Building on my earlier post regarding Landmark Baptists, it occurred to me that it's not just what appears to be a factual error (three secondary/tertiary quotes does not a historical fact make), but also will tend to be a ruinous bit of dogma in the church.
How so? Let's take the milder case first; the claim that there were always Baptists through history. Why so?
Well, consider the claim; it doesn't have any precedent in Scripture, but it is stated as if it is vastly important. It's not only a violation of the principles of logic (ancient is not equal to true, Molech worship is ancient as well), but also serves as a diversion from the more important issues of theology that--hey let's face it--the American church desperately needs.
In short, emphasizing a "Trail of Blood" serves to make believers....immature, and as was noted before, it's an effective de-emphasis of the doctrine of sola scriptura. Ironically, in trying to counter Catholic rhetoric about ancience, they're becoming more....Catholic, the very thing they want to avoid.
Full Landmarkism--the argument that the only true churches follow a "Trail of Blood," and even that one can only be saved if one is baptised in such a church--do things far worse. Not only is it a more significant violation of sola scriptura, but the requirement of a "Landmark" to be a valid church or believer violates sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus (grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone) as well.
In other words, the one, or church, which subscribes to Landmarkism more or less throws out significant parts of the Reformation, and those whose rhetoric most avidly rejects the Catholic church become, more or less.....
I bet my friend Gino enjoys this irony immensely!
The Bible and Liberty - In the course of recounting an online argument, novelist Lars Walker gives an excellent account of how the Bible gave ordinary men and women the conceptual...
1 hour ago