In Defense of Biblical, Historical, Christianity

[RichardT]

I remember when I posted this the other time asking if there was anything wrong with it, Abbadon copy pasted certain things from wikipedia without probably without even reading the article.

The introduction is as follows :

"There is much confusion today caused by reading histories of Christianity that were written from decidedly different perspectives. It seems that many historians have written very biased histories of those early Christians that were considered enemies of the historians "Church." These biased "histories" have caused much confusion regarding the true doctrines that were held by our Christian forbears. The following is a defense of our forebears gleaned, not from the biased writings of their enemies, but from their own writings. Most of the names used to identify these early Christians were given to them by their detractors in an attempt to identify them with men, rather than with the Lord Jesus Christ. It must be understood that all who went by the names below were not always orthodox, but within the ranks of theses historical movements, the true churches of Jesus Christ were present, and the "faith once delivered unto the saints" was preserved for us today."

That is to say that if we were to judge if a certain sect was orthodox/heterothodox or unorthodox, we should read up on their sayings and historical records, not the sayings of "church" of rome historians. Even today, "church" of rome advocates like to lie about the True church of Jesus Christ, why wouldn't they have before?

Here is the full article if you would like to read it : http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0547.htm

[daveleau]

While I do not want to get into a finger pointing game regarding other Christian congregations, histories of the church are a very biased subject. I noticed this with a great deal of disappointment in my church history course in my Baptist seminary (Liberty). I wanted to hear both sides of the story of the church throughout the time of Christ until the Reformation (the timeframe of the course), yet only the negative side was shown. I learned a lot from the class, but I was a bit taken aback by the pointed negative look. Either historical stance has a different focus and bias. The key is to look objectively by noticing the trend of the history. If the negative is always ignored, or the negative is focused upon to an extreme degree, then it is better to find a better source.

One of my least favorite historical Baptist books is the Trail of Blood. As I studied the doctrines of the churches that the author links the Baptist church to in an attempt to link Baptists to some sort of Apostolic church, I found no significant doctrinal similarities. Some were regarded as outright heresies. This, to me, is the epitome of biased historical writing. These groups are the ones spoken about in the link above. I don't reference liberal writers, but people like Elwell (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology...decidedly conservative) and Justo Gonzalez (decidedly conservative historian) and the dean of Liberty Theological Seminary Graduate Programs (a decidedly conservative Baptist, and the church history professor that focused on the negatives only regarding the Catholic Church in my history class that I described in my first paragraph.)

These groups had one thing in common, they rallied against any bishop's dominance, not just the Roman bishop's. These groups did not have orthodox theologies, though. One of the best conservative sources of these groups that shows little bias is Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Baker publishers.

In Him,
Dave

[RichardT]

While I do not want to get into a finger pointing game regarding other Christian congregations, histories of the church are a very biased subject. I noticed this with a great deal of disappointment in my church history course in my Baptist seminary (Liberty). I wanted to hear both sides of the story of the church throughout the time of Christ until the Reformation (the timeframe of the course), yet only the negative side was shown. I learned a lot from the class, but I was a bit taken aback by the pointed negative look. Either historical stance has a different focus and bias. The key is to look objectively by noticing the trend of the history. If the negative is always ignored, or the negative is focused upon to an extreme degree, then it is better to find a better source.

One of my least favorite historical Baptist books is the Trail of Blood. As I studied the doctrines of the churches that the author links the Baptist church to in an attempt to link Baptists to some sort of Apostolic church, I found no significant doctrinal similarities. Some were regarded as outright heresies. This, to me, is the epitome of biased historical writing. These groups are the ones spoken about in the link above. I don't reference liberal writers, but people like Elwell (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology...decidedly conservative) and Justo Gonzalez (decidedly conservative historian) and the dean of Liberty Theological Seminary Graduate Programs (a decidedly conservative Baptist, and the church history professor that focused on the negatives only regarding the Catholic Church in my history class that I described in my first paragraph.)

These groups had one thing in common, they rallied against any bishop's dominance, not just the Roman bishop's. These groups did not have orthodox theologies, though. One of the best conservative sources of these groups that shows little bias is Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Baker publishers.

In Him,
Dave
Historic Baptists
While some call it the Landmark position, it’s actually the old historic Baptist position. “Landmarkism” is a distinct doctrinal position held by millions of Baptists concerning the commencement, constitution, commission, and continuity of the church. Four distinguishing tenets of Landmarkism are as follows:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ established the first New Testament church during His earthly ministry (Mat. 4:18, 16:18, 18:15-18; John 3:29), and churches of like precious faith and practice have existed ever since (Mat. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21).
Those religious organizations that markedly differ from the first (Baptist) church in faith and practice (different originator, doctrines, ordinances, officers, government, etc.) are not true New Testament churches, though the membership of such organizations may include some true Christians. At best, such bodies are man-made, parachurch organizations functioning without Biblical authority.
2. A church is a local, visible assembly. The Roman Catholic concoction of a visible, universal church and the Protestant conception of an invisible, universal church both go begging for Biblical support. The term “family of God” (Eph. 3:15), describes the aggregate number of all believers. Only those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour are true children of God and actual brothers and sisters in God’s family (John 1:12-13; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26,4:4-7; Eph. 1:5; I John 3:1-2).
All unregenerate individuals are children of the devil (John 8:40-44; Eph. 2:1-3; I John 3:8-10) and brothers and sisters in his diabolical family.
3. The Great Commission was given to a local church in a corporate capacity (Mat. 28:18-20).
Therefore, all matters encompassed by the Great Commission (mass evangelism, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Christian education efforts, etc.) must be administered under local church authority.
4. Although they have not always been known or recognized as such, Baptist churches have existed in principle in every century since the time of Christ.
All New Testament churches are Baptistic in form and function, if not in name. True New Testament (Baptist) churches can be identified by their consistent practice of Bible truth and by the trail of their own blood left through history by their cruel persecutors, though they themselves have never persecuted anyone.
“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” (Prov.22:28)
~ Dr. Ron Tottingham

Ephesians 3:21

[daveleau]

On a side note, the quote above exemplifies one of the major errors that is the reason the church is in decline today...lack of focus on discipleship.

Therefore, all matters encompassed by the Great Commission (mass evangelism, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Christian education efforts, etc.) must be administered under local church authority.

Above are a few aspects of making disciples, but we are called to make disciples, baptize and observe the Lord's supper. Evangelism is not making disciples, it is only the first step in a long process that goes far beyond classroom teaching (also an early initial step in discipleship training). A disciple is not someone who is saved, but one who devotes their lives to Jesus Christ and His teachings in Scripture. There are many in today's church that are saved but do not do this (see Barna's study called Growing True Disciples).

Now, I believe that the Baptist church is pretty close to the theology of the 1st Century Church, but that there is no link between this congregation today that began after the reformation and the Apostles. Our theology is similar, but there is no line back to them that is unending. There are spans where Christianity decided to focus on Scripture, but all too often, got wrapped around a disputable or minor issue and made it a central dogma (the vestiments in early Baptist theology was a major issue of debate that caused much schism) (see Meic Pearse's writing on Reformation history). The same goes for the Donatists, Novations, Montanists, etc. They tried to get back to Scripture alone, but had too many ties to things not found in Scripture to be called Baptist-precursors or orthodox.

In Him,
Dave

[HypoTypoSis]

Various views on church history are too often colored pro or con depending on each individual writer's bias; for this reason it is often helpful in putting things in a little clearer context by timelining those historical church events with contemporary secular history, frequently there is a considerable relativity present.

[greeker57married]

Historic Baptists

While some call it the Landmark position, it’s actually the old historic Baptist position. “Landmarkism” is a distinct doctrinal position held by millions of Baptists concerning the commencement, constitution, commission, and continuity of the church. Four distinguishing tenets of Landmarkism are as follows:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ established the first New Testament church during His earthly ministry (Mat. 4:18, 16:18, 18:15-18; John 3:29), and churches of like precious faith and practice have existed ever since (Mat. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21).
Those religious organizations that markedly differ from the first (Baptist) church in faith and practice (different originator, doctrines, ordinances, officers, government, etc.) are not true New Testament churches, though the membership of such organizations may include some true Christians. At best, such bodies are man-made, parachurch organizations functioning without Biblical authority.
2. A church is a local, visible assembly. The Roman Catholic concoction of a visible, universal church and the Protestant conception of an invisible, universal church both go begging for Biblical support. The term “family of God” (Eph. 3:15), describes the aggregate number of all believers. Only those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour are true children of God and actual brothers and sisters in God’s family (John 1:12-13; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26,4:4-7; Eph. 1:5; I John 3:1-2).
All unregenerate individuals are children of the devil (John 8:40-44; Eph. 2:1-3; I John 3:8-10) and brothers and sisters in his diabolical family.
3. The Great Commission was given to a local church in a corporate capacity (Mat. 28:18-20).
Therefore, all matters encompassed by the Great Commission (mass evangelism, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Christian education efforts, etc.) must be administered under local church authority.
4. Although they have not always been known or recognized as such, Baptist churches have existed in principle in every century since the time of Christ.
All New Testament churches are Baptistic in form and function, if not in name. True New Testament (Baptist) churches can be identified by their consistent practice of Bible truth and by the trail of their own blood left through history by their cruel persecutors, though they themselves have never persecuted anyone.
“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” (Prov.22:28)
~ Dr. Ron Tottingham

Ephesians 3:21

There is no historical proof for the Baptist church existing from the first century. Many of the groups put forth in the trail of blood are not baptist in many of their beliefs and practices.

[Andyman_1970]

“Landmarkism” is a distinct doctrinal position held by millions of Baptists concerning the commencement, constitution, commission, and continuity of the church.

It is also the source of some extra Biblical traditions that some Baptists choose to hold as authoritative as Scripture.............which is why I reject it.

[Andyman_1970]

Question Richard:

True New Testament (Baptist) churches can be identified by their consistent practice of Bible truth

It seems from this quote the author is implying that all "New Testament" churches are Bapist, or were Baptist. It seems he's saying that to be a "New Testament" church one needs to be Baptist.......is this the point you're trying to make?

[JacobHall86]

Every time I read one of your posts I lose a little hope for the youth of the Baptist Church. Landmarkism is retarded.

[arunma]

Every time I read one of your posts I lose a little hope for the youth of the Baptist Church. Landmarkism is retarded.

I'm far more concerned with his belief that the earth is the center of the universe, and that it neither rotates nor revolves around the Sun.

[Abbadon]

I remember when I posted this the other time asking if there was anything wrong with it, Abbadon copy pasted certain things from wikipedia without probably without even reading the article.

If you're going to talk about me behind my back, do it where I can't read it later.

Also, put things in context. Study history, then come to conclusions. I did indeed read the article you posted a link too (did you read my post beyond the wikipedia links?)

That Baptist Pillar website is not defending historical Christianity -- It would have to face history to do so. We did not come about until protestantism did, we succeeded from the Anglican church.

Groups the site claims Baptists are descended from:

-Montanists: These guys were Charismatics before Pentacostals. I'm not against (or for) that, but I've not been given any indication that you're into Charismatic worship, Rich. However, they believed thier own prophecies held more authority than those of the Apostles. They believed that if you fell from grace, you could not be redeemed.

-Novatists and Donatists: These guys believed that Christians that sacrificed to pagan deities under Roman persecution in order to survive should not be readmitted into the faith. That's why they split from the Catholic Church, simple political spite.

-British and Celtic Churches: these combined with the Catholic church after a while, and it was several centuries until the Anglican church split from the Catholic church so the king could get a divorce.

-Paulicians: these guys believe Jesus had to become God with His Baptism, and they denied the Trinity.

-Petrobrussians: Do you keep a cross? This group would have considered you an idolator. Do you keep up with the Old Testament? This group threw it out. Do you preach physical violence against Catholics? If not, you're definately not agreeing with this group. External forms of worship was also rejected by this group.

-Albigenses: Do you believe the physical world and matter were created by the devil, and that the devil is equal to God? Do you plan on leading a heavily ascetic life? If you said no to these questions, you're definately not an Albigensian.

-Waldenses and Anabaptists: these groups are the only ones that are completely orthodox and mainstream. However, the Waldenses don't use the KJV, they use a Bible they translated before King James arranged for a translation.

This website is as historical as your average neo-pagan website: it takes one or two similarities between multiple groups that do not have any connections and have plenty of differences, and say "well, that's proof they were obviously a continuation of the same group!" That's not how history works. You look at the events and the people and judge from that. Neither you, the author of that article, nor anyone else has provided evidence linking the Donatists and Novatists with the Paulicians or Albigenses.

If these groups were alive:

-your opinion of the Montanists would be no better than your opinion of Pentecostals
-your opinion of Novatists and Donatists would be the same as Lutherans or Anglicans (heck, the Lutherans split for actual theological reasons instead of political ones)
-your opinion of the Celtic Churches would be same as the Episcopal or Anglican churches
-you wouldn't know of Paulicians, you would hear about them and say "Oh, you mean Gnostics."
-What do you think of people advocate physical violence against Catholics, burn crosses because they believe that they're idols, and throw out the Old Testament? That's what you'd think of the Petrobrussians.
-Do you believe that matter and the physical world was created by the devil? Do you believe that marraige is NOT %100 OK with God? If you answered no to these questions, you're definately not an Albigensian.

The only reason I could see why you would need to cling to this site is your unreasonable fear of Catholicism. Yes, the Catholic Church during the medieval and renaissance periods had plenty of serious problems such as legalism, glossiolatry, and superstition. But they're over that now, and it's time you realize that. Yes, they do believe things you don't and follow traditions you don't understand, but they have faith in Christ, and that's what counts.

Protestantism came about because of the problems within the medieval and renaissance Catholic church. Those problems are actually more present in Protestantism now. Baptists and Anabaptists come from Protestantism. If you want to convert to a group that's as old as the Catholic Church, go Eastern Orthodox. If you want the feel of "Biblical Christianity" then go for Messianic Judaism or accept that traditions and personal philosophies do not save a person (this is not to say that Messianic Jews believe in salvation through tradition or personal philosophy instead of Christ, but they're following the oldest traditions).

If you're going to do something, DO IT! If you're going to get involved with any sort science, get your facts straight. Keep your faith, but it should interfere with interpretations of facts -- Don't believe that Atlantis existed just because a Baptist Preacher says "it did." If you're going to get involved with history, don't give any regard as to whether or not the source is a preacher or not -- What matters is how much evidence they can produce, how many older accounts they can produce, and how reasonable thier interpretations of these accounts it. Landmarkism does not produce a darn bit of evidence and is only necessary if you believe we're saved by traditions instead of Christ.

[arunma]

If you're going to talk about me behind my back, do it where I can't read it later.

Also, put things in context. Study history, then come to conclusions. I did indeed read the article you posted a link too (did you read my post beyond the wikipedia links?)

That Baptist Pillar website is not defending historical Christianity -- It would have to face history to do so. We did not come about until protestantism did, we succeeded from the Anglican church.

Groups the site claims Baptists are descended from:

-Montanists: These guys were Charismatics before Pentacostals. I'm not against (or for) that, but I've not been given any indication that you're into Charismatic worship, Rich. However, they believed thier own prophecies held more authority than those of the Apostles. They believed that if you fell from grace, you could not be redeemed.

-Novatists and Donatists: These guys believed that Christians that sacrificed to pagan deities under Roman persecution in order to survive should not be readmitted into the faith. That's why they split from the Catholic Church, simple political spite.

-British and Celtic Churches: these combined with the Catholic church after a while, and it was several centuries until the Anglican church split from the Catholic church so the king could get a divorce.

-Paulicians: these guys believe Jesus had to become God with His Baptism, and they denied the Trinity.

-Petrobrussians: Do you keep a cross? This group would have considered you an idolator. Do you keep up with the Old Testament? This group threw it out. Do you preach physical violence against Catholics? If not, you're definately not agreeing with this group. External forms of worship was also rejected by this group.

-Albigenses: Do you believe the physical world and matter were created by the devil, and that the devil is equal to God? Do you plan on leading a heavily ascetic life? If you said no to these questions, you're definately not an Albigensian.

-Waldenses and Anabaptists: these groups are the only ones that are completely orthodox and mainstream. However, the Waldenses don't use the KJV, they use a Bible they translated before King James arranged for a translation.

This website is as historical as your average neo-pagan website: it takes one or two similarities between multiple groups that do not have any connections and have plenty of differences, and say "well, that's proof they were obviously a continuation of the same group!" That's not how history works. You look at the events and the people and judge from that. Neither you, the author of that article, nor anyone else has provided evidence linking the Donatists and Novatists with the Paulicians or Albigenses.

If these groups were alive:

-your opinion of the Montanists would be no better than your opinion of Pentecostals
-your opinion of Novatists and Donatists would be the same as Lutherans or Anglicans (heck, the Lutherans split for actual theological reasons instead of political ones)
-your opinion of the Celtic Churches would be same as the Episcopal or Anglican churches
-you wouldn't know of Paulicians, you would hear about them and say "Oh, you mean Gnostics."
-What do you think of people advocate physical violence against Catholics, burn crosses because they believe that they're idols, and throw out the Old Testament? That's what you'd think of the Petrobrussians.
-Do you believe that matter and the physical world was created by the devil? Do you believe that marraige is NOT %100 OK with God? If you answered no to these questions, you're definately not an Albigensian.

The only reason I could see why you would need to cling to this site is your unreasonable fear of Catholicism. Yes, the Catholic Church during the medieval and renaissance periods had plenty of serious problems such as legalism, glossiolatry, and superstition. But they're over that now, and it's time you realize that. Yes, they do believe things you don't and follow traditions you don't understand, but they have faith in Christ, and that's what counts.

Protestantism came about because of the problems within the medieval and renaissance Catholic church. Those problems are actually more present in Protestantism now. Baptists and Anabaptists come from Protestantism. If you want to convert to a group that's as old as the Catholic Church, go Eastern Orthodox. If you want the feel of "Biblical Christianity" then go for Messianic Judaism or accept that traditions and personal philosophies do not save a person (this is not to say that Messianic Jews believe in salvation through tradition or personal philosophy instead of Christ, but they're following the oldest traditions).

If you're going to do something, DO IT! If you're going to get involved with any sort science, get your facts straight. Keep your faith, but it should interfere with interpretations of facts -- Don't believe that Atlantis existed just because a Baptist Preacher says "it did." If you're going to get involved with history, don't give any regard as to whether or not the source is a preacher or not -- What matters is how much evidence they can produce, how many older accounts they can produce, and how reasonable thier interpretations of these accounts it. Landmarkism does not produce a darn bit of evidence and is only necessary if you believe we're saved by traditions instead of Christ.
Very well said Abbadon.

[JPPT1974]

Very well said Abbadon.

I second that too Abbadon
As you seem to be a student of
Thelogy the way you had that down pact!:thumbsup:

[Andyman_1970]

The only reason I could see why you would need to cling to this site is your unreasonable fear of Catholicism. Yes, the Catholic Church during the medieval and renaissance periods had plenty of serious problems such as legalism, glossiolatry, and superstition. But they're over that now, and it's time you realize that. Yes, they do believe things you don't and follow traditions you don't understand, but they have faith in Christ, and that's what counts.

Protestantism came about because of the problems within the medieval and renaissance Catholic church. Those problems are actually more present in Protestantism now. Baptists and Anabaptists come from Protestantism. If you want to convert to a group that's as old as the Catholic Church, go Eastern Orthodox. If you want the feel of "Biblical Christianity" then go for Messianic Judaism or accept that traditions and personal philosophies do not save a person (this is not to say that Messianic Jews believe in salvation through tradition or personal philosophy instead of Christ, but they're following the oldest traditions).

If you're going to do something, DO IT! If you're going to get involved with any sort science, get your facts straight. Keep your faith, but it should interfere with interpretations of facts -- Don't believe that Atlantis existed just because a Baptist Preacher says "it did." If you're going to get involved with history, don't give any regard as to whether or not the source is a preacher or not -- What matters is how much evidence they can produce, how many older accounts they can produce, and how reasonable thier interpretations of these accounts it. Landmarkism does not produce a darn bit of evidence and is only necessary if you believe we're saved by traditions instead of Christ.

PREACH IT BROTHA..................

Very, very well said.

Oh and Richard, I'll mirror what Abbadon said, if you want to practice Christianity like the orginal 11 disciples did, I would suggest you memorize the first five books of the Bible, observe the Jewish feasts, go to church on Saturday and observe a Sabbath, observe the Mosaic dietary laws, and wear a Jewish prayer shawl.

[Phileoeklogos]

Questions for Richard T.,

Why is Landmarkism important to you? Are you a Baptist because of what you believe to be Baptist historicity, or are you a Baptist because what you find in Scripture? What changes if any would you make if you decided that Landmarkism was incorrect? Lastly have you taken your own advice and sought to find out what these groups believed and practiced?

Phil

[RichardT]

I've studied the Montanists a little but, and I can tell you that the cases of herecy are from unreliable scources.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_montanism.html

[Abbadon]

Unrealiable sources? If you mean by reliable you mean "made up to fulfill a political agenda out of irrational fear," then yes, the sources that say many of those groups were heretics are unreliable.

BTW, I didn't say outright the Montanists were heretics. Although I don't participate in charismatic worship, I don't have a problem if it gets someone else closer to God. However, when something in that time was made up against a political enemy, it was never something small like "they valued thier prophecies over those of the Apostles," political enemies were attacked through rumors like "they eat Christian babies!" When something was made up to attack a group, it was aleays outlandish.

[JacobHall86]

When something was made up to attack a group, it was aleays outlandish.

Like landmarkism to discredit the RCC?

[Abbadon]

I don't follow.

Do you mean "Oooh, Catholics are evil" is made up by Landmarkism for thier own ends, in that it is outlandish claim? They're not the first, but it's certainly plausible.

[JacobHall86]

Yes, thats what I mean. The idea of Landmarkism was made up after people started to fear/hate the RCC and made it up so they could try and discredit it. You cant believe in landmarkism and not hate the RCC, its not possible.

[arunma]

Yes, thats what I mean. The idea of Landmarkism was made up after people started to fear/hate the RCC and made it up so they could try and discredit it. You cant believe in landmarkism and not hate the RCC, its not possible.

Very true. Granted, the RCC is wrong on a lot of important doctrines. But true doctrine must be founded on the Bible, not on an irrational fear of Catholics.

[Phileoeklogos]

Richard,

I read the article that you linked to, I hope that it's not the totality of your research on the Montanists, but I will agree with you that when you read history, that you should be careful of your sources, and try to find sources that are removed from the arguement.

Now here's my take on Landmarkism, I don't find it to be true, I believe it's a 19th century idea based on not very well done research, it reminds me alot of the tired old laundry list people pull out on the internet every time someone tries to show the historicity of the tongues movement.

That being said, what if the Landmarkist view is true? What does it really prove? I don't think it proves or matters in the least, Why?, because a true church is not built upon historical lineage, no more than I'm a christian because my ancestors were. The only connection that matters is the connection to Christ, here and now, we should learn from the past, but the past is the past, and one of the great things about the Christian faith is the direct connection we have with Jesus, historicity, ethinticity, social standing, etc, etc, etc... don't
help or hinder that connection one iota.

So if the Baptist church has been around 2,000 yrs, or 2,000 days what does it matter, if the Baptist church today is not built upon Christ, a long lineage is worthless..................

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by JacobHall86 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=29319394#post29319394)
Yes, thats what I mean. The idea of Landmarkism was made up after people started to fear/hate the RCC and made it up so they could try and discredit it. You cant believe in landmarkism and not hate the RCC, its not possible.


But true doctrine must be founded on the Bible, not on an irrational fear

Burning alive, hanging, head chopping, whatever the means is an excellent inducement for fear but it can hardly be considered irrational just as the refusing to sell indulgences thereby instilling fear of one's eternal state can hardly be regarded as irrational despite however scripturally illogical the foundational evidences may be since in both instances the objective was to A) control the masses and B) insure the income of the church's coffers. Now THAT, from a strictly Christian point of view, is MOST irrational as it is entirely worldly, even One Worldly, in its perpsective. Like it or not, unfortunately, that is historically undeniable fact and truth from both secular as well as church histories.

As an aside, I am quite taken aback by the sudden shift from the logical to the emotional POV favored by many hereoflate. This is MOST seemingly anti-Christian and strongly a worldy new age approach in the sentiment change. Essential Christianity is not based on emotional issues despite the fact that other religions are strongly in favor of such. It would be nice if someone would explain this sudden and radical positional shift in policy.

[Abbadon]

Burning alive, hanging, head chopping, whatever the means is an excellent inducement for fear but it can hardly be considered irrational just as the refusing to sell indulgences thereby instilling fear of one's eternal state can hardly be regarded as irrational despite however scripturally illogical the foundational evidences may be since in both instances the objective was to A) control the masses and B) insure the income of the church's coffers.

The irrational fear refered to was the Landmarkists' irrational fear of Catholicism.

Like it or not, unfortunately, that is historically undeniable fact and truth from both secular as well as church histories.

Sure, the medieval Catholic church did some mean stuff. But how long ago was it that they did that? Are we adhereing to the idea of 'once a bedwetter always a bedwetter'...?

As an aside, I am quite taken aback by the sudden shift from the logical to the emotional POV favored by many hereoflate. This is MOST seemingly anti-Christian and strongly a worldy new age approach in the sentiment change. Essential Christianity is not based on emotional issues despite the fact that other religions are strongly in favor of such. It would be nice if someone would explain this sudden and radical positional shift in policy.

Yet most of the reasoning behind Landmarkism is emotional -- 'We don't wanna be descended from Catholics!'

How it is anti-Christian to affirm that we're saved by Christ instead of tradition? That's what the NT kind of points at. Is the New Testament New Age and Anti-Christian?

[JPPT1974]

Very true. Granted, the RCC is wrong on a lot of important doctrines. But true doctrine must be founded on the Bible, not on an irrational fear of Catholics.

:amen: :amen:

[DeaconDean]

In seminary, I took a class entitled "The History of Christianity." In it, it is interesting that one learns the beliefs of the "Christians" of the first century are similar to ours today, but by the same token, they are very different. The "Baptist" tradition as we have it today, comes to use not only from Martin Luthers work, but from Ulrich Zwingly in 1519 during the Swiss Reformation. It is here that the roots of Anabaptists started. We owe all that we are today to pioneers such as these men, and the early Anabaptist church. It wasn't until later in history that Baptist and Anabaptists separated. In America they became known as General Baptists and Particular Baptists. And it is pretty easy to deduce what each one believed from their names.

There is a very good outline of how Baptists/Anabaptists came into existance here:

http://www.reformedreader.org/btimline.htm

Please take the time to at least look at it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[HypoTypoSis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis
Burning alive, hanging, head chopping, whatever the means is an excellent inducement for fear but it can hardly be considered irrational just as the refusing to sell indulgences thereby instilling fear of one's eternal state can hardly be regarded as irrational despite however scripturally illogical the foundational evidences may be since in both instances the objective was to A) control the masses and B) insure the income of the church's coffers.

The irrational fear refered to was the Landmarkists' irrational fear of Catholicism.

Under the circumstances of the time it is questionable that is could be called irrational.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis
Like it or not, unfortunately, that is historically undeniable fact and truth from both secular as well as church histories.

Sure, the medieval Catholic church did some mean stuff. But how long ago was it that they did that? Are we adhereing to the idea of 'once a bedwetter always a bedwetter'...?

One does not need to come as far into the present as the Middle Ages to see the where the mean stuff started. the latter 200's and early 300's saw much that the Midieval period would pale against. For both Christian and Jew.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis
As an aside, I am quite taken aback by the sudden shift from the logical to the emotional POV favored by many hereoflate. This is MOST seemingly anti-Christian and strongly a worldy new age approach in the sentiment change. Essential Christianity is not based on emotional issues despite the fact that other religions are strongly in favor of such. It would be nice if someone would explain this sudden and radical positional shift in policy.

Yet most of the reasoning behind Landmarkism is emotional -- 'We don't wanna be descended from Catholics!'

The reference was to this board.

Is the New Testament New Age and Anti-Christian?

That depends entirely on which version you are looking at at the moment.

[HypoTypoSis]

In seminary, I took a class entitled "The History of Christianity." In it, it is interesting that one learns the beliefs of the "Christians" of the first century are similar to ours today, but by the same token, they are very different. The "Baptist" tradition as we have it today, comes to use not only from Martin Luthers work, but from Ulrich Zwingly in 1519 during the Swiss Reformation. It is here that the roots of Anabaptists started. We owe all that we are today to pioneers such as these men, and the early Anabaptist church. It wasn't until later in history that Baptist and Anabaptists separated. In America they became known as General Baptists and Particular Baptists. And it is pretty easy to deduce what each one believed from their names.

There is a very good outline of how Baptists/Anabaptists came into existance here:

http://www.reformedreader.org/btimline.htm

Please take the time to at least look at it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Indeed, Zwingli and Bullinger were a pair in their own class.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahshua, it is written, did not say to fear, but to beware the hypocrisy[falseness,lies] (of religious teachers, scholars, priests, pastors, leaders)

[HypoTypoSis]

OP link QUOTE:"Conclusion
From the earliest days of the first century until today, there has always been a representative people who held to the true doctrines of the Word of God, and thus represented the true New Testament church. We, as Baptists, are not protestants, reformed, or something new that arose in the 16th or 17th century. We are an ancient people, following the precepts of the Lord, in a 'trail of blood' that leads from the time of Christ's earthly ministry down through the ages until today. That is our Baptist Heritage. Think about it." END QUOTE


somebody is sure full of wishfull thinking, eh ?

i would agree.

I think the only well known public figures that have published works that correctly expose the true and false are watchman nee and richard wurmbrand.. that's all i can think of right at the moment. bullinger did well on much, but also had some very major prejudices that require great caution when reading his studies. nee and wurmbrand can both be read wholeheartedly, fully tested in life, dying to self, living Messiahs Life and not their own, and are most rarely and exceptionally reliable [still , test everything].

Back in the 80's I read, I believe, most everything Watchman Nee had written. I like a lot of what he has to say and he was, doubtless, a most sincere and devout individual. One thing I couldn't agree with, however, was the Oriental roots of his Universalist based thinking regarding the tripartite nature of man. Indeed, those that read his works come away with a deep spiritual feeling but this is emotionalism devoid of sound scriptural reasoning. Each of his books are progressively conjoined and impart successive new "truths" that are the result of specific people that influenced him in the interim between publications.

From his filling of the spirit experience to baptized in the spirit to his perfectionsit theology to his partial rapture theory, all these came about as a result of other people's influence on him prior to his writing of these issues. The works of a Methodist mystic, Jesse Penn Lewis, lent heavily to Nee's Spiritual Man series and it was here he developed a Gnostic view, and from Guyon he picked up on Catholic mysticism. From Darby he got his foundational ecclesiology regarding the church-in fact, all his works are easily traced to the Plymouth Brethren. He continually objected to and rejected authority of the church and other forms of outside responsibility claiming instead that only by internal and intuitive leadings can man know God's will and purpose. All in all his writings amount to little more than reducing the scriptures to a humanist view of philosophy.

A FEW of the problems with why Nee's writings are a danger for Christians: (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n01.html)





Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics. In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru.
One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, "Words alone cannot be considered God's Word." In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the "reality behind it," using what he calls "Holy Spirit memory" and "presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words" will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real.
Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "the Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continues, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, our words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210, that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous.
Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving "revelations" in his "Holy Spirit memory" and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a "Holy Spirit memory."
When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/w17.html), The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f07.html) and other groups (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40.html). The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee.

[JacobHall86]

In seminary, I took a class entitled "The History of Christianity." In it, it is interesting that one learns the beliefs of the "Christians" of the first century are similar to ours today, but by the same token, they are very different. The "Baptist" tradition as we have it today, comes to use not only from Martin Luthers work, but from Ulrich Zwingly in 1519 during the Swiss Reformation. It is here that the roots of Anabaptists started. We owe all that we are today to pioneers such as these men, and the early Anabaptist church. It wasn't until later in history that Baptist and Anabaptists separated. In America they became known as General Baptists and Particular Baptists. And it is pretty easy to deduce what each one believed from their names.

There is a very good outline of how Baptists/Anabaptists came into existance here:

http://www.reformedreader.org/btimline.htm

Please take the time to at least look at it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Zwingli was awesome. Burned Organs, I really dont like the Organ.

[HypoTypoSis]

Everything of Nee's that I read were strictly Nee, I'm not even sure those other folks you mention were in existence at the time, iae, what I read was Nee and had nothing to do with those other folk.

Considering his past, turning on his avowed beliefs in favor of his inherited business, time spent in prison and, most definitely, the country all this took place in, it is exceedingly doubtful, being as isolated as he was, that he had a clear understanding of just what a 'normal church' is or should be (as though anyone can truly answer that!). His surrounding influences were great, the culture and times were even greater and they were, no doubt, influenced his understanding and, resultantly, his writings, as well.

[RichardT]

we kind of went off topic...