The Landmark Doctrine ft. Pastor David Mark

Рет қаралды 315

Christian's Colloquy

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 31

@thomasthellamas9886 2 ай бұрын

These are my friends!!!

@actrealationalist Ай бұрын

Good stuff. David's comment on people's almost magical preoccupation with a piece of paper that charts one denomination, or something, all the way back to Paul - that was a great comment I wish got around more.

@ChristiansColloquy Ай бұрын

Amen! Thanks for watching! Hope you're doing well, bro, it's been a long time!

@VincentLancon 2 ай бұрын

Chewy , those helmets in the background are legit cool!

@ChristiansColloquy 2 ай бұрын

Thanks bro!

@zacdredge3859 Ай бұрын

I've watched a few videos and only just realised your name is literally Christian. Many blessings to you from a brother and fellow Particular Baptist. Recently did a a QnA assessment on Baptist distinctives and wish I'd watch this and other content beforehand.

@ChristiansColloquy Ай бұрын

@@zacdredge3859 Thank you so much!

@benstratton2175 Ай бұрын

Pastor David Mark does an outstanding job explaining the landmark doctrine, i.e. landmarkism. At one time, not that long ago, this was a majority position among American Baptists. Thankfully, there are still Baptists all across the US as well as the world, that continue to hold to these biblical and historical positions.

@ChristiansColloquy Ай бұрын

@@benstratton2175 yes! Pastor David is super well read and a very clear communicator! Glad I was able to bring him on

@connorlongaphie 2 ай бұрын

i like baptism

@ChristiansColloquy 2 ай бұрын

@@connorlongaphie based???

@connorlongaphie 2 ай бұрын

@@ChristiansColloquy 100 100 stay based

@DavidJohnson-nn2jc 2 ай бұрын

Fantastic conversation, but I'm really curious why the man on right didn't wear his suit. I suppose it's forgivable since he's so articulate.

@ChristiansColloquy 2 ай бұрын

Guess I outed myself as a lib!

@SojournerDidimus Ай бұрын

42:40 what do you make of the cloud of witnesses in Hebrews 12:1 in light of the universal church? I agree it may confuse things if you talk about the local church, but at the same time we all agree that while you and I are not in the same local church, we both are part of the Church that Jesus founded, don't we?

@ChristiansColloquy Ай бұрын

Great question! I'll run this by Pastor David, perhaps he can share his thoughts!

@BaptistDiscord Ай бұрын

My personal opinion is that the "Cloud of witnesses" uses "witness" to mean a preacher of the gospel. Not someone looking down at us and watching us.

@SojournerDidimus Ай бұрын

@@BaptistDiscord but all verses before talk about David, Abraham, etc. It seems evident these are the kind of witnesses he talks about. Do you have a reason to understand he means preachers?

@zacdredge3859 Ай бұрын

So traditionally Congregationalists(which is the near universal polity of Baptist churches) recognise catholicity(though many dislike the term for historical reasons) as something that exists inherently between all believers as the Body and Bride of Jesus, the Christ. We do, however, construe this relationship as an organic upward reality such as we see in texts like Ephesians 3:11-13 and have the strongest view of the Priesthood of all believers. Importantly we see accountability to Christ and the work of the Spirit as applying at all levels such that there must be personal faith in union with Christ(thus someone can't profess faith on behalf of infants and you can see how believers Baptism sits within our ecclesiology), a congregation is directly accountable to our Lord before having accountability towards the Church more broadly(with Elders also accountable to their own congregation) and then of course the global Church of God is accountable to Her Bridegroom. So we don't accept a tertiary Church government structure as being anything else than congregations coming together for the sake of Christian unity and mutual edification which is why Baptist churches have unions or assemblies etc. It's also not entirely accurate to say this precludes other forms of church government a priori as that issue comes up in ecumenical dialogue, we could simply recognise synods for example as being practically different than our polity and lacking Biblical warrant but not inherently wrong. Of course there will be fundamentalists and the like among the broader Baptist camp who are more isolationist.

@SojournerDidimus Ай бұрын

@@zacdredge3859 Thank you for taking time to respond. I'm not sure my question was clear enough. I in no way wanted to imply that since we all are one Church that we therefore must have governing bodies above us both, I don't see any opening for Romanism in the Bible whatsoever. My question was solely prying at the position we have as brothers through all places *and time* to admonish, encourage, and how this ties back into landmarkism.

@zacdredge3859 10 күн бұрын

My issue with his position is not that I simply prefer tracing Baptist history through the English Separatist movement(I prefer to go back as far as the Waldense's personally) but that the alternative he proposes is ahistorical and the groups that are referred to often have wildly different theologies and some are in fact more heretical than Rome at its worst(The Papists errors are typically ones of addition, they still held to the Trinity, correct understanding of Christ etc). It's also just silly to pick between which heretical group we would rather in the first place given the Landmark groups are supposed to be Christ's true Church and *none of them* should therefore be heretical. You end up with the same problem of Apostolic Succession where a single break in the chain destroys the whole thing so you're forced to do 'history' with such a strong set of presuppositions that you can't even admit when your theory fails because the Cathar's, for example, were dualists who had their own unique view of baptism that's completely different to Baptist theology. His argumentation from Matthew 16 is subsequently taking the same sort of approach as the Papists will argue, ironically. He also contradicts himself later on when he says 'Church', or Ecclesia, only properly refers to a local congregation but assumes a category of 'the Church' which is far more universal(or Catholic) when saying the Gates of Hades won't prevail against it. If you take that to mean local Church then is it that only one congregation will be saved? Or will all local Churches be saved? But then that would mean none of them can defect which we know is not true. Unless there's multiple sense in which we can use the word, which David seems to intuitively understand but still equivocates on when denying there could be any universal sense of the Church other than in eschatological terms. Anyway, sorry if this is coming on too strong I just think this 'Baptists aren't Protestant' trope is impossible to argue with any intellectual honesty and I hope we can move past it, not because I'm sympathetic to sacralism but because I desire genuine unity for the Bride of Christ rather than the isolationist substitute Landmarkism seems to be based upon.