Landmark Baptist

Some of you like to talk about tests of fellowship, and some of you like to get testy about tests of fellowship. So, how about another thread on tests of fellowship?

On the thread "The Study of Landmarkism" http://landmarkbaptist.freeforums.org/the-study-of-landmarkism-t407.html, some of us have discussed tests of fellowship related to amillennialism. I wonder how many of you would consider some positions on the view of the end time events would rise to the level of test of fellowship?

I suppose the three main divisions on the subject are amillennialism (non-millennialism), premillennialism, and postmillennialism. Under premillennialism, some divide this into historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. This further divides into pre-trib, mid-trib, split rapture, post-trib and so forth.

Some of our early Landmark brethren were happily divided (evidently without loss of fellowship) into the three main camps. Though some today still hold all three different positions, the vast majority of Landmarkers I know are premillennial.

Would you divide over any of these views? If so, which ones? Also, when you say you would make it a test of fellowship, do you mean only that you wouldn't have anything to do with that church, or do you mean you wouldn't receive baptisms/letters from them?

Some on "The Study of Landmarkism" thread indicated they would have a problem fellowshipping amillennialism, but didn't go into detail. I have known some pre-trib dispensational premillennialists that wouldn't have anything to do with those who did not hold their position. When I say that, I mean they would use their preachers or participate in fellowship with them in any way. As far as I know, none of them went so far as to believe their candlestick had been removed.

As for me, other things being equal, I would not break fellowship over differences in eschatology.

Could you fellowship this eschatology?

Can We know the Year of Christ's Return? We can if we rightly discern the Lord's answer to His disciples question as to what would be the sign of His coming and the end of the age. Matt. 24:4-35. Jesus began by giving a specific point of beginning of that sign when one nation would attack another and trigger other nations joining the war. The first time that occurred is called World War One. It began August 1, 1914 and ended November 11, 1918. Jesus foretold the precise chain of events to follow until His return, much of which is now history. Then He told the parable of the fig tree revealing all those things must be completed in one generation. The Bible refers to 40, 70, and 100 year generations. Only the 100-year generation remains possible for first fulfillment, which means Jesus will come before November 12, 2018.

But When? The most likely date for fulfillment of the 70th week will be the 2017 Day of Atonement. This points to November 8, 2010 as the most likely time for the seven-year peace confirmation. One reason is that in 2017 the Day of Atonement falls on the Hebrew Sabbath which begins the Hebrew Jubilee. No other year between now and 2018 can end the 70th week on the Hebrew Sabbath. In addition that will begin the second 50-year Jubilee since Jerusalem was taken back under Hebrew authority in the 6-day war of 1967!

I find that these are arguments that might be fun for debate and sharpening ones study but I find no reason to disfellowship with someone over these really unknown things.

But then again I am an odd duck.

I seem to recall another Baptist who had been a date setter, and now we get to deal with the aftermath called Seventh-Day Adventism.

revcathari

The second post above quotes a Landmark Missionary Baptist.

Another Landmarker writes:

Individuals entering the millennial kingdom with immortal bodies
a. Saints of the Church-age returning to earth with Jesus
b. Resurrected martyred saints of the Tribulation Period
c. Angels of God from the throne of God
d. Old Testament saints resurrected at the coming of Jesus to the earth
Living saints in their natural bodies
a. Saved Israelites living through the Tribulation Period
b. Saved Gentiles living through the Tribulation Period

A third Landmarker writes:

Lastly, I deny premillennialism because it perverts the chronology of Rev. 7. This chapter places the sealing of the 144,000 before the conversion of the tribulation saints, who are washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb. But the chronology of the chapter agrees with the chronology of the covenants, first the old and then the new. First, the people of the Old Testament. Second, the people of the New Testament. But pre's reverse this order and have the people of the Old Testament (the Jews) redeemed after the people of the New Covenant are saved. But changing the chronology is no task for them, for they are skilled in this kind of work. They can get more people saved after the Holy Spirit and church are raptured than they can in their presence. Skilled! You said it. Theologians! You must grant it. Mathematicians! They have the world bested. Literalizers! They have the Campbellites skinned a city block.

[corrected a typo 1/16/09]

And finally, a fourth:

As to the period of the resurrection, the whole tenor of Scripture indicates that it will take place at the end of the world, at the second coming of Christ, and as preparatory to the general judgment...it is not consistent with the rules of sound interpretation to make Rev. xx. 6 the basis of a theory in conflict with other plain passages of the divine word. That the obscure must yield to the clear, and the indistinct to the luminous, should be regarded an axiom in exposition...Adopting this method, we shall be obliged to deny that the "first resurrection" is a literal resurrection, and to insist that there will be one simultaneous resurrection of the righteous and the wicked..."All that are in the graves" are all the dead, and the natural construction of the language is, that they all will at the same time hear the voice of the Son of God, and at the same time come forth.

I'm finally getting around to posting the information about the persons quoted.
1. Roy Culley in The Baptist Monitor
2. B. N. Driskell in his book The Future: the End and Beyond
3. P. D. Ballard in his book Gold Tried in the Fire
4. J. M. Pendleton in his book Christian Doctrine

I cannot fellowship an amillennialist because they spiritualize Revelation 20 which speaks of Christ reigning for "a thousand years", and the promises of God to Israel instead of taking them literally. If you go back to John 5, it says nowhere that the judgment of the saved and the lost will take place at the same time. It very clearly says that there will two resurrections: a "resurrection of life" and a "resurrection of damnation." God inspired His Word through progressive revelation. Revelation 20 supplements John 5 and does in no way contradict it.

Rlvaughn wrote:...when you say you would make it a test of fellowship, do you mean only that you wouldn't have anything to do with that church, or do you mean you wouldn't receive baptisms/letters from them?

I hope you will clarify on the test of fellowship.

younglandmarker wrote:I cannot fellowship an amillennialist...

Would you fellowship a premillennialist who will fellowship an amillennialist? Where would you draw the line?

younglandmarker wrote:I cannot fellowship an amillennialist because they spiritualize Revelation 20 instead of taking it literally.

Would you apply the same criteria to other parts of the Bible? Do you spiritualize any parts of the Bible instead of taking it literally?

younglandmarker wrote:I cannot fellowship an amillennialist because they spiritualize Revelation 20 instead of taking it literally. If you go back to John 5, it says nowhere that the judgment of the saved and the lost will take place at the same time. It very clearly says that there will two resurrections: be a "resurrection of life" and a "resurrection of damnation." God inspired His Word through progressive revelation. Revelation 20 supplements John 5 and does in no way contradict it.

Bro Johnathan I presumme your referring to these verses.

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


How do you understand Daniel on this subject?

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

younglandmarker wrote:I cannot fellowship an amillennialist because they spiritualize Revelation 20 which speaks of Christ reigning for "a thousand years"

Would spiritualizing any part of Revelation 20:1-6 be a test of fellowship?

Rev. 20:4-6 wrote:And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

How many premillennialists spiritualize Rev. 20, verses 4-6? They literally say that the souls of those who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast or his image are those who will live and reign with Christ a 1000 years.

Would postmillennialism, which does not spiritualize the 1000 years, but rather places it before the coming of Christ instead of after, be a test of fellowship?

younglandmarker wrote:I cannot fellowship an amillennialist because they spiritualize Revelation 20 which speaks of Christ reigning for "a thousand years", and the promises of God to Israel instead of taking them literally.

Brother Jonathan, thanks for revising your post and adding the clarification about spiritualizing "the promises of God to Israel instead of taking them literally." That brings up the question of how much spiritualizing and by whom? Can we fellowship the premillennialist who spiritualize the promises of God to Israel instead of taking them literally?

What about Peter "spiritualizing" Joel's prophecy to Israel and saying it applied to the church on the day of Pentecost? (Cf. Acts 2:16ff.; Joel 2:28-32) What about Paul "spiritualizing" Habakkuk's prophecy to Israel about the Chaldeans and applying it to the work God was working in the church age? (Cf. Acts 13:41; Hab. 1:5) What about James "spiritualizing" Amos' prophecy about the repairing of the tabernacle of David and applying it to the church age and the calling of the Gentiles? (Cf. Acts 15: 15ff.; Amos 9:11-12).

What about spiritualizing a promise to Israel that God said He fulfilled, and looking for its fulfillment in the millennium?

Joshua 21:43-45 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

Brother Vaughn,

Paul explicitly renounced the "imminent second coming theory" and identified its proponents as deceivers and its adherents as victims of deceit. He said,

Paul wrote:Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

So would you dis-fellowship a man who tried to convince God's people that Christ's coming and our gathering together to Him will precede the great falling away and subsequent revelation of the man of sin?

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
1 Peter 4:7 (KJV)

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Rev 1:3 (KJV)

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Rev 22:10 (KJV)

I would venture to preach "the time is at hand".

One more for good measure

Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.
James 5:8-9 (KJV)

Mark Osgatharp wrote:Paul explicitly renounced the "imminent second coming theory" and identified its proponents as deceivers and its adherents as victims of deceit...would you dis-fellowship a man who tried to convince God's people that Christ's coming and our gathering together to Him will precede the great falling away and subsequent revelation of the man of sin?

Brother Osgatharp, I will have to think on this some. I have considered that the situation with the Thessalonians was an impostor telling them the coming of Christ was threatening -- impending, right upon them, perhaps in the way the date-setters do. Not sure that it would apply to those who just believe in an imminent second coming out there somewhere in the future, even though they might be wrong in not seeing what Paul told the Thessalonians about what must come first.

Tell me more of what you think about this.

Brother Vaughn,

You said,

Rlvaughn wrote:I have considered that the situation with the Thessalonians was an impostor telling them the coming of Christ was threatening -- impending, right upon them, perhaps in the way the date-setters do.

You mean like this?

Roy Culley wrote:Can We know the Year of Christ's Return? We can if we rightly discern the Lord's answer to His disciples question as to what would be the sign of His coming and the end of the age. Matt. 24:4-35. Jesus began by giving a specific point of beginning of that sign when one nation would attack another and trigger other nations joining the war. The first time that occurred is called World War One. It began August 1, 1914 and ended November 11, 1918. Jesus foretold the precise chain of events to follow until His return, much of which is now history. Then He told the parable of the fig tree revealing all those things must be completed in one generation. The Bible refers to 40, 70, and 100 year generations. Only the 100-year generation remains possible for first fulfillment, which means Jesus will come before November 12, 2018.

But When? The most likely date for fulfillment of the 70th week will be the 2017 Day of Atonement. This points to November 8, 2010 as the most likely time for the seven-year peace confirmation. One reason is that in 2017 the Day of Atonement falls on the Hebrew Sabbath which begins the Hebrew Jubilee. No other year between now and 2018 can end the 70th week on the Hebrew Sabbath. In addition that will begin the second 50-year Jubilee since Jerusalem was taken back under Hebrew authority in the 6-day war of 1967!

I'm not going to declare non-fellowship for those who have fallen into the pre-tribulation rapture error, any more than I think Paul was going to dis-fellowship the saints who had fallen into the "Jesus is just about to come" or the "resurrection has already passsed" errors that existed in his day. I do, however, consider then pre-tribulation rapture theory to be a horrible false doctrine which is going to set a lot of Christians up for shipwreck when the man of sin starts lobbing off heads and they think "I'm must have missed the rapture".

So far as the men who promote it, the only way I can deal with that is to preach what I know is right and then the "who can I fellowship" question pretty much takes care of itself. I think, for the most part, fellowship/non-fellowship is not something we declare but a matter of how things are.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

I think we agree on this, even on the "who can I fellowship" question. I don't recall having ever spent much, if any, time going around saying I can't fellowship with someone who believes this or that. But, not having toed the party line, this has usually taken care of itself.

younglandmarker wrote:I cannot fellowship an amillennialist because...

Brother Jonathan, I had hoped you would make some defense of your earlier thoughts, though certainly you don't have to if you don't wish. You have every right to not fellowship an amillennialist. But I don't have to agree with your reasons.

This attitude toward amillennialism would have seemed strange to our forefathers 100-200 years ago. It seems to me that Missionary Baptists who imbibed of radical Darby/Scofield dispensational premillennialism by way of the fundamentalist Baptists were the ones who began to make this a test of fellowship. Back in the 1970s and early 80s, it seemed like where I was there were a lot who got very testy if you didn't believe pre-trib rapture. Although it might not have been strictly a test of fellowship, they nevertheless wouldn't have much to do with you and would look at you like you were a little off.

2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

I've not studied deeply on Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism. Am I mistaken in understanding Amillennialism meaning Jesus has already returned and we currently living in the millennial? If so, the verses above apply. If not, please clarify.

There may be some who claim to be amillennial and claim to believe that, but that is not standard amillennialism. Amillenialism, in contrast to premillennialism and postmillennialism, does not take the Rev. j20 passage to refer to a literal thousand year reign on earth. But they do believe the resurrection and second coming are still events to come at the end of the age. Many of our Baptist forefathers held that position, and some missionary Baptists still do.