Landmark Baptists

[37818]

Well, to start with, they say, "Landmarkism is a Baptist ecclesiology", whereas I would say that "Baptist ecclesiology is Landmarkism".

Well, not all Baptists agree.

The New Testament are our sole actual succession from our first century churches.

 

[Alan Gross]

I know not all agree, but my contention is with the GotQuestions description of where All Baptists originated. Remember, they even said all stripes of Baptists are thought to have begun in the time of Christ.

Landmark Baptists

If so, then, it is simply a matter of most all Baptists in 2023 not agreeing; not that the Lankmark-type understanding is wrong or that "we" changed.

The New Testament are our sole actual succession from our first century churches.

Which do you think is easier? The Holy Spirit having people preach the Great Commission and baptism folks and teach them "all things", then to perpetuate themselves, by the Holy Spirit having them start new churches, by succession of authority in baptism?

or, for the Holy Spirit to Superintend over the hand-copying and preserving of the entire Bible text, in documents for centuries prior to the printing press?

That's your question.

I say the Holy Spirit did both and that those actual people were also part and parcel and instrumental in defending the Word of God, to the death of 10s of millions.

 

[37818]

Which do you think is easier? The Holy Spirit having people preach the Great Commission and baptism folks and teach them "all things", then to perpetuate themselves, by the Holy Spirit having them start new churches, by succession of authority in baptism?

or, for the Holy Spirit to Superintend over the hand-copying and preserving of the entire Bible text, in documents for centuries prior to the printing press?

That's your question.

It is not one question.
There is no Apostolic authority without New Testament.

 

[Alan Gross]

It is not one question.
There is no Apostolic authority without New Testament.

The question is, "which do you think is easier"? For the Holy Spirit?

We believe in the God given authority in baptism, as it has been passed down from congregation to congregation, in dozens and hundreds of 'lines' that can from the first church of Jesus Christ, in Jerusalem.

There is 100% reason to believe it by faith, based on the Bible, which these same congregations stood for and championed in it's defence to the death, and 100% reason to not believe there is any historical proof to dispute it ( though they try, try, try).

"Apostolic succession", or a succession of Apostles, is not a Landmark belief or position and I hope not by any called Baptist, or Baptist-like.

 

[37818]

The question is, "which do you think is easier"? For the Holy Spirit?

God Almighty is going to do His will. Psalms 119:89. John 4:24.

 

[37818]

@Alan Gross,
Please forgive my "question," comment in my post #45. We both know God is omnipotent.

 

[Alan Gross]

@Alan Gross,
Please forgive my "question," comment in my post #45. We both know God is omnipotent.

You're fine, I like the scriptures.

The only 'problem' is that I might have tricked you into agreeing with my position when I described 'Landmarkism' this way:

The Holy Spirit having people preach the Great Commission and baptism folks and teach them "all things", then perpetuate themselves, by the Holy Spirit having them start new churches, by succession of authority in baptism?

I don't think you are a local church-only man, which makes that quote mean "like begets like", and one church is connected to another through the authority in baptism, passed from one to the other, etc., in continual succession, since the time of Christ.

That explains why there would be churches today that are local church-only, no alien baptism, closed communion, Doctrines of Grace, etc., because "like begets like" when other more liberal and lenient positions would be more popular for numbers and not being misunderstood by the world.

 

[37818]

I don't think you are a local church-only man, which makes that quote mean "like begets like", and one church is connected to another through the authority in baptism, passed from one to the other, etc., in continual succession, since the time of Christ.

That explains why there would be churches today that are local church-only, no alien baptism, closed communion, Doctrines of Grace, etc., because "like begets like" when other more liberal and lenient positions would be more popular for numbers and not being misunderstood by the world.

Autonomous churches are local churches. I am of the persuasion the body of Christ is comprised of all the saved. A local church "membership" is only comprised of baptized believers.

And I do not agree with Landmark Baptists. So I would not join a Landmark Baptist church.

 

[Alan Gross]

I know.

I am of the persuasion the body of Christ is comprised of all the saved.

The word 'body' and 'universal' (comprised of all the saved)
are total opposites in meaning, but O.K.

'Cause, whatever you're thinking on that, it is 'invisible' anyway.

So much so, I have never seen that in the book, as you know.

Peace and love.

 

[Salty]

'Cause, whatever you're thinking on that, it is 'invisible' anyway.

Peace and love.

that's the problem with the invisible church - I run into so many of them, without realizing it, because I dindnt see them coming!

But what a blessing it is, when I meet so many new brothers

 

[Alan Gross]

that's the problem with the invisible church - I run into so many of them, without realizing it, because I dindnt see them coming!

But what a blessing it is, when I meet so many new brothers

They are in the Kingdom of God.

They may not be Scripturally baptized members of one of the Lord's churches, where I can see how God has designed a specific kind of organization to bring Him Glory and Conduct His Business, but they are still saved if they have been brought to the end of themselves and had their soul saved by trusting Jesus alone. They are your brothers.

I don't see God in naming something with words that have opposite meanings.

God doesn't come up with that kind of talk.

I see God conducting His business through ekklesias/churches, as He said.

The Kingdom of God's saved people under their King is glorious, but as you know, I find it impossible to make Βασίλειο an identical thing as an Εκκλησία.

There certainly is a Universal Visible Βασίλειο.

Beyond that, I see the Bible teachings of God's witnesses on earth as lighthouses with candlesticks always being an Εκκλησία, which is local, as an Divinely Originated and Instituted Organic Organization that He promised to be with until the end of the age, throughout all ages, world without end, "till He comes again".

That's why we are hear.

Your poll didn't indicate the BB necessarily thinks it's any big deal.

They are seemingly uninterested in being Scripturally Baptists, as I have described it, even if the baptismal authority in historical Baptist-like succession is "of God".

That's still one reason why God called me to preach and brought me here.

 

[Salty]

You say tow-mato
I say TA-mato

"Majoring on the minors"

AS far as the poll is concerned - feel free to post on your own poll!

 

[Alan Gross]

AS far as the poll is concerned - feel free to post on your own poll!

O.K., thanks.

 

[Matthew Gage]

BaptistBasics.org really?

I greatly resent the disparagement cast on my work. I understand dismissing Wikipedia as a secular source, but you are attacking an ally in attacking me and my work. Especially when there was much agreement expressed to the information quoted from my website.

The goal of the cited article was to demonstrate a theory I have concerning similarities between the origins of Landmark and Fundamental Baptists. It is not meant to be a thorough and systematic presentation of Landmark beliefs. There is no need to attack it for not being that, because it is not meant to be.

"It is not that they held any new or revolutionary position.

"They were responding to an attack on their own identity as an upstart group emerged to claim to be the one true church with the only true doctrines.

"Conflicts and debates between Landmark Baptists and the Church of Christ (or “Campbellites” as Landmarkers liked to call them) were very common."

These quotes are deceptively pulled from a paragraph where I explain my theory of what caused the rise of the Landmark Movement.

"My understanding of Landmark history makes me believe that the conflict with the Church of Christ is the primary reason for the rise of Landmarkism. It is not that they held any new or revolutionary position. They were responding to an attack on their own identity as an upstart group emerged to claim to be the one true church with the only true doctrines. Conflicts and debates between Landmark Baptists and the Church of Christ (or “Campbellites” as Landmarkers liked to call them) were very common. I have read numerous accounts of those debates taking place here in Texas in the late 1800’s and even into the early 1900’s."

If read in context, it shows that I acknowledge that Landmarkism did not invent new positions but did feel a need to defend and define their beliefs in response to outside pressure. I do not think the Landmark movement would have coalesced as it did without that outside pressure. If you take out the conflict with groups like the Church of Christ (that also claimed to be heirs of the New Testament church) and the rising liberal and critical theology of the time, there would be no need for the Landmark movement. The Landmark movement was a reaction to these outside pressures. Landmarkers would have gone on believing what they believed except they felt a need to defend and propagate their positions. None of this disparages Landmarkism or Landmarkers.

What followed that confused me even more. I provided a list of illustrative positions of Landmarkism that Baptist (SBC) historian H. Leon McBeth gave. McBeth is certainly not a Landmarker but is generally an honest historian. Yet, in the added comments on the six positions listed by McBeth, the only one that there was disagreement on is #3, which is whether or not the kingdom and churches are coterminous. To the five other points, the added comments agreed with McBeth's assertions. If there so much agreement, why disparage it?

Beyond that, this article goes on to compare Landmark and Fundamental Baptists.

Well, that was the purpose of the article.

Honestly, I am honestly confused as to why my article would be maligned as inaccurate or unworthy of attention. Perhaps there is disagreement on my theory about why and how the Landmark movement began. That's fine because I acknowledge that not many want to consider it. Otherwise the only point of disagreement is from a quote by another author.

I realize the problem is not what I wrote, it was a dig at the person who linked to it. Yes, they probably could have found a better representation of Landmark positions. That is no reason to slander, purposefully or accidentally, my website by asking "BaptistBasics.org really?"

 

[37818]

Another source.

The Landmark Controversy: A Study in Baptist History and Polity | Maranatha Baptist Seminary

 

[Salty]

Hmmm - “If Alexander Campbell had never come along, we’d never have had Landmarkism. There never would have been a need,” Lefever insisted.

 

[Piper]

Another source.

The Landmark Controversy: A Study in Baptist History and Polity | Maranatha Baptist Seminary

That is an excellent source. Fred Moritz did a great job summarizing it in a way that can be read.

"
Beyond that, we must understand that these presuppositions (or assumptions as McBeth calls them) cannot be established from Scripture. There is no biblical promise of an unbroken, traceable line of succession between New Testament churches.

Neither can the succession premise be proven from history. We can identify groups of “back-to-the-Bible” people throughout church history. We can identify several of the beliefs and practices that we call “Baptist” distinctives among them. But to prove the “unbroken, historical succession” is impossible.

In point of fact, history seems to demonstrate the opposite. We cannot divert this discussion into a study of Baptist history, but it is noteworthy that around the world many Baptists have come into existence as believers read the Word of God and came to Baptist convictions apart from other influences.

We can briefly point to the testimony of the Separate Baptists in the United States. Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall were converts under Whitefield’s ministry during the Great Awakening. Though they were brothers-in-law, they came to Baptist convictions independent of each other, through reading the Scriptures. They had a good ministry in Virginia and later removed to North Carolina where a great revival ensued.

Johann Gerhard Oncken was a German who was saved in England. Later, in Hamburg he became convicted of the truth of believer’s baptism. After waiting for someone to immerse him, he, his wife, and five others were baptized by Barnas Sears under cover of darkness. God used him to establish a Baptist testimony in Germany, and he was the driving force of missionary outreach into Russia, Hungary, and several of the Scandinavian countries.

Gustavas Schroeder was a Swedish sea captain who was saved in a Methodist revival meeting in New Orleans. He came to Baptist convictions by reading the Bible and was used of God to plant churches in the United States (including Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco) and in Scandinavia.

These stories can be repeated countless times. The Landmark Baptists face the horns of a dilemma when deciding if these godly leaders, and others like them, are true Baptists. How does their coming to biblical convictions apart from any influence but Scripture “square” with the Landmark theory of historical succession?

Scripture nowhere teaches such a succession. New Testament churches depend upon the authority of Scripture for their authority and validity. The early churches depended upon the teaching of the apostles (Acts 2:41). The New Testament churches received the written words of the apostles, which now comprise our New Testament (2 Thes 2:15; 3:14, 15; 2 Pet 3:1, 2; Jude 3). The validity of a church and its authority is determined by its conformity to Scripture.

The strongest, and indeed the only valid argument for the Baptist position, is the following. If suddenly today all religious traditions were somehow to vanish from the earth and all that were left was a New Testament, tomorrow there would be Baptists. Succession of New Testament doctrine is the only true apostolic succession.

The claim of succession is similar to Roman Catholic teaching. Rome depends upon apostolic succession; Landmarkism depends upon a historical succession. Both are in error.

This issue is important because it affects our approach to Baptist history and because the Landmark theory has not disappeared. It is prevalent in some Southern Baptist circles and in several independent Baptist frames of reference.

We must understand that these presuppositions cannot be established from Scripture. Neither can the succession premise be proven from history.

We specifically reject the Landmark Baptist position that holds that there is a visible, unbroken, historical line of succession between the New Testament believers of previous centuries and Bible-believing Baptists today. People who held Baptist convictions have lived in every period of church history, but to prove a line of succession between them is impossible. Our validity rests not in a Rome-like succession, but in the authority of the Word of God that gave our Baptist forebears their convictions. That Word is also the source of our Baptist convictions.

 

[Alan Gross]

, it was a dig at the person who linked to it. Yes, th

Yes, a little and acting as a plea to not be dependent on the various search hits as the exclusive sources for Doctrines, since the Bible is brimming over with Landmark teachings.

He posted another one. Should be fun.

Well, that was the purpose of the article.

I know.

That is no reason to slander, purposefully or accidentally, my website by asking "BaptistBasics.org really?"

I am quite the critic. I said, "really?"

disparagement cast on my work

attack it

deceptively pulled

why disparage it?

maligned as inaccurate or unworthy of attention.

slander

Sorry, nothing of that nature was intended and it won't happen in a way you could misunderstand, again, I hope.

Nice to meet you.

Nice article, btw.

 

[Alan Gross]

these presuppositions (or assumptions as McBeth calls them) cannot be established from Scripture. There is no biblical promise of an unbroken, traceable line of succession between New Testament churches.

Ask Jesus if He has one.

He is the one Who promised and continual succession and can trace it, but He didn't put 'traceable' in His writings anywhere and I don't know of any by Landmarkism. Maybe someone claimed it, but we go by church records to establish authority, so let's all take a look at them, together.

Neither can the succession premise be proven from history

Sure it can. Not if it has been hidden from someone by God, though, so be it.
Most wise and prudent people I know think that a local assembly of people congregated into an official body constitutes the equivalent of a worldwide menagerie of every subject belonging to a Kingdom.

Might want to start learning right there.

But if God in His Providence leaves you to believe fantastic myths that are invisible and do not conduct the worship and business of God as He has Commanded, anyway, so be it.

We can identify groups of “back-to-the-Bible” people throughout church history. We can identify several of the beliefs and practices that we call “Baptist” distinctives among them.

You're going to love those groups when God shows you, here or in Eternity.

Way to go.

Faith in Jesus alone for salvation and believers' baptism by immersion. Try not to get your head cut off looking for those.

But to prove the “unbroken, historical succession” is impossible

Of course it is. Who claims to prove it in history?

In point of fact, history seems to demonstrate the opposite.

Prove it up. Three or four specific supposed examples don't prove or disprove a general statement.

We cannot divert this discussion into a study of Baptist history, but it is noteworthy that around the world many Baptists have come into existence as believers read the Word of God and came to Baptist convictions apart from other influences.

The Bible is a true Baptist's Home Court advantage, that's why. You give a man the Bible and the Holy Spirit bares witness to it, you'll get someone that believes Baptist Doctrine. It's Bible Doctrine. And it what they are called to contend for. The faith.

It has no association to whether a proper baptism by authority of Baptist-like succession has been obtained by that Baptist Bible believer.

 

[37818]

@Piper,
We have an actual succession from first century churches. It is called the New Testament books. And is the sole Apostolic authority for churches today. And we call them who we believe are accurately following them Baptist.