Thanks, JD. I was afraid that some were using metaphysical when they meant metaphorical. Appreciate your clearing that up.
Universal Church and Landmarkism
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Southern, Feb 17, 2011.
Page 7 of 7
-
-
-
-
I can imagine some of you are saying, this is silly, nit-picking stuff. Actually, I agree. The point I'm making is that some propositions may fall apart upon closer examination.
Such as brother jbh's.
Of course, if there is no possibility that false churches may have saved people in them, then never mind. -
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
DHK, I am intimately familiar with Landmarkist teachings. It is a false doctrine that reads into the text of Scripture what some men wish to see in order to preserve their little carved-out kingdoms.
In fact, just about the only people in all of Christendom that subscribe to that doctrine are those fiercely independent fundamentalists who need it in order to survive.
The doctrine did not even exist as a doctrine until 1851. It caught on largely because it was pressed by several influential pastors and seminary leaders.
It is now used as a club by the independent fundamentalists to enforce the idea -- the same idea as Roman Catholicism, by the way -- that ONLY those churches that are "successive" with a lineage back to John the Baptist are the "true, authentic church or Christ." Though it has its roots in the SBC who those same independents now hate and disavow. Funny how bad doctrine always finds a home eventually and refuses to go away. Today, everyone who (as the doctrine states) is not in that line of succession is not a true church and there is no "universal church" in any sense. That is patently false for any number of reasons.
So, we have a smallish group of churches that hold to a doctrine that makes THEM the only true church, a doctrine that mirrors Roman Catholicism that they hate, and a doctrine that stems from the SBC whom they also hate. But the doctrine is "useful" to them because it helps them to "sell" their little kingdoms to the people they coerce into being a part of their local only bodies. Weird, huh... -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I thought I posted this earlier today, but I can't find it. So here it is again. To those who believe rejection of a universal church means lack of love for other Christians, that's a misunderstanding. We have many other passages that teach that without a universal church being needed. My grandfather's last sermon was on the other sheep in other folds that Christ told the disciples about.
Here in Asahikawa, I teach NT Greek to a Methodist man in our town who wants to be a preacher. He's my brother in Christ and I love him, but I don't need a universal church for that. -
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
One more for you who believe in a universal church. (And I'm not berating you or attacking you. Some of my best friends believe in a universal church. :smilewinkgrin:)
Several on the thread have mentioned the seven churches of Revelation. It seems to me that this was a perfect time for John to mention a universal church: "Oh, and by the way, you local churches, you need to realize you're all one body. How come you don't hang out more together?"
Instead, we have very specific encouragement, rebukes and warnings to seven very specific local churches. Not only that, every single church is told what the Spirit is saying to the "churches," plural. So, why no universal church in Rev. ch. 1-3? -
You know the "sitting" part sounds a lot like Psalm 1 - clearly metaphorical.
Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
There are a couple of other candidates.
HankD -
Does Christ have many bodies, or just one? Many brides, or just one?
-
-
Deleted by JD - not related to the OP
-
The heavenly component is the dwelling place of the commander-in-chief.
Ephesians 1
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which He wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
HankD -
Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry. It came into existence when Jesus chose his disciples. They were the material of the first church.
The Lord said in Matt. 16:18 that "Upon this rock I will build my church."
He was speaking to his church at the time. And so he did.
By the time Jesus said goodbye at his ascension, this band had everything it needed to identifyit as a church. It had a Head, it had marching orders (given before the Great Commission), it had baptism and the Lord's Supper, it had a teaching ministry (Jesus as the teacher), it did missions and evangelism. And it had power. Remember the disciples returning from a trip, expressing awe that even the demons were subject to them.
And it had the good news, that Jesus had died for sinners, and risen from the dead.
The 120 people in that upper room also had a business meeting.
When Jesus said he would build his church, he was referring to the one right there in front of him. -
It has nothing to do with any of their other doctrines of successionism if that is what you are thinking of. Your statement here is off the wall. Aspersions will get you no where. We are not talking of survival. There is no such thing as a universal church in the Bible, and you offer no evidence that there is except for a denial. Your position is very weak isn't it?
Even then some of the most radical liberals lived before 1851. I am here to discuss Biblical doctrine; something you have a problem with.
You have brought in many red herrings that have nothing to do with the OP. Why? Successionism (something I don't believe) has nothing to do with the doctrine of the local church or the existence of the universal church. Why do you make the wild and illogical leap that because I don't believe in a universal church I must therefore be a successionist? :rolleyes:
Page 7 of 7