Landmark Baptist?

[eoe]

Shall we welcome all our Landmark Baptist friends to the AS forum?


We're not going to, as a matter of policy, make a judgement about whether or not that claim is true.

They claim succession as well.

[Wigglesworth]

Do the Landmarkists have the historic episcopate in succession from a noted bishop?

Here's the wiki text:

. . . united under the succession of the Apostles through the historic Episcopate, and united under the root of Apostolic Succession of noted Bishops and Archbishops . . .

:crossrc:

[Albion]

Shall we welcome all our Landmark Baptist friends to the AS forum?




They claim succession as well.

I believe that what Landmarkers claim is a continuous succession of Baptist communities, not bishops.

[Mary of Bethany]

I believe that what Landmarkers claim is a continuous succession of Baptist communities, not bishops.

Yes - no self-respecting Baptist would ever claim to be in Apostolic succession! :D

Mary

[Colabomb]

You arbitrarily choose which Traditions are important.

I still would like to know why you aren't keen on throwing out the Catholics for their Untraditional Belief on the papacy.

[Albion]

Yes - no self-respecting Baptist would ever claim to be in Apostolic succession! :D

Mary

Well, I think that this came up because Landmark Baptists, a small part of the Baptist spectrum, DO claim Apostolic Succession but not meaning by the term what we mean. They are merely asserting that there have always been Baptistic churches and that the Baptists are not subject to the charge, therefore, that they originate with the Reformation. "Apostolic," after all, is a word used and held in high regard by quite a few churches that do not and would not have bishops as we know them.

[Don5925]

Is there sound documentation or scholarly research to support the claim?

[Albion]

Is there sound documentation or scholarly research to support the claim?

IMO, no. I could elaborate if you wish, but my considered opinion is that the claim is badly flawed.

However, I suppose that anyone interested should consult with those who make the claim to see exactly what they offer in evidence.

[Don5925]

As I understand the definitions being used here, I would think they would be precluded. My personal standpoint is that all should be able to come, post, question, and the like, so long as it is respectful. I think issues of real presence play a part in this as well.

I am not here to converted or be converted, but I do welcome the idea of greater understanding and personal closeness. I hope that is what can come from this group, as well as a better understanding of my own faith. If not, there Law and Order reruns on that I have not seen.

Don

[WarriorAngel]

Yes - no self-respecting Baptist would ever claim to be in Apostolic succession! :D

Mary
:D
Well, I think that this came up because Landmark Baptists, a small part of the Baptist spectrum, DO claim Apostolic Succession but not meaning by the term what we mean. They are merely asserting that there have always been Baptistic churches and that the Baptists are not subject to the charge, therefore, that they originate with the Reformation. "Apostolic," after all, is a word used and held in high regard by quite a few churches that do not and would not have bishops as we know them.

I forget the author, but a man did write 'Trail of tears'.. to suggest Catholics killed off Baptists in the early Church....:holy:
But that writing was flawed since it contained absolutely no proof of any early writing to substantiate the modern claims they have for theological doctrines.
IE, they have no early church fathers, nor their wiritngs, nor a succession.

Just saying...

As I understand the definitions being used here, I would think they would be precluded. My personal standpoint is that all should be able to come, post, question, and the like, so long as it is respectful. I think issues of real presence play a part in this as well.

I am not here to converted or be converted, but I do welcome the idea of greater understanding and personal closeness. I hope that is what can come from this group, as well as a better understanding of my own faith. If not, there Law and Order reruns on that I have not seen.

Don

Make some threads so we can disclose our thoughts, and maybe thoughts of early teaching.

[Mary of Bethany]

Well, I think that this came up because Landmark Baptists, a small part of the Baptist spectrum, DO claim Apostolic Succession but not meaning by the term what we mean. They are merely asserting that there have always been Baptistic churches and that the Baptists are not subject to the charge, therefore, that they originate with the Reformation. "Apostolic," after all, is a word used and held in high regard by quite a few churches that do not and would not have bishops as we know them.

Yes, I understand. I was using "apostolic succession" as we understand it. No Baptist that I've ever known or listened to cared one whit about true apostolic succession. Yes, many Baptists do think that Christians with Baptist beliefs have always existed.

Mary

[Wigglesworth]

I forget the author, but a man did write 'Trail of tears'.. to suggest Catholics killed off Baptists in the early Church . . .

I understand that the author of that book later recanted and admitted his writing was without historical basis. Many Baptists accept the book as true, however, not having been taught that it was debunked.

[WarriorAngel]

I understand that the author of that book later recanted and admitted his writing was without historical basis. Many Baptists accept the book as true, however, not having been taught that it was debunked.

I think I heard that.

But many Baptists do not realise that. Unfortunately I did come across someone spreading this message in a former forum I frequented.

[Albion]

I understand that the author of that book later recanted and admitted his writing was without historical basis. Many Baptists accept the book as true, however, not having been taught that it was debunked.

I take it, however, that the "killing off" part was what was debunked. The notion of a continuity of Baptistic communities is something apart from that, and it's been argued in other publications.

(I still don't think that it holds up to scrutiny, but this is why people without bishops at all can say that they believe in Apostolic Succession, meaning SOMETHING characteristic of the Apostles succeeding from generation to generation to the present. Usually, it's the doctrines and practices that it is thought the Apostles held to. We however apply the term primarily to the polity.)

[eoe]

My whole point in this was that one can claim anything without having to validate it. I can say that I am a carrot but that does not make me a carrot. The landmarkists are about as apostolic as I am orange.

A claim of apostolic succession does not make for succession.

[Albion]

My whole point in this was that one can claim anything without having to validate it. I can say that I am a carrot but that does not make me a carrot. The landmarkists are about as apostolic as I am orange.

A claim of apostolic succession does not make for succession.

The discussion about the Landmarkers was for informational purposes mainly. No one here understands "Apostolic" to mean what they do, and it doesn't affect the membership of this forum in the least.

However, it's still worth being educated to the fact that some people use the term in a different way and why they do. There's no attempt on their part to say that they have Apostolic Succession in the way we define it.