Question for Landmarkers

[Eagle]

Dear Pluvivs,

I must ask you, what do you think is meant by "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)? Also, if you do a study of the (not too many) instances of themes such as "sound doctrine", "holding doctrine", "though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel", "the faith once delivered unto the saints" -- and in general, all the Pastoral Epistles -- I think you will understand that God desires for His People, Christians, to hold to and promote His one (1) Truth.

Christ Himself has set up the one (1) institution that He intimately calls "His Body, which is His church." Christians have no business NOT joining to this institution, or conversly, joining to some "other thing." Thus, Christ's ekklesia is THE place authorized of God, where His truth can be found, and that is authorized for the express purpose of "supporting" and promoting it -- just as "the great commision."

God's Holy Word is exalted above even His name (says the Psalmist, 138:2) -- but He chose to perpetuate His Word (truth) in His Church. The "what ifs" about God's Word or Church being removed are pointless -- because I think we agree that He has promised to preserve them...period.

Your point about tradition puzzles me a little. What we are talking about is God's plan of Real People (older generation) looking Real People (next generation) in the eye and passing along Real heartfelt, sincere love for, and underestanding of, His Truths, and His Church. Real teaching occurs and is perpetuated -- not misunderstood "traditions" -- at least I believe that to be God's desire and pattern -- though it may be hard to find these days!

How do we "have" the truths that we have, or debate, today, if not for faithful generations that maintained them and handed them to us? The Pillar (prop, support) and Ground (support) of these truths through these faithful generations, according to God, is His Church.

One truth, one church. Find the "truth," find the church.

 

[Pluvivs]

I believe I am a little misunderstood by you, Eagle, and also that I misunderstand you, too.

I present not the "what ifs" as proof of anything, but as examples of one fact: that God's truth is not entirely contained in the church. In no way does that diminish the responsibility it has to perpetuate sound doctrine, or to teach the upcoming generation the truth of God's Word. And as you well pointed-out, I Tim 3:15 indicates the great importance the church has in establishing and representing His Truth on earth. Nevertheless, we are not the authority (to either add or subtract from), but merely keepers( to mete out liberally) of His Word and commandments.

But we are wandering from the original topic (perhaps continue this on another thread?). We are asked whether or not one may trace a lineage of assemblies through history. I posit "no." I add, too, that this is not necessary.

I use your reference to Gal 1:8&9: The affirmation of Paul to accurse those who preach "any other gospel" is just that--a command to stop those who preach differently from what the Galatians had already been taught by the Apostle. No more, and certainly no less. That verse does not support the idea that ONLY the Galatians had the Truth, or that they ONLY had the authority to create other churches. It simply states that they did, in fact, have the truth, and should not deviate from it. I believe there is similar applicability to the other references mentioned in your first paragraph.

As a quick answer to your puzzlement over my mention of "traditions": to my understanding, the Landmark doctrine supports the idea of castigating an institution, however true its doctrines are, that did not begin via a missionary effort from a parent church. This is, in truth and essence, an example of necessitating a "church tradition" over sound doctrine in order to be a legitimate institution. I believe the issue you and I have over the necessity of joining the church (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is the simple question of "what is the church?" which we are attempting to answer here.

-Pluvivs

 

[James_Newman]

Hi guys, I'm new here to this forum. I should probably have posted to the newbie forum first, but I was doing a little lurking, and just wanted to toss in my 2 cents (although I'm sure I would be wise to keep my mouth shut

).

I don't know much about landmark baptist doctrines, but it sounds like they (you?) believe that a requirement of being a true church is a succession of ordinance from the apostles on down. Also you believe in a perfect preserved Word, that of a necessity must have been handed down in a similar chain-link fashion?

God has also promised to preserve his believers in eternity.
Luke 21:18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
We know that this is true, because God said it. But we also know that we are going to die someday, unless the Lord returns (I think this is the more likely scenario these days, no?) and all throughout the history of the church, Christians were martyred, many of them being burned which will do havoc on your coiffure. So how do we resolve this? We believe that the Lord is going to resurrect us bodily, with every hair firmly in place, amen? Why should we require the Lord to provide a chain when it is perfectly in His power to resurrect His Word and His church? (assuming either were ever lost)

And nice to meet you brethren.

In Christ,
James

 

[R. Charles Blair]

Friend Mioque - I'm just now getting back to the Board after being away for several different events. Sorry you've missed Mosheim in your 24 +/- years of historical study. Mine, ranging over 50+, has led me through lots of intriguing by-paths. Never have I insisted that all true churches must be "clones," but there will be enough similarity for recognition as over against the state religions, established power-groups, anti-christ organizations, etc. Once again I strongly suggest that any European historian should know John Laurence Mosheim's work well.

Best in Him - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

[mioque]

Charles
I have never heard of John Laurence Mosheim.
But I suspect you are typing about Johann Lorenz von Mosheim who was indeed a noted churchhistorian in his day, a man who aspired to a standard of scholastic excellence that is still considered something of a benchmark nowadays. Having praised the man, do you realize that he died in 1755? That makes some of his work potentially a little outdated.
I have read his Ketzer-Geschichte about 18 years ago, but there certainly is no proof for a Trail of Blood (tm) in there.