Church Succession, Campbellism and Landmarkism

I think you are partially right Mark. There were some Baptist successionist before Graves. I am not sure I would call them Landmarkers in that Landmarkism involves much more than just believing in Baptist Successionism.

I do think that Graves is the one who systemized the system of Landmarkism that is common in the ABA, BMA, and even some SBC churches and Independants.

I don't know of anyone who denies continual succession of churches from His first advent to His second. Christ always has had a Christian witness on earth from people who call on His name BUT there is no reliable evidence of a Baptist or baptistic succession of churches.

 

Baptists are not the only people who have a handle on scripture.

Christian churches existed long before Baptist churches. Baptist churches vary from obedient to borderline pagan.

 

In his introduction to the articles in the January, 1975 issue of Baptist History and Heritage, Dr. Robert A. Baker (certainly no Landmarker) stated that all the doctrines of Graves (or Landmarkism) could be found among the Baptists of Graves' day. Though I think his point was that no one had systematized them as Graves, his point kind of took some of the edge off the presentation in the rest of the articles that Landmarkism originated with Graves. Is it perhaps a little deceptive to define Landmarkism as Graves' system and date its origin to Graves, and then write in such a way that appears to be saying that all these doctrines are some new thing among Baptists?

I'm sure they would say this is not what they mean. Yet I believe it is the message that comes across to the average reader.

 

Another tell-tale tale that the anti-landmarkers fail to mention is that other groups of Regular Baptist lineage, which were no longer fellowshipping with the Southern Baptists by Graves' day, hold views that are similar to Landmark ecclesiology. Sure, they may not have the fine-tuned systematic ecclesiology that is associated with Graves, but Primitive Baptists, Regular Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Duck River Baptists and other groups reject alien immersion, practice restricted communion, refuse to practice pulpit affiliation, and believe in a "Baptist" church succession. All four of the present groups named above, plus others, hold tenets that are basically "Landmarkism". Yet they were never affiliated with the Southern Baptists or J. R. Graves.

I have no problem with limiting the name "Landmark Baptist", "Landmarkism", etc. to Graves and his followers, since that is with whom it is historically associated. But we should not fail to see the similarities where they exist, which points to an origin prior to the existence of J. R. Graves, as Bro. Mark Osgatharp has pointed out.

 

So who were some of the individuals or groups that were Baptists that modernists have wrongly called something else?

 

Gee, before I started posting on this Board, I thought the only thing that really mattered was whether or not someone had repented of their sin and received Christ as Savior and Lord. Even if they did it in a Baptist Church. Or not.
Silly me.

 

No, argueing over whether or not my pastor had hands laid on him by someone who had hands laid on him by someone who had hands laid on him (insert generations) by one of the 12 apostles.
That's what's silly.

Getting saved, living for the Lord, and preaching the gospel of salvation, now that's serious business.

 

I disagree with this but understand why some Christians believe this because of certain interpretations of the relevant passage in Matthew. Of present groups, I belive Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have the most robust of the successionist theologies. That doesn't mean I believe they are right about it, but I believe they are less wrong than Baptist successionists.

I believe Jesus promises no such thing in scripture.

 

I believe Jesus promises no such thing in scripture.</font>[/QUOTE]Then why are you a Baptist? Why don't you find the sort of churches Jesus did promise to perpetuate and join one of them?</font>[/QUOTE]If you read my first answer, I do not believe Jesus promised this because I have a different interpretation of the relevant Matthew passages. I do believe there have been Christian churches since Jesus's time, but I don't believe that is what Jesus promised. I believe successionists theologies are all incorrect, whether RCC, Baptist, Anglican, Campbellite, etc and I believe those theologies are prideful eisegesis meant to say "We are right, they are wrong".

[ January 11, 2006, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

Rhet, I'm not Mark Osgatharp, but I'm going to take a stab at your question(s). I think it will help the discussion if you will define how you're using the term "ontological mysticism". I think I understand how you're trying to make the comparison, but am not sure.

Landmarkism can vary quite a bit in the understanding of succession, which might be through ordinations (but usually not), a chain-link succession of churches, or church perpetuity (not necessarily this church started this church started this church...). But I am going out on a limb here and saying that almost all Landmarkers will view this succession in a legal sense. IOW, the new churches have some type of "legal" authority passed on to them. It is established by and founded upon the "law" (command) of Jesus Christ to His church (Mt 28:18-20). This may be a bad comparison, so don't take it too far (and I just thought of it; I'm not too good "thinking on my feet", so it may have a lot of bugs). But just to illustrate, think of how a franchise may legally be authorized to do business in the name of another. Only those authorized may use the name, trademark, etc.

Anyway, you may view this as a model within the bounds of what you're introducing. I would look at it as two different things, but then again, I may not understand your point.

 

Oh, so when the word of God talks about laying on hands and baptism, you think that is silly? I see. And I guess you also think it is silly that the Lord commited to His churches the keys of the kingdom of God.

I wonder where you received this talent to decide which parts of God's word are to be taken seriously and which one's are just, well, silly.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]No, argueing about it is what is silly. We have no way of knowing who laid hands on whom after 2000 years, so why not expend that energy on getting the gospel to the lost? Isn't every believer indwelt with the Holy Spirit?

On judgement day when God is rewarding the saved, and you're asked how many souls did you assist into the Kingdom, your reply will be "Uh, none, I was debating apostolic succession." How will that feel?

All of these side issues Christians debate are just the devil's tool for keeping us from our real job - preaching to the lost.

 

If I may kibbitz, let me make an observation which has sort of been made already.

The crux of this issue is about: who has the divine keys/authority given by Jesus, the Christ, in Mt. 16:18-19 and 28:18-20?

The answer cannot be: all of the above.

The holy see is correct about the necessity for vested authority, they are incorrect about in whom it is vested. If they are correct, and they have divine authority, everything else called Christian is apostate, excommunicated,and defrocked. All so-called Protestant Denominations are without authority--they were founded by defrocked Romish priests. Rome gave them no authority to leave.

This brings us to those Christian groups which were never of Rome nor were they ever of the Protestant Reformation. From whence cometh their authority to function? While these groups may be in a dwindling minority, they trace their FAITH AND PRACTICE back to the shores of Galilee, when Jesus called out the first assembly. This assembly was given the authority referenced above. The authority was divested to the second, third and fourth, etc, all of which were totally sovereign, having authority equal to the first. No assembly was over another. All believers were priests--offering spiritual sacrifices. There were no popes, cardinals, archbishops, Right Reverend Doctors or any such thing.

These weird groups have been earnestly contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints in every generation, even today. Many have died for this faith and practice. There has been succession because Jesus said there would be: Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end.

One such believer has just testified. Are there any Amens out there?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I've been waiting for one of the succesionists to actually bring up the Matthew passages.

A few questions to consider:
1) There is a promise in this passage. Where in this passage is the promise and what is actually being promised?
2) Does this promise say anything about ecclesiology, right doctrine or a succession?

One context to keep in mind is that this is the last verse in Matthew and Christ probably ascended soon afterwards.