The Trail of Blood

[Gold Dragon]

When Jesus said of the church he would build, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," what did he mean?

Is a gate an offensive or defensive structure in war? It is defensive. So if the gates of hell defend hell, who is on the attack? The church.

So Jesus is saying that the church will be able to overcome any defenses that hell tries to place in the way of the expansion of the church into "hell's kingdom" which is the world and non-Christians. This is in line with the abundant kingdom imagery in Matthew.

I believe this verse is the only one used to support a "promise" of successionism or lineage preservation of any kind (Catholic, Baptist, etc) and that is a misinterpretation of the verse.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Is a gate an offensive or defensive structure in war? It is defensive. So if the gates of hell defend hell, who is on the attack? The church.

So Jesus is saying that the church will be able to overcome any defenses that hell tries to place in the way of the expansion of the church into "hell's kingdom" which is the world and non-Christians. This is in line with the abundant kingdom imagery in Matthew.

I believe this verse is the only one used to support a "promise" of successionism or lineage preservation of any kind (Catholic, Baptist, etc) and that is a misinterpretation of the verse.

Great points, GD!

IMO, this Trail of Blood is a load of nonsense...an attempt to link non-related groups to try to push Baptist history back further than it actually goes, and to attempt to prove that there is no link to the Catholic or Protestant churches.

 

[Tom Butler]

Let me see if I understand.

Those of you who don't hold to Baptist succession--do you believe in Baptist perpetuity?

Or do you hold that there was actually a time when a true New Testament church did not exist on this earth?

Do you hold that there has always been a remnant, but Baptists have no linear connection with it, only a spiritual kinship?

Do you hold that the only claim Baptists have to kinship with the Apostles is that we believe and teach the same doctrines and practices? Or we're closer kind than others?

I'm just trying to get a feel for the reason there is such animosity to the Landmark view beyond saying the historical evidence is not there. This animosity seems to go beyond just saying it's wrong. It arouses angry passions, seems to me. Just wondering how come.

 

[Tom Butler]

Is a gate an offensive or defensive structure in war? It is defensive. So if the gates of hell defend hell, who is on the attack? The church.

So Jesus is saying that the church will be able to overcome any defenses that hell tries to place in the way of the expansion of the church into "hell's kingdom" which is the world and non-Christians. This is in line with the abundant kingdom imagery in Matthew.

I believe this verse is the only one used to support a "promise" of successionism or lineage preservation of any kind (Catholic, Baptist, etc) and that is a misinterpretation of the verse.

I once had a pastor, who, in the heat of a fiery sermon, encouraged us all to be willing to "make war on hell with a water pistol."

I agree that the imagery of the gates of hell is that it is defensive in nature. But the imagery also allows for the two sides to do battle. Even in a defensive position, it is possible to destroy the attacker. In this case, Jesus said that would never happen. That, I think, is the basis for the view of Baptist succession and perpetuity.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SNIP Do you hold that there has always been a remnant, but Baptists have no linear connection with it, only a spiritual kinship?

SNIP

I take the Spiritual Kinship position. Some of the heat comes from folks not willing to acknowledge the lack of solid pre-sixteenth century documentation. This drives others who are trained as historians up and over the wall. Not to mention those who push their position to the point of not recognizing the validity of baptisms performed by ekklesias who do not have the "proper" pedigree. I know my home church doesn't.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I once had a pastor, who, in the heat of a fiery sermon, encouraged us all to be willing to "make war on hell with a water pistol."

I agree that the imagery of the gates of hell is that it is defensive in nature. But the imagery also allows for the two sides to do battle. Even in a defensive position, it is possible to destroy the attacker. In this case, Jesus said that would never happen. That, I think, is the basis for the view of Baptist succession and perpetuity.

I agree that the defender can defeat the attacker. But how does a gate do that?

 

[Tom Butler]

I take the Spiritual Kinship position. Some of the heat comes from folks not willing to acknowledge the lack of solid pre-sixteenth century documentation. This drives others who are trained as historians up and over the wall. Not to mention those who push their position to the point of not recognizing the validity of baptisms performed by ekklesias who do not have the "proper" pedigree. I know my home church doesn't.

Squire, as you can probably tell from my posts, I have Landmark "tendencies" but I'm not full-fledged.

I lean toward Spiritual Kinship, although I wish there was a strong case for succession.

I guess I'll have to identify myself as one of those who likes for the administrator of baptism to have the proper pedigree. Even around here, in Western Kentucky, though, many Baptist churches have moved to your position. I think that's unfortunate because it has been quite divisive around here.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Those of you who don't hold to Baptist succession--do you believe in Baptist perpetuity?

No I do not believe in baptist successionism or baptist perpetuity. I view both as misinterpretations of the Matthew verse you cited and an 19th century desire to remove Baptist associations with Catholicism.

Or do you hold that there was actually a time when a true New Testament church did not exist on this earth?

My belief is that the NT church stopped existing after the NT was written and there was never really a single uniform entity called the NT church. After that point it changed, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. While there are definitely admirable aspects of the NT churches that churches of all generations can and should try to model, I don't believe they were a perfect model that is the only way to do church. They had their flaws, problems, doctrinal errors and conflicts just like modern churches. Most of the NT was written to address those things. Scripture never tells us to model a church of a specific time period.

I'm just trying to get a feel for the reason there is such animosity to the Landmark view beyond saying the historical evidence is not there. This animosity seems to go beyond just saying it's wrong. It arouses angry passions, seems to me. Just wondering how come.

I wouldn't say I was angry with Landmarkist views and Landmarkists. I just disagree with their historical and theological views, both of which I believe have little to no support.

 

[Tom Butler]

Gold Dragon, I think you meant to say you disagree with their historical and ecclesiological views. I think your theology would line up with theirs on most points because they are thoroughly Baptist.

 

[rsr]

Let me see if I understand.

Those of you who don't hold to Baptist succession--do you believe in Baptist perpetuity?

No, I don't, because I see no substantial proof for such an assertion.

Or do you hold that there was actually a time when a true New Testament church did not exist on this earth?

No, because that would be contrary to scripture (as you have noted previously). However, one perhaps should not define true so narrowly that it excludes all groups that are not thoroughly Baptist.

Do you hold that there has always been a remnant, but Baptists have no linear connection with it, only a spiritual kinship?

Again, I do not think the evidence can establish a linear connection.

Do you hold that the only claim Baptists have to kinship with the Apostles is that we believe and teach the same doctrines and practices? Or we're closer kind than others?

The second. As the authors of the Second London Confession said:

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error, and some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become 'synagogues of Satan'. Nevertheless, Christ has always had, and always will have to the end of time a kingdom in this world, made up of those who believe in him and profess his name.

I'm just trying to get a feel for the reason there is such animosity to the Landmark view beyond saying the historical evidence is not there.

Constantly quoting "facts" that cannot be proven - and sometimes can be disproven - does tend to create animosity.

This animosity seems to go beyond just saying it's wrong. It arouses angry passions, seems to me. Just wondering how come.

I think The Squire has touched upon part of the reason: the insistence that churches that don't have the proper pedigree are not authentic churches, as if any church could prove its pedigree other than by its current faith and practice.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Gold Dragon, I think you meant to say you disagree with their historical and ecclesiological views. I think your theology would line up with theirs on most points because they are thoroughly Baptist.

Yes the Landmarkist distinctives are primarly of ecclesiology. But ecclesiology is part of one's theology, usually a major part.

 

[rsr]

Having commented on Landmarkism, I would hasten to add that those remarks were meant only to certain manifestations of some brands of Landmarkism (and probably the ones that most irritating to outsiders.)

Not all Landmarkers have been successionists (J.M. Pendleton is an example), and not all Landmarkers who are successionists agree whether succession is spiritual or linear.

It also is possible to be a successionist without being a Landmarker (because Landmarkism embodies a bundle of beliefs aside from - but connected to - successionism.)

That said, discussions of Landmarkism as a whole, as opposed to successionism, should be in a different thread.

 

[Tom Butler]

rsr, I think you're right, that we shouldn't veer from a discussion of succession or perpetuity into a discussion of Landmarkism on this thread.

I've tried not to derail into that area.

Or do you hold that there was actually a time when a true New Testament church did not exist on this earth?

No, because that would be contrary to scripture (as you have noted previously). However, one perhaps should not define true so narrowly that it excludes all groups that are not thoroughly Baptist

Some non-successionists have excluded such groups as the AnaBaptists from our heritage, as well as some others, basically blowing them off as weirdo cults. Some of them, such as the Montanists and Novationists, were also pilloried by the Roman Catholic Church as heretics.

Are there groups that you would accept as part of our heritage, even though they may not in your view be thoroughly Baptist?

Are there those which you would exclude?

No trick questions or traps here, just an honest inquiry.

 

[Rob't K. Fall]

Squire, as you can probably tell from my posts, I have Landmark "tendencies" but I'm not full-fledged.

I lean toward Spiritual Kinship, although I wish there was a strong case for succession.

I guess I'll have to identify myself as one of those who likes for the administrator of baptism to have the proper pedigree. Even around here, in Western Kentucky, though, many Baptist churches have moved to your position. I think that's unfortunate because it has been quite divisive around here.

I can't speak for the Squire. In HSBC's case, our founding memeber were located in the Western Addition. The churches downtown were not willing to daughter off a new church. So, twelve brothers and sisters met in Captain Schroeder's front parlor in 1881 and organized Zion Baptist Church (the name was changed about five years later). A recognition council was held about year later.

More info at:

http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/PDFs/HSBC Book.pdf

I have a text file if anybody wants to read it.

 

[Tom Butler]

I can't speak for the Squire. In HSBC's case, our founding memeber were located in the Western Addition. The churches downtown were not willing to daughter off a new church. So, twelve brothers and sisters met in Captain Schroeder's front parlor in 1881 and organized Zion Baptist Church (the name was changed about five years later). A recognition council was held about year later.

More info at:

http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/PDFs/HSBC Book.pdf

I have a text file if anybody wants to read it.

I'm assuming that all of the charter members were baptized believers from somebody's Baptist church. I see no problem here.

 

[rsr]

Some non-successionists have excluded such groups as the AnaBaptists from our heritage, as well as some others, basically blowing them off as weirdo cults.

Well, some of the Anabaptists were "weirdo cults." Anabaptist was applied to any number of sects and movements united theologically by a requirement for adult baptism. They ranged from the violent millenialists of Munster to the pacifists who followed Menno Simons' example.

Now, it is my opinion that Anabaptist thought did flow into the English Baptists, whether directly or indirectly. However, that only takes us back to the early 1500s - if you will look at the leaders of the early Anabaptists (Simons, Hoffman, all came to the Anabaptistic faith after Luther, not before.

This is not to say that certain features of Anabaptistic doctrine (or Baptist doctrine or Protestant doctrine) did not exist before the Reformation; they certainly did, as exemplified in the Hussites or Lollards.

Some of them, such as the Montanists and Novationists, were also pilloried by the Roman Catholic Church as heretics.

Well, we know very little about what the Montanists actually believed and practiced. The Montanists left almost no record (save the works of Tertullian, abbreviated as they are) and even the Roman Church preserves very little record of their supposed heresies (with some sources considering them not heretical but only schismatic.)

The Novationists, on the other hand, appear to have had little difference with the "orthodox" except on matters of discipline.

Are there groups that you would accept as part of our heritage, even though they may not in your view be thoroughly Baptist?

My conception of Baptist origins is that of a broad river into which many tributaries feed. There were many such tributaries that were undammed by the Reformation, and they flowed into what became Baptists. I don't think you can conceive of the English Baptists, for example, without the influence of the Puritans and Independents.

 

[Bro. James]

Ecclesiastical dilemma: you either have Biblical authority or you do not. There is no middle ground. If the author is a usurper of authority, all of his/her progeny has usurped authority--which is none at all.

That Jesus established His Church and has maintained the same in every generation is verified by scripture and secular history. Mt. 16, 28; Jn. 10; Eph. 3; Rev. 1-3; clearly indicate assemblies maintained by the Holy Spirit (another Comforter) until Jesus returns. That is perpetuity Bro.

The historical verification is the observation: the holy see has vigorously tried to eliminate all evidence of the above by burning Bible translations and the translators. The fact that the apparent blanks in the record are in fact proofs of the fact that there was a remnant of true believers, whatever their names. The powers that be have tried to destroy them. Nothing new--it continues today--more covertly perhaps.

It is still fact: True Baptists are not Protestants nor are they a denomination. They have always been separate from Rome and her daughters. This does not mean that there are no authorized groups with different names. This is about authorized faith and practice, not a name.

The basic problem with this fact is that it flies in the face of all the major religions of the world, including some called Baptist--true Christianity always has. There is a lot of money and political clout at stake. They will not allow such things to be credible.

"The gates of Hell will not prevail against her..."

What is in your wallet? :tonofbricks:

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I'm assuming that all of the charter members were baptized believers from somebody's Baptist church. I see no problem here.

If I understand the book Brother Rob referenced, HSBC's founders were members in good standing one of the five existing Baptist churches. (There were six in 1881, but Third Baptist is historicly African-American church and the founders of HSBC were white.)

The problem, Rob was trying to point out, is HSBC wasn't formally daughtered off by a particular church. To some here, that is a serious breech of propriety.

 

[Tom Butler]

If I understand the book Brother Rob referenced, HSBC's founders were members in good standing one of the five existing Baptist churches. (There were six in 1881, but Third Baptist is historicly African-American church and the founders of HSBC were white.)

The problem, Rob was trying to point out, is HSBC wasn't formally daughtered off by a particular church. To some here, that is a serious breech of propriety.

Ideally, I think it is a good practice for a new congregation to come out of an existing congregation, and that it be willing to come under its watch-care until it can stand on its on feet. The situation cited seems to be that these folks started a new congregation independently of their own churches. I agree that there are some inherent dangers in doing that.

But I can envision a circumstance where there might be no alternative, and that's why I said I saw no problem. I probably should have said it's not the ideal but that I could live with it given the circumstances.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

For the Northern Baptist view and practice on the matter of transfering church memberships, I refer you the notes on pages 80 and 81 of Hiscox's New Directory.

It seems back in the day; the issuing of open ended letters was an accepted practice. By open ended, a church would write up "To Whom It May Concern" letter of comendation for her departing members.