Intro to Landmarkism...?

Originally posted by Major B:
Most of the Landmarkism in our area is neither thought out nor very consistent, and that is the problem.

Click to expand...

If a fraction of the the zeal and hatred that has been spewed against Landmarkism had been spewed again modernism, it (modernism) would never have got a foot in the Baptist door.

It speaks worlds about the character of those running the Baptist show at the educational and associational/conventional level that they played footsies - no, laid in bed - with infidels for decades while consistently deriding the Landmarkers.

Mark Osgatharp

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
I said Jesus Christ promised to perpetuate His sort of churches in the world and that those churches are Baptist in doctrinal character.

Click to expand...

That is kind of waffling around on the Baptist idea.
There are many non-Baptist churches that hold the same doctrine as Baptists. There are many good solid churches who want nothing to do with many Baptist conventions and denominations because of such infighting and lack of zeal to reach people.

Are there any of the churches that the apostles started around today? I don't think so. Goes to show God does not care about the placard on the door or window but the people and His kingdom.

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Major B:
Most of the Landmarkism in our area is neither thought out nor very consistent, and that is the problem.

Click to expand...

If a fraction of the the zeal and hatred that has been spewed against Landmarkism had been spewed again modernism, it (modernism) would never have got a foot in the Baptist door.

It speaks worlds about the character of those running the Baptist show at the educational and associational/conventional level that they played footsies - no, laid in bed - with infidels for decades while consistently deriding the Landmarkers.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Do you really believe that liberalism started as a reaction to the landmarkism lie? Just take a look at Baptist history about the early 1800's and compare it to when liberalism started. Just look at Darwin's grandpa. Liberalism started long before landmarkism ever started in the US by men who wanted a point to combat papal successsion.

Things get started as a result of ignorance and lack of study. If Baptists are that gullible (which I think many more are than they realize) then they need to start studying and quit listening to their preachers. Today about 200 people convert to Mormonism each week coming from the RCC and Baptists. That has nothing to with liberalism but ignorance and laziness to study.

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:

It speaks worlds about the character of those running the Baptist show at the educational and associational/conventional level that they played footsies - no, laid in bed - with infidels for decades while consistently deriding the Landmarkers.

Click to expand...

They are working with each other today on the inside within the organization. Many of them are people you would never suspect unless you knew them better and asked them the hard questions. Many well known preachers stay away from the hard questions. They don't want to get exposed as ignorant.

GB,

Their doubtless were/are some closet modernists around, probably lots of them. The fact remains that while many were knowingly laying in bed with modernists they were deriding the Landmarkers.

You'd think that being a modernist infidel would merit at least as much scorn as being a poor ignorant Landmarker. But, alas, alas, in the world of Baptist acedemia and Conventionism, it has not been so.

Rather, the policy was (and in many places still is) to bed up with Christ denying Bible hating infidel modernists while vehemently romping on the Landmarkers, whoes greatest crime is in believing that the Bible is God's word and that when the Lord said something He really meant it.

Mark Osgatharp

Mark, there you go again with your SBC-centerism. For those of us with NB-DNA, Landmarkism is pretty much a null term.

Is there any chance we will get around to talking about the OP again?

If not, I see no point in keeping this thread open any longer just so folks can argue about other things.

Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
Mark, there you go again with your SBC-centerism. For those of us with NB-DNA, Landmarkism is pretty much a null term.

Click to expand...

Squire,

You are right. The principles of Landmarkism had pretty much died in the North before the Landmark movement was born. That is why the modernists walked right in among the northern Baptists and sat down at the table with barely a fight.

By contrast, Landmarkism was deeply entrenched among the Baptists of the south - and ironcially, still is, even among many who deny the name - and that is why the modernists couldn't rout the south like they did the north.

So while the Southern Baptists are still arguing about Landmarkism and trying to fight off modernism, the Northern Baptists are discussing whether or not they should sit at the same table with those who advocate sodomite marriages.

Seems like somewhere down the line someone would wake up and smell the coffee.

Mark Osgatharp

Errm, Mark, I take it you are not familiar with the FBFI or the GARBC. We, Northerners, stayed free of a convention until 1914. And then we started moving towards the back door in the 20s. the GARBC left in the 30s and the CBF/FBF left in the late 40s. We left because up North we took on the societal model of organization rather than the association/convention model. So, those of us who would be the equivalent of the Landmark movement moved on and let the dead bury the dead.

Squire,

I am fully aware that there were movements out of the Northern Baptist Convention long ago.

So what is your point? Is there something wrong with discussing Landmarkism or the Baptist situation in the south. If not, then why castigate me for doing so as when you said,

"Mark, there you go again with your SBC-centerism."

Uh, well, I happen to live in the south - though I'm not a Southern Baptist. I am a Landmark Baptist, which primarily a southern (lower case "s" intentional) so why wouldn't I talk about things from this perspective, especially in a thread that is specifically about Landmarkism?

Frankly, I really don't know what your point is. Perhaps you could elaborate a little.

Mark Osgatharp

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Major B:
Most of the Landmarkism in our area is neither thought out nor very consistent, and that is the problem.

Click to expand...

If a fraction of the the zeal and hatred that has been spewed against Landmarkism had been spewed again modernism, it (modernism) would never have got a foot in the Baptist door.

It speaks worlds about the character of those running the Baptist show at the educational and associational/conventional level that they played footsies - no, laid in bed - with infidels for decades while consistently deriding the Landmarkers.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]You have not been to Western Kentucky, obviously. What we call a "liberal" here would be flaming fundy in most places. Our problem is ignorance, complacency, and tradition.

This has been an interesting thread to read.

It reminds me of my grandmother's country church in far southeastern Oklahoma. I can write this because I doubt a single member there has a computer, since they just got indoor plumbing.

It was far in the country, a small white building with a graveyard in the back (typical country church). It has jumped back and forth between Missionary and Landmark Baptist, depending on who is the preacher.

I visited my grandmother's old homesite last year for the first time in about twenty years and stopped at the church and walked through the grave yard.

The church was named with my grandmother's last name (still is). Half of the graveyard is full of relatives from the 1800's to early 1900's and they still use it some today.

The sign today is ######## Landmark Missionary Baptist Church. And it has new siding and new windows and isn't one inch bigger than the 200 square feet it had back when.

I remember attending as a child. My grandmother never went. She was a very strong Christian, but she wouldn't talk about the church. she couldn't drive, so she couldn't go into town to another church.

One day, when I grew up, I found out why she didn't attend. Apparently, years ago, she got a ride into town with relatives and visited the FBC (Southern Baptist) in the small town. After two or three visits, the church "churched" her in a business meeting in which her husband (my grandfather) and her daughter (my aunt) voted her out with a unanimous vote....all because she visited that wicked Southern Baptist Church in the big city.

As far as I knew, this church never grew beyond the few people who went to it. It was EXTREMELY legalistic.

They all moved here from Arkansas in the late 1800's.

Does anybody notice any similarity here?

Phillip, I "noticed a similarity". Please take a look at my private message. Thanks.

[ December 12, 2005, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

Phillip,

A. I don't notice any similarity at all between what you described and what has been posted here.

B. If your grandmother was, as you said, "a good Christian" she wouldn't have quit going to church, even if a church did do her wrong. A good Christian would have found a good church to attend.

C. Speaking of southeastern Oklahoma, I know of a Southern Baptist church in southeastern Oklahoma that has, or at least did have, an athiest for a pastor.

Mark Osgatharp

[ December 12, 2005, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

I suppose you can prove that last charge.

Regardless, this thread keeps wandering off topic and I will be forced to close it unless it returns to the topic and stays there.

rsr

Originally posted by rsr:
Thanks for the link, Robert. I've read most of it over the past week or so and found it interesting....

Click to expand...

I haven't had a chance to read it. Thanks for your comments.

Concerning church planting at the associational level: It was a common practice of our East Texas missionary Baptists, that separated with the SBC brethren circa 1900, to elect "local" missionaries at their associational meetings for a number of years after the split. It evidently took them several years to decide it was contrary to the Scriptures, or at least that it looked too much like what the Southern Baptists were doing.

Originally posted by rsr:
I suppose you can prove that last charge.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can prove that last charge and will open another thread for that purpose.

Mark Osgatharp

I can't remember in which forum I posted the question about the Landmark movement--I thought it was this one, but I guess it's not. But anyway, since it is a form about the Landmark movement, would somebody please explain what it is and what their doctrines are?

Thank you and God bless

It was in the other Landmark forum where I posted the original question--and they referred me back here--thanks all

God bless

Linda, in a work entitled "Introduction to Landmarkism", Ron Critchfield wrote the following:

Landmarkism was a movement to preserve the historic and distinctive principles of the Baptist church. Its name was originally derived from Proverbs 22:28 ["Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set (KJV)."] and Job 24:2 ["Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks and feed thereof (KJV)."], which served as proof texts to the fact that the true nature of the Baptist church was being compromised. The name "Landmark" gained official use as the name of the movement following the 1854 publication of the work by J. M. Pendleton entitled, "An Old Landmark Re-set"

J. R. Graves defines the Landmark mission as one "which is to be the witness of Christ's truth against every system of error, and those who originate or advocate them, and above all, by no act to countenance, recognize, aid or abet those who teach error, or to confirm those who are in error." (2) In order to preserve the distinctiveness of the Baptist church, Landmarkers embraced an ecclesiastical system based on the major premise that Baptist churches are the only true churches in the world.

Click to expand...

Critchfield believed Landmarkism was identified by the following traits:
1. Baptist churches are the only true churches
2. Baptist churches have continued in existence since the time of Christ
3. Only immersion in a Baptist church is valid baptism
4. Only Baptist ministers are valid ministers
5. Strict autonomy of the local church
6. The church has a local expression only

I think that is a pretty fair assessment by one who was neither a Baptist nor a minister.