Universal Church and Landmarkism

Iconaclast...

Ah, but I do.

In truth, it is those on your side of the issue that are in need of understanding regarding this topic.

God bless

Aic

 

Psalm 26:5 I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.​

Close?

HankD

 

Brother Tom and I serve in the same church, and do not let him fool you. He is being humble by arguing the opposite side. Our association just elected Brother Tom as messenger from our association to the Universal Church. At their first meeting, he made it a point to sit between the JW and C of C. I have grown tolerant of his I'm ok, you're ok attitude towards other denominations. For years, I have pushed for communion to be closed in our church, but alas, Tom always brings a couple of pews of JW's every Lord's Supper day.

 

Here is an excellent commentary regarding the beautiful truth of the church local, and the church universal. Praise God for both!

Here it is...

If you are interested in who wrote this....

http://christianity.about.com/od/churchandcommunity/a/thechurch.htm

 

http://christianity.about.com/od/churchandcommunity/a/thechurch.htm[/QUOTE]
Yep, the same people who wrote this:

 

DHK...

Nice try. :laugh:

The author is with Calvary Chapel fellowship, DHK.

Do you consider the Calvary Chapel fellowship to be (((CATHOLIC)))???

You are grasping at straws DHK.

Not good. Not good at all. You need to stay on the topic, and stop attempting little diversionary tactics.

 

I didn't see that in the article. Maybe I missed it?


I thought the article was good. I've asked this before but didn't get an answer....if the church is only local then when a member dies is he no longer part of the church?

 

Amy...

Its in there, but its irrelavent. She just gave the Catholics view of it, I guess, since some Catholics might be interested.

It does not disturb the topic at hand in the least.

 

AIC, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being excellent I would give that site 0.
First it is not Baptist.
Second it is totally ecumenical.
Third it endorses error.

In a link on how to choose a church this is what it says:

It advocates Catholic as a Christian denomination. The RCC is as Christian as Hinduism is. It advocates faith by works, and its message sends people straight to Hell. It is a world religion, but not a Christian religion. Those who advocate Catholicism as Christianity are badly deceived. If it errs here no wonder it errs in other places in doctrine, including the definition of a church.

 

Amy...here is the catholic part...

I didnt notice this the 1st time, but the writer brought that up, to point out that the Catholics view is wrong concerning Peter being the 1st pope.

(sorry, DHK) Thats "Strike Two" :laugh::laugh:

 

It is still an ecumenical site, non-Baptist, that points people to the Catholic Church. I would never recommend it to anyone for a source of doctrine. Its doctrine is contaminated.

 

I thought I had answered this, but I guess you want a yes or no answer.

No.

 

DHK...

So what if its not a baptist site?? The writer is an evangelical christain.

I gotta tell you, DHK....I am PROUD to be Baptist, but I've got a news flash for you...

We are not the only christians, and we are not the only evangelicals.

No it doesnt, DHK! There is nothing in there that POINTS anyone to the Catholic cult. Gosh are you ever (((paranoid)))

Evangelical doctrine is contaminated if its not Baptist???

 

Rats, Mike, did you have to spill everything?

 

You are on a Baptist discussion forum. We are discussing Baptist doctrine, not Pentecostal, any other evangelical, or the heretical Catholic. So what if he is evangelical. I am not, and this board is not. It is Baptist. Thus the topic: "universal church and Lamarkism. There are no Landmark Baptist in any other evangelical denominations or any other religions whatsoever. We are discussing a doctrine that is inherently both Biblical and Baptistic (one and the same).

Good. Then get your nose out of ecumenical sites and look up some good Baptist sites which will give you better definitions.

I never said we are the only Christians. I don't get my definition, for example, of the "Lord's Table" from a Catholic website. This is what you are doing. You are going to an interdenominational, ecumenical, non-Baptist website for definitions in a discussion regarding Baptist doctrine. Why not just use a Catholic website instead? Does this make any sense to you?

Why don't you look around the site a bit. I have already quoted part of it to you. I'll do it again for you:

I don' know of any Baptist that can recommend any of the above churches to anyone (except of course the mention of Baptist).
This is from that exact same website:
http://christianity.about.com/od/churchandcommunity/ht/chooseachurch.htm

It is promoting Catholicism in the same way Billy Graham does. He sends those that come forward back to the churches that they came from, even if they are Catholic. What good does that do??

Absolutely. This is an ecumenical site. Its view on the church is wrong. Its view on many things is wrong. Remember we are discussing Baptist doctrine here. We are not ecumenical; they are. Their doctrine, by nature of its ecumenicity, must be contaminated. They are unable to preach the whole counsel of God.

 

DHK

:laugh::laugh:

DHK, brother....ITS NOT A CATHOLIC WEBSITE!! IT NEVER WAS A CATHOLIC WEBSITE!!!

Gosh...DHK do you just make it up as you go along???

Honestly brother, sometimes you remind me of Archie Bunker the way you just throw stuff out there for general consumption, without really ((*thinking*)) about what you are about to post.

Honestly, I know you mean well and all that, but GOODNESS, to quote another very well known TV charachter (Andy Taylor from Mayberry)..."you beat all I ever saw" :laugh:

Bless your heart, I love ya brother.

 

Slander and false accusations are no laughing matter.
No, I don't make things up as I go along.
I have gone out of my way, and very patiently, to show you that this site is:
1. not Baptistic.
2. is ecumenical.
3. is evangelical but interdenominational and therefore unable to preach the whole counsel of God.
4. recommends heretical churches such as the RCC.
I never said it is a Catholic site!

Here is what I said:

Where did I say it is a Catholic website?

 

AIC, let me spell it out for you and hopefully no more time will be wasted on this subject. First let me repost the OP:

Now let me point out some obvious factors.

1. You are on a Baptist Board.
2. You are posting in a Baptist only forum.
3. The forum is Baptist Theology.
--That is we are discussing theology specific to Baptists.
4. This thread concerns Landmark Baptists, and only one specific doctrine that they believe.

The OP stated specifically that the question was for his "Landmark brethren that deny the concept of a "Universal Church."

Now, that being the case, there is no reason to try and defend the Universal Church by quoting from other denominational sites. The OP, if anything, would rather you quote from Landmark sites. He already knows what a universal church is.

Further down in the OP he says this:

I hope this clears up some of this for you.
We are discussing Baptist doctrine, and very specific Baptist doctrine. Websites outside of those parameters are not needed. No more needs to be said on this matter.

 

DHK...

You just posted...

Here is what you posted to me, and 7:47 pm tonight, on this thread... (bolding mine)

You clearly accused me of getting information from a catholic cult website.

And now you say...

Amazing.

 

It is amazing that you would go to such lengths to falsely accuse me like this. Wake up, and read what I said. Here it is:

How convenient of you in your "quote" of me to leave out the words "for example. It was an example. I never said that is what you are doing. I gave an example of how you were quoting from sites that were non-Baptistic for Baptistic definitions. You might as well be drawing your definitions from a Catholic website if you are going down that route. I did not accuse of quoting from a Catholic website.

Is it convenient for you to leave out the words for example???

Are false accusations your way of debate? Do you like smear tactics?
Read the above quote again and understand what I said.
Then read the last post I made about the OP.
Stick to the OP and the topic at hand please!!!