Landmarkism, KJO, and anti-catholicism are one in the same.

[RichardT]

You can't really have one without the other. If your not KJO, then you would have to agree that the catholic church got us the bible. If your not a Landmarkist then you would have to argue that there were some saved Catholics for about 1400 years. If your not an anti-catholic then there would be no point in being a landmarkist or a KJO.

I know you guys disagree with all three positions, but this is my take on it.

What do you guys think?

[novcncy]

You can't really have one without the other. If your not KJO, then you would have to agree that the catholic church got us the bible. If your not a Landmarkist then you would have to argue that there were some saved Catholics for about 1400 years. If your not an anti-catholic then there would be no point in being a landmarkist or a KJO.

I know you guys disagree with all three positions, but this is my take on it.

What do you guys think?

God divinely preserved His word for us, as He promises to do. He may have used the RC church to accompolish His purpose, just like He calls Nebuchadnezzar "my servant", but that does nothing to lend any credibilty to RC doctrine or positions. It simply speaks to the sovereignty of God.

As far as the other stuff, I'm staying out of it.

[RichardT]

lol, i'm probably going to get banned again.

[aReformedPatriot]

You can't really have one without the other. If your not KJO, then you would have to agree that the catholic church got us the bible. If your not a Landmarkist then you would have to argue that there were some saved Catholics for about 1400 years. If your not an anti-catholic then there would be no point in being a landmarkist or a KJO.

I know you guys disagree with all three positions, but this is my take on it.

What do you guys think?

I think your off base.

Point 1: Catholics did not give us the Bible, nor am I KJVO. God breathed the scriptures, he "expired" them, carrying man to record the fullness of the revelation that he has decided to give. The source of the scriptures (if we are indeed talking about God's word), is from God and not man.

Point 2: They present a works based salvation under the guise of grace. They do this through the cover of baptism. . . . . We do have records of men adhereing to correct doctrine prior to the reformation and before the collapse of total biblical Christianity after the apostles died.

Point 3: I disagree. Semper Reformanda. Hebrews 5:14, "But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." And Psalm 119:128, "Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right; I hate every false way." (I do not advocate a dislike for the romanist as a person, but rather a very strong opposition to their doctrine. It is very dangerous to a healthy Christian life, even more so than KJVO, which I find to be a false doctrine. If you can't find it taught in the Bible, it's a tradition of man).

[RichardT]

I think your off base.

Point 1: Catholics did not give us the Bible, nor am I KJVO. God breathed the scriptures, he "expired" them, carrying man to record the fullness of the revelation that he has decided to give. The source of the scriptures (if we are indeed talking about God's word), is from God and not man.

Point 2: They present a works based salvation under the guise of grace. They do this through the cover of baptism. We do have records of men adhereing to correct doctrine prior to the reformation and before the collapse of total biblical Christianity after the apostles died.

Point 3: I disagree. Semper Reformanda. Hebrews 5:14, "But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." And Psalm 119:128, "Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right; I hate every false way." (I do not advocate a dislike for the romanist as a person, but rather a very strong opposition to their doctrine. It is very dangerous to a healthy Christian life, even more so than KJVO, which I find to be a false doctrine. If you can't find it taught in the Bible, it's a tradition of man).

I do find complete preservation of God's word in the bible.

[S Walch]

I do find complete preservation of God's word in the bible.

But what you view as the "Bible" is only limited to the KJV, and anything that disagrees can't be considerd "God's word."


You can't really have one without the other. If your not KJO, then you would have to agree that the catholic church got us the bible.How so? I'm not KJVO, and I can argue that the Roman Catholic denomination didn't give us "the Bible" - God gave us the scriptures, not some formation of man.

This is a thought based on your opinion, rather than on any sort of logic.

If your not a Landmarkist then you would have to argue that there were some saved Catholics for about 1400 years.Are you saying that you believe that everyone who was a member of the Roman Catholic denomination was never a believer for 1400 years? A "judge least you be judged" comes to mind with regards to where a person's soul is.


If your not an anti-catholic then there would be no point in being a landmarkist or a KJO.There's no point in being any of those.

[RichardT]

KJVO is not a cult. A cult is defined as excluding others. KJVO does not exclude other christians.

[S Walch]

KJVO is not a cult. A cult is defined as excluding others. KJVO does not exclude other christians.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cult

Sorry, but I see no definition of "Cult" as "excluding others."

What I do see however is:

"an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers"

"the object of such devotion"

"Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing"

[JacobHall86]

Are you serious? Do you really believe this? Tell me this is a joke.

[RichardT]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cult

Sorry, but I see no definition of "Cult" as "excluding others."

What I do see however is:

"an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers"

"the object of such devotion"

"Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing"

With definitions as those, you would be in a cult aswell. I got my definitions from another scource...

[RichardT]

Are you serious? Do you really believe this? Tell me this is a joke.

I kind of knew there would probably be errors of logic in my post, that's why I probably needed you to correct me.

[JacobHall86]

Its gonna take alot more than a thread on Christian Forums, But Ill give it a shot.

Ok, Noone is saying that the KJV isnt a good translation, or even one of the better translation, just that its not the Only translation.

Landmarkism, Its faulty logic with circular reasoning, saying that since we have doctrine similar to the early church the early church was baptist is insane. And to also claim that Catholics arent Christians is even more insane. Ill send you a link in a PM to an forum with basically no mods so you can debate a Catholic who knows what the church teaches, but its your call.

Anti-Catholic= This is just insane. We owe our very existance to the Catholic Church.

[Tonks]

God divinely preserved His word for us, as He promises to do. He may have used the RC church to accompolish His purpose, just like He calls Nebuchadnezzar "my servant", but that does nothing to lend any credibilty to RC doctrine or positions. It simply speaks to the sovereignty of God.

I think your off base.

Point 1: Catholics did not give us the Bible, nor am I KJVO. God breathed the scriptures, he "expired" them, carrying man to record the fullness of the revelation that he has decided to give. The source of the scriptures (if we are indeed talking about God's word), is from God and not man.

I have a quick question about preservation of Scripture and a concept that I have only recently been exposed to. This is going to be somewhat out of order as I reference the bolded bits about.

First, I'm in complete agreement with the bit in red above.

My question stems from an unrelated discussion I had (I believe in GT) where I remarked that when Paul was writing to Timothy that there was little evidence that the Epistle writer himself had any indication that what he was writing would be eventally canonized as Scripture and known to be inspired. There were the typical remarks on how it was either 1) Rome 2) EOC 3) the undivided (at that time) Church that had a hand - via men guided by the Holy Spirit - in determing the closed canon.

In reference to the bolded (in black) above a remark was presented that I had not heard before. Forgive me if I mischaracterize but it was something to the effect of the fact that Paul - and thus his contemporaries and those that came after - were aware that a certain particular writing of his was inspired and / or otherwise approved and was therefore profitable etc.

Broadly, I suppose, I have the question about during the days directly after Christ when early Christians (including the Apostles themselves) were writing in large volumes - how did one determine what was inspired and what was not? In the beginning the various written pieces did not travel universally (though quickly became recoginzed as such).

Sorry if this is unclear (as it is to me). I'm merely curious.

Pax tecum,
Matt

[aReformedPatriot]

I do find complete preservation of God's word in the bible.

Good. :thumbsup:


Anti-Catholic= This is just insane. We owe our very existance to the Catholic Church.

Hrmm... I was hoping to find our doctrinal origins in Jesus. As for organizational structure, bleh, in some fashions, but we should hardly thank them.

I have a quick question about preservation of Scripture and a concept that I have only recently been exposed to. This is going to be somewhat out of order as I reference the bolded bits about.

First, I'm in complete agreement with the bit in red above.

My question stems from an unrelated discussion I had (I believe in GT) where I remarked that when Paul was writing to Timothy that there was little evidence that the Epistle writer himself had any indication that what he was writing would be eventally canonized as Scripture and known to be inspired. There were the typical remarks on how it was either 1) Rome 2) EOC 3) the undivided (at that time) Church that had a hand - via men guided by the Holy Spirit - in determing the closed canon.

In reference to the bolded (in black) above a remark was presented that I had not heard before. Forgive me if I mischaracterize but it was something to the effect of the fact that Paul - and thus his contemporaries and those that came after - were aware that a certain particular writing of his was inspired and / or otherwise approved and was therefore profitable etc.

Broadly, I suppose, I have the question about during the days directly after Christ when early Christians (including the Apostles themselves) were writing in large volumes - how did one determine what was inspired and what was not? In the beginning the various written pieces did not travel universally (though quickly became recoginzed as such).

Sorry if this is unclear (as it is to me). I'm merely curious.

Pax tecum,
Matt

Hey, let me exposit on this tommorow or the next day. I dont have the internet hooked up (I am at a library doing research) and I have to go get my laundry and head to work.

Pax Christi,
Mark

[Abbadon]

KJVO is not a cult. A cult is defined as excluding others. KJVO does not exclude other christians.

Funny, most every KJVO I've met seems to exclude me for using as many translations as I have access to.

Hrmm... I was hoping to find our doctrinal origins in Jesus. As for organizational structure, bleh, in some fashions, but we should hardly thank them.

Without the Catholic church, the protestant church would never have come about.

There were bad eggs, but there are bad eggs in every denomination.

[RichardT]

Funny, most every KJVO I've met seems to exclude me for using as many translations as I have access to.

dubious...

[novcncy]

Without the Catholic church, the protestant church would never have come about.

While technically true, I have objections to this reasoning.

The RC church, even from such a time as Cyprian was characterized by teaching extratopical to scripture, (salvation is only in the RC church, etc. etc.) and therefore its legitimacy as a doctrinally faithful church comes into question for nearly all of its existence. Are we to believe that there was no group of believers which stood for faithfulness to the word for the period greater than a thousand years between the likes of Cyprian and Luther? Are we to believe that God's word did not exist oustide of an institution wherein it was minimized nearly to the point of exclusion? I rather think that it was available. Not widely, to the point that the printing press made it available, but it was available in some of the underground groups histrically referred to as heretics.

Secondly, many of the protestant denominations, while originally intent on remaining faithful, are now compromised and characterized by an ecuminical stance on nearly every issue. Are these then Christ's church, or the guardians of His word?

Although I have not thouroughly read or verified the claims of The Trail of Blood, I would agree with what I understand to be its premise, that throughout history Christ's church has been present as a faithful remnant. This remnant has been vilified by its opponents, most usually the RC church, and since the victor rights the history books, we are left with only the claims of the RC church for evidence regarding these groups claims. An excellent example of this is the Montanists. Montanus and his two "prophetesses" seem to have clearly been false prophets, but again, this viewpoint and the quotations ascribed to them comes from the pen of their enemies. However, even as late as the 8th century there were groups which the RC church labled as being Monatanists. Were these people sincerely believers in the alleged ecstacies of Montanus and his purported claims to be the paraclete, or instead, were they unified, despite the orthodoxy of their other beliefs, by their understanding of the individual priesthood of the believer? We will not know this side of eternity, as all, or nearly all, of the Montanist writings were destroyed by the RC church for being "heretical" writings. Even Tertullian's writings, when he was a Montanist, have been lost. So we are left to take the RC word for what the Montanists believed. Very interesting, no? That a writer such as Tertullian should be historically silenced when his viewpoints change from agreement to disagreement w/RC doctine.....Well, enough of conspiracy theories.

The bottom line is that it may be shortsighted to view the church as an either/or proposition, ie, either RC or Protestant. I will choose the third option, Christ's church, which coincidentally, is a local church, but that's another issue entirely.... my main point is that God's preservation of His word is a miracle, accomplished through His ways and means, and promised to the church, the true believers....Because the recorded history is questionable, many questions we have will never be answered. We ought to learn what we can about the history involved, but ultimately trust God's promise to leave us His word.

[RichardT]

By the way, Abbadon, those scources that you got, were they written by Roman Catholic historians or the groups themselves?

[novcncy]

I have a quick question about preservation of Scripture and a concept that I have only recently been exposed to. This is going to be somewhat out of order as I reference the bolded bits about.

First, I'm in complete agreement with the bit in red above.

My question stems from an unrelated discussion I had (I believe in GT) where I remarked that when Paul was writing to Timothy that there was little evidence that the Epistle writer himself had any indication that what he was writing would be eventally canonized as Scripture and known to be inspired. There were the typical remarks on how it was either 1) Rome 2) EOC 3) the undivided (at that time) Church that had a hand - via men guided by the Holy Spirit - in determing the closed canon.

In reference to the bolded (in black) above a remark was presented that I had not heard before. Forgive me if I mischaracterize but it was something to the effect of the fact that Paul - and thus his contemporaries and those that came after - were aware that a certain particular writing of his was inspired and / or otherwise approved and was therefore profitable etc.

Broadly, I suppose, I have the question about during the days directly after Christ when early Christians (including the Apostles themselves) were writing in large volumes - how did one determine what was inspired and what was not? In the beginning the various written pieces did not travel universally (though quickly became recoginzed as such).

Sorry if this is unclear (as it is to me). I'm merely curious.

Pax tecum,
Matt

Very lucidly put. If I could figure out how to add to your reputation, I would do so. I am also somewhat eagerly awaiting the promised response to your post.

For your consideration, refer to a few passages in the NT where Paul notes that he is writing/speaking by permission, etc., and evaluate this from the perspective of Paul's awareness of the work of God in his writings. I'm not sure that I put this clearly, but from your post, Tonks, I trust you'll see the thrust of my point, and give it some thought.

Thanks again for your post.

[mont974x4]

THE RCC has no real impact. the truth is, without Christ there would be no Church. Everything else is manmade and without any real consequence.

[JacobHall86]

Apparently you all think that the years from 300 AD to about 1650 AD just didnt happen.

[Erinwilcox]

A reminder of the rules:

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above;


You are all entitled to your opinions and convictions, but do not flame when posting them.

Thank you,
Erin W.

[Jim1927]

When Landmarkist speak of the Baptist churches originating in the first century, they do not call it a Baptist Church, but rather churches with baptistic principles and doctrines. I agree there are a few missing liks or spurious links, but essentially the history can be traced.

These churches existed alongside the forming Romish Church, and were greatly persecuted by the CHurch of Rome for simple matters as baptism of adults only and by immersion only.

There is direct evidence that a Baptist Church existed in England long before Smyth formed the Baptist Church in England. The Welsh Baptist Church established its first church in England in Gloucestershire,,again, before Smyth...further evidence of the original history of the baptistic churches.

We are anti-Rome where it deviates from sound doctrine, but we are not anti-Catholic. We recognize the role of the various churches in preserving both the scripture and docrinal concepts prevalent from the 1st century, including the works of Augustine.

Further, we are certainly not KJVO. We would not be so foolish to believe that any translation so removed from the originals would be without fault or translational difficulties.

Even Greek, being a living language in biblical times, was subject to conditions and changes. It was the common language at the time and as does English to-day, it changed from area to area. This is why context, historical setting, culture and the person speaking and to whom he is speaking plays a significant role in understanding what is being said.

Cheers, and I hope I didn't flame anyone....I don't even have a match with me............wait, I have a gas lighter for lighting my fireplace,,,,,oops! Hold it, was that sarcasm? Goodness,,save me!

Anonymous

[RichardT]

We would not be so foolish to believe that any translation so removed from the originals would be without fault or translational difficulties.

Which originals? Sinaticanus, Vaticanus?

[Jim1927]

I believe I said ANY translation. That means all translations after the originals.

Remember, the originals were scattered all over before they were finally collected into one place for assessment and organization. There were many manuscripts that didn't make the cut. Historians refer to such manuscripts, and they didn't meet the criteria for establishing the document as acceptable to be considered scripture.

Any mention of scripture in the New Testament, as we know it, had reference primarily to the Old Testament...there is the odd cross-reference to existing manuscripts going the rounds.

It is most likely that copies were made and passed on. Who is to say they were all accurate to the word. I have my doubts.

Cheers,

Jim

[Theophorus]

Very lucidly put. If I could figure out how to add to your reputation, I would do so. I am also somewhat eagerly awaiting the promised response to your post.

For your consideration, refer to a few passages in the NT where Paul notes that he is writing/speaking by permission, etc., and evaluate this from the perspective of Paul's awareness of the work of God in his writings. I'm not sure that I put this clearly, but from your post, Tonks, I trust you'll see the thrust of my point, and give it some thought.

Thanks again for your post.

Yes, Paul is aware of his inspiration it would seem. Is the phrase Tonks referred to saying that those who recognized the canon had a type of inspiration also, regardless of a council or whatever? I am curious as I have never seen that phrase either.

I am interested in this process in more detail.

[CooL_Genesis]

Anti-Catholic= This is just insane. We owe our very existance to the Catholic Church.

I owe my very existence to my Creator. :)

-Genesis

[Erinwilcox]

There have been numerous reports on this thread. We realize that this is a hot topic, but that fact does not exuse breaking rules.

Colossians 4:6: Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.


If we see additional violations we will close the thread permanently before it becomes a stumbling block.



Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Thank you for your cooperation.

In Christ,
Erin W.

[arunma]

Yes, Paul is aware of his inspiration it would seem. Is the phrase Tonks referred to saying that those who recognized the canon had a type of inspiration also, regardless of a council or whatever? I am curious as I have never seen that phrase either.

I am interested in this process in more detail.

Ahh, but then we get into a delightfully never-ending chain of logic. Many people in the early days of Christianity published lists of the canon. So we must determine which of these people were inspired, and which weren't. But then, we would have to say that those who decided on the "correct" canon lists were themselves inspired, ad infinitum. That doesn't seem to be a very good way to understand the canonization process, especially since a few churches out there (most notably the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) have canons that differ from the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox canons somewhat.

(Yes, I do believe that there are 66 books in the Bible.)

[Jim1927]

The canon of scripture was not formed based on "inspiration" but on "witness" and continuity of thought, and the question as to relationship between the writer and the real life of Christ. You might be surprised at which books were initially rejected, or at least, held in question.

There were plenty of gnostic gospels passing around and all were eventually rejected.

Inspiration of scripture was a much later concept.

Cheers,

Jim

[JPPT1974]

There have been numerous reports on this thread. We realize that this is a hot topic, but that fact does not exuse breaking rules.




If we see additional violations we will close the thread permanently before it becomes a stumbling block.





Thank you for your cooperation.

In Christ,
Erin W.

Sorry Erin as we got carried away
It won't happen again ever!:sorry: