Primitive Baptist & Landmarkers

Bro. Vaughn compiled some stats last year, maybe he could answer that better.

There are several Landmark Baptist Churches in this area, scattered from here to Lexington KY toward the east and from here to Central City in the west which I am acquainted with.

Most of these are missionary Baptist; most are pre-trib; though often this is not necessary to be able to fellowship.

I know a pastor over in Livermore, KY between Owensboro and Central City who is originally from Va. I asked him of the Primitives in that area, he said he was not aware of any, imagine that, maybe he was originally among some of those who kept to themselves.

That is primarily the nature of folks around here, unless you are known they are weary of you. Often you will find also that many will call themselves this or that, without really even understanding its meaning, (perhaps just heard a good sermon on the topic). I am not sure, yet many in these parts seem to be moving toward either non-denominational affiliation (in their name) or some other thing which seems more 'presentable.' The view is that traditional Baptist principles are too controversial and unpopular.

[Landmarkers are scattered from Canada to New Mexico; the flavors I no not what, however. Sometimes, I think I do good with keeping up with the various churches around here. I have heard estimates of at least 70 differing Baptist groups in the Glasgow, KY area.]

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ November 06, 2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Bro. Glen, just off the top of my head without taking the time to look this up, I would say the largest concentration of Landmarkers is in Arkansas, followed by Texas, then Tennessee & Kentucky.

 

Bro Glen,
I am a member of Old Union Missionary Baptist Church. This church is Landmark in her belief. The association whith which we affiliate is Siloam Missionary Baptist Association and is comprised of 30 some churches that are also Landmark. These churches are mostly in south central Kentucky and middle Tenneesee, but there are also churches located in Indiana, Ohio Michigan and West Virginia. There are a number of differences between our two churches that would probably hinder our fellowship.

We have Sunday School, a piano and organ, practice only two ordainances, and do most of the things that Brother Robert listed in his post. However, we support our missionaries directly on the mission field. We also believe in an old fashioned, on your knees, route to salvation. From your posts I believe your church does also. Therefore , I have confidence in how you deal with an alien sinner

I enjoy your posts

 

Bros. Dallas and Doc.

I have a question for you folks If I might be so bold. Do Landmarkers tolerate a range of theological positions like the SBC does? If not, what is your basic theological position (4 point Calvinist, etc)? Just curious, I have no desire to debate what ever position you might hold.

Bro. Dallas as for your contact from Virginia -- Primitive Baptists are stronger in Appalachia, where there is a considerable group of folks of English descent. (Most Primitive Baptists are descendants of immigrants from the British Isles). There are areas (the Shenandoah Valley for one) where there were substantial groups of German descent where there are no Primitive Baptist churches, so it is possible he is from a section where there were none.

 

We are 5 pt. Calvinist;
Sovereign Grace, we do not fellowship with any who would teach, as Doc said, any way but the knee route way.

We only recognize (2) ordinances of the church:
Baptism (Believer's) and The Lord's Supper;

We believe in closed communion; extended to particular members only.

(BTW Doc, I believe my pastor and a pastor from Edmonton KY visited a recent associational meeting, Siloam Missionary Baptist?)

We were once affiliated with what is known as the Liberty Association, but seperated from these when 1)they permitted a local church to ordain a woman as deacon ( and used a Methodist preacher to preach the service), 2) they failed to discipline a case of adultery involving a pastor of one of the associated churches.

We have recently agreed (by church consent) to enter into 'association' with sister churches of like faith and order.

We currently support missionaries through Baptist Faith Missions; (a group originally started for the purpose described by Doc)

We obviously do not believe in pulpit sharing; and receive no other body apart from one holding to the Baptism of John as a New Testament Church;

(My sister joined a local church organized by a free-will pastor, who broke with them, and is Sovereign Grace, yet has never received a scriptural Baptism. for example: we do not believe the Baptism he administers is scriptural)

We do not believe youth ministries are scriptural, nor song ministries, etc (these are often touted as necessary to reach the world today, we believe the world {individuals} is reached by the preaching of the Gospel through whomever the Lord is pleased to use; age proximity is no matter. We do have Sun. School classes; yet these are guarded closely. (As well as VBS) We have a piano in congregational singing.

Among the preaching brethren election is held to; yet there is efforts to introduce man's will as needful in rejecting at some point, usually among laymembers. (This sounds agreeable at first, but on study, and I may very well be wrong, yet it seems to me to be along the lines of arminianism. If man is able to reject the Grace of God and therefore the salvation of God, then he would have some inherent means whereby he could also choose for that. But perhaps I need to study that position a little more. Nevertheless, that is what seems to be taught by that premise.

We are pre-millinial; we do believe the secret rapture of the saints; our stand on Baptism is that this is what is required to differentiate the bride from other organizations, in which individuals may possess salvation, but be as John the Baptist, a friend of the Bridegroom.

These are the things that come from the top of my head. Forgive me for the length, just trying to include as much info. as I can to show what I believe to be our position.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas
(I didn't notice I was logged in under Mrs.Frogman until after making this entry)

 

Bro. Jeff,
The pastor I know from Va. has been gone from there for fifteen years. He is pastoring in Livermore, KY. now. I don't know the area he was from; I asked him on behalf of my sister who moved to Chapmanville, WV last year and has been unsuccessful in locating a church.
I felt if I could at least locate one of the solid Primitive Baptist churches she would be well ministered to.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

Bro. Dallas

Thank you for your reply.

Like Bro. Glen stated above, and I think you would concur, there are somethings different between us that would hinder fellowship, but you are closer to our position than I would have guessed. I have never been to a Landmarker church, so I really didnt know some of these things.

Will ponder on some of them and make further comment later if that would be agreeable.

Warm regards
Jeff

 

This why I am interested in the ways of the Primitive Baptists.

I have found a good number who are 'proud' of the fact they are Landmarkers (believing in the succession of Baptist Churches) but their discussion betrays their knowledge of the position. I do not want to change anyone where biblical truth prohibits.

It is statements like the one I provided above that concern me:

"Youth ministers are needed because older pastors are not able to 'relate' to the youth. If they (youth) have a problem they are more willing to seek guidance from someone closer their own age."

This statement is not biblical. Moreover, if any have a problem and they desire the Will of God in resolving it, they would not limit the person they would seek advice on to someone close to their own age, but would seek someone based upon the leading of the Holy Spirit dealing with them as to who to, or where to seek and find this advice, thus, the problem would be resolved according to the Will of God and not in man made fashion based upon 'counseling' or what have you.

This is my position and reasoning for seeking to know and understand these differences. It seems that some things (as we are taught) are 'door openers' for other things and many seem to have blinders on, accepting what is in their own church as biblical whether or not they can provide biblical support for it.

This may or may not seem as a dilemma to some, but to me it is a very real concern.

I have announced a calling into foreign missions, I have made application to BFM, have not been accepted yet, and do not believe I will for several reasons. This is alright to me. I have met several men and their families who are answering the call of missions apart from any form of associational support, trusting only that God will provided support through local churches.

When I made my announcement and since, many have come to me and told my how 'proud' they were to have a foreign missionary in Grider. How proud it made them to think of a missionary coming from among their ranks. I do not receive this altogether as biblical reasoning either. It seems to focus too much upon the physical presence of one as representing 'our church' and though I would be, first I am representing our Lord, then my local church. If I am more concerned about the attitude of my local church to my calling am I going to let this influence my actions in pursuing any ministry I enter?

(Don't get me wrong, I believe the church must support and trust my calling, yet, they should not do this only because they would want a missionary from among them.)

God Bless.
Bro.Dallas

:

 

Brother Glen,

Most of my family prior to my grandparents were Primitive baptists. Some of my great-aunts and uncles still are. I have a cousin who is a Primitive Baptist minister in TX. In fact, they came by MO to see us after going to some kind of convention last week. Did you or anyone else reading this post go to that meeting?

I can't help putting in a jab. The first formally baptist group was General Baptist.

Grace and Peace,

Danny

 

Bro. Dallas.

I have some questions/comments about your earlier post.

Here we go:

Would you all believe in gospel regeneration or spirit regeneration?

No quibbles here, but I do believe feet washing is an ordinance, but don't make it a test.

Bro. Dallas no quibbles with these items.

You know before I say it, but we don't do these things.

See comment under first paragraph above. I agree with you that the current flock of Calvinists have missed the mark. In my way of viewing things, regeneration comes first then repentance, not repentance then regeneration. (Did that make sense?).

Most Primitive Baptists would hold an amillinilist view or Partial Peterist view. We don't believe that water Baptism makes any difference in the hereafter.

Bro. Dallas, thanks for your response to the questions. I really haven't had much exposure to Landmarkers except here on the BB. Like I think Bro. Glen would agree, I would call you brother, but there are enough differences to keep us apart in a church sense in this world. Sad, I suppose, but necessary to keep harmony in the [church] house. Nonetheless, you are welcome in my home anytime you might find yourself in the mountains of Virginia.

 

Bro. Jeff,

I was working on the answer to this question and somehow lost it, the short answer is that we have some in their preaching who believe regeneration is only after repentance and some who believe repentance is the result of regeneration. I do not know if this answers you or not.

My own thoughts on this subj. started a few weeks ago when I was studying for a sermon on the work of the Godhead in salvation and was led to Galatians 4.6. This first raised the topic you are addressing, as I believe the question is asking. Before your post on another forum concerning this I never had heard a distinction made.

I also posted the topic from Rom. 10.14 a scripture many who believe Gospel regeneration use in support of that position. Rom. 10.14 states: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him in whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

I believe the first part of this scripture supports the position that they are regenerated prior to calling on him.

Rom. 1.16 says the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes. Everyone that believes, are those who believe and because they believe the call on him.

According to Gal. 4.6 'because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.'

These, I believe are strong scripture in support of your position. I don't know if I can explain my position or not, yet I will try. I believe those who are saved and shall be saved are set apart for the hearing of the Gospel, this awakens in them, because of the power of God, a knowledge of their lost condition, then because they believe this to be their eternal position with God if dying as such, they call upon Him for mercy. I believe it is necessary for one to believe the message before they are able to call for mercy. This believing is worked by the regenerating work of the Spirit of God in the heart of man, {which at this time I equate to the spirit} there is some question as to whether the heart is the equal of the spirit or not, but I do not want to enter into that debate. I believe for all practical purposes, the heart is an organ, but is meant when spoken of amongst us all to be the seat of the emotions and thus be the spirit of man. (Jonathan Edwards provides a study on this topic, at least what I have been able to read of it).

If we look at the healing of Bartimaeus in Mark 10 I believe we can see the above order of things.

The blind man is sitting by the way, Christ passes by, because the blind man believes Christ is what he needs he calls out for mercy. He did not receive this healing simply because he cried out, but he cried out for it because he believed he would receive it. (His need is more evident to him than that of a lost person, thus it is necessary for the lost person to recognize this need, or else that person will never call out). This recognition is the work of the Holy Spirit, at which time I believe the Spirit regenerates the heart and leads the lost to repentance.

I have discussed this with some others and have received some disagreement (mostly among deacons) who hold the position that man must repent prior to receiving regeneration. This establishes, at least to me, a system of works. Man repents, then is salvation given. I think it is more in line with scripture to say man repents because the Holy Spirit has accomplished the work in the heart, the repentance then is an outworking of the inward working of the Spirit.

Most of our older preachers, though not directly dealing with it, lean toward this believe, and I believe it to be biblical.

I have not enough exposure to this believe to comment on it correctly. In my view however, I cannot understand holding this as an ordinance but not as a test. [I mean, we hold Baptism to be an ordinance as well as the Lord's Supper, and will not permit any to take the Supper without being a Baptized member of the church in which they take it; and we do not accept Baptism other than that received by Christ as valid Baptism; if feetwashing is to be held to this level, why not as an article of fellowship?] As I said, lack of experience here prevents understanding. The only place I ever encountered feetwashing was in a United Methodist congregation and these would not be in fellowship because of the Baptism.

I know some local churches (missionary landmark) who only have a congregational Sun. School; and VBS is a matter of whether there are many young children in the church or not. {when we first came to Grider we were told, by a certain group which initially introduced us to the church, that Grider did not have VBS. This was told in a way to lead us to believe they did not do it because of disagreement with it. Since we have been there we have had VBS the past two summers, it seems the only hinderance before was the lack of young people.} I question the propriety of this because of the lack of it in Scripture and because of the overwhelming tendency of literature to utilize the Roman Rd. Most of the literature directs the teacher to encourage young people to 'accept' Christ and provides a written 'Sinners' Prayer to lead them in. I believe we all are limited to praying a sinner's prayer, even as saved people we often are forced to pray a sinner's prayer. this however I view as in all prayer, only being heard of God when it is directed through the Holy Spirit. We depart from the literature in these matters and use only Scripture to teach from.

This makes scriptural sense to me.

1. I knew this about most Prim. Baptists; learned from discussions here on the board and from PBministries.org
2. We believe this difference will be in the marriage supper of the lamb, which is hard to explain, it does not speak of 'salvation' of any, but only in a question of service and thus rewards. I will study some on the topic and maybe post it; though I have before, with little support. I believe it a valid scriptural doctrine, though your belief or not is not necessary for fellowship; {The way I see it is Christ provided the picture of the churches relationship to him, this church is always local, here in the world, and always visible, never universal nor invisible. The way I view it is when I began to consider choosing a wife (pardon the poor analogy), I first recognized the woman, if you will, then I began to search for that woman, who is only one, to become my bride. (This one will be made up of all those local bodies who hold to the doctrine of Scripture, as many things are different, even among you and I, Baptism is the one thing which will differentiate this bride from another. If Baptism is not the mark, then we are beginning to recognize Protestant baptism, which came from Roman Catholic Baptism. (This is my view of these things). Some tell me I am too particular, so maybe I am more particular than missionary, I don't know. Others tell me different things. I believe this because I see it in scripture.) This does not deny the regeneration of those in other groups, but denies the scriptural nature of these groups, and thus, denies their ability to be a part of the bride. Even as my wife is not invisible, nor being a woman makes one my wife, so is the scriptural teaching.

1) I agree fully with you and understand your position. God Bless you and all my Primitive Baptist Brethren (sisters too).

2) Thanks. Our home would always be open to you as well to Bro. Glen.

May God richly Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

From my understanding the differences that hold us apart are:

1) Graded Sun. Schools
2) Missions (though many in our #'s have your position)
3) VBS
4) Music in Congregational singing.

[this list may not be in order to importance, and may not be inclusive, but they are the primary ones I have seen thus far]

(BTW, how prevalent (strong are the Campbellites in your area?) No music is a distinguishing mark between ourselves and them, it is such that they immediately attack a Baptist church when found to have the position of no music for not lining up with them on other 'biblical' principles.)

Bro. Dallas

 

Bro. Dallas

Thanks for the reply. It helps to understand you folks quite a bit. I am one of those folks who loathe to argue about this point and that, I know you all have good scriptural reason for believing what you do, and believe that we have good scriptural reason for believing as we do. I have said on this board before that people of good faith can come to completely different conclusions about what scriptures mean. That isn't to say that both can be right, but both can be sincere in why they believe as they do.

As for this one:

I live in the little village of Saltville, Virginia, about 30 miles north of Bristol VA/TN. In our little town of 2400 folks we have three Campbellite churches, none of which can be very strong. Most every one here belongs to the Methodist Church. We also have a Southern Baptist Church, a Primitive Baptist Church, an Episcopal Church, a Church of the Nazarene, a Presbyterian Church and a Church of God of Prophecy. If you lumped all the others together, they probably wouldn’t be as large as the Methodists. I know that of the four neighbors directly adjoining my property, three are Methodist and the other is another Primitive Baptist. As for discussing the Campbellites, I'd rather not, they are one group that gets my blood pressure up. They do have a local radio program here on Sunday morning, and the fellow spends most of his time telling folks why they shouldn't be Primitive Baptists. I have no idea why he has it in for us so badly as we are out numbered by just about everyone else.

Hope it helps.

Jeff

 

your request suits me fine. The local radio ministry of the same group is engaged in the same activity, particularly against a local Baptist pastor. The Baptist preacher is on just prior to the former and he, seems to understand his ministry to oppose the Baptist.

unfortunately, the baptist pastor often opens the door to such activity by his statements. But I don't really think this is necessary, it seems as an agenda for the Campbellite. It is odd, though he addresses the Baptist faith generally, but always particularly toward this one Baptist pastor.

Maybe later on another forum I will relate an experience I had in a Campbellite congregation not many yrs ago. Never the less, they are strong around here, and are constantly attacking Baptist belief and principles.

{Sorry, they are off the current topic so I will close my mouth on them}

At any rate I was just wandering.

Thanks for the reply.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ November 09, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

Bro. Jeff,

By distinguishing between gospel and spirit regeneration do you mean this occurs apart from the preaching of the gospel? Or simply as you stated, regeneration before repentance.

I initially took it to mean regeneration before repentance. I believe this is the way you meant it, but I thought I would go ahead with my question for clarification.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Bro. Dallas

You wrote:

Most Primitive Baptists believe (me included) that regeneration may occur apart from the preaching of the gospel. Whether that is the common way God chooses to do things or not, I cannot say, but we do (the vast majority of us at any rate) believe that it is possible, if not probable.

To explain further might be tiresome, if you understand what I mean, but if you dont, I'll be happy to elaborate our position further. This is the major difference between those of us labeled hyper-calvinists and those who claim to be plain calvinists.

If you want/need further explaination, it will take me a bit to type it all out.

Jeff

 

Bro. Jeff,

Thanks for your reply. You are correct, I would desire an explanation of the postition, but I am satisfied to leave this to your convenience in however you wish to present it.

This changes my answer somewhat. Though we predominantly would hold to the regeneration before repentance, we do believe Scripture warrants the preaching of the Gospel among the lost in order for this awakening to occur.

I understand the Holy Spirit did work in individuals in the O.T. in accordance with your stand; my view is however that God is pleased to raise up a preacher to travel to the ends of the earth for the preaching of the Gospel and the awakening of the elect.

If not for the references in Scripture which bring in the preaching of the Gospel, I would believe as you do. Yet now, according to scripture (of which I am sure you are aware of which ones, though I can list them if desired), I believe the preaching of the Gospel is required, This I once grappled with, but rested on the fact that scripture points to it.

Thanks again for your reply.

God bless you in your walk and service to Him.
Bro. Dallas

 

RSR,

As I understand it, Mr. Campbell recieved a 'Baptist' baptism, but it was administered and received in error, it was not given to a view of joining any particular body, I do not believe this to be proper baptism. Thus, in my ho, Mr. Campbell never accepted the principles of Baptist faith and practice. Furthermore, it was some years before Mr. Campbell received Baptism in the Campbellite believe of it, thus he preached and administered a baptism he did not have, showing further the error of the way.

Nonetheless, you perhaps are correct as they often claim to have seperated themselves from the Baptist on scriptural principles. Yet, never having received a true scriptural baptism, they were neither, in my view, capable of seperation, or exclusion. Maybe this is a minority view, but it is my belief.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas