Home » Posts tagged 'Roman Catholic'
Tag Archives: Roman Catholic
The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers
I already have several series going, which include one on the Antichrist and globalism, one on the way people contort Matthew 5:17-20 to eliminate the doctrine of preservation, another one exploring Christian nationalism, and the one below, which I would predict has two parts, but it might just end here. I wanted you to know, Lord-willing, I would return to some of these series as I see fit.
*****************************
Church Fathers
If you grew up in a Baptist church like I did, then you didn’t hear anything about “church fathers.” I never heard that language until perhaps college, and I actually don’t remember when I first heard the terminology. No one referred in any of my childhood Baptist churches to a church father. I would doubt that I even heard of church fathers in high school, even though I attended and graduated from a Christian high school.
At some point as a child, I heard about “Father Abraham.” Sometime soon after that, I learned that Abraham was the father of the nation Israel. I also found that Abraham’s son Isaac and grandson Jacob were the Patriarchs. The English word, Patriarch, comes from the Latin, pater, which means Father. If you asked me who the Patriarchs were, I would answer, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Still, I never ever heard about any church fathers. Because of Galatians 3:7, now I might add that Abraham is also my Father, since I too am a child of his by faith in Jesus Christ.
Who are the Church Fathers?
So who are the church fathers? As you read this, maybe still you’ve never heard of the church fathers. However, now when people say “church fathers,” I know of whom they speak. I took a course in grad school, called “History of Christian Doctrine,” which examined the church fathers. Part of the requirements for my grad degree was historical theology. Okay, so who are these people called “church fathers”? I didn’t give them that name.
A Roman Catholic theologian named Johannes Quasten systematized ancient Christendom with his book, Patrology, which discusses what ancient Christian writers said. Historians had designated this study as Patristics. The earliest I read this term Patristics is in the 18th century and in German. Quasten defined “Church Fathers” as those Christian writers from New Testament times until Isidore of Seville (636) in the Latin world and John of Damascus (749) in the Greek world.
A second century writer, Irenaeus, who himself people call a “church father,” wrote:
For what any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father.
Clement of Alexandria, also a church father, wrote:
We call those who have instructed us, fathers.
Apparently, the basis for this designation originated from Deuteronomy 32:7:
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
Proto Roman Catholic Fathers
From my reading through the years, I see these men, called church fathers, as proto-Roman Catholics. I’m not saying they would surrender or acquiesce to the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, if they read it. However, in general Roman Catholics embraced these men, claimed them, and then designated them as their fathers. The teachings of these fathers developed into later Roman Catholic dogma. Roman Catholics use them as credence for their false doctrine.
The earlier “fathers” were not in general as filled with error as the later ones. They show the incremental departure from true New Testament doctrine and practice. Their errors provide the basis for later and more severe error. Today men justify their own false doctrines historically by referring to something in the patristic writings. They can and do say that they have historical justification from the fathers for unbiblical beliefs and practices.
Value of the Church Fathers
I’m not saying the fathers are not without merit. You can find true beliefs and accurate exegesis of scripture in their writings. In many cases, they sound like sincere, true believers. Those writings also do validate certain doctrine and practice existed at that period of time, which is important for the history of doctrine. The patristic works show that people believed these things at this time according to these writings. They also indicate a consideration of New Testament books as the Word of God and a belief in Jesus Christ. From what they wrote, we see the reality of a love for the Bible among them.
The church fathers are very old writings, some of the oldest ancient writings that we possess. They are relevant as historical matter. They authenticate the story of Christianity. We can get from them an understanding of some what happened at that time. From the mere historical standpoint, they are very valuable.
The Church Fathers Were Not the Church Fathers
With all the above said, I don’t believe the church fathers are the church fathers. They’ve been labeled “the church fathers,” but they are not the fathers of the true church. I acknowledge the notoriety of these men called “the church fathers.” They represent a particular view of history with a trajectory toward a state church.
The best and really only evidence of the true church is scripture. One should judge the veracity of a church by what the Bible says it is. The Bible says what a church is. Then when someone examines something called a church, he tests it by scripture.
I would contend that the church fathers are better the fathers of the state church, which isn’t a true church. The state church chose the writings they would preserve. Based on biblical presuppositions, I contend that other men followed more closely to scripture. Their writings did not survive, because they clashed with Roman Catholic viewpoints. Those men represent a different trajectory of history.
Evidence for Church Fathers
Scriptural Presuppositions
You’ve heard, “To the victors go the spoils.” The victors very often also write the history books. The state church dominated most of the period of history from Christ until today. Its history and advocates of its history also dominate. For centuries, the state church had no problem destroying whatever did not support the state church, including the writings of which it did not approve. This means often leaving no historical trace of the presence of its enemies.
Based first upon biblical presuppositions, I and others believe that churches always existed separate from the state church. From some historical record, we believe they were known by different names. I think enough evidence exists to identify them by some of those names (example). Rather than a state church, these were autonomous and persecuted churches operating independent of state churches.
Churches that represent the biblically acceptable viewpoint left enough historical evidence, a footprint, to acknowledge their existence. Their trajectory leaves adequate trace of their scriptural legitimacy. Someone pictured it with a rope across a river, held on each side by men. You can see where the rope goes into the river and where it comes out. You know the rope continues in between, but you can’t see it at every point. However, you know the rope is there.
Enough of a History
The New Testament tells the story of true churches, local only. Evidence shows true churches existed then after the invention of the printing press. Some proof also indicates their presence in between. I would contend that the church fathers are the apostles and first pastors in New Testament times. The historical trajectory of those fathers does not move through those called, “the church fathers.” Therefore, the church fathers are not the church fathers. I don’t accept them as mine.
The actual fathers have little mention in church history. God did not promise to preserve their history and little of their history did survive. These are primitive Baptists first called Christians in Acts 11:26. True New Testament churches, that believed and practiced the Bible, continued through history separate from the state church.
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part three)
Worship, Roman Catholic or Protestant
Differences
Roman Catholic George Farmer debated Protestant Allie Beth Stuckey on the Candace Owens Show. Picking up midway of part two, Owens challenged Stuckey about the silliness in evangelical worship. I see this as a legitimate criticism of evangelicalism, not however a legitimate promotion of Roman Catholicism.
Everything about Protestantism does not not translate to modern evangelicalism. Worship and church growth philosophy are two of these. These relate more to the decaying culture of Western civilization and its effect on the church.
I imagine far less change in the formal tradition of Roman Catholic liturgy than what occurred to Western evangelicalism as an offshoot of Protestantism. Built into the formal liturgy of Roman Catholicism is a dogma of a transcendent imagination of God. Cavernous cathedrals, stained glass windows, robes, huge wood carved lecterns, sacraments, and pipe organs, even removed from sincerity and true spiritual reality, communicate reverence and seriousness more than evangelical practices today. Both are false, just like Judaistic and Samaritan worship had become in Jesus’ time.
Perversions in True Worship
Stuckey could not give a coherent answer to Owen’s criticism of evangelical worship. She doesn’t show understanding of the problem from a biblical or theological perspective. Stuckey made some good points about seeker-sensitive church growth philosophy and its effects on worship. It’s true that when churches become man-centered through strategies of church growth, it corrupts worship. She didn’t seem concerned about the issue, which is normal for evangelicals. Very few care that God isn’t worshiped by their worldly, irreverent, intemperate, lustful music and atmosphere. This shapes a false view of God that undermines true evangelism and biblical sanctification.
God calls on us to worship Him in the beauty of His holiness (Psalm 96:9). Beauty is objective. It is defined by God and His nature and the perfections of His attributes. Modernism, which includes modern evangelicalism, ejects from objective beauty and, thus, true worship of God. This changes the true God in the imagination of the worshipers to a false God. This corrupts worship in a significant way akin to the corruption authored by Roman Catholicism.
The Gospel
John 3:5
Allie Beth Stuckey then asks George Farmer what the gospel is. He starts by talking about baptism and the eucharist, first quoting John 3:5. Farmer says that this verse is explicit for baptism as a necessity for salvation. It reads:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Farmer points to baptismal regeneration as sola scriptura, using John 3:5 and saying he depends on scripture for his doctrine of salvation. He argues this is salvation by grace, because the child can do nothing. At the moment of baptism, we do nothing, so that must be grace. He says the early church agreed with that argument, and I’m assuming he refers to the patristic testimony for it. Farmer follows the infant sprinkling as a means of salvation by speaking of the avoidance of mortal sin to stay saved. He doesn’t explain that, but that clarifies his view.
Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2
Stuckey quotes Ephesians 2:8-9 from the ESV. She says his description of salvation is grace plus works, bringing merit or works to it. Stuckey explains the Catholic view of grace as an ability to earn the salvation. She continues with a mention of 2 Corinthians 5:21, that we become the righteousness of God in Christ.
Farmer rebuts Stuckey by saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe salvation by works. He compares infant sprinkling to irresistible grace. The child can’t resist. He says that as long as someone doesn’t commit a mortal sin from that point, he will go to heaven. Then Farmer brings in James 2, that God inscribes a person with grace and through works he receives more grace. He interprets James 2 as, you are not saved through faith alone.
Stuckey makes two arguments. She references election, that we’re chosen before the foundation of the world. Then she reinforces Ephesians 2:8-9 again. When Owens pushes back, she explains James 2. It is works that accompany faith, as seen in the context of the New Testament, all the clear passages for faith alone and grace alone.
Baptism and the Lord’s Table
The conversation comes back to baptism for Farmer. He says the person receives grace through baptism, so it is grace by which someone is saved. He quotes Chesterton to say that it is more than a symbol. This was the issue for Farmer for turning Catholic from Protestant. He sees baptism and the eucharist as more than symbols.
Stuckey had good things to say to Farmer, but it did not seem that she participated much in evangelism or apologetics with Roman Catholics. She needed refutations for the proof texts Farmer gave her. She also needed more verses on the contrast between grace and faith and works. Actually, Roman Catholics will almost never argue like Farmer. I can count with one hand out of thousands of Catholics, those who try to defend their beliefs. However, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and others will argue like Farmer or harder. They keep you sharp on the issues of the debate.
Farmer continued later with an explanation of the real presence of Christ in the elements. He said this is the earliest Christian teaching, found again and again in Christian writing. He taught baptism and the Lord’s Table as crucial to his becoming Roman Catholic. It is important to show that Roman Catholic history is not the history of true Christianity. False doctrine and practice already corrupted the church by earlier than the third century.
Final Comments
John 3:5
I don’t know what Stuckey thought about John 3:5. Farmer used it first and she said nothing about it. Many Protestants think “water” in John 3:5 is baptism. Martin Luther and John Calvin thought so, so maybe that’s why Stuckey wouldn’t touch it. Thomas Ross and I both believe it is natural birth, the water being amniotic fluid. In answering Nicodemus, Jesus described the second birth, born first of water and then second of the Spirit. He explains the new birth or being born again. A second birth is necessary, a spiritual one after a physical one. This reads clear to me and a quick exposition of this text would have been better.
James 2 and Romans 4
Stuckey should have dealt with justification, which is a good place to answer James 2. Abraham was justified by faith before God, as seen in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:1-6, the latter a good place to explain, also including Romans 3:20. Paul doesn’t mention baptism in Romans 3 through 5. In James 2, works justified Abraham before men, which means they “vindicated” him, another meaning of “justified.” A man shows his faith by his works. James explains this.
Galatians and Hebrews
I also think someone must go to Galatians and Hebrews to talk to a Roman Catholic, especially Galatians 2, 3, and 5, and then Hebrews 9 and 10. A good question to ask a Roman Catholic is if he believes he has full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity. He should explicate four verses in Hebrews 9-10: 9:27-28, 10:10, 14. Through the one offering of Christ someone is forever perfected and sanctified. These are perfect tense verbs, completed action with ongoing results.
I like Galatians 5 to show that even adding one work to grace nullifies grace. Stuckey could have quoted Romans 11:6, which says if it’s grace it is no more works and if it is works, it is no more grace. Grace and works are mutually exclusive.
Preparation
This encounter between the three participants shows a need for regular evangelism. Stuckey seemed uncomfortable with boldness. She might not be able to be friends with the other two. And then maybe she doesn’t get the kind of show or podcast that she has. I don’t know.
Someone who does not in a regular way confront the lost over their false gospel or false religion may stay unprepared for a difficult occasion. It is hard to keep good arguments in your head if you don’t use them a lot through constant practice. Hopefully, as you listened to this conversation with these three, you were ready to give an answer for the glory of God.
Addenda
I wanted to add one more thing, which I thought about driving somewhere this afternoon. Farmer brought in infant sprinkling as salvation by grace. He said this was scriptural. Stuckey also should have pushed back against infant sprinkling. It’s not in the Bible anywhere. She could have gone to a number of places on this.
Obviously, Farmer could just bring the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, and tradition. When you can make it up as you go along, you can believe anything. Not only is infant sprinkling not in the Bible anywhere, but it is refuted by several places. I think of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, what doth hinder me from being baptized? Philip said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Infants can’t believe in Jesus, so they are still hindered from being baptized. Every example of baptism is believer’s baptism.
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part two)
Why criticize in particular a debate between George Farmer, Candace Owens’ (Farmer’s?) husband, and Allie Beth Stuckey? On the other hand, why not find better representatives for a debate between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism? I say, George and Allie bring a teaching moment in this controversy. They deal with the issues on more a popular level, something the Daily Wire might appreciate.
Overall Part Two and a Little More Sola Scriptura
I decided this morning to write on part two of the debate because Stuckey’s inadequacy at unmasking false doctrine espoused by George for his Roman Catholicism. By George! Trigger alert. Women should not debate men, but Allie’s unwillingness to fight, to do necessary warfare, hurt the cause. I’m glad for her feminine instinct not to push in an authoritative way over a man. It explains a poor job with a commendable reason.
Overall, Allie Stuckey in the end parked on the two verses: Ephesians 2:8-9. This rescued her contribution with this brief, rare reference to scripture. Someone believing sola scriptura, however, should have reeled off incessant verses, pounding with the hammer of God’s Word. From watching her, one might think her positions don’t have much biblical support. Yet, they do. She just didn’t or couldn’t recall verses to use with Farmer. I saw Owens growing more Roman Catholic by the moment.
Owens started part two of the debate by informing that she got over sola scriptura easily because she couldn’t find it in the Bible. This might relieve her husband and their future relationship. Stuckey then compared the biblical support for sola scriptura to that of the Trinity, that it’s not explicit. This is utterly false. Scripture is explicit that the Bible is the only infallible authority or the ultimate authority for faith and practice. When Stuckey loses on this point, she really does lose the debate, because all the extra-scriptural writing comes into play for Farmer. He then uses this source material for the rest of his defense of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Mary, Mother of God?
Danger with Historical Theology
On the first subject after ending the sola scriptura conversation, Farmer shows the danger of perversion in one’s use of historical theology. He is crafty. He asks Stuckey if she believes Mary is the mother of God? It’s a tricky question. I’m sure the wheels were turning in her head: “Is Jesus God? Yes. Is Mary Jesus’ mother? Yes. So is Mary God’s mother?” It seems like, Yes, might be the right answer. It is a gotcha question.
Farmer said that the Protestants do not reject the Council of Ephesus. Why would Stuckey then do that if she is Protestant? The Council of Ephesus concluded Mary the mother of God. Yes, Reformers have supported the language, “mother of God.” That does not then mean that they receive Catholic teaching on Mary. They go as far as the reception of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures in Jesus, the view rejected by Nestorius. The Council then excommunicated Nestorius for heresy.
Excommunication?
As an aside, what gives a council authority to excommunicate someone? Jesus taught that an individual assembly only practiced church discipline, removing someone from that church (Matthew 18:15-17). The council of Ephesus isn’t a church. It was an unbiblical institution with no authority, not following the teaching of Jesus in church discipline.
Nestorianism and Two Natures?
Mr. Farmer teaches error when he says that Christ was one nature. Furthermore, he said, “You don’t want to split the natures of Christ.” Stuckey sat and nodded, yes, to this error. The error of Nestorius was that of “two persons,” that Christ was two persons sharing one body (prosopon), not two natures (hypostasis). Christ had two natures: divine and human. This is not Nestorianism. Christ was one Person with two natures. The hypostatic union is the mysterious joining of two natures in one Person.
Jesus was a Divine Person. When He died on the cross, He was not a finite Person but an infinite One Who could pay for infinite sins for all eternity. He needed to be God to die for all of mankind. By calling Mary the mother of Jesus, they thought they would be undermining the true incarnational teaching of Jesus, so they called her the “mother of God.”
Mother of God Ideas
“Mother of God” emphasized the divinity of Jesus, but it did nothing to extrapolate a divine nature to Mary, an immaculate conception of her, or veneration of her. Even if Reformers and some Protestants today agree with “mother of God” terminology in refutation of Nestorianism, they reject the pendulum swing away from scripture by Roman Catholicism about Mary.
A good book that traces the source of the Catholic version of Mary teaching is The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. Much Roman Catholic teaching is neo-Platonic and proto-Babylonian. Worship of Mary takes a trajectory from Venus and Astarte, goddesses of Babylonianism.
John Owen and Scripture
The post-Reformation reformed John Owen, no relation to Candace Owens, did not approve of the terminology, “mother of God.” He wished the Council of Ephesus had “forborne it.” He spoke of the miraculous creation of the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, which was a “fit habitation for His holy soul.” Owen called the Holy Spirit the “active, efficient cause” and Mary the “passive, material cause.” The “material cause” aspect of Jesus’ physical body traces to verses such as Galatians 4:4, “made of a woman,” and “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).
Mary calls Jesus, “God my Savior” (Luke 1:46), and described herself as “the servant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). This contradicts “mother of God.” True Baptists and New Testament Christianity reject both Catholic and Protestant teaching. Baptists may quote church councils for their history of doctrine, but they reject the notion of church councils. Pope Pius IX took mother of God to a further corrupt extreme when he called Mary sinless in his Ineffabilis Deus in 1854.
Saints and Intercessory Prayer
Saints
Farmer uses the term “saints” in an unscriptural manner. In Ephesians 1:1, Paul writes to the “saints at Ephesus” and he defines “saints” there as “faithful in Christ Jesus,” literally “believing in Christ Jesus.” Anyone with saving faith in Christ Jesus is a saint. This is the famous Granville Sharp rule. “Holy” (adjective, “holy ones”) and “faithful” (adjective) are connected by one definite article (tois). That means “saints” and “believing” (faithful) are the same people. All those in Christ are saints, not some special caste of characters designated such by a state church.
Praying to Saints or Mary
Next, Farmer moves to praying to saints and Mary as a kind of intercessory prayer. These “saints’ and Mary have been given a kind of veneration below that for God, but veneration high enough that Christians should pray to them. I won’t deal with the scripture he adduces in the debate to support this. Scripture does not evince this.
Farmer’s argument is praying to saints equals intercessory prayer. Nowhere in the Bible do we see praying to dead people. The best argument might be the faithless, perverse intercession of King Saul in a seance with the witch of Endor. I’m glad he didn’t use that one though.
I’ve never heard Stuckey’s view of intercession. She spoke of intercession as interceding with a fellow believer for prayer. Intercessory prayer is another believer praying to God on our behalf, not for himself. The intercession is not the asking for prayer. I understand the intercession of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in prayer. Scripture teaches both of those. On the other hand, the veneration of dead saints and Mary, I see this as blasphemous.
Stuckey does right to quote 1 Timothy 2:5, that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man. Not only is scripture silent on the mediation of Mary and “saints,” but the Timothy verse repudiates it. Believers, true saints, can pray for one another, but there is no doctrine of earthly ones praying to heavenly ones for them in turn to pray for the earthly ones. I’m sure there is a long explanation for this false doctrine somewhere, but I’ve never read it. I don’t find Roman Catholics usually who can name their seven sacraments, let alone break down why they pray to saints. They stray from scripture a lot, because it isn’t their only authority.
Evangelicals and Modernity Versus Roman Catholics
Candace Owens takes the conversation to the differences between Catholics and evangelicals in their modernity and trendiness. This took off of a little riff by her husband, when he used timelessness as an argument for praying to saints. Owens does not like the direction of the style (what I would call aesthetics) of Protestant evangelicals.
I don’t think Stuckey does great in dealing with the loss of beauty in evangelicalism and why. She doesn’t seem to get it. In my next post, I will come back to this. For awhile, I’ve seen this as one legitimate allure of Roman Catholicism. With all the faults of Roman Catholicism, they emphasize the transcendence of God more than evangelicals. Evangelicals feel proud of their worldliness. The nature of Roman Catholicism keeps a serious nature in line with scriptural worship. Catholics do not worship in truth, a requirement, but they come closer very often in beauty than evangelicals. I know some people who went back to Catholicism for this exact reason.
More to Come
Trail of Blood and Landmarkism
Men use the terms “Trail of Blood” and “Landmarkism” as a kind of mockery, almost never with evidence. They use them in the same manner as calling someone a “Flat Earther.” If I said I was “Trail of Blood” and “Landmark,” what would I mean? Should I embrace those terms in light of potential derision?
Trail of Blood
“Trail of Blood” refers to a booklet written by James Milton Carroll in 1931. Carroll did not originate the words “trail of blood” as referring to the persecution of churches. Others before used “trail of blood” to describe the ongoing record of atrocities of Roman Catholicism through the centuries in its opposition to the truth. I like the metaphor of Carroll, which is saying that you can detect true churches in the historical record through findings of state church persecution.
Carroll would say that the trail of blood started with the Lord Jesus Christ and that suffering marks the trajectory of true churches. I use this exact language all the time, “There have always been true churches separate from the state church.” I also ask this question, “Do you believe the truth was preserved in and through Roman Catholicism?” Men find it difficult to answer “yes” to that question. If they answer, “No,” then they essentially take a Trail of Blood position. I say, “Well, then we take the same position, don’t we?”
Whitsitt Controversy and English Separatism
Opposition to the Trail of Blood started with a liberal president of the Southern Baptist Convention, William Whitsitt (read here, here, here, and here). The work of Whitsitt is less famous than Carroll’s Trail of Blood, but if someone does not accept the Trail of Blood, his other option is called, “English Separatism.” Can we mock someone as “English Separatist”? The Trail of Blood position predates the English Separatist one. If someone rejects Trail of Blood, he is left with the Roman Catholic position on church perpetuity or succession. He denies the promise of Jesus, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
Whitsitt took from his European training a modernistic view of truth. He wrote and said that if it does not have primary source historical evidence, it isn’t true. From this, Whitsitt said that the earliest Baptist churches trace from 1610 in England.
A split occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention over Whitsitt. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary under the presidency of B. H. Carroll started in a major way because of the Whitsitt controversy. Most Southern Baptists then distinguished themselves from Protestants. Carroll’s brother wrote Trail of Blood.
The Application of Modernistic Historicism
Did you know a historical gap exists between the completion of the New Testament and the doctrine of justification? With that historical position, justification did not exist until after the Protestant Reformation. No primary source evidence exists for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. I’ve been to Bethlehem in the Palestinian West Bank area, and the best historical evidence outside of scripture for Jesus’ birth is secondary and vague. It starts around 325 with Constantine’s mother Helena visiting there.
The mockery designated for Trail of Blood reminds me of the mockery by scientists of a God Hypothesis and intelligent design. Trail of Blood is true, but it is institutionally inconvenient. Intelligent design or a God Hypothesis puts people out of business. Trail of Blood is a strict ecclesiological position that undermines free-floating free agents, who function outside of church authority, like for instance, Alpha and Omega ministries. “Ministries” function outside of a church, not something we read in the Bible, and cross denominational lines on a regular basis.
Landmarkism
The attack on Landmarkism dovetails with the one on Trail of Blood. Landmarkism did not originate local-only ecclesiology. The Landmark movement began in the Southern Baptist Convention because of an ecumenical drift in the Convention. Modernism began affecting the Convention. Compromise grew. Baptist churches began allowing Presbyterians in their pulpit and accepted their “baptism” for transfer of church membership. The Landmarkers stood against this.
The Landmarkers believed local-only ecclesiology like most of the Southern Baptists in the middle 19th century, but they stressed and influenced a stronger practice. They rejected what they called, “alien immersion,” baptism without proper authority. They were saying, “Don’t accept Presbyterian baptism,” or any other Protestant baptism. The Protestants arose from Roman Catholicism with a continuation of state church doctrine. Baptist churches should reject their baptism, Landmarkers claimed, practiced, and encouraged all Baptists to join that.
Many today define Landmarkism with a giant falsehood. They say Landmarkism is chain-link succession of Baptist churches. Furthermore, they say that Landmarkism requires proof of a chain-link succession of Baptist churches all the way to the Jerusalem church. That is not what Landmarkism is.
In a more simple way, you should understand Landmarksim as, first, since Christ, true New Testament churches always existed separate from the state church. Second, churches start churches. Third, baptism requires a proper administrator. Authority is a matter of faith, but scripture recognizes the importance of it. It does not proceed from Roman Catholicism, so it also does not come from Protestantism.
Authority isn’t arbitrary. It is real and it is somewhere. We should not eliminate it. This arises from the rebellion of men’s hearts. Men don’t want authority, especially church authority. I see this as the primary cause of the controversy over Landmarkism and the Trail of Blood.
Recent Comments