Quote:
Originally Posted by leastofthese
Hey man, I read your link.
According to the mighty Wikipedia, there are over 100 million people who identify as Baptist or belong to a Baptist type church. According to your link it appears that only 300,000 adhere to landmarkism. Let’s just say for arguments sake that this number is low. Even at three times that number, it’s less than 1% of “baptists”. So why would someone make a statement that Baptisits believe XYZ when less than 1% of those do? It is either a disconnect from reality, intentional deception, or something worse.
|
It doesn't matter the percentage. If 1% of baptists believe in X, and 99% believe in Y, then it is still correct to say "baptists believe in X" or "baptists believe in Y" without quantifying. If we say "baptists don't believe in X" , then it rules out the 1%, and declares those 1% to not be baptists when in fact they are. Note that I never said "ALL baptists believe in X", when I know that is not the case. Anyway, read the OP and early posts, it's clearly about comparing Southern or "landmark" baptists to the recovery.
Landmarkism was a fundamental/conservative counter to perceived liberalism in the baptist denomination. It has produced many authors and world-wide evangelists/preachers so they have had an impact. It could be argued that they are the "true baptists" because they hold to conservative ideals of the baptist faith, just as "true Lutherans" are those who hold to the old teachings of Lutheranism despite accepting gay marriage, or "true Catholics" who hold to the old teachings of Catholicism without accepting multi-faith heresy. I have encountered landmark-type beliefs in baptists who even wouldn't say they are "landmark baptist". The belief that baptists are an unbroken line of descendants from the first apostles is one such belief that I have encountered.