What distinguishes a Landmark baptist from the rest?

[JonC]

First, your wording is improper. You are contrasting "a Christian" with a "false minister" when you should be contrasting "a Christian" with a "unqualified saved bishop." You are making the false assumption that "a Christian" cannot be led astray into false doctrine or that the only serious false doctrine in the Bible is to deny the docrine of salvation both of which are false assumptions.



Again, your wording is incorrect. Notice the last phrase in the historical definition of Landmarkism. There is nothing in that definition to suggest such ministers are lost people. There is nothing to suggest they are "heretical" in all that they believe. The issue is what constitutes a true N.T. Congregation not what constitutes true salvation. The heretical area is restricted to church truth not all Biblical truth. And yes I do denounce them as heretical when it comes to church truth. No people can be a true church when they don't even know what is essential to be a true church. No unbaptized people can be members of any church found in the pages of the New Testament and so I ask you why should such be considered as TRUE churches outside the pages of the new testament.





Only when you place your words in our mouth and misrepresent the position of Landmarkism. However, when things are stated correctly the rubber meets the highway perfectly.



And you dont think paedbaptists are false teachers when it comes to the church and its ordinances, the government of the church and their view of church officers etc??? Hint: You don't have to be lost to be a false teacher!

What I don't understand, brother, is how we can refer to these as false ministers yet hold them as if they were great scholars of the Word. If baptism is essential to church membership, and if the church is the body of Christ those for whom Christ died, those who are saints and members of the household of God being built together, then baptism should be an essential doctrine. False ministers who preach to false churches that baptism is not by immersion are undermining the church itself.

And no, I was not incorrect on the Graves quote. Old Landmarkism, What is it? Baptist Book House, 1880, pg. 123. He also noted that "Baptists claim that they are successors to the 'Witness of Jesus,' who preserved the faith once delivered to the saints, and kept the ordinances as they were originally committed ot the primitive Churches. They claim to be the lineal descendents of the martyrs who, for so many ages, sealed their testimony with their blood...These are bold claims, we admit; yet, if we can sustain them successfully against those of any other communion, it is not only our right, but our imperative duty to do so." (The Tri-lemma Death by Three Horns, 120).

 

[TCassidy]

However, it is equally true that no one can take secular history and prove such congregations (as defined by the Landmark definition) did not exist since the days of Christ till the present.

As one of my seminary professors once said, the idea of perpetuity of the faith is impossible to prove, but, if I see a long pipe with a few links of chain sticking out one end and a few links of chain sticking out the other end, and if I pull on the chain at this end and it moves on the other end, I can probably conclude there is a connection.

 

[JonC]

I think we are all getting a little to intense. I am going to put it rest for the night and come back tomorrow. I apologize for coming across a little crusty. I am interested in the real issues rather than tit for tat and I think you probably are too.

Yea, me too. I didn't think that you were coming off too crusty, buy I fear I came off that way. I got into this thing only to speak of Howell's disagreements with Graves on the issue (responding to another). But you have not offended me at all, so no apology needed at all. I've really enjoyed the dialogue and will continue to consider what was discussed here.

I think we differ because while I believe baptism vitally important to the church, I do not believe that misunderstanding baptism means an assembly of believers in Christ for the gospel, for worship, for discipleship and building of the saints, for Kingdom work, gifted by God for that work, results in anything less than a church.

I believe Paul defines the church for us, and that's the definition I've been using. I believe that the church is the body of Christ, those for whom Christ died, those reconciled to God, those who have access to the Father, those who are saints and members of the household of God (Ephesians 2).

Another has accused me of dishonest replies. I assure you this in not the case. I have stated and defended my position, and also what I see as inconsistent in the other.

If my arguments have appeared aggressive, less than kind, dishonest, or in any other way diminishing in terms of the love of Christ then all here have my sincere apologies. That was not my intent.

You know where I stand, I believe both Wesley and Whitfield were true ministers of God and members of the body for which Christ died. We differ but I do not think less of those here with whom I disagree. Thank you again for the dialogue (you and TCassidy).

I only ask that you two honor my bowing out. It is not due to a lack of interest, or a conviction nothing can be gained, but in respect of my brothers.

Thanks,

John

 

[The Biblicist]

What I don't understand, brother, is how we can refer to these as false ministers yet hold them as if they were great scholars of the Word.

Again, they are saved but unqualified Bishops and they are heretical in the area of church truth (the nature of the church, its ordinances, its ministry, it government, etc.). We do not hold them as great scholars in all aspects of their teachings. And when you said gifted men should not be excluded from the church you were wrong or else Paul is wrong (Acts 20:29-30). Therefore, gifted men can exist outside the congregations of Christ.

If baptism is essential to church membership, and if the church is the body of Christ those for whom Christ died those who are saints and members of the household of God being built together, then baptism should be an essential doctrine.

The church that God shed his blood for in Acts 20:28 is the congregation located at Ephesus - a visible congregation of baptized believers. Any Bible student that denies this should not claim to be a reputable Bible exegete (and you and I can name a great many scholars who display their ignorance on this text). He is addressing the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:17). It is these elders "you" that God made "overseers" of this "flock" (Acts 20:28) and it is this same "flock" that members can enter and exit as well as ordained elders (Acts 20:29-30).

If you remove the local visible congregation, its ministry, its ordinances from the New Testament, you have little New Testament left. To even suggest the church and its ordinances are not essential doctrines to New Testament Christianity is ludicrous. To suggest "church" equals "salvation" is equally as ludicrous as that would demand there was no salvation prior to the ministry of Christ and the apostles as they are the "foundation" of the New Testament church. The foundation is the beginning of a building project and the foundation is exclusively New Testament in origin and in character (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

Again, you are avoiding the real issue and that is does the Bible teach that baptism precedes membership in a New Testament congregation. If it does, your position is wrong and obviously wrong as constitution of a congregation cannot occur without qualified materials, of which baptism is one essential to qualify as proper materials for church constitution.

False ministers who preach to false churches that baptism is not by immersion are undermining the church itself.

Saved but deceived preachers who repudiate the Biblical prerequisites for church membership and pervert the gospel ordinances are undermining the church itself and the doctrine of salvation and should be excluded from all true congregations of Christ and should be regarded as heretical with regard to church truth.

And no, I was not incorrect on the Graves quote. Old Landmarkism, What is it? Baptist Book House, 1880, pg. 123.

Page 123 proves you were incorrect. He is using history to "support" his view but nowhere does he ever claim he can "provide link by link" history back to Christ. Indeed, that is why he uses the river analogy that disappears under ground and then reappears and the Atlantic cable analogy - both which concede that he cannot and does not try to provide a link by link succession. His illustration of Adam and present day human beings who CANNOT PROVIDE A LINK BY LINK historical evidence to prove they come from Adam also illustrates he NEVER claimed that history can provide link by link evidence of church succession.

He also noted that "Baptists claim that they are successors to the 'Witness of Jesus,' who preserved the faith once delivered to the saints, and kept the ordinances as they were originally committed ot the primitive Churches. They claim to be the lineal descendents of the martyrs who, for so many ages, sealed their testimony with their blood...These are bold claims, we admit; yet, if we can sustain them successfully against those of any other communion, it is not only our right, but our imperative duty to do so." (The Tri-lemma Death by Three Horns, 120).

And he does attempt to sustain that view by providing statements by historians from other denominations. Whether you agree with those statements or not does not prove he did not attempt to support his view historically.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yea, me too. I didn't think that you were coming off too crusty, buy I fear I came off that way. I got into this thing only to speak of Howell's disagreements with Graves on the issue (responding to another). But you have not offended me at all, so no apology needed at all. I've really enjoyed the dialogue and will continue to consider what was discussed here.

Well, good!

I think we differ because while I believe baptism vitally important to the church, I do not believe that misunderstanding baptism means an assembly of believers in Christ for the gospel, for worship, for discipleship and building of the saints, for Kingdom work, gifted by God for that work, results in anything less than a church.

I don't think this is the issue that divides us. The issue that divides us is does the New Testament teach and demand that baptism precedes church membership. Whether baptism is misunderstood is a secondary issue rather than the primary issue, but a vital issue as it is a gospel ordinance and to pervert it is to pervert the truth it was designed to convey. If the Bible clearly teaches that baptism is the prerequisite for N.T. church membership, then the N.T. congregation cannot exist apart from such qualified material.

I believe Paul defines the church for us, and that's the definition I've been using. I believe that the church is the body of Christ, those for whom Christ died, those reconciled to God, those who have access to the Father, those who are saints and members of the household of God (Ephesians 2).

I would challenge your interpretation of this chapter. I don't think anyone can rightly understand Ephesians 2-3:5 without first understanding the Old Testament Temple and the "middle wall" that divided Jewish worshippers from Gentile worshippers.

If my arguments have appeared aggressive, less than kind, dishonest, or in any other way diminishing in terms of the love of Christ then all here have my sincere apologies. That was not my intent.

No problem, I was more concerned about myself than anyone else.

You know where I stand, I believe both Wesley and Whitfield were true ministers of God and members of the body for which Christ died. We differ but I do not think less of those here with whom I disagree.

I appreciate whatever truth that professed Christians hold and teach regardless of their denominational affiliation. However, the Bible holds forth clear and explicit qualifications for the office of Bishop and if a man qualifies according to that Biblical standard he is qualified to pastor any true congregation of Christ as there are not two or more contrasting Biblical standards. Neither Wesley or Whitfield meet those Biblical qualifications as both repudiate the gospel of Christ through their abuse and perversion of the gospel ordinances, among many other things pertaining to church truth. If you remove the New Testament teachings with regard to the local congregation, its ordinances, its ministry, its government, and its mission, you have very little New Testament Scriptures left. It is an essential of "the faith once delivered" or part of the "apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:40-41).

Thank you again for the dialogue (you and TCassidy).

You are welcome.

I only ask that you two honor my bowing out. It is not due to a lack of interest, or a conviction nothing can be gained, but in respect of my brothers.

Thanks,

John

There is a point when those who disagree come to an impasse and nothing more is to be gained by continuing a discussion. I understand and honor your decision if you think you have reached that point.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jon has chosen to drop out of this discussion and I honor his decision and respect his input as he defended and represented his position about as well as anyone could defend it.

However, to those who choose to continue in this discussion, I have one question for you and only one question. Can you show from Scripture that the command to be baptized does not precede congregational membership? Can you find any unbaptized members of congregations in scripture?

My position is, if the Bible teaches by precept and/or example that baptized believers are the prerequisite for church membership then no true scriptural church can exist apart from baptized believers. Secondarily, if the Bible clearly teaches that baptism is by immersion only and only of professed believers then no other use of water can be called scriptural baptism and therefore all who are sprinkled, poured as adults or as infants merely got wet and are still in need of baptism. All institutions that promote such use of water are religious institutions but are not scriptural congregations of Christ and cannot be scripturally considered as such as no true church of Christ can be constituted out of unbaptized materials.

However, do not confuse the order of significance. The proper definition and application of baptism is secondary not primary. What is primary is do the Scriptures demand that baptism precedes church membership regardless how you may understand or apply baptism.

I consider it a red herring argument to defend unbaptized congregations as true congregations of Christ because they have had, or have men used of God and great scholarly abilities with regard to other truths in scripture. The issue is not what it takes to be a Christian, but what does it take to be a scriptural congregation of Christ with Biblically qualified leadership. Saved people can be misled into false doctrines and be excluded from true congregations (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thes. 3:6). Such can be regarded as saved brethren who are in serious error when it comes to church truth, without denying their value in other areas of Biblical teaching. However "church" fellowship would be impossible with such men as that is the very area of theology they repudiate and pervert.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Jon has chosen to drop out of this discussion and I honor his decision and respect his input as he defended and represented his position about as well as anyone could defend it.

However, to those who choose to continue in this discussion, I have one question for you and only one question. Can you show from Scripture that the command to be baptized does not precede congregational membership? Can you find any unbaptized members of congregations in scripture?

My position is, if the Bible teaches by precept and/or example that baptized believers are the prerequisite for church membership then no true scriptural church can exist apart from baptized believers. Secondarily, if the Bible clearly teaches that baptism is by immersion only and only of professed believers then no other use of water can be called scriptural baptism and therefore all who are sprinkled, poured as adults or as infants merely got wet and are still in need of baptism. All institutions that promote such use of water are religious institutions but are not scriptural congregations of Christ and cannot be scripturally considered as such as no true church of Christ can be constituted out of unbaptized materials.

I consider it a red herring argument to defend unbaptized congregations as true congregations of Christ because they have had, or have men used of God and great scholarly abilities with regard to other truths in scripture. The issue is not what it takes to be a Christian, but what does it take to be a scriptural congregation of Christ with Biblically qualified leadership. Saved people can be misled into false doctrines and be excluded from true congregations (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thes. 3:6). Such can be regarded as saved brethren who are in serious error when it comes to church truth, without denying their value in other areas of Biblical teaching. However "church" fellowship would be impossible with such men as that is the very area of theology they repudiate and pervert.

so only Baptists in your estimation have it scripturaly correct.

 

[The Biblicist]

so only Baptists in your estimation have it scripturaly correct.

Any congregation that is "like faith and order" with New Testament congregations regardless of the name over their door are true churches of Christ. The term "Baptist" is a generic term that includes diverse doctrines and practice of every conceivable sort. However, true congregations are primarily found wearing that epitaph because it is a Biblical epitaph.

Remember, one does not have to be a "Baptist" to be saved, but one must profess to be saved and baptized to be a "Baptist" in the scriptural use of this term (Mt. 3:6-8). The doctrine of New Testament congregations is about preserving the faith faithfully and that is why they are described as metaphorical "chaste" virgins (2 Cor. 11:2) that can be metaphorically "corrupted" (2 Cor. 11:3-4) thus becoming metaphorical "harlots." The metaphorical "harlots" outnumber the true churches of Christ and contain true Christians (Rev. 18:4). Therefore, true Christians exist outside of the churches of Christ proving that the church and salvation are not one and the same.

 

[The Biblicist]

In classical Greek literature the Greek term ekklesia is commonly used in the abstract institutional sense. The abstract institutional sense refers to the use of a definite noun that is used to speak of something indirectly rather than directly as in the case of "the husband" and "the wife" in Ephesians 5 without changing the common ordinary meaning of "husband" or "wife." No particular specific husband or wife is identified but yet all who are husbands and wives are included. The abstract has no existence apart from concrete realities. For example, if there were no concrete specific husbands and wives there could be no abstract use of these terms. The institutional use of a noun refers to entities that have institutional characteristics (form of government, officers, mission purpose, membership requirements, etc.). Hence, "the assembly" in Classical Greek literature was used abstractly and institutionally both in its singular and plural forms. Even when the ultimate application was to a specific assembly (such as the one located at Athens), it was used in the abstract institutional sense in describing one of the various city institutions by Greek writers. This is equally true in the New Testament usage. The definite singular is used in 1 Corinthians 14:19 in the abstract institutional sense but its ultimate application is to the concrete congregation at Corinth. The plural in 1 Corinthians 14:33 proves the use in 1 Cor. 14:19 is abstract and institutional.

When considering the proper interpretation of ekklesia in any New Testament passage the common historical meaning must be considered first before any new meaning even if a new meaning can make sense it must be rejected if the common meaning can make sense. The historical meaning of ekklesia is "congregation" or "assembly" that is always visible and local. The historical meaning is inclusive of the abstract institutional use of the term. The few times that ekklesia is found in the definite singular in the New Testament where another new meaning, a meaning that is absolutely opposite to the established historical meaning is suggested (universal invisible), the historical meaning as an abstract institutional sense makes perfect sense in every one of these passages. This is true in Matthew 16:18 demonstrated by its second and third instance in Matthew 18:17. In all three cases it is found in the definite singular without any immediate specific geographical location. Christ will build "my church" or more literally "the church of me" and in Matthew 18:17 this church is local and visible but non-specific as he is using the common abstract institutional sense of ekklesia. What this means is that the church as an institution in the abstract sense shall never be overcome by the gates of hades whereas many churches in the concrete sense have been overcome by the gates of hades. Nevertheless, such concrete churches continue to exist in every generation because they have been reproduced by previous churches of like faith prior to those churches ceasing to exist.

To suggest that "the congregation of me" in Matthew 16:18 is one kind (universal invisible) while the next 22 uses of this same term by Christ refers to another kind (local and visible) has Christ claiming to build one kind but then never again speaking of it but using the same term to speak of an entirely different kind that he nowhere claimed to have originated is irrational.

To suggest that "church" equals "salvation" is to declare all previous to the ministries of Christ and the apostles are unsaved as Christ is the chief cornerstone and the apostles and New Testament prophets are the metaphorical "foundation." The origin of any building begins with the foundation. This foundation excludes all before the apostles. To suggest that this "church" built upon the foundation of apostles is equal to salvation damns all living prior to the earthly ministry of Christ to hell. However, the abstract institutional use of the term harmonizes with salvation before and after the building of the ekklesia by Christ in his earthly ministry.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Any congregation that is "like faith and order" with New Testament congregations regardless of the name over their door are true churches of Christ. The term "Baptist" is a generic term that includes diverse doctrines and practice of every conceivable sort. However, true congregations are primarily found wearing that epitaph because it is a Biblical epitaph.

Remember, one does not have to be a "Baptist" to be saved, but one must profess to be saved and baptized to be a "Baptist" in the scriptural use of this term (Mt. 3:6-8). The doctrine of New Testament congregations is about preserving the faith faithfully and that is why they are described as metaphorical "chaste" virgins (2 Cor. 11:2) that can be metaphorically "corrupted" (2 Cor. 11:3-4) thus becoming metaphorical "harlots." The metaphorical "harlots" outnumber the true churches of Christ and contain true Christians (Rev. 18:4). Therefore, true Christians exist outside of the churches of Christ proving that the church and salvation are not one and the same.

So how come there are so few true churches and allot of Antonomian ones. It is my belief that it is the latter that are distroying Christianity bringing us closer to the end.

 

[The Biblicist]

So how come there are so few true churches and allot of Antonomian ones. It is my belief that it is the latter that are distroying Christianity bringing us closer to the end.

Reduction in number is the norm for the last days as apostasy is on the increase, not the decrease (Lk. 18:8). The parable of the tares with its inclusive minor explanatory parables (leaven and mustard seed) clearly teach that the professing kingdom of God will increase in size due to apostasy, false teaching, false churches while the true representatives of the kingdom of God will all but disappear. It is not until the rubbish is separated will the true kingdom citizens (treasure) and institution (pearl of great price) be manifest. Today is the hayday of the Great Whore and her harlot daughters within which are multitudes of saved people (Rev. 18:4).

 

[TCassidy]

so only Baptists in your estimation have it scripturaly correct.

Correct, provided you have a proper understanding of what a "baptist" is.

"Baptist" is not, in my opinion, a denominational name. "Baptist" is, again, in my opinion, a doctrinal identity.

Many churches that do not say "Baptist" on the door are "baptist" churches, doctrinally. And many churches that say "Baptist" on the door are not baptist, doctrinally.

The criteria is, do they align with scripture? Yes? They are baptist. No? They are not baptist. Regardless of what name is on the door.

 

[Yeshua1]

OK...So how does this differ from other Baptist churches?

We do not hold to Baptist churches be established in beginning of the NT times, nor to there just being a local assembly, as most of us also hold with the Church Universal so called!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We do not hold to Baptist churches be established in beginning of the NT times, nor to there just being a local assembly, as most of us also hold with the Church Universal so called!

Thanks.....do you have closed communions?