Home » Posts tagged 'ecclesiology'
Tag Archives: ecclesiology
The Post Text and Version Debate Attack on the Thomas Ross “Landmark” Ecclesiology
On February 18, 2023, when Thomas Ross debated James White on the superiority of the KJV and its underlying text to the LSV and its underlying text, I was overseas. I got back to the United States yesterday. After the debate, I tried to find information about it, and could find very little to none. As of right now, I have watched a short interview someone made with Thomas Ross and a five minute criticism by James White on his dividing line program.
Criticism of Thomas Ross in the Debate
Most of the combined time of the two critical pieces after the debate dealt with one thing Thomas Ross said after the debate (not during). Thomas said he was Landmark (watch here). I don’t have a problem with his calling himself “Landmark.” It wasn’t wrong. I would not have done it in an interview, but I am glad Thomas stands by what he believes on this.
In his five minute critique of Thomas Ross on his Dividing Line, James White attacks the style of Brother Ross (between 8:45 and about 15:00). He mocks Thomas in in an insulting way for more than half his five to seven minutes because he talked too fast and used too many powerpoint slides.
All the while, in his inimitable way James White praises both his own style and his own humility. In hindsight, White should win because he used less slides and related to his audience better, not because he made better points or told the truth. Is this the standard for a debate? I haven’t seen the debate, but it would not surprise me if Thomas could have communicated better, but in the end, was he telling the truth? Did he make arguments that White did not answer and did he answer or refute White’s arguments?
Landmark?
White took a shot at Thomas Ross for being Landmark. He does not deal with it substantively, which is quite normal for White. He uses it to smear Thomas Ross. This is a debate technique often used by White.
The man, who interviewed Thomas Ross, asks him about Athanasius not using 1 John 5:7. Thomas gives a good answer. As a part of the answer, Thomas distinguishes Athanasius as state church. Since Thomas had likely just promoted a position on the church keeping God’s Words, he did not espouse Roman Catholic Athanasius as a true church.
As a separate point, is White right that Landmarkism is a flawed historical position? In his twitter feed, White says:
I wish I had known about the Landmarkism as it would have clarified a few statements in the debate. Landmarkism is without merit, historically speaking, of course.
Knowing Thomas was Landmark would not have changed the debate on the preservation of scripture. It wouldn’t.
No Issue
I get along well on the preservation issue with people who take another ecclesiological position than I do. I and others can separate this line to keep what we have in common. The confessional position of the reformed Baptists and Presbyterians says that God used the church to keep or acknowledge the canonicity of the New Testament text. Its adherents would say, “God used the church to keep His Words.” I would say, “God used the church to keep His Words.”
The reformed and Presbyterian both say the true church is universal. I say it is local. They say all believers kept God’s Words. I say, true churches, which believe in regenerate membership, kept God’s Words. This difference does not change what we believe on preservation. It would influence a debate about the nature of the church, which isn’t the debate here.
Neither James White nor any one else since the debate has explained why Landmarkism has no merit. The ex cathedra speech of White gives him his only authority. White clarifies that Landmarkism has no merit, ‘historically speaking.’ That is the most common criticism against Landmarkism. It can’t be proven historically. This parallels with White’s main criticism of the preservation of scripture. It can’t be proven historically. Does that make what God says in his Word, not true?
If we can’t prove the doctrine of justification historically, does that nullify justification?
Historicism
God does not require anyone to prove a position is historically superior. That itself is a position without merit. White selectively supports historicism when it is convenient for him. God didn’t promise to preserve history. The true position is not the one with the most historical evidence.
However, as a matter of faith, we look to history. We look to see God doing what He said He would do. We don’t have to prove He did something in every moment of every day of every year that He said He would. Historicism parallels with so-called science (cf. 1 Tim 6:20). Science cannot prove a universal negative. Roman Catholicism burned and destroyed the historical evidence of other positions. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1).
True Churches, Not Athanasius
Foundational to Landarkism is the perpetuity of the church. God works through true churches. True churches always existed throughout history separate from the state church. Since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, we trust those churches above the state church. With that as his position, Thomas Ross in part says that he respects the Waldensian text above the work of Athanasius.
We can enjoy good work from Athanasius without looking to him as a primary source. I agree with Thomas Ross. We can quote the verbiage of Athanasius to show an old defense of the deity of Christ. He is helpful in that way. No one should give too much credit to him. He was not part of the pillar and ground of the truth.
I would gladly debate James White on the text of scripture, the doctrine of preservation, or on the nature of the church. To win the debate, of course I would need to use less powerpoint slides than he and interact with my audience in a helpful way after the supreme model of James White. James White though not the pillar and ground of the truth is at least the pillar and ground of debate style.
Local Only Ecclesiology and Historical Theology
My graduate school required a large amount of theology, which included the branch of historical theology. Before I took the class, I must admit, I had not thought much about the category. I know men introduced historical theology to me at different times and varied manners in other classes, but it became important to me at that time between the ages of 22 and 25 years. Now when I listen to a presentation of a position, I want to hear its history for good and biblical reasons.
I know I’m writing on this subject because of an article I read today (as I first write this), called, “Five Reasons Historical Theology Is Necessary for the Local Church.” The man who wrote it is not local church. I would point out to you, if someone uses “local church” language, he may believe in two churches, universal and local, rather than the biblical one church, which is local only. However, churches need historical theology. They need to know that churches always believed what they believed, because it is the truth. Caleb Lenard in the article gives good reasons.
Examples for Historical Theology
A strong argument for perfect preservation of scripture in the original languages comes from historical theology. Christians believed this doctrine, as read in historical confessions of faith. In a theological way, no one has yet upended that position on preservation. Since this is what Christians have believed, you could call a change, heresy. A new position on the preservation of scripture diverges off the already established belief.
Sometimes I hear the language, “the reformed doctrine of justification.” Did the doctrine of justification originate with the Protestant Reformation? I don’t believe that. Maybe they dusted it off or took it out of the trash bin, but men kept believing it or else no one was saved not long after the advent of the Roman Catholic Church.
Is local only ecclesiology also historical theology? Christians do not have to prove that a majority of believers received and propagated local only ecclesiology. If it is true, scriptural doctrine, then believers should reveal its history, tell the historical story of local only ecclesiology. It is also helpful to show how that other ecclesiology diverged from the path of truth, if local only ecclesiology is true.
Historical Ecclesiology
I would like those with a different ecclesiology to consider the historical problem of a catholic ecclesiology and the bad consequences too. Roman Catholicism affected corrupt thinking on the doctrine of justification and many other doctrines. That did not disconnect with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Correcting justification and not rectifying the other corrupted doctrines still leaves churches with much bad doctrine. This dishonors God and hurts many people.
Men often will not say, perhaps because they don’t know, that their doctrine is Roman Catholic. They don’t teach the false gospel of Roman Catholicism, but they teach other false doctrines. Those false doctrines lead back to a false gospel. One Roman Catholic doctrine accepted is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church. Catholic church is universal church. That ecclesiology, a false one, spread in a widespread way to Christians.
Some of you reading right now are nodding your head, “no.” Back and forth, maybe smirking, rolling the eyes. Maybe. Just think about it though. Did you get your ecclesiology from Roman Catholicism? What kind of effect does that have for your life, others’ lives, and for all the other doctrines?
On the other hand, did I get my ecclesiology from mid 19th century landmarkists (see this series, and this one)? Everyone had believed in catholic ecclesiology (just like they denied justification before) up to that point. Local only ecclesiology then arose as a knee jerk reaction from J. R. Graves and Baptists in America. They didn’t like the ecumenism spreading among Southern Baptists, so they invented the local only position to combat it. Is that what happened instead? What is it about Baptists that made them in particular prey in a widespread way to a teaching that the church was only local, never universal?
Catholic Ecclesiology
I wouldn’t believe the local only position if I thought it originated among 19th century Baptists in America. Instead, I believe that looking in the Bible and also tracing history of doctrine supports something different. The universal church view grew from seeds of neo-platonism previous to Constantine and took hold as the predominant ecclesiology only with the state church in the 4th century. The Catholic Church persecuted churches separate from the state church. Those churches existed and they believed the church was local, not universal.
A platonic system of theology, Origen’s allegorical or spiritualizing system, affected everything in the Roman Catholic Church. Sprinkling of infants proceeded from this. A corrupt human priesthood arose. Amillennialism, the view that the kingdom was the Roman Catholic Church, took hold. Hierarchical church government became the norm. Tradition took prominence. The Pope. Transubstantiation.
Roman Catholicism and universal ecclesiology led to the dark ages. It caused regression or glacially slow progress in measurements of living standards. Most people stayed stupid for a long time because of Roman Catholic ecclesiology now embraced by many professing Christians. Satan used it greatly. The Protestant Reformation did not correct all that Roman Catholicism ruined. It embraced or absorbed Roman Catholic ecclesiology and eschatology with few exceptions.
Consequential Regression
Byproduct of Roman Catholic Ecclesiology
Even if there is notable minute progress to which someone might point in correct thinking about issues of life, it is an exception. It is usually a few bright spots mixed into still astounding darkness. Useful scientific discovery overall, subduing and having dominion, came to a stop for over a thousand years because of Roman Catholicism. Wherever it spread, such as Central and South America, left its destructive nature.
Everywhere the Roman Catholic Church took hold still continues a worse place to live because of its influence. It is a byproduct of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, that can’t be separated from its system of interpretation. As I say that, anticipating this argument, I understand that forms of paganism like animism also left the culture in ruins. It wasn’t much worse than Roman Catholicism, and I compare the consequences to biblical Christianity in contrast.
Still today people think “Christian” means Roman Catholic. Evangelicalism is a branch off a Catholic root in the mind of the general population. Every Christian then becomes responsible for the crusades, the inquisition, the conquistadores, feudalism, a flat earth, religious wars, and widespread poverty.
Once the hold of Roman Catholicism was broken, including Catholic state church ideology, the freedom brought astounding progress. People don’t trace that to ecclesiology or even talk about it in history classes, but it is true. When Warren Buffet says that John Rockefeller did not live as well as Buffet’s middle class neighbors, this relates to progress arising from the downfall of a state church.
Wreaking Havoc
The ecclesiology of Roman Catholicism, however, still continues, reeking its havoc everywhere. Globalism itself and its damage comes from Roman Catholic ecclesiology. It is a utopian, universalist concept, that first existed in Roman Catholicism. It stems from the mystical, spiritualistic, and allegorical system of Roman Catholicism.
A religious grounding from the system of Roman Catholicism continues in leftist thinking, which spreads utopian thinking, exerting power over individuals. It has the capacity to return the world to neo-feudalism and another dark age. None of this is true. The trajectory of the American colonies and the first one hundred fifty years of American history changed the world by overturning the influence of universal church doctrine. A nation begins to suffer as it welcomes it back.
I have written about the founding of catholic ecclesiology, the universal church doctrine, many times here (here, here, here, here, and here among other places). I have also written about the history and biblical doctrine of local only ecclesiology, offering that position (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and see these two on English separatism–here and here).
Because of the dominance of a universal church through history through the Roman Catholic Church, in comparison not much local only material exists. The winners told the story. They could destroy anything that countered their viewpoint. You hopefully know the same practice occurs today in almost every institution. Some call the falsehoods, fake news. It is revisionist history based on a system of interpretation similar to what hatched Roman Catholicism.
More to Come
Debunking of Nine Marks Dual Church View: Both Universal and Local Churches, Part Three
Nowhere does scripture make a connection between an earthly church and then a final heavenly church. Neoplatonic Christianity or professing Christianity invented this idea, one borrowed by Jonathan Leeman in his article, The Church: Universal and Local, for the 9 Marks parachurch organization. A believer in a salvific way has a citizenship in heaven and has a seat in heaven in the sense that God reserved it for him, which is like someone seated in Congress without physically being there. Because He saved me and keeps saving me, Jesus anchors me in the heavenly holy of holies. The seating of me and the anchoring of me there does not mean I am there in the present. It is a blessed guarantee of my salvation.
Universal church ecclesiology uses neoplatonic language. It says the true church is all believers, the apparent “universal church,” which manifests itself in a visible church, the local one. It finds reality in the ideal or the mystical. Leeman says the universal church becomes local by gathering. A church is a gathering. A gathering doesn’t become a gathering by gathering. The not-gathered thing is not a gathering. This is also how all of the New Testament reads. It’s not called a gathering or an assembly when it doesn’t assemble. It isn’t an assembly then. The only reason why Leeman talks about the church as universal comes from neoplatonism.
Jonathan Leeman writes a unique ecclesiology. The dual church view isn’t unique, but his attempt to keep an attachment to the literal meaning of ekklesia, “assembly.” 9 Marks and he see the damage of the typical universal church teaching, that becomes easily untethered from the biblical practice of the church, which is only local. The typical universal church teaching creates free agents without accountability, living how they want yet continuing to call themselves Christians.
The attempt to keep congruity between assembly and universal church keeps Leeman in the mainstream of evangelicalism, which loves its universal church. It keeps alive a multitude of boards, conventions, associations, colleges, universities, and other parachurch organizations. Someone can live and work in that parachurch world as if it is Christian ministry without anything like it in the Bible. It is unhelpful, but mainly untrue. Whatever kingdom-like quality Leeman wants to attribute to the church, the mixture of the universal undermines the authority that the kingdom of Jesus Christ possesses.
As one might expect, Leeman’s system of interpretation effects his outcome. He fails to mention, however, his system — amillennialism. That system must see a universal church, which is a synonym with the kingdom. It erases a line between soteriology and ecclesiology. It results in reading his conclusions into scripture.
A Kingdom Argument
Leeman uses a doctrine of the kingdom to argue for a universal church. Some truth exists within the framework of his argument. As a representative of His church, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16:18-19. That does not mean the church is the kingdom, which emerges from amillennialism, an eschatology of Roman Catholicism and Capital Hill Baptist Church, Mark Dever, and 9 Marks. The church and the kingdom interrelate like the church and the family of God do.
Leeman says the church provides the way to say who citizens of the kingdom are. He compares church membership to the means of possessing the passport into the kingdom. To know who they are, Leeman postulates baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the means. He says these are covenant signs of the new covenant, so they express the entrance requirements into the kingdom. Nothing in the Bible says this. It is nifty inventiveness to attempt to prove a point, while having nothing to do so. It’s another way of my saying that it’s a stretch by Leeman.
The article further argues the kingdom/church concept with the language of “binding” and “loosing” in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. Churches are doing kingdom work. They are not the kingdom. They represent the kingdom on earth. God gives the church — churches — heavenly authority to judge who is in and who is out. I’m sure that Leeman knows that doesn’t mean that the church kicks people out of heaven or out of the kingdom.
Jesus characterizes the extent of the judgment of the church in Matthew 18:17, “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” The church regards a person as heathen. He may not be heathen. The man under church discipline in 1 Corinthians 5 proved himself to be a kingdom citizen, even though the church loosed him. The Lord Jesus Christ gives to the church, which is visible and local, the earthly judgment of heavenly or kingdom citizenship.
It’s true that someone, who isn’t baptized, doesn’t take of the Lord’s Table, won’t join a church, doesn’t submit to church leadership, and won’t gather with a church, the church should judge as not saved. Christ gave that judgment to the church. This doesn’t mean the church is the kingdom. It’s been given the authority of the kingdom. The King of the kingdom is Christ and the Head of the church is Christ.
The Bible offers a distinct soteriology and a distinct ecclesiology. They are distinct doctrines. However, they also relate to one another. Church membership requires salvation. However, it also requires baptism. Baptism isn’t salvation. It isn’t a “putting away of the filth of the flesh” (1 Pet 3:21). According to the New Testament, a church can have unbelievers in it, a mixed multitude, and will very often have unsaved church members, who should examine themselves whether they be in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). Most reading here know that church membership is not the same as salvation.
Terminology like church, temple, and body relate to the church. Words like kingdom, family, and saint relate to salvation. You can be in the kingdom, family, and a saint without baptism. To be in the church, temple, and body, you must be baptized. Scripture shows some relationship between terms of the church and of salvation. However, Leeman takes this further than what scripture teaches in order to vindicate his false universal church teaching.
Historical Argument
Leeman attempts to justify the universal church with a historical argument, using the patristics and the Protestant Reformers. He portrays a pendulum swing between an emphasis on the local church then the universal church and then back to the local church, meanwhile both churches existing with his dual church view. He writes the following:
Yet among Baptist groups the risk now would be to shift the weight of the body entirely onto the other foot, where Christians would give all their attention to the local church and little to the universal. Certain strains of Baptist churches, such as the Landmarkists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, would in fact argue that only the local church exists. They would also refuse to share the Lord’s Supper with anyone who was not a member of their own church. Gratefully, such strains were rare.
He charges Baptists with overemphasis on the local church, especially those he calls and others label, “Landmarkists.” He attacks closed communion, unwillingness to share the Lord’s Supper with someone not a member of his church. I would contend that the Landmarkists brought ecclesiology back to scripture and communion back to its “communion of the Lord’s body,” which is local only. Christ gave communion to His church, which is local only.
The Landmarkers rose out of the Southern Baptist Convention, when Protestants shared their pulpits and partook in their communion. Baptists distinguish themselves as separatists. They separate from false doctrine such as infant sprinkling. Further, Southern Baptists allowed modernism or liberalism into the churches and rejected church perpetuity in their seminaries, leading to ecumenism. Landmarkers brought the Convention back to scripture and historic Baptist doctrines.
Leeman uses a kind of smear tactic, because his knowing what readers may have heard about Landmarkism. It’s like calling someone “flat earth” or “election denier.” It’s a rhetorical tactic. It doesn’t make a true historical or biblical point. He assumes people will think Landmarkism is bad, so they’ll associate local only ecclesiology then as bad too.
I agree that men through history believed in a local church, a universal church, in only a local church, and in both a local and a universal church. You can find all of those ecclesiological positions through history. However, we know a church is local. Where is the universal church in scripture and did it develop through history? Did it arise from neoplatonism?
Forced Universal with It “Showing Up”
Leeman says the universal church shows up in churches, which are local. He says that happens when churches cooperate with another in common service or labor for the Lord. Yes, churches all have the same Head if they are true churches. That doesn’t make a universal church. It is a generic church. It is an institutional understanding of church. Each true church has Christ as its head. This is not the discovery of or a doctrine of a universal church.
Churches either fellowship based upon the same doctrine and practice or they separate from one another. When they fellowship, that isn’t a universal church concept. That is just fellowship between two churches, like existed between the Jerusalem church and the Antioch church.
The universal concept of church seems to require churches cooperating. It leads to diminishment and corruption of true doctrine. If there is to be “no schism in the body” (1 Cor 12:25), and the body is universal, then no church should separate from one another. However, “the body” in 1 Corinthians 12 is defined as local in v. 27, when Paul says, “Ye are the body of Christ,” speaking of the church at Corinth. If it was universal, Paul would have written, “We are the body of Christ.” He doesn’t. Schisms exist between bodies. They are not to exist in the body.
The unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17 (v. 22) is found in separate churches that fellowship one with another based upon the truth (John 17:17). Unity is required in individual churches (Eph 4), not between separate churches. Separate churches attempt to have unity like Jerusalem and Antioch tried in Acts 15. True unity requires separation.
Evangelicals like Leeman do not teach biblical separation. They don’t write on it. They talk about church discipline, but they don’t teach on separation from other churches. Their false universal church teaching fuels this, which will mean apostasy for their churches and their movement. Every New Testament epistle teaches the doctrine of separation, which depends on a right view of the nature of the church.
The Judgmental Church: Apostolic, New Testament, and Seeker-Friendly?
The Judgmental Church!
Everyone knows that being judgmental is one of the greatest sins that a person can possibly commit. The sin of being “judgmental” is mentioned and condemned in the following verses in the Bible:
The sin of being judgmental is regularly mentioned in 1st and 2nd Opinions, books which most people are much more committed to living by than they are, say, the Pauline epistles and the Gospels.
While being “judgmental” is not mentioned in the canonical New Testament, only in the pseudepigraphical 1st and 2nd Opinions, and the passage in the Sermon on the Mount that people misuse to prove this position actually commands one to help one’s brother remove even a speck or smaller sin from his eye (that is, Christ commands one to judge) as long as one does not hypocritically have a beam in one’s own eye (Matthew 7:1ff.), there are plenty of memes and commonly supported cultural images for it, which, in the eyes of many, should be a sufficient substitute for the total lack of support in the inspired text of Scripture.
Were the New Testament Churches Judgmental?
Did the apostolic, New Testament churches judge? In addition to Matthew 7:1ff., Christ commanded: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment (John 7:24). So Christ commanded people to judge–it was not only not a sin, but it is a sin to fail to judge. Did the New Testament churches follow Christ’s command to judge? Consider 1 Corinthians 14:23-25:
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
Wow! Not only did this New Testament church fail to recognize the (alleged) sin of judging, but Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wanted every member of the congregation to be judging. In fact, if a new visitor comes to a church service, “all” are supposed to judge him, with the truth of Scripture, and by this means he will not be turned off by their being so “judgmental,” but on the contrary, he will fall down on his face and will worship God, recognizing that God is in them of a truth.
Consider also Isaiah 1:21:
How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
It was good for God’s people to be “full of judgment.” That was being “faithful,” and was characteristic of “righteousness.” When that stopped it was unfaithfulness, spiritual harlotry.
The second greatest commmand is to love your neighbor as yourself–the only greater command is to love God with your whole being. What is involved in loving your neighbor? Note Leviticus 19:17-18:
17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Rebuking others is showing your neighbor love–just like not hating him, not avenging, and not bearing grudges. Sin is the greatest evil, so rebuking your neighbor, so that he does not sin, is one of the kindest and most loving things you can possibly do.
The Apostolic, New Testament Way to Be Seeker-Friendly
Do you want visitors to your church to come to true conversion? Do you want your church to glorify God and follow the New Testament? Then start having lots of judging of others go on, so visitors can fall on their faces and confess God is in you of a truth. Exercise lots and lots of God-glorifying, loving, non-hypocritical, but Biblically accurate judgment. That is part of loving your neighbor as yourself. Reject the Satanic advice of the world, the flesh, and the devil that you are not supposed to judge anyone or anything. As in so many other situations, this idea is exactly the opposite of what the Bible actually says.
John 7:24; 1 Corinthians 14:23-25; Isaiah 1:21, and Leviticus 19:17-18 should be carefully expounded in every evangelical “church growth” book that actually cares about what God says about the church and that wants genuine growth, not cancerous pseudo-growth. So should the fact that “come as you are” is a lie-the Biblical advice is “sanctify yourselves.” But I’m not holding my breath–I suspect that, in the minds of many, the sin of being judgmental, as condemned in 1st and 2nd Opinions, will continue to greatly outweigh the evidence to the contrary from Christ, the apostle Paul, Moses, and Isaiah.
“You mean I am wrong in saying being ‘judgmental’ is a sin condemned in the Bible? How DARE you judge me about that!”
–TDR
A Defense of the Trail of Blood by James M. Carroll as Accurate Landmark Baptist History
Have you ever read the pamphlet The Trail of Blood by James M. Carroll? It is a classic presentation of the true history of Baptists–that they had an actual succession of churches from the time of Christ, who founded the first Baptist church, throughout the patristic, medieval, reformation, and modern eras until today. If you have not read it, you should do so. I have a link to a free electronic version in the ecclesiology section of faithsaves.net. You can buy a physical copy at the Lehigh Valley Baptist Church bookstore, among many other places. You can even get a copy at Amazon (affiliate link):
However, Amazon will probably charge more than what you would pay from a church-run Baptist publisher, although if you are getting a bunch of other stuff at Amazon anyway, maybe with free shipping their price will be acceptable.
The Trail of Blood gets a lot of criticism. However, that criticism is unjustified.
1.) The Trail of Blood is narrow-minded!
The Trail of Blood is criticized for its teaching that only Baptist churches are true churches, the kind established by Jesus Christ and preserved from Christ’s day until today. However, Baptist churches are the kind of churches established by Christ, a fact validated by their doctrine and practice, and the Bible promises that the churches Christ established would continue until His return (Ephesians 3:21; Matthew 16:18; 28:20, etc.). The promise of succession for Christ’s churches is not given to the “universal church,” for there is no such thing. Scripture, in the Great Commission and other passages, promises an actual succession of true churches. Scripture teaches what is called the Landmark Baptist view of church succession, and Scripture teaches that each true church is Christ’s bride, and so a “Baptist bride” (an ecclesiological, not a soteriological, assertion–one is in the kingdom through repentant faith alone, not through baptism into the Lord’s church).
2.) The Trail of Blood claims non-Baptist groups were Baptists!
First, one must keep in mind that the Trail of Blood is a large pamphlet, designed for a popular-level audience, not a scholarly book. It is too short to give nuance to every single statement that someone might argue about. Second, Roman Catholicism liked to lump everyone together who was not a Catholic and put the worst possible interpretation on their beliefs, something ancient pagans and post-Reformation Protestants were also not immune to doing. To consider some generally accepted examples, ancient pagans who asserted early Christians were cannibals who committed incest because Christians talked about the “body of Christ” in conjunction with “eating” and “drinking,” and they referred to each other as “brother” and “sister” were grossly inaccurate. Reformation-era opponents of Baptists who said that they were violent people who wished to overthrow the State grossly misrepresented the fact that a huge percentage of the Anabaptists were outright pacifists to smear the entire body of those who practiced believer’s baptism with the actions of a few at the city of Munster (many of whom were not even practitioners of believer’s baptism there). So we should not be surprised if Roman Catholics painted groups of dissenting Christians in the worst possible light.
Think about it this way: if by “Anabaptist” a Catholic simply means someone who baptizes believers, he would classify people who believe like a strong independent Baptist church, people who believe like the Watchtower Society, people in the American Baptist Convention who support sodomy and follow woman preachers who deny the inspiration of Scripture, Pentecostals who handle snakes and drink poison, people in the Iglesia Ni Cristo who think Felix Y. Manalo is the final prophet from God, and Mormons as “Anabaptists.” The Catholic could say that “Anabaptists” deny the Deity of Christ, believe in extra-scriptural revelations, believe Satan and Christ are brothers, believe sexual perversion is acceptable, deny the Bible is the Word of God, and handle snakes in their church services. However, that people who do these evil things also baptize believers does not mean that there are not thousands and thousands of people in independent Baptist churches that follow Scripture faithfully. If the situation is such in our day, should we be surprised that medieval Catholics painted those Anabaptists whom they slaughtered and tortured in the worst possible light?
There are many groups of non-Catholic believers in Christianity before the Reformation. Historical sources on some of them are better than for others, but there is sufficient evidence to believe that among groups such as the Waldenses, Cathari, and Anabaptists Christ’s promise of church perpetuity was fulfilled. That does not mean that every person who identified with these groups had sound beliefs, any more than it means that everyone in Oklahoma who says he is a Baptist has sound beliefs. But it is absolutely rational to believe that the line of true churches promised in Scripture is contained among such groups.
3.) The Trail of Blood takes quotes by historical sources out of context or makes up quotes!
Lord willing, we will deal with a few of these quotes in upcoming weeks. If you want a preview, please see the quotations by non-Baptist historians here in their context.
In summary, the Trail of Blood is a valuable historical source demonstrating the Scriptural truth that Christ has kept His promise to preserve His churches. It does a good job for a large pamphlet. If you have not read it, I encourage you to do so, and to share it with others, so that everyone in the world who is born again sees his need to unite with a Bible-believing Baptist church through baptism and serve the Lord Jesus Christ in His New Testament temple.
–TDR
When “One” Doesn’t Mean “One”: The Church, One Body
Institutions declare, “One team.” Whole nations announce to themselves and to other nations, “We are one.” You’ve got, “one office,” to promote productivity for the work place. To express the unity of a city, there’s “One Atlanta.” Not surprisingly, you see “One Philadelphia” too.A single team isn’t saying, “We’re numerically one team.” No. The people on the team or the leadership of the team attribute unity or oneness to it. Speaking of the nations of the world at the World Cup, “We are one,” means a desired unity of all the nations. Even an office wants unity, because a unified office gets more work done together. It’s normal for cities to say they are one through all the racial, ethnic, religious, etc. diversity. I could find almost every major American city to possess some initiative toward “One Miami” and the like.When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, we say, “One nation, under God, indivisible.” The Pledge of Allegiance recognizes at least a desire for unity in a nation. That pledge isn’t saying that other nations aren’t nations except the United States. It also isn’t saying there is one mystical nation, maybe even a single invisible nation to which everyone in the world belongs.
Scriptural “One” For Unity
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 13:11, “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” Philippians 1:27, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” Philippians 2:2, “Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” 1 Peter 3:8, “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous.”
Acts 19:34, “But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”
One Body
Romans 12:4-5, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office. So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” 1 Corinthians 10:17, “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:20, “But now are they many members, yet but one body.” Ephesians 2:16, “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Ephesians 4:4, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Colossians 3:15, “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”
Baptism & Salvation Debate Page, Douglas Jacoby
I have created a page for resources on the Douglas Jacoby-Thomas Ross debate on baptism. Both parts of the debate video, as well as links to the places where the debate is live on Rumble and on YouTube, the blog posts where the speakers answered questions from the audience that were not discussed in the debate proper, and further resources, are all on this page. I would, therefore, recommend that you visit this page in the future and make it your point of reference if you share the debate with others.
Click Here For the Page on the Douglas Jacoby / Thomas Ross Debate, “We Are Born Again Before Baptism” (part 1) and “We Are Born Again In Baptism” (part 2)
–TDR
Free Psalm Singing Resources
In the section on ecclesiology on my website, I have a number of resources discussing psalm-singing. I hope you are in a church that obeys the command to “sing psalms” (James 5:13; Ephesians 5:18ff.) and that you also obey this command in your personal life and in your family worship. If you are in a position of church leadership, and you are not obeying God’s command to sing to Him the inspired psalms, why not start–now?
Crown and Covenant publishes conservative psalm-singing recordings. The large majority (but not all) of them are Biblically acceptable in their musical style. You can now stream the large majority of their music for free–for example, you can listen to them on YouTube here. It is a blessing to have these high-quality audio productions available for free.
Being glad for their psalm-singing is not an endorsement of their unscriptural Presbyterian theology.
–TR
Recent Comments