OSAS and John 6:36-40

[The Biblicist]

You don't see how God could raise up out of the RCC valid bona fide assemblies of Christ?

Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Not one (Job. 14:4). The Scripture does not authorize in the Great Commission self-administered baptism which would be necessary for a bona fide assembly to originate out of Roman Catholic materials. The pronoun "ye" is distinguished from the pronoun "them" in the Great Commission. The Lord at no point authorizes "them" to evangelize, baptize, teach or assemble themselves. That authority belongs exclusively and only to those ALREADY DISCIPLED, already evangelized, baptized and assembled to be taught how to observe all things or else he could never say in past tense "whatsoever things I HAVE commanded YOU." Roman Catholics would be required to usurp the authority given only to previously evangelized, baptized and churched "ye" and thus reversing the commission authority from "ye" to "them."

The text is a direct allusion to the 'I was first' jealousy that overcame them when God raised up from the Gentiles children unto Abraham. The same attitude as yours when you imply 'Protestant' or 'Reformed' is invalid because they were raised up out of the RCC. You Landmarkists consider yourselves to be the 'real genuine thing' and set all others at nought. It stinks.

Just as there are Biblical essentials to be recognized as a true Christian, there are Biblical essentials for Christians to be recognized as a true New Testament congregation. You don't think the "brother" excluded from the assembly in Thessalonica (2 Thes. 3:6 "any brother") or the "brother" excluded from the assembly at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:11 "any brother") would be proper material to organize a church do you? If so, then why exclude them in the first place? The Reformers were merely Reformed ROMAN CATHOLICS, they had no baptism and where there is no baptism there can be no true congregation of Christ. They had no scriptural ordinances at all, and where there are no scriptural ordinances there can be no true assembly of Christ. They had no qualified elders (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-13) "sound in the faith" and where there is no qualfied elders, with no qualified baptism, with no qualified ordinances there only exists a perverted assembly (harlot daughters of Rome).

True New Testament congregations are the "pillar and ground of the truth" and more than mere gospel truth is required to be a church of Christ (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:40). Reformed churches are wholly bankrupt of essentials to be recognized as a church of Christ - no baptism, no ordinances, no qualified administrators or ordained men - and persecutors of historic Baptistic congregations along with their mother Rome.

 

[The Biblicist]

Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Not one (Job. 14:4). The Scripture does not authorize in the Great Commission self-administered baptism which would be necessary for a bona fide assembly to originate out of Roman Catholic materials. The pronoun "ye" is distinguished from the pronoun "them" in the Great Commission. The Lord at no point authorizes "them" to evangelize, baptize, teach or assemble themselves. That authority belongs exclusively and only to those ALREADY DISCIPLED, already evangelized, baptized and assembled to be taught how to observe all things or else he could never say in past tense "whatsoever things I HAVE commanded YOU." Roman Catholics would be required to usurp the authority given only to previously evangelized, baptized and churched "ye" and thus reversing the commission authority from "ye" to "them."


Just as there are Biblical essentials to be recognized as a true Christian, there are Biblical essentials for Christians to be recognized as a true New Testament congregation. You don't think the "brother" excluded from the assembly in Thessalonica (2 Thes. 3:6 "any brother") or the "brother" excluded from the assembly at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:11 "any brother") would be proper material to organize a church do you? If so, then why exclude them in the first place? The Reformers were merely Reformed ROMAN CATHOLICS, they had no baptism and where there is no baptism there can be no true congregation of Christ. They had no scriptural ordinances at all, and where there are no scriptural ordinances there can be no true assembly of Christ. They had no qualified elders (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-13) "sound in the faith" and where there is no qualfied elders, with no qualified baptism, with no qualified ordinances there only exists a perverted assembly (harlot daughters of Rome).

True New Testament congregations are the "pillar and ground of the truth" and more than mere gospel truth is required to be a church of Christ (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:40). Reformed churches are wholly bankrupt of essentials to be recognized as a church of Christ - no baptism, no ordinances, no qualified administrators or ordained men - and persecutors of historic Baptistic congregations along with their mother Rome.

The universal invisible church theory demands for consistency that those who embrace it adopt an open membership where unbaptized, sprinkled, poured or immersed people be recognized as members as that is the membership of the universal invisible church theory. Piper and others have seen this, admitted this and have attempted to change their church membership standards to be consistent with it. That is your only consistent choice if you believe the local congregation is a microcosm of the Universal invisible church so that there is but "one body" inclusive of both.

However, it is clear that the New Testament prohibits in the congregations what must be accepted for membership in the so-called universal invisible church. What New Testament churches are commanded to exclude ("brother" - 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6) the universal church theory embraces. God is not the author of such confusion.

 

[The Biblicist]

The universal invisible church theory demands for consistency that those who embrace it adopt an open membership where unbaptized, sprinkled, poured or immersed people be recognized as members as that is the membership of the universal invisible church theory. Piper and others have seen this, admitted this and have attempted to change their church membership standards to be consistent with it. That is your only consistent choice if you believe the local congregation is a microcosm of the Universal invisible church so that there is but "one body" inclusive of both.

However, it is clear that the New Testament prohibits in the congregations what must be accepted for membership in the so-called universal invisible church. What New Testament churches are commanded to exclude ("brother" - 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6) the universal church theory embraces. God is not the author of such confusion.

Let me anticipate another line of attack. Non-Landmarkers cannot win the debate if scripture is final authority. That is why, they will shift to uninspired, often contradictory and incomplete secular history to rest their ultimate case upon. Must I remind you that it is Rome who selected what materials it would preserve to represent secular church history for the first 1000 years. Must I remind you that the Post-Nicene Fathers are consistent with the Nicene Fathers, who are in turn consistent with the Ante-Nicene Fathers, all of which are consistent with the developmental processes of the Roman Catholic Church and are nothing more than their own carefully selected and preserved beginnings and development. May I remind you they have been caught many times red handed in not only tampering with Biblical manuscripts but with historical manuscripts, even fabricating whole documents and ascribing them to more ancient people.

In contrast, the predictive inspired history of the future of the Lord's churches found in scriptures paints an entirely different future than found in Rome's selective secular uninspired church history.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You don't see how God could raise up out of the RCC valid bona fide assemblies of Christ?

He didn't need to. They had already existed in the shadow of "Mother Church" for 1,500 years as the true heirs to the apostolic churches of the first century. I wouldn't, however, claim them to be "Landmarkists." In fact, I don't think the apostolic first-century churches would recognize Landmarkism as an heir to anything they were doing.

The first-century church would laugh at anyone suggesting that they were "directly linked" to their churches by an unbroken line of succession, or that only a local church could be considered "the Body of Christ." They'd also snicker at any suggestion that "alien immersion" was anti-biblical.

 

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by kyredneck View Post
Bib is a Landmarkist, which doctrine I detest exactly because of the attitude it engenders and which he just demonstrated. Don't get me wrong, I like the Bib, he's a smart guy and really knows and loves his Bible, but he would do well if he could shed this (ancient) error of Landmarkism (see Mt 3:9). It stinks

Thanks for the heads up....

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I think the aberrant theology that Paul reacted against in Romans 6:1-2 was the Antinomian view expressed in OSAS.

He was reacting to the Gnostics who were actually "persisting in a vicious way of living," as John Gill said, believing they would be the beneficiaries of "more grace" as they confessed their sins. The grace of God is not magnified by sin, repentence, confession -- wash, rinse, repeat. That is obvious. Yet it is what the Gnostics were teaching. No so-called "OSAS" adherent believes that. If you find one, point him out. He's a heretic.

 

[The Biblicist]

He didn't need to. They had already existed in the shadow of "Mother Church" for 1,500 years as the true heirs to the apostolic churches of the first century. I wouldn't, however, claim them to be "Landmarkists." In fact, I don't think the apostolic first-century churches would recognize Landmarkism as an heir to anything they were doing.

The first-century church would laugh at anyone suggesting that they were "directly linked" to their churches by an unbroken line of succession, or that only a local church could be considered "the Body of Christ." They'd also snicker at any suggestion that "alien immersion" was anti-biblical.

I understand your thinking as that was my thinking many years ago. However, I would challenge you to think a little more carefully about the wording of the Great Commission. For example, there are three categories of people listed in the Great Commission. There are those being commissioned addressed as "ye". There are those they are initially sent to "the nations" or unevangelized people of the world. There are those that respond out of the "nations" identified as "them." To which of these three did Jesus authorize to administer this commission? Those who are authorized, are there any qualifications that would separate and identify them from all else? Is there a natural organic cycle of succession found in the very structure of this commission? Does the very structure of the Great Commission produce a certain type of product? Does the term "disciple" refer to one of like faith and order or another faith and order? Is there any restricted guideline in making disciples stated. There are many more questions I would like you to at least consider, but will stop at this point.

 

[The Biblicist]

I understand your thinking as that was my thinking many years ago. However, I would challenge you to think a little more carefully about the wording of the Great Commission. For example, there are three categories of people listed in the Great Commission. There are those being commissioned addressed as "ye". There are those they are initially sent to "the nations" or unevangelized people of the world. There are those that respond out of the "nations" identified as "them." To which of these three did Jesus authorize to administer this commission? Those who are authorized, are there any qualifications that would separate and identify them from all else? Is there a natural organic cycle of succession found in the very structure of this commission? Does the very structure of the Great Commission produce a certain type of product? Does the term "disciple" refer to one of like faith and order or another faith and order? Is there any restricted guideline in making disciples stated. There are many more questions I would like you to at least consider, but will stop at this point.

I noticed that none dared take up the problems I presented but simply took the easy road and gave me the whitewash treatment - oh he's one of those - type responses. I placed some very specific problems in your lap in about three or four posts that none seemed to want to handle. Of course it is more easy to make a general condemnation than it is to attempt to provide a Biblical and rational response isn't it?

 

[The Biblicist]

Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Not one (Job. 14:4). The Scripture does not authorize in the Great Commission self-administered baptism which would be necessary for a bona fide assembly to originate out of Roman Catholic materials. The pronoun "ye" is distinguished from the pronoun "them" in the Great Commission. The Lord at no point authorizes "them" to evangelize, baptize, teach or assemble themselves. That authority belongs exclusively and only to those ALREADY DISCIPLED, already evangelized, baptized and assembled to be taught how to observe all things or else he could never say in past tense "whatsoever things I HAVE commanded YOU." Roman Catholics would be required to usurp the authority given only to previously evangelized, baptized and churched "ye" and thus reversing the commission authority from "ye" to "them."





Just as there are Biblical essentials to be recognized as a true Christian, there are Biblical essentials for Christians to be recognized as a true New Testament congregation. You don't think the "brother" excluded from the assembly in Thessalonica (2 Thes. 3:6 "any brother") or the "brother" excluded from the assembly at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:11 "any brother") would be proper material to organize a church do you? If so, then why exclude them in the first place? The Reformers were merely Reformed ROMAN CATHOLICS, they had no baptism and where there is no baptism there can be no true congregation of Christ. They had no scriptural ordinances at all, and where there are no scriptural ordinances there can be no true assembly of Christ. They had no qualified elders (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-13) "sound in the faith" and where there is no qualfied elders, with no qualified baptism, with no qualified ordinances there only exists a perverted assembly (harlot daughters of Rome).

True New Testament congregations are the "pillar and ground of the truth" and more than mere gospel truth is required to be a church of Christ (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:40). Reformed churches are wholly bankrupt of essentials to be recognized as a church of Christ - no baptism, no ordinances, no qualified administrators or ordained men - and persecutors of historic Baptistic congregations along with their mother Rome.

No response? Why? I provided some very good reasons or else you would be pointing out the flaws and the why of the flaws?

 

[The Biblicist]

He didn't need to. They had already existed in the shadow of "Mother Church" for 1,500 years as the true heirs to the apostolic churches of the first century. I wouldn't, however, claim them to be "Landmarkists." In fact, I don't think the apostolic first-century churches would recognize Landmarkism as an heir to anything they were doing.

The first-century church would laugh at anyone suggesting that they were "directly linked" to their churches by an unbroken line of succession, or that only a local church could be considered "the Body of Christ." They'd also snicker at any suggestion that "alien immersion" was anti-biblical.

Do you know, or have you read the definition of Landmarkism presented by Dr. James Pendleton and then repeated under the term "Landmarkism" in the Baptist Encyclopedia by William Cathcart. This definition was contemporary with J.R. Graves. The definition says nothing more than what is necessarily inferred by Christ in the Great Commission.

I too, would deny that historic Landmark definition fits many who wear the label. However, the essentials are no more than what the Great Commission necessary state and infer.

 

[convicted1]

Brother Bib thinks he so important on here, he quoted himself at LEAST four times in this thread alone.

 

[The Biblicist]

Brother Bib thinks he so important on here, he quoted himself at LEAST four times in this thread alone.

You know that kind of comment and attitude is not called for. It seems that ridicule is the only weapon you fellas possess when you are not able to respond. All I did was repost in order to gender some kind of response to points I made. It is easy to ridicule a person, quite another thing to address the issues palced in front of you. I could just as easily ridicule you and the others but what would that gain. I would simply be stooping to your level which would not get us anywhere. However, I reposted because the content of my post none would respond. If you think there is nothing in the post worthy to respond to, ok. But if that is so, then at least give a reason why rather than just ridicule.

 

[kyredneck]

No response? Why? I provided some very good reasons or else you would be pointing out the flaws and the why of the flaws?

Bib is a Landmarkist, which doctrine I detest exactly because of the attitude it engenders and which he just demonstrated. Don't get me wrong, I like the Bib, he's a smart guy and really knows and loves his Bible, but he would do well if he could shed this (ancient) error of Landmarkism (see Mt 3:9). It stinks.

....just like here:

"Former Landmarker

.....Like many other Landmark pastors in that day, my favorite pasttimes were gloating in my rigid orthodoxy and bashing Southern Baptists.

Maybe Landmarkism is a heresy. I am not sure. But I do know that the attitude it nurtured in me was so unlike the attitude of Jesus. Though my journey from being a staunch Landmark Baptist to being a Southern Baptist is too long to recount here, I can assure you that once I left the Landmark "movement" my entire perspective changed. I could never go back."
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=924793#post924793

...incidentally, that thread from 2007 on Landmarkism is still viable.

 

[The Biblicist]

....just like here:

"Former Landmarker

.....Like many other Landmark pastors in that day, my favorite pasttimes were gloating in my rigid orthodoxy and bashing Southern Baptists.

Maybe Landmarkism is a heresy. I am not sure. But I do know that the attitude it nurtured in me was so unlike the attitude of Jesus. Though my journey from being a staunch Landmark Baptist to being a Southern Baptist is too long to recount here, I can assure you that once I left the Landmark "movement" my entire perspective changed. I could never go back."
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=924793#post924793

...incidentally, that thread from 2007 on Landmarkism is still viable.

This is hardly a valid argument against a doctrinal position. For example, the church at Corinth was arrogant, proud and boastful and yet it was a true apostolic church. There are some saved people who get proud about being a Christian. There are some saved people who are simply immature, arrogant and proudful. You can see this all through this forum with many but does that mean a particular position they hold must be wrong because their attitude about it is wrong?? Surely, you can see the vanity of such an argument?

Again, you are ignoring the evidence placed in front of you and simply attacking the person of the messenger.

 

[The Biblicist]

....just like here:

"Former Landmarker

.....Like many other Landmark pastors in that day, my favorite pasttimes were gloating in my rigid orthodoxy and bashing Southern Baptists.

Maybe Landmarkism is a heresy. I am not sure. But I do know that the attitude it nurtured in me was so unlike the attitude of Jesus. Though my journey from being a staunch Landmark Baptist to being a Southern Baptist is too long to recount here, I can assure you that once I left the Landmark "movement" my entire perspective changed. I could never go back."
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=924793#post924793

...incidentally, that thread from 2007 on Landmarkism is still viable.

Now, I certainly do not defend all Landmarkers, or all the baggage that can be found under that term. However, I do defend the historical definition of Landmarkism which is:

The doctrine of Landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s Table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as “a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,” etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization. Hence the non-recognition of Pedobaptist ministers, who are not interfered with, but simply let alone. – William Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopedia (Landmarkism) 1881

 

[kyredneck]

I honestly did not intend to 'attack' you (the fact is I've defended you), only to get you to think that maybe you've 'gone to seed' with this doctrine that essentially 'excludes' all others, and why so much of your posting consists of bashing other orders. I personally readily recognize that 'other orders' have produced profound Godly saints that are more righteous and spiritual than probably I will ever be.

 

[The Biblicist]

I honestly did not intend to 'attack' you (the fact is I've defended you), only to get you to think that maybe you've 'gone to seed' with this doctrine that essentially 'excludes' all others, and why so much of your posting consists of bashing other orders. I personally readily recognize that 'other orders' have produced profound Godly saints that are more righteous and spiritual than probably I will ever be.

The "historic" Landmark position is that salvation is distinct from ecclessiology. None of the early Landmarkers denied there were godly, saintly persons found in all denominations. However, Landmarkism has to do with the institutional church and its essential constitutional elements as defined by the Great Commission. No matter how saintly, godly or devout another child of God may or may not be does not determine the Biblical character of the institutional church. Nearly all the epistles were written to the institutional church, a located assembly with essential Biblical characteristics.

As I said, the Great Commission does not give authority for SELF-evangelism, SELF-administration of baptism or SELF instruction or SELF-constitution. That authority is clearly and explicitly given to those identified as "ye" or those who "have" already been through this Great Commission process.

Simply point that out, simply condemning counterfiet churches is not a matter of pride, but simply a matter of fact. However, I understand nobody likes that and perceives it as ecclesiastical pride. However, the very same principle is true in regard to "professed" Christians whose profession and doctrine clearly indicate they are not true born again Christians. Simply pointing that out and describing and defining why it is so, is not an issue of pride (although it can be perceived as such, and in some cases may be such).

BTW I did notice you were in part defending me. Thank you for that.

 

[The Biblicist]

I honestly did not intend to 'attack' you (the fact is I've defended you), only to get you to think that maybe you've 'gone to seed' with this doctrine that essentially 'excludes' all others, and why so much of your posting consists of bashing other orders. I personally readily recognize that 'other orders' have produced profound Godly saints that are more righteous and spiritual than probably I will ever be.

Just as there are no perfect Christians, there are no perfect churches. Landmarikism is not about a perfect church. However, just as there are necessary essentials to be a Christian, and to be recognized as a true Christian, so there are necessary essentials for a plurality of professed Christians to be a true New Testament church and to be recognized as such. Landmarkism simply points out those Great commission essentials.

 

[Yeshua1]

agreed .....osas is directly related to the other false theology.

OSAS is stating the truth in the Bible that we have been saved by the Cross/death/resurrection of Jesus on our behalf, and that we are being kept/and shall be kept by that!

basis for security in what jesus did and is amd will keep on doing for us, not based upon what we do for him!

 

[convicted1]

Brother Biblicist, please forgive me for my snide remark.....

I saw you bashing others and posted in an unseemly manner....it was uncalled for in my part....