Featured What distinguishes a Landmark baptist from the rest?

Ecclesiology.

In his book "Old Landmarkism, What Is It" J.R. Graves states the "marks" of a Landmarker:

1. The church of Christ is a divine institution.

2. The church of Christ is a visible institution.

3. The church of Christ is located on this Earth.

4. The church of Christ is a local organization, a single congregation.

5. The membership of the church of Christ are all professedly regenerate in heart before baptism.

6. The baptism of the church of Christ is the profession, on the part of the subject, of the faith of the Gospel by which he is saved.

7. The Lord's Supper was observed as a local church ordinance, commemorative only of the sacrificial chastisement of Christ for His people, never expressive of personal fellowship, or of courtesy for others, or used as a sacrament.

Those seven "marks" deliniate what Landmarkism originally was. Today some have added and added and added to what a Landmarker is, but those additions, much like the additions to the fundamentals of the faith, have nothing to do with true Landmarkism.

 

For the historical difference, a good place to start would be reading the arguments of R.B.C. Howell against Landmarkism (2nd president of SBC and strongly opposed to Landmarkism).

 

No, I'm not too good at indirect . I just don't know what is out there. I did a research project long ago and spent a week in Nashville reading articles and journals of J.R. Graves and R.B.C. Howell. I just do not know where to direct you and thought that may be of some use.

Some Baptists (like R.B.C. Howell) rejected Landmarkism not necessarily for it's principles but for it's extreme nature. Many of the points of landmarkism existed across the spectrum of Baptist faith, but not necessarily the position that Graves took in practice. Another illustration is Calvinism in the SBC. Early on the SBC was distinctly Calvinistic. But while they rejected Arminianism they also rejected Calvinism in the extreme positions (Howell also faced the error of people like Daniel Parker and the "anti-missions movement"). People can be wrong by holding a false doctrine. But people can also be wrong for holding a true doctrine falsely.

Here's a quote from R.B.C. Howell that may help illustrate what I am saying:

"When shall we have wisdom and piety enough to resist successfully these endless innovations? For ourselves, we protest that we are not Antinomian Baptist, nor Free Will Baptist, nor Old School Baptist, nor Campbellite Baptist, nor Landmark Baptist, but what we have ever been Baptists of the old apostolic stamp, taking the Bible as our exclusive guide, loving all who love Christ and ready always to do what we can to reclaim the erring and to save the lost. The treatment proper for Pedo-baptist preachers, may, as we believe, be safely left to the churches, where it of right belongs, and when, after all, it must be left under the guidance of the word and spirit of God. These churches may err on the side of a mistaken charity; they may precipitate themselves into a proscriptive bigotry, but a praying Christian hear will by the grace of God, eventually lead them safely out of all extremes" [quoted in Joe Burton, The Road to Augusta (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1976), p. 163].

 

Errm, Landmarkism, as we know it, didn't exist in 1689. It was articulated in the 19th century. Further, he states:

as the only disagreement. This is almost small change in comparison to other problems.

 

The problem is many of us are closer to the New Hampshire than the London. And as far as I know, the Landmarkers in their day weren't in conscious opposition to the London.

 

What is important to remember is that Graves, et alii, articulated, systematized, the teachings that had existed prior to their time.

Just as systematic theology was systematized around the time of the Protestant Reformation from doctrines that had been accepted by most of Christendom from long ages past.

And even the Landmarkers recognized that there was a body consisting of all believers, they just (rightly, in my opinion) noted that it is not properly referred to as "the universal Church" but rather as "the Kingdom of God" (the rule of God in the hearts of men) or the "Family of God."

Both Squire and I were educated in schools that many might label as "Landmark" because of the school's leadership insisting on the primacy of the local church. The president of Squire's alma mater was strongly "local church only" (http://www.preservedwords.com/baptist.htm) and the President of my alma mater literally wrote the book "The Local Church of the New Testament."

http://www.centralseminary.edu/Resources/The Local Church of the New Testament.pdf