Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Salty, Jan 13, 2009.
Do you consider yourself a Landmark Baptist
I have what I call Landmark tendencies.
I'm not ready for the whole package, but I hold to a lot of the ecclesiology.
I had two professors in seminary who were landmarkists.
If there was one shred of evidence or even common sense, I might not think the whole teaching was man-made nonsense.
In other words, NO :tongue3:
I had to vote "unsure" since I don't know what Landmark is. I've heard it referred to here, but know nothing about it. Since I know nothing about it, I'm probably not one, but had to vote "unsure" since I don't know what it is!
Can someone give a brief overview?
OK I don't feel so dumb now! LOL I have no clue what it is either. I was thinking of posting....
But knew I'd have to come up with some other text to get it to post.
In essence we trace our history back to the New Testament times........with some variations along the way,,not called baptists, per se..............then there are variations amongst those who claim landmarkism,,there is also a strict group of landmarkists......adhere to certain doctrines such as closed communion, baptism in that local church only etc.
Sorry, I thought I had added a website:
OK - after reading that? Nah - no way.
In no way. Landmakism (the trail of blood) grow from a hate of the RCC. The hate is at such a high level that they are will to make up history points in order to rewrite history and fool a few people.
However, Landmark Baptist churches are often times good in their theology. Poor in history.
Since this is mainly a poll thread to see how many Landmarkers are out there, I suggest we move any debate to a thread on the subject which is already underway in the General Baptist Discussions category.
Those of you who've never heard of it before are quite young, I'm sure. But a century ago, Landmarkism was the predominant ecclesiology among Baptists. It was not monolithic, but among Southern Baptists, at least, it was widespread and strongly held.
Southern Baptists have largely abandoned any semblance of Landmarkism. But they're still out there. There's even a Baptist denomination who are Landmarkist.
I find it curious that what was once considered normal ecclesiology is now considered heresy.
Go to the other thread for some robust discussion.
Yep, even Spurgeon believed it.
If there was evidence that we did go back to the Apostles, then it would not be that hard to believe. In their own frame of reference, the Catholics claim a link back to the Apostles, since according to them, Peter was the first pope. That in itself makes me very leary of any such claim. There is a big gap between believing that Baptists did not come out of the Reformation to we go back to the Apostles.
Going by the Wiki definition (realizing that it is not by any means a scholarly one) and my personal studies, I hold to some tenets of Landmarkism.
I've addressed this in a post in the General Baptist Discussion thread on Landmarkism. Go there for enlightenment and persuasion. Once you read my brilliant and incisive post, you'll be convinced.
(Folks, saturneptune and I are fellow servants in our church. Some of this is a little light-hearted banter with a little barb thrown in here and there. We don't agree on everything but have a mutual respect and brotherly love.)
I am a landmarkist. I don't proselytize. I don't demand that you be a landmarkist too. It is my personal study and beliefs on the history of the "baptistic" belief system.
The Catholic Church came later and was not in existence in New Testament times. Even the claim that Peter was the first pope came in later times.
If some want to claim the Methodist Smythe as the founder of he Baptist Church, they can do that.He wasn't even immersed and didn't practice believer's baptism by immersion.
Yes, some of the groups we claim even had heretical ideas, but there remains a trail of baptism and autonomy. Some New Testament people had to be straightened out. Ever read the New Testament letters of Paul and Peter? If people that close to Jesus' life on earth can be so off, so can people in 2nd century,,,,,and even the 21st century.
As Dr Bob has said.....
Its a good and neat idea, but there is no support. I often have had this debate and what I tell others is that if one wishes to believe this, that is fine. However, to give support based on the facts, you will not find them. There are to many gaps to fill.
Let me suggest a book.
James E. McGoldrick..."Baptist Successionism".
McGoldrick, a professor of history at Cedarville College.
a quote from a review on that site..
so, let's abandon all baptist churches as just another offspring of a Catholic's (remember, Luther remained a catholic until he was excommunicated) thinking. We have no reason for our existence. Drop the insistence on baptism before membership. That is just a silly hindrance to getting more people to join the club.
It is hard to believe that so soon after the New Testament formation of the churches of Christ that baptistic distinctives we claim so dear should just disappear until the reformation.
That is the nonsense! Pure and simple.
As a matter of fact, this whole book lends credibiity to the claim of the Church of England to succession of their bishops and we are the rebels.
I composed a lengthy comment based on Jim1999's most recent post. But to post it here would be doing exactly what I discouraged others from doing--that is, arguing the merits or demerits of Landmarkism. So I'm going up to the Landmark thread in the General Baptist Discussion section to post it. See you there.
moved to General