The Trail of Blood

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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 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.

 

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, 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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.