The Essential truth of Landmarkism preserves the gospel

[Aaron]

Was there multiple bodies of Israel?

Now just stop that.

But the problem is they will perform semantic gymnastics and other hermeneutical contortions to deny the very clear and straightforward teaching on the Scriptures.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you now calling the Landmark position which believes in salvation BEFORE church membership a cult like Mormonism, JW's "as the other cults"???? We do not deny the Trinity, We do not pervert the gospel, we do deny the Scriptures as final authority. What is the basis for comparing us to JWs and Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists as that is the clear intent of your words?

A cult, in my understanding, is an off-shoot of a religious body which dis-fellowships other parts of the same body that do not follow it precisely.

I said the doctrine of "church salvation" was Roman Catholic in its origin and Wycliffe was a Roman Catholic priest. You have just confirmed what I said.

So although Wyclif called the Pope 'antichrist' and although he opposed transubstantiation and although the Church of Rome dug up his body and burned it, you have written him off as a Roman Catholic? That just substantiates what I wrote above.

However, you are in error about Wyciffe originating the "universal church" theory as Augustine did that and Rome acknowledges that.

Augustine's understanding of the universal Church was very different to that of Wyclif as you know perfectly well (or should do).

 

[The Biblicist]

A cult, in my understanding, is an off-shoot of a religious body which dis-fellowships other parts of the same body that do not follow it precisely.

That was not the implication of your words and you know it. You were directly comparing it to the normal meaning of "cult" used by every major Christian book on Cults. If your revised explanation is what you mean then you have defined yourself as part of a cult as you claim your church is nothing more than secondary off-shoot of Rome and I take it your kind of church does not fellowship with Rome???? Rome still has the majority of professing Christians in the world (1.2 billion out of 2.1 billion)!! So you are part of a cult???

So although Wyclif called the Pope 'antichrist' and although he opposed transubstantiation and although the Church of Rome dug up his body and burned it, you have written him off as a Roman Catholic? That just substantiates what I wrote above.

And who do you think the Reformers were? Roman Catholic Priests that opposed various things about Roman Theology who were also persecuted by Rome. So now, you have Wyliffe simply as an early Reformed Roman Catholic who incidently, never left Rome. So, at worst you are again confirming exactly what I said - your doctrine comes from Roman Catholic Priests. So whether you want to date it with 16th century Roman Catholic priests (the Reformers) or a 14th century Roman Catholic Priest, the bottom line is still the same.

Augustine's understanding of the universal Church was very different to that of Wyclif as you know perfectly well (or should do).

Oh, so now you want to parse words and you are moving away from the terms "universal church" to "invisible universal church" as you know very well Augustine was the first to systematically teach the "universal church" theory and it was not Wycliffe. So be honest and clear about what you are talking about. You are not talking about the "universal" church theory at all, even though that is the pretense you began under, but you are talking about an "invisible" church theory.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now just stop that.

But the problem is they will perform semantic gymnastics and other hermeneutical contortions to deny the very clear and straightforward teaching on the Scriptures.

No, that is precisely what your theory demands. You must deny the most basic principles of heremeneutics. For example, your view must deny the historic usage of the term ekklesia. The most basic hermeneutical rule is that one cannot interpret any given word contrary to its normal historical meaning unless that normal historical meaning will not make sense in the context, and then only must a new meaning be sought that makes sense in the context. Furthermore, even if a new meaning does make sense in any given context that new meaning must be rejected as long as the historical meaning makes sense in that context. UIC advocates have ignorned that basic rule and must to establish their interpretation of the church.

The historical meaning of ekklesia is ALWAYS used to describe a corporeal, physical unity of people and NEVER is used to describe a non-corporeal, invisible or scattered people in Classical and Koine Greek. It is used in the plural and singular, concrete and abstract institutional sense in Classical Greek. Therefore, when any expositor of the New Testament comes to that term they must first see if any of these historical uses make sense, and only when none make sense then seek a new meaning. However, the historical sense makes sense in every single passage in the New Testament. The Greek term ekklesia is found 115 times in the New Testament. Twice it is used for the common Greek city ekkleisa (Acts 19) another 95 times it used either in the singular or plural in a context where none dispute its historical meaning. The remaining few times the historical abstract institutional meaning fits perfectly.

Another basic rule of hermeneutics that MUST be abused by the UIC advocate is violation of the usage of metaphors. A metaphor conveys representation, and the metaphor REQUIRES that both nouns FIRST be understood in their most literal sense as it is characteristics found in the LITERAL understanding that are being transferred to the other noun. For example the terms "body" and "head' used as metaphors. UIC advocates establish their doctrine on the misuse of metaphors by FORCING these terms to convey characteristics that cannot be found in the LITERAL sense of the terms. For example, the LITERAL "body" cannot be used metaphorically to convey any idea of universality or invisibility as such characteristics are not found in LITERAL bodies. Unity, members, visibility, locality are things that can be found in the LITERAL sense and thus can be characteristics conveyed metaphorically.

The UIC doctrine is built and established on the violation of these two very basic rules of hermeneutics. If you submit to these basic rules the whole doctrine vanishes into nothingness.

 

[JonShaff]

Was there multiple bodies of Israel?

I didn't see where anyone answered this?

 

[kyredneck]

Landmarkism: Apostolic succession for some Baptist sects.

The spirit of Landmarkism has been around for a long time:

9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mt 3

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That was not the implication of your words and you know it. You were directly comparing it to the normal meaning of "cult" used by every major Christian book on Cults.

So now you're a mind-reader? The particular cult I had in mind was the Exclusive Brethren, but you have plenty in common with the JWs as well.

If your revised explanation is what you mean then you have defined yourself as part of a cult as you claim your church is nothing more than secondary off-shoot of Rome and I take it your kind of church does not fellowship with Rome???? Rome still has the majority of professing Christians in the world (1.2 billion out of 2.1 billion)!! So you are part of a cult???

Well exactly so. You have had debates with the Roman Catholics on this board and you will know that they call Protestants a cult. There is no command in the NT for one set of Christians to leave another set of Christians over doctrinal differences. Despite all the problems in the church at Corinth, Paul never tells some of the members that they ought to leave the others and set up on their own. Nor does he tell them to set up a mythical genealogy to pretend that they were never part of that church. Before anyone separates himself from an existing church he needs to be very sure indeed that he is in a 2 Corinthians 5:14-16 situation, otherwise he is guilty of schism and rending the body of Christ.

And who do you think the Reformers were? Roman Catholic Priests that opposed various things about Roman Theology who were also persecuted by Rome. So now, you have Wyliffe simply as an early Reformed Roman Catholic who incidently, never left Rome.

You are wriggling and turning, but you're still on the hook. Wyclif was the man who stood for the Bible and actually translated into English for the first time. But instead of the Bible, you prefer your endless genealogies (1 Timothy 1:4) to try and prove the 'Trail of Blood' myth.

So, at worst you are again confirming exactly what I said - your doctrine comes from Roman Catholic Priests. So whether you want to date it with 16th century Roman Catholic priests (the Reformers) or a 14th century Roman Catholic Priest, the bottom line is still the same.

I will take Biblical truth from whoever will teach me faithfully. Do you refuse to read Paul's epistles because they were written by a former Pharisee?

Oh, so now you want to parse words and you are moving away from the terms "universal church" to "invisible universal church" as you know very well Augustine was the first to systematically teach the "universal church" theory and it was not Wycliffe. So be honest and clear about what you are talking about. You are not talking about the "universal" church theory at all, even though that is the pretense you began under, but you are talking about an "invisible" church theory.

Read my post #9 and compare the 1689 Confession Chapter XXVI with WCF Chapter XXV

 

[The Biblicist]

So now you're a mind-reader? The particular cult I had in mind was the Exclusive Brethren, but you have plenty in common with the JWs as well.

No, I don't need to be a mind reader because you were speaking about the same general time period and anyone familiar with history knows that the early 1800's those cults rose up and you made yourself quite clear in that regard.

There is no command in the NT for one set of Christians to leave another set of Christians over doctrinal differences. Despite all the problems in the church at Corinth, Paul never tells some of the members that they ought to leave the others and set up on their own.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.- 2 thes. 3:6

1 Cor. 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Paul does not exhaust the list of those who are characterized by the fruits of the flesh in verse 11 but to the Galatians he adds "heresies" (Gal. 5:19)

IF such are to be "put away from among yourselves" they are not to fellowship with those OUTSIDE their body who they would put away from themselves if they were inside their body!!!

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. - Rom. 16:17-18

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Nor does he tell them to set up a mythical genealogy to pretend that they were never part of that church.

Another FALSE ACCUSATION as J.R. Graves denied such thing nor does any Landmark demand such a thing. You are grasping at straws. Like faith and order is the only prerequisite to church fellowship and constitutional acknowledgement.

Before anyone separates himself from an existing church he needs to be very sure indeed that he is in a 2 Corinthians 5:14-16 situation, otherwise he is guilty of schism and rending the body of Christ.

Pure hogwash! 1 Cor. 6:15 proves no such body as you describe exists in the book of 1 Corinthians as the kind he speaks of consists of PHYSICAL HUMAN BODIES.

Y

ou are wriggling and turning, but you're still on the hook. Wyclif was the man who stood for the Bible and actually translated into English for the first time.

That is how it goes, the one who is really wriggling and turning is charging others with that! Wycliffe NEVER renounced his Roman Catholic faith and the Reformers would have never renounced it either if they had been given a choice.

But instead of the Bible, you prefer your endless genealogies (1 Timothy 1:4) to try and prove the 'Trail of Blood' myth.

Another lie! The scripture promises that the Lord's churches would be here "all the days of the age" (Mt. 28:20 literal translation) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with providing historical data to support (although it can't prove) that promise.

I will take Biblical truth from whoever will teach me faithfully.

You wouldn't know the truth if it stared you in the face.

 

[The Biblicist]

We have some distractors on this thread who want to deal with everything but OP. No one has dared tackle the OP head on. Why? Because they cannot, that is why! They want to distract, detour, follow rabbit trails but can't deal forthrightly with the OP.

 

[The Biblicist]

Although, it has never been my practice to resort to the term Landmarkism to defend anything I believe, I do believe the essential truth stated in the historical definition of Landmarkism by Cathcart in his Baptist Encyclopedia is essential to preserve the Biblical doctrine of salvation from perversion.

The Universal Invisible Church theory, that is nothing more or less than the Roman Catholic doctrine of church salvation, conflates salvation with the church. The only difference between Rome's doctrine of church salvation and Reformed Roman Catholic church salvation is the term "invisible." Both teach church salvation.

Dr. John MacArthur has admitted as much, when he states that there can be no salvation outside the church conceived as the universal invisible body of Christ. To be outside membership in this kind of church is to be lost and to be inside is to be saved and it is the baptism in the Spirit that is the means which makes the difference of being inside versus outside.

However, this error has four major problems.

1. The "foundation" of the church is New Testament in ORIGIN as it consists of New Testament materials - Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28. Why is this a problem? Because it forces church salvationists to either deny pre-cross saints are saved at all, or are saved by some other kind of salvation that is inferior to present salvation.

2. The means for entrance into this church salvation is TIME FIXED so that it is non-existent as an ACTION previous to Pentecost. Removal from "in Adam" with regard to the spiritual state to "in Christ" is an ACTION that must be repeated with each individual or they remain "in Adam" according to the church salvationist theory. Fixing this action to Pentecost, again denies anyone prior to Pentecost could be removed from "in Adam" to "in Christ" and therefore they are forced to either deny anyone was saved prior to Pentecost OR come up with a salvation that is OUTSIDE of Christ and found only "in Adam" as they have no means to remove a person from "in Adam" with regard to their spiritual state to "in Christ."

3. The New Testament clearly states it is the act of quickening as a creative work of God that places a person "in Christ" rather than any kind of baptism (Eph. 2:1,5,8,10).

4. The universal problem of all mankind before and after Pentecost is spiritual SEPARATION from God. To be spiritually separated from God is to be separated from life, light, love and holiness because all of these have their only source in God who is life, light, love and holiness. Hence, the universal solution is spiritual union. If the baptism in the Spirit is the means for this spiritual union, then all before Pentecost lived and died in a state of spiritual separation - thus spritually dead, in spiritual darkness, and depravity without love and more significantly at physial death their departing spirit remained in that state. Thus they remained "in the flesh" and all who are "in the flesh CANNOT please God" (Rom. 8:8).

However, the essential truth of Landmarkism demands a distinction between salvation and the church so that they are not confused with each other and thus preserves the truth of the gospel from being perverted into Romanism church salvation. It demands a distinction between the church and the kingdom of God whereas the Romanist view confuses them. It demands the church is the visible expression of the professing kingdom of God on earth with regard to its administration of public ordinances and public worship. The bible clearly distinguishes between the kingdom and church of God.

Some Apparent Differences


Eph. 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

1 Cor. 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,

Furthermore, the following lessons will sustain these are to be distinguished from one another rather than interpreted as synonyms.


1. The difference of terminology and meaning:

a. "Family" - Greek "patria" - those fathered – lineage

b. "Kingdom" - Greek "basilea" - the rule and realm and Person of a king

c. "Church" - Greek "ekklesia" - congregation, assembly


2. The different applications

a. The Bible speaks of the “gospel of the kingdom” but never uses such language for the

family or church.


b. The Bible speaks of the “keys of the kingdom” but never uses such language for the church

or family of God.


c. The term “member” is never used in scripture to describe those in God’s kingdom or family

but only those in churches.


d. The church is called a “body” and “building” but the kingdom and family are never thus

called.


e. Jesus says “tell it to the church” but never says tell it to the kingdom or family.


f. The terms “kingdom” and “family” are only found in the singular but the term “church” is

found in the plural (36 times) and in the singular (79 times).


g. A “brother” can be placed outside the church membership by other brethren exercising

church discipline, but no human disciplinary action can remove any “brother” outside the

kingdom and family of God. – 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6,14.


h. The professing kingdom contains “tares” (Mt. 13:41) and the church contains persons like

Judas, but the family of God only contains true born again believers.


i. The Kingdom and family contain persons without water baptism (all pre-New Testament

believers and unbaptized believers in this age), but church membership is for only water

baptized professed believers – Acts 2:41-42


j. We read of ‘elders” and “apostles” in the church but no such officers are ever used to

describe those in the kingdom and family.


k. Geographical names are given to the church – “the church of God at Corinth” but no such

geographical language is ever used for the kingdom and family of God.


l. The church is described as being “built” and “fitly framed” but the kingdom is announced as

“near at hand.” Neither the kingdom or family are said to be “built” or “fitly framed.”


3. The Difference in Nature

a. The church conveys an autonomous democratic body

b. The kingdom conveys a sovereign rule by a king

c. The family conveys a paternal relationship between a father and his children


4. The difference in relationship to God

a. "Family" - relationship is defined as "children"

b. "Kingdom" relationship is defined as "citizens"

c. "Church" - relationship is defined as "members"

ALL who are "in Adam" are "in the flesh" BECAUSE they all have been "BORN of the flesh."
ALL who are "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" BECAUSE they all have been "BORN of the Spirit"

All who are "in Adam" have been CREATED in Adam
All who are "in Christ" have been CREATED in Christ - Eph. 2:1-10

This creative work of being placed "in Christ" spiritually is called QUICKENING (Eph. 2:1-10) because it is the spiritual "dead" who are created "in Christ" and that creative act reverses spiritual death (SEPARATION) with spiritual life (UNION).

No kind of baptism places one "in Christ"! No kind of church membership places one in Christ - that is the doctrine of Roman Catholic church salvation. It is false BECAUSE:

1. The church cannot precede its own "foundation" which is composed of ONLY N.T. materials as aposltes are the FIRST to be "SET IN" this church followed "SECONDLY" by prophets. Hence, if to be "in Christ" is to be in the church then all prior to the ministry of Christ are OUTSIDE of Christ and there is no salvation for anyone at anytime OUTSIDE of Christ. Hence, being "in Christ" meaning being "in the church" is a false gospel.

2. The baptism in the Spirit is an ACTION that is fixed in time as a COMPLETED ACTION on Pentecost to the Jewish church at Jerusalem and then repeated as a completed Action upon Gentiles so they could be received into the church by water baptism. In every text prior to Pentecost it is future tense proving it had no prior existence in the manner of its predicted application. In every text prior to Pentecost it is directed towads ONLY water baptized believers in Christ. It is LOCATION fixed as they must wait in "Jerusalem" and therefore it had no UNIVERSAL application to other believers located elsewhere and outside Jerusalem except those "in one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1). It occurs with EXTERNAL phenomena of both SOUNDS and VISIBLE expressions. It is the common ordinary divine accreditation that occurred historically AFTER a new house of God for public worship was completed (Ex. 40:35; 2 Chron. 7:1-3). It had to occur in Jerusalem in direct connection with the Temple or else the Jews would never have accepted it as a replacement for the temple as the public house of worship where a qualified ministry, qualified ordinances, qualified gospel mission, etc.

3.The abstract institutional use of ekklesia and it synonyms completely repudiates the Universal invisble church theory which confuses salvation with the church and baptism and confuses the family and kingdom of God with the church.

4. The doctrine of Landmarkism is essential to preserve the truth of "GOSPEL salvation" from Genesis to Revelation separating and distinguishing salvation from the church and baptism, and separating the family and kingdom from the church of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Van could not deal with the OP. He could not deal with the problems presented in the OP. He could not deal with the Biblical evidence presented in the OP and it seems you can't either. Instead he cited an inaccurate portrayal of Landmarkism. I didn't take the time to refute his reference as it had nothing to do with the OP. Point out where I am in error in the OP rather than simply dismissing it as error. This is a debate forum is it not?

The truth of the Bible is that the Church proper was founded at Pentacost, and that ALL who get saved since times of Christ are ALL baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, which is His true Church!

 

[TCassidy]

The truth of the Bible is that the Church proper was founded at Pentacost,

Where does the bible say that?

ALL who get saved since times of Christ are ALL baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ

Where does the bible say that?

which is His true Church!

Where does the bible say that? (Scofield notes don't count.)

 

[Yeshua1]

Where does the bible say that?

Where does the bible say that?

Where does the bible say that? (Scofield notes don't count.)

Jesus was still under the Old Covenant with God, as he said came to fulfill the Law of Moses in full, and he also said that the Holy Spirit would come and doa new work, to be in them and not just with/on them...

Pentacost fulfilled the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to give the law to be placed upon hearts from jeremiah 31.

And paul states that ALL saved arer baptized NOT buy water, but by the Spirit into that Body now since Pentacost,

The Bible very clear to be against landmark teaching, as that relies upon false history of Baptist succession, same way Catholic view Apostolic ones!

 

[TCassidy]

Jesus was still under the Old Covenant with God, as he said came to fulfill the Law of Moses in full, and he also said that the Holy Spirit would come and doa new work, to be in them and not just with/on them...

Pentacost fulfilled the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to give the law to be placed upon hearts from jeremiah 31.

And paul states that ALL saved arer baptized NOT buy water, but by the Spirit into that Body now since Pentacost,

The Bible very clear to be against landmark teaching, as that relies upon false history of Baptist succession, same way Catholic view Apostolic ones!

You seem to have overlooked my questions. Here they are again:


Where does the bible say that?

Where does the bible say that?

Where does the bible say that? (Scofield notes don't count.)

 

[The Biblicist]

The truth of the Bible is that the Church proper was founded at Pentacost, and that ALL who get saved since times of Christ are ALL baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, which is His true Church!

Where does the Bible say that? The promised administrator of that baptism is not the Holy Spirit but Christ read Mt. 3:11. The only baptism administered "by" or "under the direction of" the Holy Spirit is water baptism (see 1 Cor. 3:5-16). Just as Jesus, the first comforter administered baptism through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2) so the Holy Spirit administers water baptism through his servants: Read this:

5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that plants any thing, neither he that waters; but God that gives the increase.
8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are laborers together with God: you are God’s husbandry, you are God’s building.

Yeshua did you read it? The context is with regard to how the congregation at Corinth was constituted and built up They had been fighting over their human administrator of baptism. Paul's response was that all the human adminstrators of water baptism "ARE ONE" because they are "LABORERS TOGETHER WITH GOD" - meaning they are all working UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP, under ONE BOSS - The Holy Spirit and therefore "YOU are GOD'S building". Paul did not say "WE" but "YOU." Paul was not a member of that church.

You seem to be slow at discerning Scripture. Read it again slowing and see how Paul is resolving division in the church at Corinth over the administrators of their individual baptisms. Paul is sayin there really are no human administrators of water baptism to be divided over as they are all "ONE" because they are LABORERS TOGETHER with God the Holy Spirit and so the credit for their baptism is given to the Holy Spirit as "YOU ARE HIS BUILDING" not Paul's, not Apollos or Cephas, etc.

Yeshua, read it again, until you grasp what it is saying.

 

[Aaron]

The Jews rely on their genealogies, and the Catholics on their succession.

Landmarkism is no different.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Jews rely on their genealogies, and the Catholics on their succession.

Landmarkism is no different.

That shows how little you know about Landmarkism. We do not RELY on succession at all. We never demand proof of succession to be regarded as a true NT. Church. We demand nothing more the what Scriptures demand and that is constitution by a previous "ye" (Mt. 28:19-20) of like faith and order.

 

[The Biblicist]

Where does the Bible say that? The promised administrator of that baptism is not the Holy Spirit but Christ read Mt. 3:11. The only baptism administered "by" or "under the direction of" the Holy Spirit is water baptism (see 1 Cor. 3:5-16). Just as Jesus, the first comforter administered baptism through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2) so the Holy Spirit administers water baptism through his servants: Read this:

5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that plants any thing, neither he that waters; but God that gives the increase.
8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are laborers together with God: you are God’s husbandry, you are God’s building.

Yeshua did you read it? The context is with regard to how the congregation at Corinth was constituted and built up They had been fighting over their human administrator of baptism. Paul's response was that all the human adminstrators of water baptism "ARE ONE" because they are "LABORERS TOGETHER WITH GOD" - meaning they are all working UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP, under ONE BOSS - The Holy Spirit and therefore "YOU are GOD'S building". Paul did not say "WE" but "YOU." Paul was not a member of that church.

You seem to be slow at discerning Scripture. Read it again slowing and see how Paul is resolving division in the church at Corinth over the administrators of their individual baptisms. Paul is sayin there really are no human administrators of water baptism to be divided over as they are all "ONE" because they are LABORERS TOGETHER with God the Holy Spirit and so the credit for their baptism is given to the Holy Spirit as "YOU ARE HIS BUILDING" not Paul's, not Apollos or Cephas, etc.

Yeshua, read it again, until you grasp what it is saying.

It seems that many want to follow every rabbit trail in order to escape dealing with Biblical evidence placed right before their face. So again I am resposting this post.

 

[Salty]

Show me one time where the bible says "universal church."

Show me one time where the bible says Trinity or Rapture.

Same principal

 

[The Biblicist]

Although, it has never been my practice to resort to the term Landmarkism to defend anything I believe, I do believe the essential truth stated in the historical definition of Landmarkism by Cathcart in his Baptist Encyclopedia is essential to preserve the Biblical doctrine of salvation from perversion.

The Universal Invisible Church theory, that is nothing more or less than the Roman Catholic doctrine of church salvation, conflates salvation with the church. The only difference between Rome's doctrine of church salvation and Reformed Roman Catholic church salvation is the term "invisible." Both teach church salvation.

Dr. John MacArthur has admitted as much, when he states that there can be no salvation outside the church conceived as the universal invisible body of Christ. To be outside membership in this kind of church is to be lost and to be inside is to be saved and it is the baptism in the Spirit that is the means which makes the difference of being inside versus outside.

However, this error has four major problems.

1. The "foundation" of the church is New Testament in ORIGIN as it consists of New Testament materials - Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28. Why is this a problem? Because it forces church salvationists to either deny pre-cross saints are saved at all, or are saved by some other kind of salvation that is inferior to present salvation.

2. The means for entrance into this church salvation is TIME FIXED so that it is non-existent as an ACTION previous to Pentecost. Removal from "in Adam" with regard to the spiritual state to "in Christ" is an ACTION that must be repeated with each individual or they remain "in Adam" according to the church salvationist theory. Fixing this action to Pentecost, again denies anyone prior to Pentecost could be removed from "in Adam" to "in Christ" and therefore they are forced to either deny anyone was saved prior to Pentecost OR come up with a salvation that is OUTSIDE of Christ and found only "in Adam" as they have no means to remove a person from "in Adam" with regard to their spiritual state to "in Christ."

3. The New Testament clearly states it is the act of quickening as a creative work of God that places a person "in Christ" rather than any kind of baptism (Eph. 2:1,5,8,10).

4. The universal problem of all mankind before and after Pentecost is spiritual SEPARATION from God. To be spiritually separated from God is to be separated from life, light, love and holiness because all of these have their only source in God who is life, light, love and holiness. Hence, the universal solution is spiritual union. If the baptism in the Spirit is the means for this spiritual union, then all before Pentecost lived and died in a state of spiritual separation - thus spritually dead, in spiritual darkness, and depravity without love and more significantly at physial death their departing spirit remained in that state. Thus they remained "in the flesh" and all who are "in the flesh CANNOT please God" (Rom. 8:8).

However, the essential truth of Landmarkism demands a distinction between salvation and the church so that they are not confused with each other and thus preserves the truth of the gospel from being perverted into Romanism church salvation. It demands a distinction between the church and the kingdom of God whereas the Romanist view confuses them. It demands the church is the visible expression of the professing kingdom of God on earth with regard to its administration of public ordinances and public worship. The bible clearly distinguishes between the kingdom and church of God.

Some Apparent Differences


Eph. 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

1 Cor. 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,

Furthermore, the following lessons will sustain these are to be distinguished from one another rather than interpreted as synonyms.


1. The difference of terminology and meaning:

a. "Family" - Greek "patria" - those fathered – lineage

b. "Kingdom" - Greek "basilea" - the rule and realm and Person of a king

c. "Church" - Greek "ekklesia" - congregation, assembly


2. The different applications

a. The Bible speaks of the “gospel of the kingdom” but never uses such language for the

family or church.


b. The Bible speaks of the “keys of the kingdom” but never uses such language for the church

or family of God.


c. The term “member” is never used in scripture to describe those in God’s kingdom or family

but only those in churches.


d. The church is called a “body” and “building” but the kingdom and family are never thus

called.


e. Jesus says “tell it to the church” but never says tell it to the kingdom or family.


f. The terms “kingdom” and “family” are only found in the singular but the term “church” is

found in the plural (36 times) and in the singular (79 times).


g. A “brother” can be placed outside the church membership by other brethren exercising

church discipline, but no human disciplinary action can remove any “brother” outside the

kingdom and family of God. – 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6,14.


h. The professing kingdom contains “tares” (Mt. 13:41) and the church contains persons like

Judas, but the family of God only contains true born again believers.


i. The Kingdom and family contain persons without water baptism (all pre-New Testament

believers and unbaptized believers in this age), but church membership is for only water

baptized professed believers – Acts 2:41-42


j. We read of ‘elders” and “apostles” in the church but no such officers are ever used to

describe those in the kingdom and family.


k. Geographical names are given to the church – “the church of God at Corinth” but no such

geographical language is ever used for the kingdom and family of God.


l. The church is described as being “built” and “fitly framed” but the kingdom is announced as

“near at hand.” Neither the kingdom or family are said to be “built” or “fitly framed.”


3. The Difference in Nature

a. The church conveys an autonomous democratic body

b. The kingdom conveys a sovereign rule by a king

c. The family conveys a paternal relationship between a father and his children


4. The difference in relationship to God

a. "Family" - relationship is defined as "children"

b. "Kingdom" relationship is defined as "citizens"

c. "Church" - relationship is defined as "members"


5. The difference in size

a. "Family" includes all saints in heaven and presently on earth - Eph. 3:15

b. "Kingdom" –Is God’s rule over the entire universe but in regard to his spiritual kingdom

on earth it includes only “the seed” presently on earth at any given time - Mt. 13

c. "Church" – includes baptized believers gathered out of God's kingdom and family on earth

who actually assemble together - Acts 2:41


6. The difference in entrance

a. "Family" is by birth "born" a child of God - I Jn. 3:18

b. “Kingdom" is by translation/birth - Col. 1:13/Jn. 3:3-6

c. "Church" is by water baptism - Acts 2:41



7. The difference in origin


a. “Kingdom” began with creation of this universe (Psa. 103:19) while the spiritual kingdom

on earth began with the first person saved from the fall (Adam) in Genesis thus born into

the kingdom of his dear son (Col. 1:13; Gen. 3:15; Acts 10:43). The professing kingdom

consists of the professed saved (true seed and tares) – Mt. 13


b. “Family” began with new birth of first child of God – Gen. 3:15 (new birth prior to

Pentecost – Jn. 3:3-11; Ezek. 44:7)


c. “Church” began with Christ’s First Advent and with the materials prepared by John the

Baptist – Acts 1:21-22; Lk. 1:17; – and first gifted officers set in the church – 1 Cor. 12:28.

First members and Foundation of church are found in the New Testament, not the Old

Testament (Eph. 2:20.


8. The difference in internal relationships


a. "Family" persons can exist outside of the church - 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6; Acts10:43


b. "Kingdom" persons can exist outside of the church - Acts 10:43; 2 Thes. 3:6


c. "Church" persons can be removed from the church but not from the family or kingdom by

discipline - 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6

Here is the OP again. We will see if anyone yet will directly address the evidence.