Landmark Baptists

[Rebel]

Anyone have opinions of them?

They are another attempt to recreate or emulate the NT churches. While admirable in ways, I think they also fail in ways. Here is the website of one denomination:

http://abaptist.org/

 

[kyredneck]

My experience with Landmarkism is it tends to nurture a Pharisaical attitude with some.

 

[JonC]

Anyone have opinions of them?

They are another attempt to recreate or emulate the NT churches. While admirable in ways, I think they also fail in ways. Here is the website of one denomination:

http://abaptist.org/

I disagree with the premise of Landmarkism. Looking for an unbroken continuity of a physical Baptist Church (or any church, for that matter) makes the same error as does the RCC. This is not the nature of the Church.

If Bob the African tribesman is led to Christ by a Presbyterian, reads his Bible and starts a Baptist church, then Pastor Bob the African’s church is just as much a Baptist church as any other. And what is important is that his church is a legitimate beneficiary of the history of the Church. Landsmarkism seeks a physical succession of Baptist churches, which is error, not relevant, and beyond verification.

If someone objects and says that Landmarkism refers to doctrine alone, then it is in error as well. Were there churches that practiced Baptistic doctrine throughout our history? Yes, of course there were. We know that there were. But they also held other views that would warrant the objection of most Baptists (e.g., Anabaptist views regarding public service, pacifisms, community, etc.).

So I take the claim of Landmarkism with a grain of salt. Just like the Catholics, they present a skewed view of what exactly the Church of Jesus Christ is. They care too much about things that don’t really matter, and create assumptions to substantiate their views. That’s my two cents, anyway. It doesn’t bother me that they believe that way.

 

[Rebel]

I would say I agree with both responses.

 

[wpe3bql]

At one time I was pretty much convinced that "Landmark" Baptists were absolutely correct in their ecclesiology.

This line of reasoning was popularized primarily with the c. 1880 publication of J. R. Graves' Old Landmarkism: What is it?.

Graves' theses seems to derive from Matthew 16:18b ("....and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ['my church']." In addition, since the remaining 11 apostles comprised the "First BAPTIST Church of Jerusalem," Jesus' commission in 28:18-20 only applied to them.
Moreover, the ascending Christ gave the FBCJ marching orders in Acts 1:8.

Additionally the Landmarkers will state that the Greek ecclesia, always referred to a strictly local assembly of called out, immersed Baptist believers, and that they alone were the only intended primary audiences of the remainder of our NT.

Even before the conclusion of the first century A.D., Dr. John T. Christian's 1922 Baptist history book [Available from your cited ABA/Bogard Press] will show its readers that "true" Baptists can be confident that they (& they alone) can by faith receive "the right hand of fellowship" of the 120 folks who were assembled in Acts 1 ff.

If anyone should question this interpretation, they will summarily be ranked with those whose faith needs some "increasing."

A very close acquaintance of mine, a recipient of a Ph.D from Memphis (TN) State University, once attempted to trace the history of his church way on back to the Apostles. His "chain links" were not always available.

I, too, am a graduate history alumni of Austin Peay State University in Clarksville TN. Neither my friends' MSU nor my APSU are not particularly "friends" of Biblical fundamentalism, but both did provide us with some information concerning historical research and interpretation.

Say what you will, most everything in God's Word (most of which is to some extent "history") is a matter of interpretation. Case in point: BB's Forums.

I suppose there is ultimately one true and abiding way to look at all things.

Some right here on BB will proclaim that their's IS that way/end of discussion.

As for Yours Truly, I guess I'm still a work in progress.

 

[kyredneck]

9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mt 3

IMO, the spirit of Landmarkism has been around for a long time.

 

[Jerome]

The rump Southern Baptist group in Texas is sending $$$ and students to Jacksonville College, a school of the Landmarkist BMA (itself also a schism, from the ABA).

 

[JonC]

9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mt 3

IMO, the spirit of Landmarkism has been around for a long time.

Yep....except insofar as physically being from Abraham they were right. What they ignore (actually, what they did not know at the time) was that not all of Israel was Israel.

 

[kyredneck]

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Gal 4

What they didn't know was that there was MORE children of promise among the nations than there were among the physical descendants of Abraham. He is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter.

 

[JonC]

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Gal 4

What they didn't know was that there was MORE children of promise among the nations than there were among the physical descendants of Abraham. He is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter.

Yep. Christian Jews did not foresee the inclusion of Gentiles. I was speaking, however, of those Jews who did not believe. Not all who were born into the nation of Israel were God's people. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel (Rom 9:6). Landmarkism stands in direct contradiction to this as it seeks a physical rather than spiritual foundation for its church.

 

[kyredneck]

9 ......God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mt 3

I was talking about this. They didn't know about 'the other sheep' that he had.

[add]

I see 'a nation born in a day' in that.

 

[Rebel]

At one time I was pretty much convinced that "Landmark" Baptists were absolutely correct in their ecclesiology.

This line of reasoning was popularized primarily with the c. 1880 publication of J. R. Graves' Old Landmarkism: What is it?.

Graves' theses seems to derive from Matthew 16:18b ("....and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ['my church']." In addition, since the remaining 11 apostles comprised the "First BAPTIST Church of Jerusalem," Jesus' commission in 28:18-20 only applied to them.
Moreover, the ascending Christ gave the FBCJ marching orders in Acts 1:8.

Additionally the Landmarkers will state that the Greek ecclesia, always referred to a strictly local assembly of called out, immersed Baptist believers, and that they alone were the only intended primary audiences of the remainder of our NT.

Even before the conclusion of the first century A.D., Dr. John T. Christian's 1922 Baptist history book [Available from your cited ABA/Bogard Press] will show its readers that "true" Baptists can be confident that they (& they alone) can by faith receive "the right hand of fellowship" of the 120 folks who were assembled in Acts 1 ff.

If anyone should question this interpretation, they will summarily be ranked with those whose faith needs some "increasing."

A very close acquaintance of mine, a recipient of a Ph.D from Memphis (TN) State University, once attempted to trace the history of his church way on back to the Apostles. His "chain links" were not always available.

I, too, am a graduate history alumni of Austin Peay State University in Clarksville TN. Neither my friends' MSU nor my APSU are not particularly "friends" of Biblical fundamentalism, but both did provide us with some information concerning historical research and interpretation.

Say what you will, most everything in God's Word (most of which is to some extent "history") is a matter of interpretation. Case in point: BB's Forums.

I suppose there is ultimately one true and abiding way to look at all things.

Some right here on BB will proclaim that their's IS that way/end of discussion.

As for Yours Truly, I guess I'm still a work in progress.

All of us are works in progress. Some of us realize it.

 

[wpe3bql]

Some of us realize it.

..... And some don't! :tonofbricks:



BTW, if you wish to read an opposing analysis of Landmarkism (& if you can find it!), an associate professor of church history at the SBC's Louisville seminary, W. Morgan Patterson, produced a 1969 80-page paperback book, Baptist Successionism: A Critical View.

It was published by Judson Press, the publishing arm of the American [Northern] Baptist Convention. Don't know if it's even available any more. The only info it gives is a "Standard Book No." of 8170-0420-3.

Its a rather scholarly work, fully documented, whose target audience even back in 1969 would have been quite limited.



NOTE: Amazon still lists it as available.

 

[JonC]

BTW, if you wish to read an opposing analysis of Landmarkism (& if you can find it!), an associate professor of church history at the SBC's Louisville seminary, W. Morgan Patterson, produced a 1969 80-page paperback book, Baptist Successionism: A Critical View.

When I was in seminary I studied the topic for a paper. It was very interesting...I spent a week at the SBC archives in Nashville reading the debates between R.B.C. Howell and J.R. Graves (my topic was the Graves/Howell debate). Graves was instrumental in starting the movement while Howell held a view much like my own (doctrine, not a physical lineage). Both men wrote much on the topic so I would be surprised if much wouldn't be uncovered with a little digging.

 

[wpe3bql]

A rather long time ago, I once asked a Landmarker just how far back does one have to have an authenticated "line of authority" from one church down to his current church.

That was years ago.....still no reply has arrived from him. :BangHead:

 

[JonC]

A rather long time ago, I once asked a Landmarker just how far back does one have to have an authenticated "line of authority" from one church down to his current church.

That was years ago.....still no reply has arrived from him. :BangHead:

Well....being that the doctrine did not come about until mid-19th century, that would mean that there were really no "Landmark Baptist" churches before that time.....so, a little math and you have it... they have to date back to the mid-19th century. :laugh:

 

[wpe3bql]

Then there's J. M. Carroll's 1931 booklet, "The Trail of Blood" ... : Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries... or The History of Baptist Churches From the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day.

This 78-page booklet is best known for its graphic flow chart from the first century A.D. ["Jesus Organizes His Church, Mark 3:16-18"] up to [in my copy] 2000.

The text itself is basically a supplement to J. T. Christian's history I mentioned in an earlier post.

It has an introduction by the late Clarence Walker who for many years pastored the Ashland Avenue [Lexington KY] BC and founded the now-defunct Lexington Baptist College.

My copy states that it's the 12th printing (2008) and was printed by the Bryan Station [Lex., KY] BC ( www.bryanstation.com ).




(I've known of at least one evangelist who will teach on this publication at any BC who wishes to finance his appearance at their BC.)

 

[wpe3bql]

The rump Southern Baptist group in Texas is sending $$$ and students to Jacksonville College, a school of the Landmarkist BMA (itself also a schism, from the ABA).

FWIW, I checked Jacksonville College's website and found out that its mascot is (surprise, surprise) the Jaguar.

So......I guess the AFC South's Jax Jaguar team does, in fact, have a TX base after all. :thumbs:

 

[TCassidy]

I disagree with the premise of Landmarkism. Looking for an unbroken continuity of a physical Baptist Church (or any church, for that matter) makes the same error as does the RCC. This is not the nature of the Church.

Except that is not the premise of Landmarkism.

In his book "Old Landmarkism, What Is It" J.R. Graves states the "marks" of a Landmarker:

1. The church of Christ is a divine institution.

2. The church of Christ is a visible institution.

3. The church of Christ is located on this Earth.

4. The church of Christ is a local organization, a single congregation.

5. The membership of the church of Christ are all professedly regenerate in heart before baptism.

6. The baptism of the church of Christ is the profession, on the part of the subject, of the faith of the Gospel by which he is saved.

7. The Lord's Supper was observed as a local church ordinance, commemorative only of the sacrificial chastisement of Christ for His people, never expressive of personal fellowship, or of courtesy for others, or used as a sacrament.

Those seven "marks" delineate what Landmarkism originally was. Today some have added and added and added to what a Landmarker is, but those additions, much like the additions to the fundamentals of the faith (no pants on women, KJVO, etc.), have nothing to do with true Landmarkism.

 

[JonC]

Except that is not the premise of Landmarkism.

In his book "Old Landmarkism, What Is It" J.R. Graves states the "marks" of a Landmarker:.....

You may be right regarding the "marks", but go back and read Graves. Pay attention not only to his development of Landmarkism in the climate of Campbellism, but also his defense of his view and the counter arguments of R.B.C. Howell.

The main issue I have with Graves is his instance that there was always a single local congregation which was reflective of his theology. Not only does history not bear this out, but the Pauline epistles disprove the notion.

In the end, J.R. Graves overreacted on this issue. He ended up setting up exactly what he was trying to ward off. That is a single local church that embodied the "marks" throughout church history. He was wrong.