Featured What distinguishes a Landmark baptist from the rest?

Great comment.

I think this applies often. Some of the objections to Landmarkism was that its flaw existed in the extreme stance it took (this was one of Howell's objection to both Landmarkism and the earlier anti-missions movement).

 

But, as I see it, Graves and Howell held positions so similar that they were indistinguishable from one another.

And Howell too believed the "kingdom exists within visible local churches" as the church is made up of regenerate people, as is the Kingdom.

I find it more likely that Howell, who had a pretty serious personality conflict with Graves, was being overly nit-picky regarding not so much what Graves said, but how he said it.

Some personal history to illustrate the point. The college Squire attended and the Seminary I attended believed exactly the same.

The President of the Seminary I attended was Chairman of the Board of a College which had as its President the man who would, in the future, be President of the College Squire attended. The President of that college and the Chairman of the Board had a personality conflict which resulted in the President resigning and founding a new Baptist college about 100 miles from the first (Squires Alma Mater).

The humorous thing was they both believed exactly the same on all the essentials of biblical Christianity. The conflict was in their competing personalities which resulted in a difference of opinion, not on doctrine, but on the best way to be good stewards of what God had given in the form of the college.

I see the same sort of thing in Graves and Howell.

 

That is pretty much Graves' position: "To enter the Kingdom he must enter some local church -- since the Kingdom is composed of all the existing local churches, as the United States is of all the 38 States. ... "
The kingdom, then, is coterminal with the Baptist churches. Individuals are not members of the kingdom.

That is not Pendleton's view. When he says that the church may refer "to the redeemed in the aggregate," he is talking about individuals, not churches.

 

The conflict TCassidy mentions was deeply held by the chairman. He withdrew his school from a basketball tournament so the two schools wouldn't play each other.

 

Yes, I understand. Graves seems to have a different definition of "Kingdom."

To Graves, the Kingdom promised to Israel in the Old Testament is the local church. (See J.R. Graves & Jacob Ditzler, Church of Christ, in The Great Carrollton Debate, vol. 6, Memphis, TN: Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1876, pages 932-934).

This is the centerpiece of Graves’ entire polity—the local church is Christ’s promised kingdom. He used the terms “church” and “kingdom” synonymously and called “the Church and Kingdom of Christ” a “divine institution” in Old Landmarkism.

Amillennialism sees the Kingdom as the rule of God in the hearts of men.

Premillennialism sees the Kingdom as being a yet future literal, earthly Kingdom.

Graves combined the two. He believed Israel has been supplanted by the church, but also believed His reign is literal and on the earth, IE in and through the church.

Unless Graves was willing to claim that only Baptists are saved (and he specifically repudiated this idea, even though he has been accused of it many times), then he must admit that believers of every denominational stripe exist all over the entire world.

I believe there is certainly a universal church, in prospect, which Paul tells us about in 1 Thess 4:13-18. I believe this is the first time the entire church will actually be gathered together. In several places in Scripture, “the church” is spoken of as a corporate, collective body (e.g. Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 1:2; Col 1:18; Eph 5:25). However, Graves certainly was correct that, for practical intents and purposes, the church is a local, visible body.

So, as I pointed out in any earlier post, the source of the disjunction seems to be a matter of semantics, or nomenclature.

What Graves calls "The Kingdom of God" is not what we mean when we use the term. What most of us call "The Kingdom of God" and the universal church folks (at present) call the "Universal Church" was referred to by Graves as "The Family of God."

"The Family of God and the Church of Christ are are two very different nations. We are all the Children of God by faith in Christ, but the Children of God are not members of Christ's church until baptized into it." (J.R. Graves, Christian Baptism, the Profession of Faith of the Gospel, Memphis, Baptist Book House, 1881, page 6.)

 

I think it obvious that J.R. Graves and R.B.C. Howell would disagree that their positions here were indistinguishable from one another.

Graves wrote Old Landmarkism: What is it? in 1880 because of what he perceived to be a dangerous drift of liberalism among Baptist congregations and leaving true doctrine because of “an overweening desire to be considered ‘respectable,’ and to command the admiration of the world” (Landmarkism: What is it?, 237). Graves disagreed with the association some churches had with other denominations (some Baptist churches had even invited Presbyterian ministers to speak to their congregations). So Graves had legitimate concerns. Both Graves and Howell had, I believe, the same foundational convictions here, but Graves applied those convictions differently.

Graves defined his position as:

“that Christ, in the very ‘days of John the Baptist,’ did establish a visible kingdom on earth, and that this kingdom has never yet been ‘broken in pieces,’ or given another class of subjects – has never for a day ‘been moved,’ or ceased from the earth, and never will unit Christ returns personally to reign over it; that the organization he first set up, which John called ‘the Bride,’ and which Christ called his church, constituted that visible kingdom, and today all his true churches on earth constitute it; and, therefore, if his kingdom has stood unchanged, and will to the end, he must always have had true and uncorrupted churches, since his kingdom cannot exist without true churches.” (Old Landmarkism, 122). Graves appealed to Christ’s declaration in Matthew 16:18 and Paul’s statement in Hebrews 12:28 to support the teaching that Christ has preserved his kingdom unbroken, unmoved, unchanged and uncorrupted and applied this to the “visible church” as represented solely by the Baptist congregations (Old Landmarkism, 124).

And here is Howell:

“The scriptures speak of the kingdom of Christ upon earth, and the churches of Christ upon earth. These however are by no means identical and must not be confounded together. The kingdom of Christ upon earth is purely spiritual. It is consequently invisible. All these persons are subjects of this kingdom in whose hearts Christ reigns as supreme Ruler and Lord. Everyone who is regenerated by the Spirit of God is legitimately and truly a member of the invisible kingdom of Christ. All persons will be saved whether baptized or not, or whether in or out of a visible church.” What Howell viewed as the most fatal error of the Landmark argument was an assumption of “the existence of a universal visible church upon the earth, with an actual government, officers, and ordinances” (Howell,A Memorial of the First Baptist Church, 156-157).

Looking at Howell’s comments against Grave’s Landmarkism I can see at least two major disagreements (one leading to another). Howell rejected that the “Bride” (if we are speaking of the kingdom) and the local churches collectively are identical terms. So while Howell maintained that the Baptist church was the “true church” he recognized the Kingdom as in a sense more inclusive (perhaps in another sense, less inclusive). Graves viewed the kingdom and "true (Baptist) churches" collectively as the same thing. In practice this affected how Baptist congregations viewed other denominations.

 

Jon, I think I have already explained that. When Graves says "Kingdom of God" he is NOT referring to the same thing Howell is referring to when he says "Kingdom of God."

Graves applies "Kingdom of God" to the NT churches, in the aggregate.

Howell applies "Kingdom of God" to all the redeemed regardless of church affiliation or lack thereof.

Graves calls that entity "The Family of God." Same thing. Different nomenclature.

 

I see that their disagreement over Landmarkism less as a difference in terms and more a difference in application and conclusion. It seems that this "same thing" resulted in different views when it came to church associations and interactions between denominations (at a minimum).. There is a reason Howell called Grave's Landmarkism heterodox.

Graves concluded that the Methodist church cannot be called a legitimate church of Christ because it is a denomination that originated in the eighteenth century rather than with Christ…the argument that the CoC often levies against all other churches….and they have a different religious system (Graves, The Great Iron Wheel; Republicanism Backwards and Christianity Reversed, 23).

Graves argued against the legitimacy of referring to Presbyterian churches as legitimate churches of Christ based on two arguments. First, he argued that no organization other than a true, visible church a can administer baptism and second, if the baptism is considered valid the society administering it must also be acknowledged and treated as a true, visible church of Christ (Graves, The Tri-lemma Death by Three Horns, 12-13).

Howell considered the Baptist church as the only "true church" but viewed interactions with other denominations differently (largely due to application). We have to remember that Howell's objection was largely that Landmarkism was a "hyper" movement.

 

But none of that has anything to do with the the conflict between Graves and Howell which I was addressing, by rsr in post #43.

However, were I tempted to chase you down the rabbit trail (don't tell evangelist I said that) I would simply conclude that, as a true church is defined as "an organized assembly of baptized believers" and that baptism is the immersion of the person entirely under the water after a credible testimony of faith in Christ as an outward testimony of the inner work of Christ in the heart of the believer, then, obviously neither the Presbyterian nor Methodist "churches" meet that definitional criteria. Therefore they are not true New Testament churches but, as Graves called them, "religious societies."

 

I was not arguing that Graves was wrong (although I believe both Graves and Howell to be wrong on this issue). I was arguing that Graves and Howell did indeed differ in terms of Landmarkism (I don’t believe Howell was a Landmarkist unaware). You go back to the fundamental views of each when the difference is in the application and how common doctrines are held.

As a side note, if we are to look at your definition, I would disagree that baptism is a prerequisite for believers to be “added to their number” in terms of constituting a “true church”. I would agree in terms of church polity within Baptist congregations but I disagree that other denominations are less a church because of their view of a symbolic ordinance (ceteris paribus, Christians gathering in the name of Christ). Graves was wrong in his conclusions that non-baptistic churches are illegitimate and merely religious societies.

 

So, baptism isn't baptism, and isn't necessary for a "good conscience toward God?"

 

Scripture says that if we love Jesus we will keep His commandments. Do Presbyterians and Methodists then hate Jesus because they do not observe believers baptism?

Baptism is baptism. Whether or not it is what you believe it to be I can't say. But denying that an assembly of Christians gathered in Christ's name for the purpose of Kingdom work is a "church" and instead referring to them as a "religious society" because they hold a false view of a symbolic act commanded us is, IMHO, taking liberties.

But it is taking liberties that have been often taken throughout history. The Donitists had a similar issue centuries ago when they wrestled with baptisms performed by "heretics". The Oneness Pentecostals argue that if you are not baptized "in the name of Jesus" alone then it doesn't count. Maybe those who were not baptized by immersion after coming to salvation belong to fake churches....but I doubt it.

 

I believe that to be added to a congregation (a local New Testament church) one needs to believe and be baptized (Acts 2:41) because as many as received the message of the gospel and were baptized were added. Where we disagree is that I also believe that there are churches who have neglected proper doctrine in favor of tradition but hold to the true gospel of Christ and are legitimate churches (although in error). (I believe the criteria to be Christ and not ordinances).

 

You have invented a false dichotomy. If they know what they are doing is not biblical, the answer would be "yes." But I am not convinced they know what they are doing is wrong. They simply don't understand. And one of the reasons they don't know is that we didn't tell them. After all, our job is to "teach all nations."

Let's see. βαπτισμα is βαπτισμα. To dip or immerse is to dip or immerse. Can't find the verse that says ράντισμα. To sprinkle is to sprinkle. Or χύνοντας. To pour is to pour.

Well, we are baptists and this is the baptist board. Therefore we believe the baptist distinctives. One of which is baptism by immersion. And that goes to the heart of our ecclesiology. A church is an organized assembly of baptized believers.

If you are willing to leave out the βαπτισμα what else are you willing to leave out? Can a church be an organized assembly of baptized people (leaving out believing as one of the criteria for membership)? Where do we draw the line? What about organized? No pastors, no elders, no deacons, no leadership of any kind. No order at all. Just every person doing that which he thinks is right in his own eyes.

 

I don't think them unaware or lacking in understanding. I think that most do understand and have chosen tradition in terms of the mode of baptism. Insofar as infant baptism, reading the Institutes it seems that at least Calvin understood the issue but rejected our arguments. His responses are reasoned, baptism remains symbolic, and these children are accepted within the christian community (not necessarily as saved individuals). He was wrong, not unaware or lacking understanding.

Well....yea. I never said churches that practice paedobaptism (or believer's baptism apart from immersion) are obedient.

I believe the baptist distinctive. I disagree that there exists no churches outside of this distinctive (I believe churches can hold error in doctrine even when it comes to baptism and still constitute a church...but not a Baptist church).

That's a false assertion. I am not willing to leave out believers baptism....which is why I'm a Baptist.....duh...

I'm not willing to leave many things...like believer's baptism, male leadership, congregational church government (I don't believe "Baptist churches" who employ elder rule are necessarily fake Baptists either), conditional election, and snake handling (just kidding about the last one).

 

But you have to leave believers baptism behind if you consider infant sprinklers as being true churches.

How do you rationalize having it both ways?

 

I think one must use a formula such as "true NT assembly\church" to appropriately communicate the matter.