Intro to Landmarkism...?

[Dr. Bob]

Hearty Amen, Major. View of many of us who look at landmark "revisionist history" with a head shake of disbelief.

If I could have a nickel for every time I've heard someone talk about First Baptist Church of Jerusalem or First Baptist of Rome, I'd be a rich man today!!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
SNIPIf I could have a nickel for every time I've heard someone talk about First Baptist Church of Jerusalem or First Baptist of Rome, I'd be a rich man today!!

I don't mind talk about 1BCofJ, just as long you have a smile on your face.

 

[R. Charles Blair]

Isaac Taylor Hinton, American Bab. Publ. Society, 1840, reprint 1846 (both before Campbell's
"Christian Baptism"), p. 331: "The union formed between believers and the Christian church [sic]by a baptism arising from the exercise of an enlightened mind, affords a continual succession of 'witnesses' to the truth of Christianity, and
is undeniably a direct evidence of its adaptation
to produce conviction on, and obtain the assent of, the mind and heart of man. . . . baptism presents a constantly renewed evidence of the truth and power of Christianity." Note the emphasis placed on succession & continuity of baptism, which he has earlier stated is a church ordinance. While Hinton's primary purpose is to show the succession of immersion through all ages, he often refers to it as necessary to enter the church, (not for salvation); being practiced only by the church, etc. And in his last chapter, he uses these terms: "The practice of believer's baptism sustains the principle that Christ is the legislator of His church, and that the / ordinances and government of the church are to be derived from the New Testament alone. . . . / The
baptism of believers constitutes a strong line of demarcation between the church and the world."
(pages 341/2, /343) As will be seen by his use of the generic "the Christian church," "the church", etc., he was more in line with Pendleton than with Graves; yet his testimony was toward succession of baptisms, therefore of churches.

He also gives an interesting quote from Calvin to the effect that all children of believers are "heirs of God", that infant baptism is not designed to save but to bear witness to this standing, "otherwise anabaptists would be right in excluding them from baptism." (p. 322, citing the Institutes [volume and page not given - RCB]

The German Neander was hardly a "Landmarker," yet his "History of Dogmas" (in English, 1872; earlier in German) acknowledges the presence of our views in the "usual suspects" (Donatists, Cathari, etc.); and the German Lutheran Mosheim goes even further, showing them in every century.

J. J. Goadby, a British Baptist, shows the early existence of believer's immersion and local self-governing churches in Great Britain, with much evidence from the 5th century on. While he wrote after the height of J. R. Graves, he makes no reference to direct succession or any American controversy, simply showing "Baptist" churches in the British Isles through the centuries.

Peter Allix, on the "Ancient Churches of Piedmont"
(though a Reformer) acknowledges our views in what is now northern Italy long before Calvin. My edition is dated 1821, and labeled "A New Edition"
(original date not given). One could hardly accuse him of "reacting to Campbell," or of
"following Graves," I suppose?

Wall's "History of Infant Baptism" (Anglican) cites several (Ana)Baptist writers of the 1600's who held succession of local congregations with believer's immersion only, though he rejects them.

If some form of baptismal and therefore of church succession is a principle of "landmarkism," it is certainly well attested long before Graves. And Graves himself acknowledged that there were other views, calling Pendleton's work "An Old Landmark
Reset." Not everyone agreed, and many who were inclined toward these views might hold one point, yet differ on another. Sounds pretty "baptistic,"
doesn't it? Just read this board!

Blessed Christ-time - Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Major B:
Referring to the apostolic church as Baptist (or any other denomination) is akin to referring to Jesus as a "Calvinist," Paul as "Reformed," or Peter as a "Pentecostal." We Baptists have tried to imitate the apostolic church perhaps better than anyone, but we are not there yet.

Taken at face value, that means the very best thing the Lord was able to preserve in this world was a close imitation of the churches He originally planted. So we don't have a continuation of what the Lord established, but men trying to reproduce what the Lord established.

My, my, my! How does one begin to address such a gross misrepresentation of the Lord and His churches.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[imported_J.R. Graves]

The Baptist Landmark of rejecting alien (non-Baptist) immersion existed long before J.R. Graves or Alexander Campbell. Two proofs of these are:

1. Spencer Cone, pastor of the First Baptist Church of New York City in the early 1800's said, "That nothing is a scriptural administration of baptism, but a total immersion of the subject in water in the name of the Holy Trinity, by a man duly authorized to administer gospel ordinances. The action of this church for one hundred years has been to reject as invalid baptism administered by an unimmersed administrator."

2. Jesse Mercer, leader of Baptists in the South and in Georgia. "Our Reasons therefore for rejecting baptism by immersion, when administered by Pedo-baptist ministers, are that they are connected with "churches" clearly out of the apostolic succession: and, therefore, clearly out of the apostolic commission." 1811

Of course Mercer wrote before the Campbellite controversy and Cone lived far outside of the Campbell influence.

An excellent book on the history of Baptist churches rejecting alien immersion in the 1700's nad 1800's is J.H. Grime's "History of Alien Immersion and Valid Baptism".

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Major B:
Referring to the apostolic church as Baptist (or any other denomination) is akin to referring to Jesus as a "Calvinist," Paul as "Reformed," or Peter as a "Pentecostal." We Baptists have tried to imitate the apostolic church perhaps better than anyone, but we are not there yet.

Taken at face value, that means the very best thing the Lord was able to preserve in this world was a close imitation of the churches He originally planted. So we don't have a continuation of what the Lord established, but men trying to reproduce what the Lord established.

My, my, my! How does one begin to address such a gross misrepresentation of the Lord and His churches.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]The apostolic church passed with the apostles passing, and there was plenty of variety then! The letters written by the Apostles were to correct what were glaring differences even then. As Paul is nearing his execution, he said, "All of Asia had turned against me." The gross misrepresentation comes in revising history to fit a pattern that fits our fancy, rather than dealing with the evidence as it is. Even while the Apostle John was alive on Patmos, most of what Jesus had him write to the "seven churches in Asia," tended to reveal how much the church had already fallen then?

There is a kind of succession, of faith in Christ and of devotion to His Word, a recurring theme that comes back again and again. There is no reliable evidence of any kind of chain of churches with developed baptist doctrine. Each generation must examine the Bible and re-align its churches to fit the Bible, not the opinions of men. One of the most important parts of that is to destroy traditions that are not clearly scriptural. Just as we live our Christian lives in real time, there is no succession of churches--not even within historically recent congregations. The only chain is the 2 Tim 2:1-2 chain, where Godly men teach the word to Godly men, who will teach the word to Godly men. I personally know of congregations what are relentlessly holding on to Landmark-related doctrine which is absolutely without any sciptural warrant. The members of those congregations will fight tooth and nail and fire pastors over these traditions, yet, were I to administer a 50-Question test on REAL doctrine (the Trinity, Justification, etc.), I have no doubt most of these folks would score under 25%.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Major B:
There is a kind of succession, of faith in Christ and of devotion to His Word, a recurring theme that comes back again and again.

My friend, if you have a succession of faith in Christ and devotion to His word you have a succession of churches, for it is impossible to be faithful to Christ or His word without being faithful to His churches.

No, we cannot document the succession of churches. But anyone who takes the New Testament seriously must believe the succession is real.

Of course, nothing I could say would convince you of that because you and I have a totally different perspective on the matter. Notwithstanding, I am glad to know that some day the Lord will lay out His "Trail of Blood" chart showing the dotted line of churches all the way from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the world.

Oh, Lord, speed the day!

Mark Osgatharp

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Baptist born, Baptist bred:
James Tull notes..."Pendleton...thought the theory of nonintercommunion was trivial and unimportant."

Anyone who has Tull's book handy - what is he talking about here? By non-intercommunion does he mean no communing together by Baptists of like faith and order? By trivial and unimportant does he mean Pendleton didn't think there was anything wrong with intercommunion between Baptists of like faith and order, or that it didn't matter whether you practice this or local church only communion?

If so, I don't think Tull makes any particularly strong point here. I've known historically "tried & true" Landmarkers (and know presently) that do not hold to strict "local church only" communion. In our East Texas area, I don't think local church only communion became standard among the ABA and BMA churches till probably the 1950s.

 

[R. Charles Blair]

One simple question: Can you prove you are a descendent of Adam? If you cannot prove it, will you argue that you are not?

Of course all of Adam's descendents are flawed, for Adam was. And all true NT churches are flawed, because they are composed of Adam's descendents just as the first one was. But that doesn't mean that God does not see them in the light of Eph. 5:27, just as He sees us perfect in standing, though imperfect in state. If English language can make anything clear, it is that each "local" husband and wife (absurd phrase, isn't it?) represent the concept of marriage as
each "local" church represents the bride idea. Just as in Rom. 8:30 "glorified" is in the past tense though we haven't yet experienced that, so these disobedient, erring churches are seen in their final perfection but dealt with for their present good. One can scarcely believe that a sovereign God would create something (a universe, a man, a marriage, or a local conregation), and then allow that succession to cease so that He would need to start over on the same project. Even with Noah, He maintained a succession. So in the depths of the "dark ages," there were NT churches, however few, however scattered, however differing from one another in incidentals, and whether or not they knew of one another or kept perfect records. (See the line of reasoning in the Armitage history, not a "landmark" work, on the reasons that history is not complete.)

But if a NT church is a local, visible congregation of scripturally immersed believers in Christ, recognizing the possibility of an occasional Judas or Demas with a false profession, rather than a "state-established organization" or social club of religious, self-righteous Pharisees, then succession is primarily among the humble, downtrodden, persecuted, and forgotten, rather than among the group that embraced Constantine and Sylvester in the 4th century. The real question, one few of us want to face, is not "Is there a succession of NT congregations," but "Are we in it?" Happy Holy-Days - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Major B:
There is a kind of succession, of faith in Christ and of devotion to His Word, a recurring theme that comes back again and again.

My friend, if you have a succession of faith in Christ and devotion to His word you have a succession of churches, for it is impossible to be faithful to Christ or His word without being faithful to His churches.

No, we cannot document the succession of churches. But anyone who takes the New Testament seriously must believe the succession is real.

Of course, nothing I could say would convince you of that because you and I have a totally different perspective on the matter. Notwithstanding, I am glad to know that some day the Lord will lay out His "Trail of Blood" chart showing the dotted line of churches all the way from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the world.

Oh, Lord, speed the day!

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Good Romanism.

 

[rsr]

Folks, keep it civil.

 

[Major B]

Sorry RSR. I teach middle school--my first language is therefore sarcasm.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Major B:
Good Romanism.

Mr. Major B,

That is just as absurd as saying that I'm a Romanist because I believe in the virgin birth of Christ and the resurrection.

The only thing such empty rhetoric proves is that you don't know the first thing about what the Bible teaches about the Lord's churches.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[rlvaughn]

Going back and addressing somewhat the original post:

Could someone point me to a scholary introduction into what landmarkism actually is? I need the 101 laymen course...

While searching around on the internet concerning the subject of Baptist origins, I ran across this:

A STUDY OF THE ANTECEDENTS OF LANDMARKISM by LeRoy B. Hogue

I am not familiar with the author and I have not yet read this study. It appears to be somewhat favorable toward "Landmarkism", with an attendant addressing of Landmark views among American Baptists prior and leading up to the Landmark movement. This is an unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1966. An excerpt - "Landmarkism represented, at every major point, simply the logical extension of practices and beliefs widely held among Baptists in the one hundred year period preceding the rise of the movement." Happy reading.

 

[Major B]

Os,

I did not say you were a Romanist, but that the idea of a perfect church or group of churches, is a Romanism. There is a distinct difference between the two statements (the first would be ad hominem, the second, which I used, dealt with the ideas).

As for my knowledge of the Lord's churches, I'd say that to say I did not know the first thing about that topic would be a fairly large overstatement and an ad hominem.

A true church is not one allied to some body or group of bodies. A true church is one which teaches and practices the Bible, and in which The Holy Spirit is working. I know lots of churches that have good Landmark credentials, but are as dead as Jimmy Hoffa, and in as many pieces as he probably is. I do believe among the Biblical marks of a true church are growth (Eph 4:12-16, Acts 2:47), glory (Eph 3:20-21), and Truth (1 tim 3:15)

RSR, note I am trying to be irenic without being ironic, though if I wrote in Farsi, it could be called Iranic.

[ December 10, 2005, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Major B ]

 

[rsr]

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

I do wonder about his generalizations. Whether Landmark views (depending on how you define them) were overwhelming, prevalent or a distinct minority is difficult to ascertain from his sampling.

While he writes at length about the Philadelphia Association's position on "improper" baptism, he also says that:

Particular emphasis was placed upon the authority of the church in relation to the gospel ministry. Baptists in every part of the country emphasized that the gifts of preaching were to be exercised only by the authority and with the sanction of a local Baptist church. Churches alone were considered as possessing the power to license and ordain men to the ministerial office.

The Philadelphia Association, however, (as well as the Charleston Association) practiced church planting at the associational level.

One purpose of associations was to extend the gospel to destitute areas, and by the 1760s the Philadelphia Association employed an "evangelist at large" to plant new churches in needy areas.

— H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, p. 246

"From the late 1770s the Charleston Association had sponsored home mission work through its General Fund, sometimes far beyond its associational boundaries."

— H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, p. 366

An example of the association's activities is recounted by Robert Semple:

The Separates' remarkable personalities, novel practices, and fiery style of worship and preaching prompted some special attention from the Particular Baptists. Because some gave credit to disturbing reports about these ecclesiological kin, John Gano, who had been commissioned to his work in North Carolina by the Philadelphia Association, attended the 1759 meeting of the Sandy Creek Association. "He was sent, it seems, to inquire into the state of these New Light Baptists."

(Emphasis added)

— Robert Baylor Semple, A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, p. 65

Although he touches on the Separate Baptists, I am wondering if they observed the niceties of authority. Does anyone know if Shubal Stearns, et al., had authority from another local church in their missionary efforts?

 

[imported_J.R. Graves]

&gt; I personally know of congregations what are
&gt; relentlessly holding on to Landmark-related
&gt; doctrine which is absolutely without any
&gt; sciptural warrant. The members of those
&gt; congregations will fight tooth and nail and
&gt; fire pastors over these traditions, yet, were
&gt; I to administer a 50-Question test on REAL
&gt; doctrine (the Trinity, Justification, etc.), I
&gt; have no doubt most of these folks would score
&gt; under 25%.

Hello good brother. Most of the preachers I know in western Kentucky who are strong Landmarkers by conviction are also concerned with teaching the other doctrines of the faith to their congregation. It is not like these men are preaching on baptism and the Lord's Supper one Sunday morning and then on the Lord Supper and baptism the next Sunday morning. &lt;grin&gt; These men are faithful in preaching and teaching the Bible as they believe and understand it. I believe it is a mistake to say these men are only preaching baptist tradition to their people and not dealing with real doctrine. Just a thought.

 

[R. Charles Blair]

Can't help noticing no one has said a word about our "link" to Adam. If we don't have to prove that with "endless genealogies", maybe we don't need to worry about all the details of Dark Age churches. Just remember that robots, "Franken-stein monsters" and some department store window figures look somewhat human, and computers "think"
and talk, and one day there will be a "critter" so life-like people will worship it (Rev. 13), and some members of the monkey family have some humanoid characteristics so that some believe they are part of our ancestry. Yet it is still fairly easy to distinguish a genuine descendant of Adam from any of these. My objection is to taking humanoids, etc., into the family. I reject "alien immersion" because it doesn't have the same descent as biblical immersion, which comes from groups with biblical principles of baptism (beginning with personal redemption based on the gospel, which grows out of the nature of God). When a group argues that infant sprinkling is the same thing as believer's immersion, they are closer to Dr. Frank's creation than to the Lord's, in my judgment. I realize that isn't the specific subject, but it is a significant part of "landmarkism" or proper church relationships. Happy Holy-days! RCB - Ro. 8:28

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Major B:
I did not say you were a Romanist, but that the idea of a perfect church or group of churches, is a Romanism. There is a distinct difference between the two statements (the first would be ad hominem, the second, which I used, dealt with the ideas).

A. I didn't say there was any church or group of churches that is perfect. I said Jesus Christ promised to perpetuate His sort of churches in the world and that those churches are Baptist in doctrinal character.

B. Even if you didn't call me a Romanist, the fact still remains that just because some idea is held by the Roman Catholics does not make it wrong. So will you meet me in a doctrinal forum and discuss the issue of succession from a prurely Scriptural perspective?

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
&gt; I personally know of congregations what are
&gt; relentlessly holding on to Landmark-related
&gt; doctrine which is absolutely without any
&gt; sciptural warrant. The members of those
&gt; congregations will fight tooth and nail and
&gt; fire pastors over these traditions, yet, were
&gt; I to administer a 50-Question test on REAL
&gt; doctrine (the Trinity, Justification, etc.), I
&gt; have no doubt most of these folks would score
&gt; under 25%.

Hello good brother. Most of the preachers I know in western Kentucky who are strong Landmarkers by conviction are also concerned with teaching the other doctrines of the faith to their congregation. It is not like these men are preaching on baptism and the Lord's Supper one Sunday morning and then on the Lord Supper and baptism the next Sunday morning. &lt;grin&gt; These men are faithful in preaching and teaching the Bible as they believe and understand it. I believe it is a mistake to say these men are only preaching baptist tradition to their people and not dealing with real doctrine. Just a thought.

Most of the Landmarkism in our area is neither thought out nor very consistent, and that is the problem.