Landmark Baptist belief


#1

I found this interesting as former Baptist for various reasons. As a Southern Baptist I was always taught that our church went back to the time of Christ.

I found this searching the wycopedia.

Landmarkist
Landmarkism is the belief that Baptist churches and traditions have preceded the Catholic Church and have been around since the time of John the Baptist and Christ. Proponents believe that Baptist traditions have been passed down through a succession of visible congregations of Christians that were Baptist in doctrine and practice, but not necessarily in name. This view is theologically based on Matthew 16:18 , “…and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” and a rejection of Catholicism as part of the historical origins of Baptists.
This lineage grants Baptist churches the status of being unstained and separate from what they see as the corruptions of Catholicism and other denominations. It also allows for the view that Baptists predate the Catholic church and is therefore not part of the Reformation or the Protestant movement. Alexander Campbell of the Restoration Movement was a strong promoter of this idea.
J. M. Carroll’s The Trail of Blood, written in 1931, is commonly presented to defend this origin’s view. Several groups considered to be part of this Baptist succession were groups persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church throughout history including Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigensians, Catharists, Waldenses, and Anabaptists. While some of these groups shared a few theological positions with current Baptists, many held positions that would now be considered heretical by current Baptists. It is also difficult to show historical connections between those groups which were often separated by large gaps in geography and time.
The works of John T. Christian offer the best presentation of this viewpoint.
[edit]


#2

In recap of what is writtenm the Landmark Baptist believes that their roots precede the Catholic Church, although they were not called Baptist the doctrines were the same, yet this reference to the Landmark Baptist are suggesting that their Baptist roots go back to the Christian rivals of the Gnostics.

I found this very interesting and as a former Baptist now Catholic I would like to see replys from Baptist and all other faiths.


#3

The fact is Texan that Baptists never existed before the First, First Baptist church which was started in 1607 in Amsterdam the Netherlands.

In the attempt to find “baptistic” groups one has to go very far afeild. Such groups as Gnostics who beleived in two seperate “gods” a good God and a bad God, Paulicans who taught that Jesus was just an ordinary man who was “adopted” by God.

The fact is there were no “baptistic” beleifs before the Baptists were actuallu started. Even the Anabaptists were not Baptists but rebaptised each other by POURING not submersion.


#4

[quote=Texan in DC]In recap of what is writtenm the Landmark Baptist believes that their roots precede the Catholic Church, although they were not called Baptist the doctrines were the same, yet this reference to the Landmark Baptist are suggesting that their Baptist roots go back to the Christian rivals of the Gnostics.

I found this very interesting and as a former Baptist now Catholic I would like to see replys from Baptist and all other faiths.
[/quote]

I’ve gone through their stuff. Anyone with ANY knowledge of Church History – Protestant OR Catholic – will quickly see that the “landmarks” they point out represent sects that no Baptist today would EVER consider. I suppose the Landmark response would be to suggest that the “evil Catholics” have lied about what these groups believed throughout the centuries.

Blessings,


#5

Yes, that is the Landmark response.

It’s a faith assumption: since the New Testament obviously presents Baptist principles and the gates of hell could not have prevailed against Baptist churches, then they must have always existed. We know that before we ever even start looking at historical data.

Soooo, when group looks a little baptistic, there’s the Baptists!. And if the same historical record shows them believing heresy, then the Catholics falsified the record in order to justify exterminating the offenders.

It’s the only reasonable approach to the historical data, once you know that you are the true church.

(BTW, for the slow among us, I’m not a Landmarkist.)


#6

The majority of Baptists do not believe in the Trail of Blood theory and try to distance themselves from those who do. It’s come up before on these threads and most Baptists who have responded are embarrassed by it.

The booklet Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll is the source of this story.

Carroll claims descent from the Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations, but was their theology was not Baptist.

“The Anabaptists baptized babies, and so can in no way be considered the spiritual ancestors to the present-day Baptists. Novations taught that those who had fallen from the faith should never be allowed to repent and return to the fold, since God cannot forgive their sin. The same council that defined the divinity of Christ (Nicea in A.D. 325) condemned the Novations. Montanists were a movement centering around the false prophet Montanus, who taught that the heavenly Jerusalem would soon descend upon his home town, the Phrygian village of Pepuza, and that, to prepare for the imminent coming of Christ, one must practice severe asceticism.”

**“In fact, years after having written Trail of Blood, Carroll wrote of himself, "Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free… church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers” (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)."

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0001qq.asp


#7

I have to admire any man who can admit he was wrong. That takes real integrity. :thumbsup:


#8

You may want to check this thread out for more on the Landmark Baptists.


#9

Interesting sig there - who’s Fr Corapi? Sounds like an interesting character, making judgements on other people’s destiny!


#10

[quote=Balance]Interesting sig there - who’s Fr Corapi? Sounds like an interesting character, making judgements on other people’s destiny!
[/quote]

So, glad you asked. Fr. Corapi regularly appears on EWTN the Catholic television network. Here is a link:

www.fathercorapi.com


#11

[quote=Balance]Interesting sig there - who’s Fr Corapi? Sounds like an interesting character, making judgements on other people’s destiny!
[/quote]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Here we go again with being “judgmental.” :crying: Boohoo. All I have to say is that Jesus talked about Hell more than He did about Heaven.


#12

Fr. Corapi is on EWTN right now. Turn it on!!! :smiley: :wink: :slight_smile: :thumbsup:


#13

[quote=JSmitty2005] :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Here we go again with being “judgmental.” :crying: Boohoo. All I have to say is that Jesus talked about Hell more than He did about Heaven.
[/quote]

Hmmm. In this sentence, are you saying that Fr Corapi has the same authority to talk about hell as Jesus?

It seems like that to me. It also seems like you are arrogant and abrupt, with your crying face and “boo hoo” comment. Are you, or is that just how you come across? I hope that you aren’t how you seem.

There’s a world of difference between Jesus Christ, God made man, causing his words about Hell to be put down in the sacred text of the Bible, for the Church to interpret for us, and one man, Fr Corapi, talking about “dissidents dancing their merry way to Hell.” My question is, does Corapi know the hearts of these “dissidents” (his term) in the same way Christ knew the hearts of those to whom he was speaking? Or is Corapi, presumably a good man with a love of truth and a mission to preach it, being overly abrupt and confronting and, frankly, unorthodox, in suggesting that a paticular person he lables as a “dissident” is going to hell? Where does he get off doing that?

I am constantly saddened and angered by people proudly proclaiming themselves as “orthodox” who show themselves to be, at times, anything but. The Church confirms again and again that no one has the right or ability to judge another person’s heart and say what their destiny is.

Again, there’s a world of difference between saying to a person with whom you disagree, for example, “Your attitudes/beliefs aren’t in line with what the Church teaches” and saying, “You’re a dissident and you’re going to Hell.”

The first statement invites dialogue, the second invites rejection of the message you’re trying to get across - a message of love and communion and peace and brotherhood, no?

So my question is, which the link to Corapi’s website you provided didn’t answer, what right does Fr Corapi have to make a judgement about another person’s destiny?


#14

And what right do you have to judge a man like Father Corapi, as preaching as if he is Jesus, if you have never heard him talk. I watch and listen to him daily. He reaffirms the teaching of Christ and is very sensative to those who have fallen away. I suggest you listen before you begin a disident thread on this wonderful disciple of Christ.


#15

Balance when did anyone say Fr. Corapi was the judge of who goes to hell? It is the role of our clergy to teach and warn us about what can jeopardize our salvation. That is the context of the quote. I would suggest listening to him speak before* judging* his quote.

If you go to Audio Programs near the bottom of the page of this link and click on his series about the Eucharist: Source & Summit you can hear him. I don’t know if he has any other audio available online but he is on EWTN frequently.

www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/a12.html


#16

[quote=boppysbud]The fact is Texan that Baptists never existed before the First, First Baptist church which was started in 1607 in Amsterdam the Netherlands.

In the attempt to find “baptistic” groups one has to go very far afeild. Such groups as Gnostics who beleived in two seperate “gods” a good God and a bad God, Paulicans who taught that Jesus was just an ordinary man who was “adopted” by God.

We know about the first Baptist church but does any one know about the 2nd Baptist church. Hmmmm

The fact is there were no “baptistic” beleifs before the Baptists were actuallu started. Even the Anabaptists were not Baptists but rebaptised each other by POURING not submersion.
[/quote]


#17

For a refutation of the “Trail of Blood” check this out:

cafepress.com/turrisfortis.16799704


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.