Is this a Landmark Baptist Church?

[Tom Butler]

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.

Thanks, Squire. I hold to Church Perpetuity, which means that there has always been a New Testament church in existence, and there was never a time when one didn't exist. Spiritual Kinship and Perpetuity may mean the same thing. What do you think?

The question of successionism (or chain-link) is a big more nebulous, so, while I suspect that it is valid, the evidence is not strong enough for me to stake my reputation on.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

Oh, I'd never make a blanket statement about para-church ministries unless I could see and evaluate their doctrinal statement.

What concerned me about your comments was that they seemed to question my salvation, and that of Landmarkers, solely on ecclesiological ground. I'm a big boy, and I can handle it, but it struck me that it could be a violation of Baptist Board rules.

Although I agree with several tenets of Landmarkism, I'm not one. And I serve a church where the subject never comes up. If it did, I'd probably be in a miinority. Obviously, it's not a test of fellowship for me, and obviously not for my brothers and sisters in my church who don't share my view, since they let me hang around.

So to see one's views on the issue applied as a litmus test for one's salvation was a bit disconcerting. I guess your use of "perhaps" softened the blow a bit.

 

[saturneptune]

We know Christ promised to preserve His church. We know that the Catholic church started around 500 AD. We know Protestant churches did not appear until the Reformation. That is a time span of about 1000 years. Duh. So who do you think was preserving the church during that 1000 year period? The Catlickers? What else was there? Assorted groups of local churchs seperate and apart from the RCC, and that is what preserved the church. We also know you cannot focus in on a point of time or person that started the Baptist church like the Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, or Episcapalians. It almost seems like common sense totally escapes this board sometimes. Certainly after the Reformation, the church had an easier time of being preserved. There is no direct evidence that Baptists go back to the apostles, except there is a good case of it by churchs of like faith and order, and the process of elimination.

So what if we woke up one morning and found out that the SBC did go back to the apostles? What differrence does it make? The twelve apostles were sinners like the rest of us. Between what Christ and Paul say about the foolishness of genealogies, like to Abraham, it almost reminds me of Mary and the Catholics.

There is one focus of Christianity, and that is Jesus Christ. Christ promised to preserve His church. End of story. I do not care if the batton was passed off from one of the early churches in Acts, to a Anabaptist, to a Campellite, to Superman. The only two issues I can think of more meaningless than this issue is KJVO and developing a Biblical case for no dancing.

 

[evangelist6589]

Oh, I'd never make a blanket statement about para-church ministries unless I could see and evaluate their doctrinal statement.

What concerned me about your comments was that they seemed to question my salvation, and that of Landmarkers, solely on ecclesiological ground. I'm a big boy, and I can handle it, but it struck me that it could be a violation of Baptist Board rules.

Although I agree with several tenets of Landmarkism, I'm not one. And I serve a church where the subject never comes up. If it did, I'd probably be in a miinority. Obviously, it's not a test of fellowship for me, and obviously not for my brothers and sisters in my church who don't share my view, since they let me hang around.

So to see one's views on the issue applied as a litmus test for one's salvation was a bit disconcerting. I guess your use of "perhaps" softened the blow a bit.

I humbly apologize friend. I am sorry.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

Oh I do not doubt your experience at all. And I've seen it many times. I've never thought it's due to a Landmark or Baptist-Bride ecclesiology. Many Fundamentalists are like that. The "man-o-Gawd" types are full-circle 20th Century Nicolaitaines. They rail about it from the Catholics and become one themselves. But, I've never blamed Landmarkism for it. It's just the way they train their flocks and the way they have been treated all their life.
I suppose I am speaking more of the non-pastors :laugh:.

I know numerous Fundamentalist Churches where I would say I adore the people and can't stand listening to arrogant frog in the pulpit.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We know Christ promised to preserve His church. We know that the Catholic church started around 500 AD. We know Protestant churches did not appear until the Reformation. That is a time span of about 1000 years. Duh. So who do you think was preserving the church during that 1000 year period? The Catlickers? What else was there? Assorted groups of local churchs seperate and apart from the RCC, and that is what preserved the church. We also know you cannot focus in on a point of time or person that started the Baptist church like the Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, or Episcapalians. It almost seems like common sense totally escapes this board sometimes. Certainly after the Reformation, the church had an easier time of being preserved. There is no direct evidence that Baptists go back to the apostles, except there is a good case of it by churchs of like faith and order, and the process of elimination.

So what if we woke up one morning and found out that the SBC did go back to the apostles? What differrence does it make? The twelve apostles were sinners like the rest of us. Between what Christ and Paul say about the foolishness of genealogies, like to Abraham, it almost reminds me of Mary and the Catholics.

There is one focus of Christianity, and that is Jesus Christ. Christ promised to preserve His church. End of story. I do not care if the batton was passed off from one of the early churches in Acts, to a Anabaptist, to a Campellite, to Superman. The only two issues I can think of more meaningless than this issue is KJVO and developing a Biblical case for no dancing.

Well said brother

 

[RLBosley]

Oh I do not doubt your experience at all. And I've seen it many times. I've never thought it's due to a Landmark or Baptist-Bride ecclesiology. Many Fundamentalists are like that. The "man-o-Gawd" types are full-circle 20th Century Nicolaitaines. They rail about it from the Catholics and become one themselves. But, I've never blamed Landmarkism for it. It's just the way they train their flocks and the way they have been treated all their life.
I suppose I am speaking more of the non-pastors :laugh:.

I see what you are saying. And the bolded above is SPOT ON! I guess I am just looking at it from a wider angle. Their views and particularly their pride, didn't form in a vacuum. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but Landmarkism and Briderism seems to be a common denominator. Especially since one pastor said that ONLY Baptists are saved (as in born again, not just sanctified, or growing in grace or anything... only Baptists will be spared hell) and another saying he doesn't "like the idea of God using any one other than baptists (by which he means IFB) since only IFB are right. And if God does accept them, they must be the "guests" at the wedding supper when Christ comes back for his "baptist Bride." :BangHead:

I know numerous Fundamentalist Churches where I would say I adore the people and can't stand listening to arrogant frog in the pulpit.

:applause::laugh: That is fantastic.. I actually lol'd

 

[Tom Butler]

I humbly apologize friend. I am sorry.

Brother, we're good.

I have learned that Landmarkism is such a hot-issue, that it doesn't take much to to get folks stirred up. And I plead guilty to sometimes taking a perverse pleasure in stirring that pot.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I see what you are saying. And the bolded above is SPOT ON! I guess I am just looking at it from a wider angle. Their views and particularly their pride, didn't form in a vacuum. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but Landmarkism and Briderism seems to be a common denominator. Especially since one pastor said that ONLY Baptists are saved (as in born again, not just sanctified, or growing in grace or anything... only Baptists will be spared hell) and another saying he doesn't "like the idea of God using any one other than baptists (by which he means IFB) since only IFB are right. And if God does accept them, they must be the "guests" at the wedding supper when Christ comes back for his "baptist Bride." :BangHead:



:applause::laugh: That is fantastic.. I actually lol'd

We seem to agree on more than we would disagree here. I HATE to admit it....but, frankly, the "Baptist-Bride" and some of the tenents of Landmarkism....actually make sense to me. The logic of it follows if we accept these basic premises (which I also accept):
1.) Jesus Christ founded the local "Church" during his earthly ministry and commissioned them for a specific task.
2.) The "Church" could not at any point be "defeated" and that (as an institution) it would endure throughout the age.
3.) The normatively understood "Baptist" New Testament Church (without feeling like going into detail..some other proclaimed "non-denoms" and other local churches who are essentially "Baptist" in doctrine, but are too afraid of labels.) is essentially that New Testament body which has survived through the ages by different monikers.
4.) Quite frankly....Protestant denominations are (by that definition) NOT included in that group by default.
5.) Without bickering too much about the errors often found in different groups....we can at least trace a basic heritage of Bible-Believing local "Churches" throughout the New Testament era who can loosely qualify as the continuance of Christ's "Church".
6.) If Christs "Church" is qualified as those bodies of surviving believers who form the assemblies to carry on the "Great Commission"...than it follows that they have never ceased to exist.
7.) The Roman Catholic Church...and those groups who have (rightly) split from her (Protestants) are not that historical group.
8.) Therefore...the New Testament "Baptist" Church....is that "bride of Christ" who is without a doubt called the "Church". Which has survived through the ages.

If those premises are true. Then I must humbly admit two things:

I essentially agree with "Baptist-Briders" (This DOES NOT include those who think non-members are not saved)...that would be apostasy and heresy of the greatest degree.
"Baptist-Briders"....see the "Church" as being a distinctive grouping with a definable purpose........MANY people will be saved who are not a part of it. The thief on the cross is one such individual. Saved and GLORIOUSLY redeemed by the blood of Christ, but not a part of the New Testament "Church".

Regardless. I understand why there are MULTITUDES of Baptists and Bible-Believers who have little or no truck with Fundamental (usually Independent) Baptists who believe these doctrines. Too often, they are (or become) arrogant and nasty people. I have learned to be quite picky about the particular Church I attend. I can see how a belief in general "Landmarkism" or a "Baptist-Bride" ecclesiology can easily lead to insufferable arrogance and self-aggrandizement...but, it doesn't render the idea false. We can't "Throw the baby out with the bath-water" ...as much as it would be so easy to do so.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Especially since one pastor said that ONLY Baptists are saved (as in born again, not just sanctified, or growing in grace or anything... only Baptists will be spared hell) and another saying he doesn't "like the idea of God using any one other than baptists (by which he means IFB

And.......that (you rightly say) is Demonic heresy...No-one who preaches this way preaches the Gospel. That is heresy of the worst form. I admit....too many people who are "Baptist-Briders" say such horrific things, and, you are right, again (as you said before) that those doctrines don't exist in a vacuum. It is HARD to defend the basic tenents of "Landmarkism" or "Baptist-Bride" when so many heresies are associated with it. In two years or so on this board....I've been quite silent about my views on ecclesiology for that very reason.

 

[RLBosley]

We seem to agree on more than we would disagree here. I HATE to admit it....but, frankly, the "Baptist-Bride" and some of the tenents of Landmarkism....actually make sense to me. The logic of it follows if we accept these basic premises (which I also accept):
1.) Jesus Christ founded the local "Church" during his earthly ministry and commissioned them for a specific task.
2.) The "Church" could not at any point be "defeated" and that (as an institution) it would endure throughout the age.
3.) The normatively understood "Baptist" New Testament Church (without feeling like going into detail..some other proclaimed "non-denoms" and other local churches who are essentially "Baptist" in doctrine, but are too afraid of labels.) is essentially that New Testament body which has survived through the ages by different monikers.
4.) Quite frankly....Protestant denominations are (by that definition) NOT included in that group by default.
5.) Without bickering too much about the errors often found in different groups....we can at least trace a basic heritage of Bible-Believing local "Churches" throughout the New Testament era who can loosely qualify as the continuance of Christ's "Church".
6.) If Christs "Church" is qualified as those bodies of surviving believers who form the assemblies to carry on the "Great Commission"...than it follows that they have never ceased to exist.
7.) The Roman Catholic Church...and those groups who have (rightly) split from her (Protestants) are not that historical group.
8.) Therefore...the New Testament "Baptist" Church....is that "bride of Christ" who is without a doubt called the "Church". Which has survived through the ages.

If those premises are true. Then I must humbly admit two things:

I essentially agree with "Baptist-Briders" (This DOES NOT include those who think non-members are not saved)...that would be apostasy and heresy of the greatest degree.
"Baptist-Briders"....see the "Church" as being a distinctive grouping with a definable purpose........MANY people will be saved who are not a part of it. The thief on the cross is one such individual. Saved and GLORIOUSLY redeemed by the blood of Christ, but not a part of the New Testament "Church".

Regardless. I understand why there are MULTITUDES of Baptists and Bible-Believers who have little or no truck with Fundamental (usually Independent) Baptists who believe these doctrines. Too often, they are (or become) arrogant and nasty people. I have learned to be quite picky about the particular Church I attend. I can see how a belief in general "Landmarkism" or a "Baptist-Bride" ecclesiology can easily lead to insufferable arrogance and self-aggrandizement...but, it doesn't render the idea false. We can't "Throw the baby out with the bath-water" ...as much as it would be so easy to do so.

I can see what you're saying. And I would actually agree with most of those points, however I think that when Christ established His church, He didn't just establish in that one location a group of 12 men known as the FBC of Jerusalem. The church or assembly he created started with those, but the church is the entire New Covenant era people of God. In that way I believe that yes the church has survived from the apostles and obviously I think Baptists most accurately reflect the earliest church, otherwise I wouldn't be a baptist. The church is primarily local and visible yes, but the church of God is also the covenantal body of believers who are all in a relationship with Christ through faith and repentance.

I think my biggest problem with the Landmarkist doctrine is that so many of those groups that we can supposedly trace lineage through (think Trail of Blood) are VERY different from modern baptistic churches.

My main reason for opposing Baptist Brider is that so many of these so called baptist churches are very prideful and I'd say many are apostate as well, to the point that they can't be called NT churches in my opinion. And this pride and lack of love causes them to look down on anyone who isn't a "Big 'B', biscuit-eating, slobbering, Old time Baptist!" < And yes that was an actual quote from a previous pastor of mine...

 

[salzer mtn]

I've been around Baptist bride people and they believe certain Baptist churches are the bride and saved people in other denominations will be the guest at the marriage supper of the Lamb. In The Trail of Blood Dr. J. M. Carroll points out that the church started out at Jerusalem out of which came the churches of Judea, Antoch, and others. The first nickname that were given the church was Christians, the next Anti-Baptist, Waldenses. Near the beginning of the sixteenth century the Ana was dropped, and the name shortened to simply Baptist.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

We seem to agree on more than we would disagree here. I HATE to admit it....but, frankly, the "Baptist-Bride" and some of the tenents of Landmarkism....actually make sense to me. The logic of it follows if we accept these basic premises (which I also accept):
1.) Jesus Christ founded the local "Church" during his earthly ministry and commissioned them for a specific task.
2.) The "Church" could not at any point be "defeated" and that (as an institution) it would endure throughout the age.
3.) The normatively understood "Baptist" New Testament Church (without feeling like going into detail..some other proclaimed "non-denoms" and other local churches who are essentially "Baptist" in doctrine, but are too afraid of labels.) is essentially that New Testament body which has survived through the ages by different monikers.
4.) Quite frankly....Protestant denominations are (by that definition) NOT included in that group by default.
5.) Without bickering too much about the errors often found in different groups....we can at least trace a basic heritage of Bible-Believing local "Churches" throughout the New Testament era who can loosely qualify as the continuance of Christ's "Church".
6.) If Christs "Church" is qualified as those bodies of surviving believers who form the assemblies to carry on the "Great Commission"...than it follows that they have never ceased to exist.
7.) The Roman Catholic Church...and those groups who have (rightly) split from her (Protestants) are not that historical group.
8.) Therefore...the New Testament "Baptist" Church....is that "bride of Christ" who is without a doubt called the "Church". Which has survived through the ages.

If those premises are true. Then I must humbly admit two things:

I essentially agree with "Baptist-Briders" (This DOES NOT include those who think non-members are not saved)...that would be apostasy and heresy of the greatest degree.
"Baptist-Briders"....see the "Church" as being a distinctive grouping with a definable purpose........MANY people will be saved who are not a part of it. The thief on the cross is one such individual. Saved and GLORIOUSLY redeemed by the blood of Christ, but not a part of the New Testament "Church".

Regardless. I understand why there are MULTITUDES of Baptists and Bible-Believers who have little or no truck with Fundamental (usually Independent) Baptists who believe these doctrines. Too often, they are (or become) arrogant and nasty people. I have learned to be quite picky about the particular Church I attend. I can see how a belief in general "Landmarkism" or a "Baptist-Bride" ecclesiology can easily lead to insufferable arrogance and self-aggrandizement...but, it doesn't render the idea false. We can't "Throw the baby out with the bath-water" ...as much as it would be so easy to do so.

The reasoning you just used is also used by the RCC in a similar manner to claim that it is the only true church and the one Jesus founded.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The reasoning you just used is also used by the RCC in a similar manner to claim that it is the only true church and the one Jesus founded.

It's similar.....but you are too smart and too educated to think that that disproves the point. And..........it isn't EXACTLY the same reasoning at all. It has similarities, but it decidedly isn't the same at all.

I know....you smell "Baptist-Brider"...(therefore he must be stupid) but, it really isn't so VERY simple to disprove the point at all. Even though I WOULD grant that most "Baptist-Briders" are an example of the less intellectually trained and gifted....You have to work a LITTLE harder than that.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I can see what you're saying. And I would actually agree with most of those points, however I think that when Christ established His church, He didn't just establish in that one location a group of 12 men known as the FBC of Jerusalem.

Forget...maybe it's existance in a single locale at a singular point in time.....He grew it by THOUSANDS only weeks later at Pentecost. Obviously...Jesus intended it to grow WAY beyond that starting point. But, it would follow, that if the New Testament were indeed an Institution that he established, than, presumably, it would have an existence at a particular place in time.
Is there another way to establish an Earthly institution with a heavenly purpose?

The church or assembly he created started with those,

Yes.

but the church is the entire New Covenant era people of God

.
You see, that is the point I (personally) have never seen demonstrated from Scripture. As I read Scripture....I see the "Church" as that specific institution which Christ built personally. I don't and can't assume this premise. This is asserted so often that most people accept it as a fait accompli...But, I am not convinced that it is Scriptural. I DO KNOW that all of Christs redeemed are (in the New Testament) defined as "Saints" "Children" "Sons" "Heirs" <---obviously my personal favourite :tongue3: the "Kingdom"...etc. But the "Church" itself is uniquely described (to my knowledge) as being the "Bride" and the "Body"....We simply can't help ourselves to definitions at will.

Obviously, Abraham is a superly-duperly-special-dual-cool kind of guy.........but, would you call him a part of the "Church"?

In that way I believe that yes the church has survived from the apostles and obviously I think Baptists most accurately reflect the earliest church, otherwise I wouldn't be a baptist.

Ditto.

The church is primarily local and visible yes, but the church of God is also the covenantal body of believers who are all in a relationship with Christ through faith and repentance.

Obviously...I agree with the former....But, I simply do NOT SEE how the Scriptures define the latter as the "Church". If that hurdle is crossed....than the argument dies completely. The thread about the Church being "Universal" or "local" only puts this ENTIRE debate to rest.

If your second assertion is true...than there is no debate. Only, I've never seen it demonstrated in Scripture.

I think my biggest problem with the Landmarkist doctrine is that so many of those groups that we can supposedly trace lineage through (think Trail of Blood) are VERY different from modern baptistic churches.

Yes, they are. In style and in methodology....but, not in fundamental doctrine at least.

My main reason for opposing Baptist Brider is that so many of these so called baptist churches are very prideful and I'd say many are apostate as well, to the point that they can't be called NT churches in my opinion. And this pride and lack of love causes them to look down on anyone who isn't a "Big 'B', biscuit-eating, slobbering, Old time Baptist!" < And yes that was an actual quote from a previous pastor of mine.

I could NOT agree MORE!!:thumbsup: You are correct. "Landmarkists" and "Baptist-Briders" are eaten-up with that type of wickedness, apostacy and sin. Hence....why in two years on this board.....I've never admitted (in so many words) to agreeing with them ecclesiologically. I would agree with you that (my number)--->70% of adherents to that ecclesiology are angry, prideful, boastful, Nicolaitanistic, short-sighted, un-educated, and they appeal to the Lowest common denominator. It is high-time...some-one gave those "preachers" <---(whom we previously called frogs) a piece of their mind.
But........I think that's PRECISELY what Christ did in Revelations chapter 1-3. They seem to have been as guilty then as they are now. But, as you well know, that doesn't then render their ecclesiology "false". That would be a "Genetic fallacy". They aren't "false" for believing it per se... They are simply toadish for being arrogant about it. And indeed, if they take that Theology to the point that they become heretics about the doctrine of salvation...than not only does the "light" of their candlestick go out...but their very lamp will be removed.

Jesus states that their "candlestick" will be removed if they have become apostate to the point that they no longer posses the power and authority to be designated as a New Testament Church. The flame may die.....but Jesus states that it can be re-lit. If he threatens to remove the candlestick itself...than you are doomed. Too many churches are in danger of that.

 

[RLBosley]

Going to take this somewhat out of order if I may... I'd like to address your first points last.

I could NOT agree MORE!!:thumbsup: You are correct. "Landmarkists" and "Baptist-Briders" are eaten-up with that type of wickedness, apostacy and sin. Hence....why in two years on this board.....I've never admitted (in so many words) to agreeing with them ecclesiologically. I would agree with you that (my number)--->70% of adherents to that ecclesiology are angry, prideful, boastful, Nicolaitanistic, short-sighted, un-educated, and they appeal to the Lowest common denominator. It is high-time...some-one gave those "preachers" <---(whom we previously called frogs) a piece of their mind.
But........I think that's PRECISELY what Christ did in Revelations chapter 1-3. They seem to have been as guilty then as they are now. But, as you well know, that doesn't then render their ecclesiology "false". That would be a "Genetic fallacy". They aren't "false" for believing it per se... They are simply toadish for being arrogant about it. And indeed, if they take that Theology to the point that they become heretics about the doctrine of salvation...than not only does the "light" of their candlestick go out...but their very lamp will be removed.

Jesus states that their "candlestick" will be removed if they have become apostate to the point that they no longer posses the power and authority to be designated as a New Testament Church. The flame may die.....but Jesus states that it can be re-lit. If he threatens to remove the candlestick itself...than you are doomed. Too many churches are in danger of that.

Well thank you for the agreement

And of course you are right that just because they are arrogant about their belief doesn't necessarily make it in itself wrong. However - I would say that if there is a large correlation (yuo said 70% yourself) between sinful pride and a certain set of beliefs, it may be a good idea to give those beliefs a good long second look.

Yes, they are. In style and in methodology....but, not in fundamental doctrine at least.

Well that also depends on how tight of a circle you draw around what is fundamental. But yes I suppose you are right if we consider only the most basic of fundamentals.

Forget...maybe it's existance in a single locale at a singular point in time.....He grew it by THOUSANDS only weeks later at Pentecost. Obviously...Jesus intended it to grow WAY beyond that starting point. But, it would follow, that if the New Testament were indeed an Institution that he established, than, presumably, it would have an existence at a particular place in time.
Is there another way to establish an Earthly institution with a heavenly purpose?

Of course. But why does that institution have to be confined to only one location? Similar to a University/College that has smaller satellite campuses in multiple states. Which one is the school? Each one is the school, but all together they also comprise the school.

You see, that is the point I (personally) have never seen demonstrated from Scripture. As I read Scripture....I see the "Church" as that specific institution which Christ built personally. I don't and can't assume this premise. This is asserted so often that most people accept it as a fait accompli...But, I am not convinced that it is Scriptural. I DO KNOW that all of Christs redeemed are (in the New Testament) defined as "Saints" "Children" "Sons" "Heirs" <---obviously my personal favourite :tongue3: the "Kingdom"...etc. But the "Church" itself is uniquely described (to my knowledge) as being the "Bride" and the "Body"....We simply can't help ourselves to definitions at will.

Well I agree that the church was the specific institution that Christ built. And I believe that the Saints, Children, Sons, and Heirs are all the people of that church as well as members of local churches.

1 Cor 10:32 - Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

This verse seems to be saying that all the people you see and interact with fall into one of three categories(two really since the first two are a subdivision of a larger group) Unsaved Jews, Unsaved Gentiles, and those that belong to the church. I think this is referring to the totality of believers, the universal church if you will (though I don't like the term).

And I would say that probably every occurrence of the word church in Ephesians points towards a "universal" assembly. I think you have to stretch the context to say it only applies to a local body.

"Kingdom" now... that's a whole 'nother conversation

Obviously, Abraham is a superly-duperly-special-dual-cool kind of guy.........but, would you call him a part of the "Church"?

See that I don't know. I believe the church is a new establishment that started specifically at pentecost - though the 12 could be considered the proto-church, but I also see that Abraham (and the other OT saints) were saved in the same way we are,by grace through faith in the Messiah. So, I agree on the super cool part...but my ecclesiology hasn't reached the point were I can say yes or no.

Obviously...I agree with the former....But, I simply do NOT SEE how the Scriptures define the latter as the "Church". If that hurdle is crossed....than the argument dies completely. The thread about the Church being "Universal" or "local" only puts this ENTIRE debate to rest.

If your second assertion is true...than there is no debate. Only, I've never seen it demonstrated in Scripture.

I saw that debate but I was not interested in getting in that one... my armor wasn't on tight enough. lol

But see the scripture above for some scripture I think shows a universal church.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

It's similar.....but you are too smart and too educated to think that that disproves the point. And..........it isn't EXACTLY the same reasoning at all. It has similarities, but it decidedly isn't the same at all.

I know....you smell "Baptist-Brider"...(therefore he must be stupid) but, it really isn't so VERY simple to disprove the point at all. Even though I WOULD grant that most "Baptist-Briders" are an example of the less intellectually trained and gifted....You have to work a LITTLE harder than that.

You had to go through all that to say that you agree with me, that it is similar reasoning?

 

[Tom Butler]

I have lived in Western Kentucky and West Tennessee for most of my life. There were more Landmarkers per square foot that just about anywhere else. Some were my pastors. Some were pastors that I knew. Looking back, I am now amazed at how well they hid their arrogance and pridefulness. Somehow I missed it. These were Godly men--at least I thought so.

I was also surprised at hearing that they were intellectually deficient, I was really fooled by those college professors that taught at the Baptist schools. I thought they had forgotten more Bible than I ever had known, but I guess I was wrong.

Since I hold to some (but not all) of the tenets of Landmarkism, I am going to have to re-evaluate myself. What I thought was a confidence in the accuracy of my views seems to be pridefulness. The reality that if I am right, then those who disagree with me are wrong, I have discovered is arrogance.

Boy have I been wrong. I thought I was a humble man. In fact, humility is one of my most appealing virtues. Am I wrong to be proud of my humility?

Well, as you can guess, some of this is tongue-in-cheek. But, at the very least, those who disagree with Landmarkism should provide a better argument than accusations of arrogance and pridefulness. Is that all you've got?

 

[TCassidy]

I have lived in Western Kentucky and West Tennessee for most of my life. There were more Landmarkers per square foot that just about anywhere else. Some were my pastors. Some were pastors that I knew. Looking back, I am now amazed at how well they hid their arrogance and pridefulness. Somehow I missed it. These were Godly men--at least I thought so.

I was also surprised at hearing that they were intellectually deficient, I was really fooled by those college professors that taught at the Baptist schools. I thought they had forgotten more Bible than I ever had known, but I guess I was wrong.

Since I hold to some (but not all) of the tenets of Landmarkism, I am going to have to re-evaluate myself. What I thought was a confidence in the accuracy of my views seems to be pridefulness. The reality that if I am right, then those who disagree with me are wrong, I have discovered is arrogance.

Boy have I been wrong. I thought I was a humble man. In fact, humility is one of my most appealing virtues. Am I wrong to be proud of my humility?

Well, as you can guess, some of this is tongue-in-cheek. But, at the very least, those who disagree with Landmarkism should provide a better argument than accusations of arrogance and pridefulness. Is that all you've got?

Well said, Brother Tom, well said!

(From another of those arrogant, intellectually deficient, believers who pridefully believes Christ told the truth when he said "the gates of hell would not prevail" against His church.)

 

[Tom Butler]

Going back to the OP, I would say that such a church as Evangelist5689 described could very well be a Landmark congregation. But that would nearly describe the congregation I serve, and it would not claim the label. To erase any doubt, such a statement would have to include the pre-Pentecost establishing of the church by Jesus Himself. And the non-existence of a Universal Church. Those two things would probably erase any doubt.

Most of the churches I grew up in (in the 40s and 50s) were probably strongly Landmark. But in West Tennessee, it was so prevalent that the view would not have been considered controversial. Those churches probably assumed that all Baptist churches believe the same thing. Well, in that area, most of them did. So, if anybody had asked me if we were a Landmark church, I probably would have said "what's that?"