1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Are you a Landmark Baptist

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Salty, Jan 13, 2009.

?
  1. Yes, I am totally Landmark

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Yes, for the most part

    1 vote(s)
    2.4%
  3. I hold to some positions

    6 vote(s)
    14.6%
  4. No, I am not landmark at all

    31 vote(s)
    75.6%
  5. I'm not sure

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  6. Other answer

    1 vote(s)
    2.4%
  1. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    I agree that I don't think the term 'Baptist' can be employed as a particular church group throughout history who all shared the exact same beliefs. Mainly because you can't even find to many today who do that :laugh:

    However, I do disagree that the label would be protestant since many of those groups never came out of the Catholic Church as 'pro-testers' (protestants) though some were. The best term to be employed is 'Christians' and not Baptists nor protestants. However in relation to certain doctrines they might be given the label as Baptistic to any greater or lesser degree but I think even then it might be better to label them more or less New Testemant churches to either a greater or lesser degree.
     
    #41 Allan, Feb 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2009
  2. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    If there is plenty of Church History out there, you must be ready to post the record. I will await.

    This is not all together true. Some wish to link themselves to the Anabaptist, (why i do't know), but I think if you study history for the most part Baptist came from the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England. I do agree that many AnaBaptist found their way to the real Baptist churches. Anabaptist were in a class of their own called the Radical Reformers. They believed that no believer had the right to own a sword. Own one? That's right....just owning it was wrong. Pacifism is what they called it. Any thing having to do with war or violence. A believer was not allowed play a part in the government. The reformers from Luther tand even Zwingli accepted that the church and the state must live side by side. Anabaptist would threaten the social order much like the JW today would refuse to defend their nation.

    That changed in the next set of Anabaptist....but that's a long story. :)

    This is true. Also to show the full impact of the Anabaptist, one can also trace the Pentecotal and holiness movement to them.


    Not so.

    The Waldenses is an interesting group. Everyone wants to claim they came from the Waldenses. I can understand why, because they showed great backbone.

    Here are a few things you must know about the Waldenses. Peter Waldo did not seek to alter Catholic teachings in the beginning. In 1180 Waldo signed a statement of faith that was pure traditional Catholicism. They never till years after Waldos death wish to make another church. Waldo hoped to gain the popes approval for his movement and went to him 3 or four times asking for such.

    They found a holiness in being poor. Its not that they just rejected the rich ways of the church as you read in many books, they went on to teach that the more you reject "things" the better you are. This was nothing but another form of works salvation.

    Waldensians in the begining held to doctrines like transubstantiation, and praying to the dead dead, as well as infant baptism. Now this later changed as you know.

    I do not post these things to BASH Waldensians. I point them out to show there are many holes even in the groups many would claim as SURE Baptist. Even if these teachings lasted only 100 years, that is 100 years that cannot be counted for in the Landmark idea.

    But some will take it so far as to say that Waldensians were before its founder. They do this because if they don't have the Waldensians before this time, there is about 500 year gap of no proof. So they make it up...with no support.

    If you want to know when the Waldensians started...go look on their own web site. They would know better than us.

    http://www.waldensian.org/aws03.php
    Another site....
    http://www.waldensianpresbyterian.org/

    Later on as you may know..in Baptisim Immersion mode was used. “Contra Waldenses,” brings up the Synod of Exeter, A.D. 1277, which gives directions for the baptism of children and there you will find support for immersion.


    See my note above. :)

    There are a ton of statements like this one.....but no support

    There is to much here to handle in one post. I'll put it short.

    The 1st quote you will find all over the web. Do me a favor and tell me the context of this quote. In the context you will find the answer.

    2nd....Both of these quotes say nothing about proving it. Just more people saying it is true.

    indeed. And we also see that people that don't study history will ALWAYS make the same mistakes. It has a lot to do with sin nature
     
    #42 Jarthur001, Feb 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2009
  3. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will have to allow you to educate me on this one. Which groups never came apart from the RCC?
     
    #43 Jarthur001, Feb 3, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2009
  4. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    James, I was careful to avoid labeling any pre-Reformation group as Baptist by name. My aim has been, not to identify any group as a Baptist ancestor, but to assert that such groups existed pre-Reformation. You have agreed with me on this.

    I am not a full-fledged Landmarker, but have what I describe as Landmark tendencies. I won't argue successionism, but I will argue perpetuity, based on Matthew 16:18.

    So, I think we Baptists can claim kinship with those pre-Reformation NT churches, as well as those churches of the lst century. That's why I'm reluctant to accept the label Protestant.
     
  5. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with this.

    Labels hurt and help. It helps when we share ideas, but labels also bring baggage.

    Allan and you used the phrase "NT church". That is fine with me as well. However words (in this case labels) carry the meaning of the value we place on them. Its clear that some do not like the idea of being a Protestant. I'm not sure why. BTW..I disagree with how Allan defines the word. However, if we were to use it just as Allan and many others use the word, I think you will find that these churches were also Protestant churches.

    Allan used it this way....pro-testers' (protestants).

    Which is very common way to use it. I think today most people use it meaning non Catholic.

    I don't want to make a huge deal of this but protestant came from the latin word protestari, which means to proclaim aloud. It comes from a letter by Lutherans that "loudly proclaims" that they would not be bound by secular authority when it came to the church.

    The reformers were later labeled protestants because they refused the authority of the pope.

    So...in all meanings I feel we can say we are protestants.....for we do not believe the pope has authority over us.
     
  6. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    James, I can accept your definition of Protestant, but not the most widely-accepted definition, which is the one I was using.
     
  7. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Labels applied to groups are often given by outsiders. I am not in love with the name baptist, but I am in love with what it once stood for. Not so sure to-day. I will not, however, refuse the title Christian because the name is so widely abused, but because it does represent what I am because of the One I know.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
Loading...