Landmarkism and Baptist Bride

[Allan]

Allan, General Baptists are called that for the reason you think. They are not Particular Baptists. The one big difference between Generals and SBCers is that they believe on can lose his salvation. Otherwise, around this part of the country they are pretty conservative and as best I can determine, are inerrantist in their view of scripture. But their view on apostasy is the deal-breaker for me in accepting their baptism.

Ok, thanks for the clarification :thumbs:

 

[Tom Butler]

What about the person that performs the baptism? Should they also be scrutinized?

You bet.

Baptists have historically held that the administrator of the ordinance of baptism should, at a minimum, be saved and scripturally baptized himself. The administrator must necessarily be Baptist or of like faith and order.

Further, Baptist history also shows that the administrators have been ordained. Generally pastors, but at the very least, one authorized by the congregation.

 

[Edward 1689er]

Being new to Baptist churches (4 years) I find it is very much diverse and each church can support slightly different views, positions, including their geneology. Are there differing views in Landmarkism as to tracing the history of the Baptist church? Our church takes the position that the Baptists were completely separate from the Reformation/protestants/Catholic church and they view that all other groups come from the Catholic church.

I read on the net that some of the groups that J.M Carroll (Trail of Blood) named wouldn't even constitute as an "authorised baptist church" by the standards today they use to judge an authorised baptist church, which sounds kind of funny, yet they would include them in their geneology.

Darren

Wasn't J.M. Carroll a Southern Baptist? How do folks who hold to the Landmark position view Southern Baptists? Are they considered true churches? Just wondering.

 

[Darrenss1]

Wasn't J.M. Carroll a Southern Baptist? How do folks who hold to the Landmark position view Southern Baptists? Are they considered true churches? Just wondering.

I don't know, we don't have SBC here in Australia anyway. I was just saying that those he names in the lineage of Baptist churches wouldn't be considered Baptist churches by today's standard, I just find that funny to think about.

Darren

 

[Tom Butler]

Wasn't J.M. Carroll a Southern Baptist? How do folks who hold to the Landmark position view Southern Baptists? Are they considered true churches? Just wondering.

I speak only for myself here. Although I do have some Landmark tendencies, I have not bought the whole package. It's evident by my posts, that I'm strong on the local church. I believe that Baptists historically have held to doctrines and practices held by New Testament believers. I believe that that Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry, and that it has continued to exist to this day, although not necessarily known as Baptist.

I won't fall out over the succession issue.

I'm a closed communionist, but it's not a test of fellowship.

And Landmarkism, in any variation, is not a litmus test for a true New Testament church, in my view. I hold that legitimate New Testament churches may disagree with each other on this question. The fact that they are wrong does not diminish my willingness to fellowship with them. If it were otherwise most of the people in my church would have nothing to do with me.

Oh, I forgot to answer your question. A significant number of Southern Baptists are Landmarkers. At one time in its history, the SBC was predominantly ecclesiologically Landmark, although no more.

There are Baptist groups which are full-fledged Landmark, and have formed separate denominations. How they feel about non-Landmark churches, I don't know.

 

[Edward 1689er]

I speak only for myself here. Although I do have some Landmark tendencies, I have not bought the whole package. It's evident by my posts, that I'm strong on the local church. I believe that Baptists historically have held to doctrines and practices held by New Testament believers. I believe that that Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry, and that it has continued to exist to this day, although not necessarily known as Baptist.

I won't fall out over the succession issue.

I'm a closed communionist, but it's not a test of fellowship.

And Landmarkism, in any variation, is not a litmus test for a true New Testament church, in my view. I hold that legitimate New Testament churches may disagree with each other on this question. The fact that they are wrong does not diminish my willingness to fellowship with them. If it were otherwise most of the people in my church would have nothing to do with me.

Oh, I forgot to answer your question. A significant number of Southern Baptists are Landmarkers. At one time in its history, the SBC was predominantly ecclesiologically Landmark, although no more.

There are Baptist groups which are full-fledged Landmark, and have formed separate denominations. How they feel about non-Landmark churches, I don't know.

Dear Brother,

Thank you for your response. It is an issue I have wondered about alot.

 

[Tom Butler]

Edward, as you are seeing, this is a hot-button issue. I think it basically relates to the Universal Church concept. Any position which challenges the existence of the Universal Church is heretical to a lot of folks. You want to get them bent out of shape? Bring it up.

It also relates to dispensationalism, which requires a universal church as a sine qua non. Take away the UC, dispensationalism falls.

Landmarkism and eschatology are not tests of fellowship to me. I can fellowship with those who disagree with me on these issues; I can evangelize and cooperate with them. I consider them brothers. I rarely argue over these issues. Except here, of course.

 

[Edward 1689er]

Edward, as you are seeing, this is a hot-button issue. I think it basically relates to the Universal Church concept. Any position which challenges the existence of the Universal Church is heretical to a lot of folks. You want to get them bent out of shape? Bring it up.

It also relates to dispensationalism, which requires a universal church as a sine qua non. Take away the UC, dispensationalism falls.

Landmarkism and eschatology are not tests of fellowship to me. I can fellowship with those who disagree with me on these issues; I can evangelize and cooperate with them. I consider them brothers. I rarely argue over these issues. Except here, of course.

:thumbsup:

 

[Bethelassoc]

There is a sense of Landmarkism in the Old Regular, Old Time Missionary, Primitive, and United Baptists as well. I usually hear it as "exclusivism", but not one branch holds to all the tenets of Landmarkism.

 

[Bethelassoc]

Baptists have historically held that the administrator of the ordinance of baptism should, at a minimum, be saved and scripturally baptized himself. The administrator must necessarily be Baptist or of like faith and order.

Further, Baptist history also shows that the administrators have been ordained. Generally pastors, but at the very least, one authorized by the congregation.

These are the same beliefs we hold to as well. I just wanted that pointed out too. :thumbsup: