or the nice book by Saucy on the topic. So I am not an expert...

 

[RLBosley]

UMMM.....no....uh....not really. The "Got Questions" people really don't know what they are talking about here. On numerous levels. They have some good answers to a LOT of questions. But frankly, that link gets a 3 out of ten:tonofbricks:

Meh. Not their best perhaps but short and to the point, and, I think, gives an accurate reason why Landmarkism and Baptist Briderism should be rejected.

Why do you disagree with the article?

:thumbsup::thumbsup:Yes....Perhaps the "Baptist Bride" doctrine is false. But frankly, I've not ever seen anyone explain why Scripturally. The only argument I've ever really seen is one of incredulity. That likely is all you will see here. You are also right that "Landmarkism" and the "Baptist Bride" are two different ideas and they do not necessitate each other although usually they go hand in hand. I've known many "Baptist Briders" and "Landmarkers" over the years, and these railing accusations of their arrogance and the trashing of their personal characters is unfounded. In my personal experience....they've been the most quality people I've personally ever known.

But you will see nothing but vicious unfounded personal attacks on them here, I imagine.:tear:

I agree that the two are separate beliefs, but like you said they often go hand in hand. And while your experience may have been good, mine has not. The Landmarkists and Brider's I've known are some very prideful and angry people. Pastors who have been in the pulpit for so long and think that they speak ex cathedra. I'm sure I'll get railed by some on here for saying that, but that is my experience and you cannot change that by ignoring it.

Are all Landmarkists and Briders like that? Probably not. But I think that a ecclesiology that is built upon having a direct line to the apostles/John the Baptist would inevitably lead to a superior attitude where the individual looks down on other, "non-successive", "corrupted" churches.

 

[Tom Butler]

The Landmark movement started in the mid-19th century. Its primary advocate was J. R. Graves, who, by the way, was a Southern Baptist, I would be hard pressed to name an Independent Baptist who holds to Landmark ecclesiology.

This ecclesiology was the dominant view among Southern Baptists until the middle of the 20th century. So it would be a mistake to characterize it as some weird, radical view. It was a mianstream view for quite a long time.

It would be helpful if those who disagree with this view would exegete some scripture. Simply saying it's wrong and citing a scripture reference doesn't shed any light.

 

[Tom Butler]

If we're going to have a fruitful discussion of Landmarkism, perhaps it would help to know the history of the movement.

Here's an excellent article:
http://http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/landmark.histgrphy.harper.html

 

[Yeshua1]

You know, this is interesting. Landmarkers get dumped on regularly here, but I'm waiting for a detailed rationale for such trashing. What's wrong with that view?

By the way, I know some Landmarkers who are not Baptist Briders. And while we're at it, what's wrong with the Baptist Bride view?

the Bride of Chrsit are NOT Baptists, nor catholics, nor methodist, nor anglicans etc JUSt CHRISTIANS!

 

[evangelist6589]

the Bride of Chrsit are NOT Baptists, nor catholics, nor methodist, nor anglicans etc JUSt CHRISTIANS!

EXACTLY!! Its the false converts that claim otherwise. Perhaps Landmarks are false converts.

 

[Tom Butler]

EXACTLY!! Its the false converts that claim otherwise. Perhaps Landmarks are false converts.

Hmm, interesting.

So, I'm a false convert if I believe that Jesus founded His church (the one He said he would build) during His earthly ministry?

I'm a false convert because I hold that there are only local New Testament churches, and the so-called Universal Church does not exist?

I'm a false convert because I believe Jesus promised that the church he established would never go out of existence on this earth (The gates of Hell would not prevail against it)?

I'm a false convert because I believe that there have always been true New Testament churches (called by different names)?

I'm a false convert because I believe that as a general rule, Baptists hold to the same doctrines and practices found in the New Testament--and thereby qualify as true NT churches?

I'm a false convert because I believe that some denominations teach error regarding the way of salvation, the saving efficacy of baptism and the Lord's Supper, thus forfeiting the right to be called NT churches?

I do not consider myself a Landmarker, although I agree with some of its tenets. I am not a Baptist Brider, although I believe at the great General Assembly in heaven, every believer will know the truth.

Then we'll all be Baptists!
Sorry, just had to throw that in.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

For the most part, I'm with Tom (post 17). Though I would clarify my position as the Spiritual Kinship Theory rather than a hard Chain Link Theory.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The late B.Myron Cedarholm and the late Richard Weeks (with roots in the Northern Baptists not Southern) of Maranatha Baptist College held to a local church only interpretation of ekklesia and to the Spiritual Kinship Theory of Baptist History. They did not hold to the Baptist Bride position. And Dr. Cedarholm each year would ,bring a Chapel message "Why We are not Landmarkers." Dr. Weeks when spaeking about other denominations would refer to them as churches out of order.

The Landmark movement started in the mid-19th century. Its primary advocate was J. R. Graves, who, by the way, was a Southern Baptist, I would be hard pressed to name an Independent Baptist who holds to Landmark ecclesiology.
SNIP

 

[evangelist6589]

Hmm, interesting.

So, I'm a false convert if I believe that Jesus founded His church (the one He said he would build) during His earthly ministry?

I'm a false convert because I hold that there are only local New Testament churches, and the so-called Universal Church does not exist?

I'm a false convert because I believe Jesus promised that the church he established would never go out of existence on this earth (The gates of Hell would not prevail against it)?

I'm a false convert because I believe that there have always been true New Testament churches (called by different names)?

I'm a false convert because I believe that as a general rule, Baptists hold to the same doctrines and practices found in the New Testament--and thereby qualify as true NT churches?

I'm a false convert because I believe that some denominations teach error regarding the way of salvation, the saving efficacy of baptism and the Lord's Supper, thus forfeiting the right to be called NT churches?

I do not consider myself a Landmarker, although I agree with some of its tenets. I am not a Baptist Brider, although I believe at the great General Assembly in heaven, every believer will know the truth.

Then we'll all be Baptists!
Sorry, just had to throw that in.

This is why I said "perhaps" as I do not know if you are a false convert. LandMarks may be saved, just disobedient brethren. Disobedient Brethren are not the same as false converts.

But I tell you that anyone whom says that Living Waters, and other ministries and churches that I support are not "true christians" are seriously wrong.