No, brother. That was the Baptist position (not all Baptists are Landmark Baptists).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What distinguishes a Landmark baptist from the rest?
- Thread starter Earth Wind and Fire
- Start date
I believe that a church is an assembly of Christians who assemble as a community of believers gathered in the name of Christ and to function as a local body of Christ. I believe that the local church is the means that God uses in reconciliation. While God can, of course, I don’t believe that God substitutes religious societies for the local church in kingdom work.
Then I look at churches and men God used in the past. The churches of John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards all practiced infant baptism. I realize that God could have used unchurched men, unorthodox men, heretics in practice who forsake the true assembly and remained apart from the “Ecclesia” …. I just don’t find that He did a reasonable conclusion.
I don’t have to leave believers baptism behind any more than I have to leave male leadership behind because I believe that true churches can also err. I don’t rationalize having it both ways because I don’t have it both ways. The notion of condemning churches (or “churches”) who gather under the name of Christ and hold a true gospel but are outside of our denomination and practice is a bit nauseating to me. When I do that, I almost feel as if I’m judging the servant of Another. I don’t defend their justification of infant baptisms or the latter confirmations. I think that they are wrong. But insofar as their assemblies, I do believe that they are servants of Christ and that the Spirit works in their assemblies. There is a difference between a true church and a church being true to what has been commanded.
Do you believe that the Spirit was at work in the churches of Knox, Wesley, Whitefield and Edwards? If not, then how do you account for the revivals and what seemed to be legitimate works of God in their assemblies? If so, then do you believe that there are two types of local “organizations” that functions as the Body of Christ…religious societies and churches?
We have an example in Acts (that those who believed and were baptized were added to the church). In Acts 4 baptism is left out, although I believe it implied. But the accounts tell what happened. They do not prove Landmarkism.
Then you can examine the literal word "baptism" and insist it means to be immersed. I agree. But others will insist that it is symbolic (that it symbolizes immersion). Some insist on running water. Some insist that one who cannot be baptized (for what ever reason) can still be a part of the New Testament church. Fact is that there is no direct passage that commands men be baptized before being considered members of the local assembly. So what we are left with is our interpretations and opinions.
I agree with your conclusions about Baptism, which is why I am a Baptist. I disagree with your definition of "church" when it applies to the local assemblies of other denominations. I don't believe that God has two types of "bodies" on this earth...churches and "non-church assemblies" functioning as the Body of Christ. I do believe that the churches (which you would call fake churches) and the pastors (which you'd call fake pastors) like Knox, Wesley, Whitefield and Edwards were used by God because they constituted churches of Christ.
I don’t find any biblical basis for Christians to accept doctrines developed outside the Body of Christ (teachers, preachers, etc. were given to the church….not to religious societies). Unless, of course, what you are saying is that there is the visible church and then there is the “invisible church”, both comprising the Body of Christ here on earth. Is this what you mean?
Last edited:
I agree. I think that one must use other formulas as well (soteriological, eschatological, etc) to appropriate communicate those matters. It gets a bit dicey, though when we start judging other denominations on our criteria. I simply disagree with the claim that Wesley, Whitefield, Knox, Edwards, etc. were not really pastors but instead unchurched heretics working against the true church (putting forward "fake churches". I stand firm that Baptism is absolutely essential for church membership. My disagreement is that I believe other "churches" are legitimate churches while being disobedient on the issue.
God gifts teachers and preachers to the church. The church disciples and builds the member of its body. Looking back, I simply don't see those Christian figures to be outside of the church looking in. I do not believe God gifts religious societies those things intended for the church. And I do not believe that there are two types of organizations functioning as the body of Christ on this earth. So I view all assemblies of Christians, gathered for the purpose of the Kingdom and in Christ, to be churches even when there is error. Jesus did the same, BTW, in Revelation.
Nevertheless, it is the Landmark position and is not this thread about the Landmark position or is this thread about some kind of generic "Baptist" position?
Again, you have provided only personal opinions. Where is your scriptural evidence (clear precepts and/or clear examples consistent with clear precepts) for what you said "I believe..."? We are not talking about what constitutes salvation or how to distinguish saved from lost, or what makes a gospel preacher.
Are you inferring "our criteria" is something other than clear Biblical precept or clear Biblical examples consistent with clear Biblical precepts? If so, what clear Biblical precept and example repudiates that true N.T. congregations consist of professed water immersed believers in Christ that administer ordinances symbolic of the gospel?
Of course they were pastors in their denominations over their own particular congregations. However, do you really think that a paedobaptist sacramental minister would have been regarded qualified by Christ or Paul and ordained by either to fill the pulpit of the congregation at Jerusalem or Rome? If Christ or Paul in their day would not ordain such a man in their own day what grounds do we have to recognize them today as qualified to fill that office?
It seems to me that you are failing to distinguish between what is essential to be a true Christian versus what is essential to be a true congregation of Christ but making them one and the same criteria! If so, we should be able to find members of congregations in the pages of the New Testament unbaptized and baptized. If not, then what is the Biblical basis for even suggesting your critieria to defined a true congregation of Christ?
But upon what basis do you have to even stand on? It seems that nothing more than personal opinion or at best according to your own words, questionable interpretations of scripture are the only things you claim for your "firm" view of baptism and church membership??? Are you really not potentially admitting you could be wrong and they could be right (as you claim various interpretations for justifying their claim to be a true congregation) and so your position is not so "firm" at all?
Just as in the Mason assembly (which habitually assembles) there is no doubt many saved people, all of which, had to profess faith in God to become members. So, if the Mason's decided to call themselves a true congregation and denomination of God, then according to your criteria based upon questionable difference of interpretations they would meet your basic criteria, that is of course, if they embraced the basic essentials of one doctrine - salvation????
So you are saying that a "legitimate" church can be composed of sprinkled infants, thus unregenerate members? Isn't that how the membership in all paedobaptist churches begins? Does not "confirmation" occur much later? Hence, potentially the vast majority of such a church could be unregenerate members and yet be a true church of Christ?
This is the same argument used to support women pastors who argue that such male gender texts rests upon questionable interpretations due to culture and male bias.
. This is precisely the argument made by the Westminster Confession of faith with regard to unregenerate infant members whom the church disciples to become fit members. However, the framers of the 1689 London Confession repudiated this argument based upon scripture.
So, basically you are saying you don't see any saved person can be outside a TRUE church looking in? If any true believer can be outside a true church looking in, why can't they?
So you don't believe such gifted men can be excluded from church membership and continue in such a gifted capacity while outside the congregation? If you do believe they can be excluded and continue in such a gifted capacity while outside the congregation, then would it not be consistent for true congregations to exclude such from their membership? If not, would your congregation call and install as Pastor over your congregation such paedobaptist men?
So, in reality you do not believe it is possible for a person to be in a saved but unchurched state?? If that is true then of course we ought not to make water baptism a prerquisite for membership and neither should we practice church discipline as saved people cannot be put out of a true church. On the other hand if you believe that one can be in a saved state and yet outside of a true congregation of Christ, then there must be some other designation to describe the state of saved outside of a true congregation than those inside? For example, like the family or kingdom of God in contrast to the church of God? If not, what Biblical designations would you suggest to distinguish the state of the saved outside versus those inside?
How can you use the seven congregations in Asia as an example for your position unless you can prove they consisted of unbaptized, sprinkled or poured members? If the New Testament precept and example is that baptism precedes church membership and thus baptism is one essential to be a true congregation of Christ, then must not they first be a true congregation before they can be a congregation in error? How then, can citing such congregations support your theory about church constitution if you are trying to prove baptism is non-essential to church constitution (unless you can show that these congregations were made up of unbaptized members)?
Last edited:
Gentlemen,
The essence of the Landmark position can be stated very simply in the following manner:
In order to be a true Christians one does not need to know all truth, but one must know the essentials of salvation in order to be recognized as a true Christian. Likewise, in order to be a true congregation of Christ, that congregation need not know all truth, but it must at least know the essentials of what makes a congregation a true congregation of Christ. At least two of those essentials are set forth in the Great Commission - the true gospel and true baptism.
The historical definition of Landmarkism provided by those who merely systematized what a vast number of Baptists long before them had known and practiced is found in the Baptist Enclycopedia which was edited by a Landmark Baptist, who most likely obtained it from Dr. J.M. Pendleton:
“The doctrine of landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s Table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as “a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,” etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization. Hence the non-recognition of Pedobaptist ministers, who are not interfered with, but simply let alone.” – William Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopedia (Landmarkism) 1881
The essence of the Landmark position can be stated very simply in the following manner:
In order to be a true Christians one does not need to know all truth, but one must know the essentials of salvation in order to be recognized as a true Christian. Likewise, in order to be a true congregation of Christ, that congregation need not know all truth, but it must at least know the essentials of what makes a congregation a true congregation of Christ. At least two of those essentials are set forth in the Great Commission - the true gospel and true baptism.
The historical definition of Landmarkism provided by those who merely systematized what a vast number of Baptists long before them had known and practiced is found in the Baptist Enclycopedia which was edited by a Landmark Baptist, who most likely obtained it from Dr. J.M. Pendleton:
“The doctrine of landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s Table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as “a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,” etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization. Hence the non-recognition of Pedobaptist ministers, who are not interfered with, but simply let alone.” – William Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopedia (Landmarkism) 1881
The Spirit being at work in the hearts of men does not constitute a church. The Spirit moves as He Sovereignly pleases. Are you suggesting the Omnipresent Spirit of God can only work through a church, even one that falls short of the biblical definition?
This is my point, Biblicist. You are saying that John Knox, John Wesley, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, etc. are pastors but that they are false pastors of false churches (the position of pastor or “overseer” was gifted to the churches, not to religious societies). Not only that, but the single doctrine that prevents the New Testament instructions to the churches as applicable to them is their understanding of a symbolic act. You are saying that Paul’s instructions to the church in Corinth does not apply to them insofar as it addresses churches not because they reject the gospel (they affirm and teach the gospel), not because they gather under a false god (they gather in the name of Christ), not because they gather for themselves (they gathered for Kingdom work), not because God did not use them (God used them greatly…just as much if not more than many Baptist pastors), but because they misinterpret what you believe to be symbolic.
By your claim Wesley, Knox, Calvin, Edwards, Whitfield, etc. are false pastors leading false churches who held views over a symbolic act that prevented their own congregations from being the local expression of the Body of Christ. And you are wrong.
Like I said when we were discussing Howell’s rejection of Landmarkism, the problem is not necessarily the doctrine but the application.
No, I am not suggesting that the Omnipresent Spirit of God can only work through a church. I am suggesting that God has chosen to work through the church as the local expression of the Body of Christ. God can redefine the flock and gift pastors to a social club, or a religious society, or the local PTA. He can gift them the gift of tongues, of prophesy, of healing. But He doesn’t. It is not a matter of God’s omnipresence or omnipotence. It’s a matter of God’s immutability and His faithfulness. Instead I believe God has chosen a people set aside for His purposes that function as local churches.
If those men (Whitefield, Wesley, Knox, Calvin, Edwards, etc.) were indeed false pastors leading false churches (if they are those we are warned of in Rm. 16:17) then we do not need to entertain their teachings, There are men on this very forum who call themselves "Baptists" while at the same time claiming to be "Calvinists"...attributing as God given truth the words of false preachers to false churches.
I personally don't believe that, although I can see no other conclusion from your arguments. I believe that those men were indeed faithful pastors of churches and God used them within the context of His own people even through their doctrine and understanding was less than perfect. What they had right - the gospel of Jesus Christ and their purchase by His precious blood - was enough to overcome misunderstanding and error associated with a symbolic act and they are churches (regardless of their error).
Yes. The biblical church. The local, organized, assembly of baptized believers.
Is He faithful to His church or to Man's church? Look what God calls these "churches" in Revelation. The Great Whore and her Harlot Daughters. 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Yes, He has. An organized assembly of baptized believers.
Then you have failed to understand the argument.
We are not talking about perfection. We are talking about false doctrine.
Anyone who calls himself "pastor" is a pastor and any group that calls itself "church" is a church?
Jon, the very same rationale you are using to argue against the clear and explicit precepts and examples in scripture for what constitutes a true N.T. congregation is the very same rationale used to argue against the clear and explicit precepts and examples that condemn female pastors and charismatic leaders and the charismatic movement.
A female pastor may be a genuinely saved person with leadership gift (as those you list above), she may preach the true gospel (as those you list above),and the Lord may use her to save souls (as those you list above) but she is not qualified to fill the office of Pastor in a true N.T. congregation. No doubt she is the pastor of the congregation who ordained her or accepted her. But she is no more a TRUE Biblical pastor any more than paedobaptist institutions are true New Testament congregations.
What bothers me is that you keep avoiding my challenge to provide clear biblical evidence for what you say you "believe" while condemning the Landmark position of what constitutes the prerequisites for church membership while admitting the scripture supports those prerequisites.
The truth is there is not much in Scripture that could not be overthrown by using your method of rationale. The problem is that your rationale not only lacks Biblical support but is anti-biblical.
Surely, you understand that scriptural baptism is a GOSPEL declarative act? To pervert the symbol is to pervert what it was designed to symbolize! Surely, you understand that the whole divine purpose of a symbol is to convey the truth it was designed by God to convey. Paedbaptism repudiates and perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paedobaptism clearly proclaims "another gospel" and clearly repudiates the gospel of Christ.
1.Its' mode repudiates the gospel
2. Its subject repudiates the gospel - unrenerates who do not profess Christ
3. It's purpose repudiates the gospel - bringing unregenerates into Christ's metaphorical body
The membership that constitutes a paedobaptist assembly is constituted upon a declaration that repudiates the gospel and proclaims "another gospel." Surely, you cannot accept an institution as a true congregation of Christ that by its very act of being constituted is a rejection of the very gospel it claims to preach???
Everything in the bible that addresses salvation is applicable to all who are saved.
Everything in the bible that addresses the church and its membership is applicable to saved members of N.T. congregations.
As I said before, would Jesus or Paul lay hands on a pedaobaptist preacher and appoint him as pastor of the church at Jerusalem? Would your church call John Knox or John Calvin to be the pastor of your church? If you excluded a gifted man from your congregation would he be still gifted?
I addressed all the points in your posts that you think are your important arguments. However, you dont' answer my posts point for point. In fact, you completely ignore my points.
Jon would you do me the courtesy and respond to my post #68? point for point?
John, my bible teaches that baptism symbolizes the death/burial (buried with Him in baptism) and resurrection of Christ (raised [resurrected] to walk in the newness of life).
Could you please show me how sprinkling a few drops of water on a baby's head symbolizes death/burial? Have you ever been to a grave side service portion of a funeral? Did the minister lay the body on the grass and sprinkle some dirt on the departed's head and proclaim, "There! He's buried. Let's all go home?"
How about resurrection. How does sprinkling a few drops of water on the head of an infant symbolize the resurrection of Christ.
You keep calling baptism a "symbol" but symbols are only valid if they symbolize a truth.
1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the symbol of that which saves us, the resurrection of Christ.
So, again, how does sprinkling symbolize His resurrection?
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
And how does sprinkling symbolize His death/burial?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Sure (sorry, I don't do well with multiple posts).
I do not agree that this is the Landmark position as applied by J.R. Graves (which is what I was speaking of). While I applaud Grave’s intent and believe that his concern is applicable today, throughout history there is no evidences that any one church held firmly a New Testament doctrine of the church. But I do believe that throughout history there have been true gospel churches that held to true Baptism. Often, however, those churches would have rejected what we refer to as Baptist churches.
I think you meant #67:
I agree that the woman would not be a true biblical pastor. But the reason is that I do not believe God would give her the gifts required, nor ordain her to that position, as she is not qualified.
I believe that God ordained Wesley, Whitefield, Knox, and Edwards for the position that they served, as pastor. I also believe that they were gifted by God for the positions they assumed as pastor over those churches.
Perhaps that is because you have failed to grasp that I have not rejected those biblical doctrines you proclaim. I don’t even object to the doctrines upon which Landmarkism was founded (neither did Howell, come to think of it). I simply think that you are applying biblical doctrines unbiblically. So there are no passages that prove me right and you wrong just there are no passages that prove you right and me wrong. We agree on Scripture but disagree in application.
To illustrate with another issue Howell faced – I agree with the Scripture and doctrines that formed the base for the anti-mission’s movement (I hold a Calvinistic soterioilogy), but I detest the application as unbiblical.
I do understand the symbolism of baptism. Where I disagree is that I do not believe those paedobaptists (men like Wesley, Knox, Edwards, Calvin, Whitfield, etc.) teach a false gospel because of their misunderstanding of baptism. But if they do, then I do not understand why so many here seem to glean truths from false teachers. These men should be exposed for the evil you think they have done (teaching another gospel, forwarding a counterfeit church). I just don’t see the level of conviction that your words should generate on the topic.
Sure I can. I believe Arminianism, free-will theology, hyper-Calvinism, the idea that Jesus spiritually separated from rather than relied on God at the Cross, and a probably a few other things to diminish the gospel itself but I still call those congregations who hold those errors churches.
I don’t know who Jesus or Paul would or would not appoint as pastors. Neither do you. At my church, we would appoint people that adhered to our doctrine. We wouldn’t have Knox, Calvin, Whitfield, Wesley, Edwards, or even Tim Keller preaching from our pulpit as they do not represent our beliefs. But I’d recommend their books.
If we excluded a gifted man from our congregation would he still be gifted? Here we may disagree. I believe that God calls people to positions and that He makes them what it is He has called them to be. If we excluded a man from our congregation who God had ordained and gifted to our congregation then I’d suspect we’d be in the wrong.
I get overwhelmed when people respond with post after post without opportunity to respond. When this happens I go into skim mode. I’m the same way with loud conversations (more so now than a decade ago, for some reason). You have my apologies for not responding and I hope I’ve addressed your inquires sufficiently.
Tom, I do not believe that there is a substitution for baptism by immersion. Always aiming to settle those inquiring minds.John, my bible teaches that baptism symbolizes the death/burial (buried with Him in baptism) and resurrection of Christ (raised [resurrected] to walk in the newness of life).
Could you please show me how sprinkling a few drops of water on a baby's head symbolizes death/burial? Have you ever been to a grave side service portion of a funeral? Did the minister lay the body on the grass and sprinkle some dirt on the departed's head and proclaim, "There! He's buried. Let's all go home?"
How about resurrection. How does sprinkling a few drops of water on the head of an infant symbolize the resurrection of Christ.
You keep calling baptism a "symbol" but symbols are only valid if they symbolize a truth.
1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the symbol of that which saves us, the resurrection of Christ.
So, again, how does sprinkling symbolize His resurrection?
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
And how does sprinkling symbolize His death/burial?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Edited:
I don’t know for certain, but I always wondered if those who “sprinkle” perhaps associates this with forgiveness (e.g., Ezekiel 36 when God says He will “sprinkle clean water on them ”). If so, then I suppose it incorporates the means of God’s forgiveness (just as some have associated faith in God’s provision for OT saints with faith in Christ). Just an idea. To find out, I suppose you need to ask someone who believes other modes of baptism are sufficient.
Last edited:
TCassidy, I have two questions:Tcassidy said:
1. Do you believe that God has never worked through a paedobaptist church?
2. Do you believe that a Baptist church is ipso facto a biblical church?
.....may I add, do you believe in Closed Communion?
Except for this statement there was nothing new in your post that I have not already responded to. However, I think the statement you made above is the real crux of the issue between us. However, before I dive into it I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Please tell me precisely what aspect you are referring to when you claim it is "application" we are in disagreement about.