Log in to check your private messages 
Username: Password:   
  Reformed Theology Institute
  RTI, founded July 2008, is a venue for Reformed theology, education, training, and discussion.
Index  FAQ  Search  Memberlist  Usergroups  Profile Scroll to Bottom  RTI Portal New Posts Since Last Visit
Recent Posts    
    Join! (free)   
 

Log in
   Username:
   Password:
   Log me on automatically each visit
  
Welcome
Guest

IP Address: 54.80.10.30


Useful Resources

RTI Main Menu
Home Page
Forums
How-To FAQs
Membership Central
Photo/Doc Gallery
Private Messages
Smilies
Bible Encyclopedia
Bible Tool

RTI Announcements
Crowdfunding for RTI Web Site Server Administrators
TNARS Degree Study Discussion Forums Closed
Help RTI Grow
Hotmail Email Domain No Longer Supported for Members
Adopt a Smiley $$ Campaign
Welcome New Members!
RTI Standards of Conduct
Before You Post: Review The SoF and Rules of Conduct
RTI Statement of Faith
About RTI

RTI Latest Topics
RTI RTOW: Who has had the greatest impact on my life?
Heaven, the firmament and the waters

RTI Popular Topics
How to refute Landmark Baptists?
Preferences On NA28 or UBS 5th editions
Should we base theology on end of Mark's Gospel?
Greek Grammar In Light of Historical Research
The New Jerusalem and Righteousness
2 Peter 3:9 and word "all"
What book is good for those new to the faith?
Indwelling versus Infilling of the Holy Spirit
What is difference perservation of saints/eternal security?
Puritan Reformed Ministries in India



 
Jump to:  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Reformed Theology Institute Forum Index » Ecclesia » How to refute Landmark Baptists? Page 1, 2  Next
Author Message

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-17-2016 8:00 am
Post Number: 25684
 Reply with quote

As discussing with a Landmark Baptist holding to that the Universal/Invisible church, but he holds to only local churches are NT churches. How do you refute such views?

Moderator Note:
Dwf1,

Note that I have modified your post. First, I corrected the grammar of the title. Second, I added to the actual post to properly show what you are asking about. Please do not create a new topic with a Title and then in the post continue the sentence that the title began. In other words, your actual post should contain the essence of your title. This is important when others may quote your opening post and not understand the actual question you are asking.

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

David


Invested Member



Joined: 24 Sep 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 142
Rep Level: 5
Rep Points: 10
Rep Hits: 2

Location: Kent, England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-17-2016 3:44 pm
Post Number: 25694
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
As discussing with a Landmark Baptist holding to that the Universal/Invisible church, but he holds to only local churches are NT churches. How do you refute such views?




I'm not sure I understand the question.

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

larry joseph pearson


Invested Member



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 169
Rep Level: 5
Rep Points: 29
Rep Hits: 6

Location: Gadsden,Alabama 35901
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-17-2016 10:42 pm
Post Number: 25695
Reply with quote

Yes The best refutation of error is with truth and that is the Word of God. The Southern Baptist Convention in 1859 had problems with Landmark theology and consequently many Landmark believers withdrew from that Convention . Ironically, impetus to this movement started as a refutation to pedobaptist ministers, in regards that should they be accepted as true ministers of the Gospel or not along with other issues such as a denial of the Church universal. their mantra was Proverbs 22:28 : " Remove not the ancient landmark, Which thy fathers have set." I have several problems with their hermeneutic. Some which are: (1) Having water baptism the only baptism of Ephesians 4:5. (2)Using 1 Corinthians 12:13 as only a reference to water baptism.(3) Denying the Universal church which runs contradictory to all Scripture especially the Epistle to the Ephesians.(4) Their Successionist belief that since John the Baptist baptized Jesus then all who believe in Jesus Christ are Baptist and hence they have possessed an unbroken church and ministry since Apostolic times. (5) The "us only" attitude. If not connected to a Landmark church then one is not in the church. They practice closed communion , which has been by many diverse Christian groups, and one is only rightly baptized in a Landmark church.
This movement grew up in the South and it is still alive and well here in Alabama. The local church is very important but to deny the universality of Christ's household of faith is a bit too much for Holy Scripture and myself. Landmark baptists very seldom use "Landmark" in their church's name.
I say this not in arrogance because those of us in the Reformed faith have much to examine ourselves about but exclusivity is hurtful to many believers in whatever form it takes.

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Find all posts by user Visit poster's website

Reformed Baptist


Leading Member



Joined: 20 Nov 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 488
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 35
Rep Hits: 8

Location: England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 2:27 am
Post Number: 25700
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
As discussing with a Landmark Baptist holding to that the Universal/Invisible church, but he holds to only local churches are NT churches. How do you refute such views?



I am not sure I understand the question.

1) In regards to the question of the visible/ invisible church. Historically Baptists have differed from our Presbyterian brethren in this regard. For Baptists there is no such distinction. There is just the church which is made up of all those who profess faith. Now certainly there is a 'visible church' ie the church that we all see and there is the church (those who are genuinely saved). However our view of the covenants does not necessitate the distinction that Presbyterians make.

2) What other churches are there, other then local churches?

3) Landmarkianism is a 'fundamental' position that is often associated with other errors. Not least of which often include dispensationalism and pelagianism (not arminianism for that is a covenant position) and it is those propositions that need to be challenged.

4) I have yet to find a advocate of the Landmarkian stance that prepared to endure cross examination of the beliefs of those within the line of succession - indeed I have yet to speak to one who will actually provide an unbroken line and demonstrate links between the groups. The realty is the first baptist chuirch was established in 1609

5) Apostolic succession is claim to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles - as the only source of their beliefs that we have today is the bible in makes sense to judge apostolic accession in the light of what Scripture says - if you don't hold to teh doctrine of the apostles you do not descend from them!
_________________
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 7:26 am
Post Number: 25701
Reply with quote

David wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
As discussing with a Landmark Baptist holding to that the Universal/Invisible church, but he holds to only local churches are NT churches. How do you refute such views?




I'm not sure I understand the question.


They would hold that Baptists went all the way back to early Church times, and that only Baptit churches are true NT churches now!

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 7:28 am
Post Number: 25702
Reply with quote

larry joseph pearson wrote:
Yes The best refutation of error is with truth and that is the Word of God. The Southern Baptist Convention in 1859 had problems with Landmark theology and consequently many Landmark believers withdrew from that Convention . Ironically, impetus to this movement started as a refutation to pedobaptist ministers, in regards that should they be accepted as true ministers of the Gospel or not along with other issues such as a denial of the Church universal. their mantra was Proverbs 22:28 : " Remove not the ancient landmark, Which thy fathers have set." I have several problems with their hermeneutic. Some which are: (1) Having water baptism the only baptism of Ephesians 4:5. (2)Using 1 Corinthians 12:13 as only a reference to water baptism.(3) Denying the Universal church which runs contradictory to all Scripture especially the Epistle to the Ephesians.(4) Their Successionist belief that since John the Baptist baptized Jesus then all who believe in Jesus Christ are Baptist and hence they have possessed an unbroken church and ministry since Apostolic times. (5) The "us only" attitude. If not connected to a Landmark church then one is not in the church. They practice closed communion , which has been by many diverse Christian groups, and one is only rightly baptized in a Landmark church.
This movement grew up in the South and it is still alive and well here in Alabama. The local church is very important but to deny the universality of Christ's household of faith is a bit too much for Holy Scripture and myself. Landmark baptists very seldom use "Landmark" in their church's name.
I say this not in arrogance because those of us in the Reformed faith have much to examine ourselves about but exclusivity is hurtful to many believers in whatever form it takes.



Thanks fory your reply, as that other person is very against theidea of a Universal/invisible church, and only sees Bapts as real churh today...

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 7:38 am
Post Number: 25703
Reply with quote

They hold that only certain Baptist churches would be the true NT ones for today, and so any holding to non believers baptism andd Baptist church leadership do not qualify.

They do seem to hold to a form of Apostolic succession, in regards to proper theology from early church forward...

He is very adament in these issues...

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Reformed Baptist


Leading Member



Joined: 20 Nov 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 488
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 35
Rep Hits: 8

Location: England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 10:12 am
Post Number: 25713
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
larry joseph pearson wrote:
Yes The best refutation of error is with truth and that is the Word of God. The Southern Baptist Convention in 1859 had problems with Landmark theology and consequently many Landmark believers withdrew from that Convention . Ironically, impetus to this movement started as a refutation to pedobaptist ministers, in regards that should they be accepted as true ministers of the Gospel or not along with other issues such as a denial of the Church universal. their mantra was Proverbs 22:28 : " Remove not the ancient landmark, Which thy fathers have set." I have several problems with their hermeneutic. Some which are: (1) Having water baptism the only baptism of Ephesians 4:5. (2)Using 1 Corinthians 12:13 as only a reference to water baptism.(3) Denying the Universal church which runs contradictory to all Scripture especially the Epistle to the Ephesians.(4) Their Successionist belief that since John the Baptist baptized Jesus then all who believe in Jesus Christ are Baptist and hence they have possessed an unbroken church and ministry since Apostolic times. (5) The "us only" attitude. If not connected to a Landmark church then one is not in the church. They practice closed communion , which has been by many diverse Christian groups, and one is only rightly baptized in a Landmark church.
This movement grew up in the South and it is still alive and well here in Alabama. The local church is very important but to deny the universality of Christ's household of faith is a bit too much for Holy Scripture and myself. Landmark baptists very seldom use "Landmark" in their church's name.
I say this not in arrogance because those of us in the Reformed faith have much to examine ourselves about but exclusivity is hurtful to many believers in whatever form it takes.



Thanks fory your reply, as that other person is very against theidea of a Universal/invisible church, and only sees Bapts as real churh today...


You mean visible/ invisible church - it helps to get the terms right!

And as I have already said, that is an orthodox baptist position!

As for only seeing baptists as the real the church - what makes you think he is a baptist? Id he, for example, dispensational? If he is then he isn't a baptist by any meaningful definition of the term.
_________________
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Reformed Baptist


Leading Member



Joined: 20 Nov 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 488
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 35
Rep Hits: 8

Location: England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 10:14 am
Post Number: 25714
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
They hold that only certain Baptist churches would be the true NT ones for today, and so any holding to non believers baptism andd Baptist church leadership do not qualify.


Already addressed

Quote:
They do seem to hold to a form of Apostolic succession, in regards to proper theology from early church forward...


Already addressed

Quote:
He is very adament in these issues...


Let me guess, he is just full f assertions with little or no biblical support, right?

Think
_________________
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 12:37 pm
Post Number: 25717
Reply with quote

Reformed Baptist wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
larry joseph pearson wrote:
Yes The best refutation of error is with truth and that is the Word of God. The Southern Baptist Convention in 1859 had problems with Landmark theology and consequently many Landmark believers withdrew from that Convention . Ironically, impetus to this movement started as a refutation to pedobaptist ministers, in regards that should they be accepted as true ministers of the Gospel or not along with other issues such as a denial of the Church universal. their mantra was Proverbs 22:28 : " Remove not the ancient landmark, Which thy fathers have set." I have several problems with their hermeneutic. Some which are: (1) Having water baptism the only baptism of Ephesians 4:5. (2)Using 1 Corinthians 12:13 as only a reference to water baptism.(3) Denying the Universal church which runs contradictory to all Scripture especially the Epistle to the Ephesians.(4) Their Successionist belief that since John the Baptist baptized Jesus then all who believe in Jesus Christ are Baptist and hence they have possessed an unbroken church and ministry since Apostolic times. (5) The "us only" attitude. If not connected to a Landmark church then one is not in the church. They practice closed communion , which has been by many diverse Christian groups, and one is only rightly baptized in a Landmark church.
This movement grew up in the South and it is still alive and well here in Alabama. The local church is very important but to deny the universality of Christ's household of faith is a bit too much for Holy Scripture and myself. Landmark baptists very seldom use "Landmark" in their church's name.
I say this not in arrogance because those of us in the Reformed faith have much to examine ourselves about but exclusivity is hurtful to many believers in whatever form it takes.



Thanks fory your reply, as that other person is very against theidea of a Universal/invisible church, and only sees Bapts as real churh today...


You mean visible/ invisible church - it helps to get the terms right!

And as I have already said, that is an orthodox baptist position!

As for only seeing baptists as the real the church - what makes you think he is a baptist? Id he, for example, dispensational? If he is then he isn't a baptist by any meaningful definition of the term.


He is indeed Dispy, non Confessional Baptist, like vast majority of American Baptists are in this nation...

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 12:40 pm
Post Number: 25718
Reply with quote

Reformed Baptist wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
They hold that only certain Baptist churches would be the true NT ones for today, and so any holding to non believers baptism andd Baptist church leadership do not qualify.


Already addressed

Quote:
They do seem to hold to a form of Apostolic succession, in regards to proper theology from early church forward...


Already addressed

Quote:
He is very adament in these issues...


Let me guess, he is just full f assertions with little or no biblical support, right?

Think


He refers mainly to textbooks that "support" his notions that Basically Baptists derive from first century church, have the real theology, and only those who agree with their viewpoints qualifyas being a true NT church now.

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Reformed Baptist


Leading Member



Joined: 20 Nov 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 488
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 35
Rep Hits: 8

Location: England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-18-2016 1:28 pm
Post Number: 25726
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:

He is indeed Dispy, non Confessional Baptist, like vast majority of American Baptists are in this nation...


So immediately you have raised two issues that need to be challenged that are far more fundemental.

1) Every single person has a confession - even those outside of Christianity can state what they do and do not believe. Furthermore the fact that he refers to himself as non-confessional and baptist is an oxymoron - the term baptist must mean something to him!

2) He can't be a baptist and dispy - but then you know that already (just refuse to accept it)

These are two issues I would address with him but I wouldn't hold much hope. It is my experience that people who believe just what they have been told do not actually posses the ability to think for themselves!
_________________
"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists." Spurgeon

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 7:13 am
Post Number: 25731
Reply with quote

Reformed Baptist wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:

He is indeed Dispy, non Confessional Baptist, like vast majority of American Baptists are in this nation...


So immediately you have raised two issues that need to be challenged that are far more fundemental.

1) Every single person has a confession - even those outside of Christianity can state what they do and do not believe. Furthermore the fact that he refers to himself as non-confessional and baptist is an oxymoron - the term baptist must mean something to him!

2) He can't be a baptist and dispy - but then you know that already (just refuse to accept it)

These are two issues I would address with him but I wouldn't hold much hope. It is my experience that people who believe just what they have been told do not actually posses the ability to think for themselves!


Furhter discussions with him brought up that to him the Baptists ceased being that once accepted the 1689 Confession, as the real ones go back to beginning of the church and use the Bible only...

So to him and those holding to his view, Baptist churches would be ones that have just the Bible, believers Baptism, and have correct churchleadership in place.

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

David


Invested Member



Joined: 24 Sep 2015
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 142
Rep Level: 5
Rep Points: 10
Rep Hits: 2

Location: Kent, England
Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 10:12 am
Post Number: 25735
Reply with quote

DrWhofan1 wrote:
David wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
As discussing with a Landmark Baptist holding to that the Universal/Invisible church, but he holds to only local churches are NT churches. How do you refute such views?




I'm not sure I understand the question.


They would hold that Baptists went all the way back to early Church times, and that only Baptit churches are true NT churches now!


That's what the Brethren used to teach, but  now many are ecumenical.
Except, that is the Exclusives, they think they are the only ones around.  
We had a gospel hall near us that was fairly exclusive.  When the membership dropped to three, it had to close.  
One of the elders decided to come to our church with his wife, one of his sons who was a deacon at our church said his associates in the Brethren would never accept him going to a non Brethren meeting.  
It is commonly said that Darby was the originator of dispensationalism, dispies try to prove that it has always been taught in the church.  Of course they are wrong.  In his Morning Watch magazine, Edward Irving said he first preached it on Christmas Day 1825.  He said he next preached on this the following Christmas Day 1826.

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

DrWhofan1


RTI Guru



Joined: 20 Oct 2014
postcomment
postcomment
Posts: 861
Rep Level: 4
Rep Points: 25
Rep Hits: 7


Rep This Post

PostPosted: 11-19-2016 12:07 pm
Post Number: 25738
Reply with quote

David wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
David wrote:
DrWhofan1 wrote:
As discussing with a Landmark Baptist holding to that the Universal/Invisible church, but he holds to only local churches are NT churches. How do you refute such views?




I'm not sure I understand the question.


They would hold that Baptists went all the way back to early Church times, and that only Baptit churches are true NT churches now!


That's what the Brethren used to teach, but  now many are ecumenical.
Except, that is the Exclusives, they think they are the only ones around.  
We had a gospel hall near us that was fairly exclusive.  When the membership dropped to three, it had to close.  
One of the elders decided to come to our church with his wife, one of his sons who was a deacon at our church said his associates in the Brethren would never accept him going to a non Brethren meeting.  
It is commonly said that Darby was the originator of dispensationalism, dispies try to prove that it has always been taught in the church.  Of course they are wrong.  In his Morning Watch magazine, Edward Irving said he first preached it on Christmas Day 1825.  He said he next preached on this the following Christmas Day 1826.


To th person I was discussing this with, of couseBaptists are only true NTchurches, but only ones that held to his viewpoint!

Baptistsholding to 1689 Conession, Non Dispy, or not holdingto landmark nope, as bas as Church of Rome!

View user's profile Send private message Find all posts by user

Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Reformed Theology Institute Forum Index » Ecclesia Page 1, 2  Next


 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Back to top




Welcome To RTI Guest!



ip-location

free counters

Optional full banner
Archive

RTI Statement of Faith

Sola Scriptura Sola Fide Sola Gratia Solus Christus Soli Deo Gloria

Beza Calvin Knox Luther Melanchthon Tyndale Zwingli





Listen to RefNet

phpBB skin developed by: John Olson
Powered by
phpBB © 2001-2012 phpBB Group