Landmarkism (trail of blood) Baptists - related to TR priority?

[Polanus1561]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1627366411805896704

This is Thomas Ross who just debated James White (video of debate to come)

But what he states is interesting.

He believes in Landmarkism, and sees significance in the Waldensian bible having 1 John 5:7.

The full interview (in tweet) and the debate will be posted up soon. But this is just an info post on the above which I found interesting.

 

[Taylor]

Must be nice to be among the precious few who are able to determine the really true church throughout history.

 

[BaptistPastor1689]

Setting the text-critical question aside, Landmarkism has been largely rejected by confessional Baptists in the United States and is entirely inconsistent with Particular Baptist heritage. One of the explicitly stated purposes of the Second London Baptist Confession was for the Baptists to confess their common doctrine and practice with their fellow Reformed Protestants. Landmarkism puts Baptists in confessional no-man's land.

 

[gcdugas]

Athanasius dealt with Christology and the divinity of Christ. The Persons of the Godhead and the Trinity are a separate matter altogether regardless of how it might appear to those unfamiliar with the Arian controversy.

 

[Jake]

I've noticed a lot of KJV onlyists use charts with the two "streams" of texts. I occasionally see TR advocates do this as well. Here's an example I just found while googling the Waldensian Bible, but I'm sure many have come across this before in some form:



I wonder if his view of not seeing himself as Protestant would influence how he views other Bibles. For example, the original Luther Bible did not have I John 5:7, but perhaps as a non-Protestant he wouldn't be bothered by this in his view of history.

 

[Jake]

Also, I do not know very much about the Waldensian Bible. What is the best resource to learn more about it?

 

[inkling]

Must be nice to be among the precious few who are able to determine the really true church throughout history.

C. S. Lewis wrote an essay on this approach to the past titled, Historicism - repudiating the idea that someone could discover an inner meaning and pattern in the historical process.

 

[Polanus1561]

This is Ross' powerpoint slides used in the debate:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1pZx9nwVymjPE3TB78gwbof1DAuH0RLOx/edit#slide=id.p32

 

[arapahoepark]

Landmarkists probably side with TR but, they don't necessarily have to. I can see why many would.
Though not TR myself, I would think associating the LM with the TR as poisoning the well.

 

[Jude24]

I grew up in a landmarkist IFB church. I'm not sure about the universal beliefs of those who hold to landmarkism, but I can tell you that in my denomination (BMA/ABA) everyone was strictly KJV-only. However, if I'm being honest, I don't think a single person/pastor even knew what the TR was. It seems like they believed the KJV was the only true Bible simply because Grandma used it, and all other translations were "watered-down" or downright heresy. I've challenged some of my family members (still all landmarkist/KJV only) on their beliefs and I've heard some wild statements about why they think the KJV is the only true translation. Things like "King James ordered the translators to make it perfect", "other Bibles are calvinist", etc., but never a single word about the underlying Greek. It seems like it is this way with most of their beliefs.

(Don't take this to mean I am against the KJV for those who are TR-priority. I went through a phase where I absolutely refused to read the KJV because of my upbringing and how I was taught about the KJV. Now I actually lean toward a more majority/TR priority after reading the arguments for it on here.)

 

[retroGRAD3]

I grew up in a landmarkist IFB church. I'm not sure about the universal beliefs of those who hold to landmarkism, but I can tell you that in my denomination (BMA/ABA) everyone was strictly KJV-only. However, if I'm being honest, I don't think a single person/pastor even knew what the TR was. It seems like they believed the KJV was the only true Bible simply because Grandma used it, and all other translations were "watered-down" or downright heresy. I've challenged some of my family members (still all landmarkist/KJV only) on their beliefs and I've heard some wild statements about why they think the KJV is the only true translation. Things like "King James ordered the translators to make it perfect", "other Bibles are calvinist", etc., but never a single word about the underlying Greek. It seems like it is this way with most of their beliefs.

(Don't take this to mean I am against the KJV for those who are TR-priority. I went through a phase where I absolutely refused to read the KJV because of my upbringing and how I was taught about the KJV. Now I actually lean toward a more majority/TR priority after reading the arguments for it on here.)

"Others Bibles are Calvinist". If I'm not mistaken wasn't the KJV translated by all Calvinists except one?

 

[Jude24]

"Others Bibles are Calvinist". If I'm not mistaken wasn't the KJV translated by all Calvinists except one?

This is what I've read (can't remember where tbh). I explained this to some and the response was a simple "that's not true".

 

[Pilgrim]

There are quite a few Calvinistic (or predestinarian) "Trail of Blood" people too, so I don't think that's ultimately an issue.

A lot of people with that mindset will just tend to associate modern versions with liberalism and tend to distrust anything new.