JonC, I am far apart from Landmarkism, but don't you think there were Christians, even if isolated and few in number, who did hold to what the apostles actually taught, from the first century onward?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Landmark Baptists
- Thread starter Rebel
- Start date
- Status
JonC, I am far apart from Landmarkism, but don't you think there were Christians, even if isolated and few in number, who did hold to what the apostles actually taught, from the first century onward?
Hey Rebel. I doubt that there was one local church throughout history that held to a perfect doctrine. The Church, and local churches, are organic. Just like the NT churches, I think that churches consistently work towards a more correct theology.
New Covenant Theology?
JonC will spin the answer and claim you believe there was "one local church throughout history that held to a perfect doctrine."
Of course none of us believe there is or was one single local congregation that existed from the 1st century until now. That is just idiotic.
And then he adds the (false) claim that you believe this mythical single congregation "held to a perfect doctrine."
Anyone who has ever darkened the door of any church knows that NO church holds to a perfect doctrine.
But God's word tells us that our faith is "the faith ONCE delivered to the saints."
God's true congregations of His children have existed all down through the ages of history. His churches never died out and needed to be restarted during the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation was simply some Catholics realizing how wrong the RCC was and trying to change it.
But they didn't change it. They got thrown out, instead!
The main reason I reject this landmark type of succession is that it is impossible to verify a physical succession of Baptist Churches.
The only thing we have that we can judged any church by is their practice and how it lines up with scripture. no physical line can be the judge of any church.
From everything ive seen and read and discussed about the subject matter, I like it......so let them spin their tops, now I'm more interested.....meaning that I'm going to study up on it.:tongue3::tongue3:
Don't tell that to the Catlicks.:laugh:
Why the snide remark? I will state my opinion and respect yours. I will answer to the best of my ability what I understand to be true, and I expect the same of you even if we disagree. I will dialogue (until such time as you take up posting rabbit pictures). But I do not assume that my disagreement with you is spinning an answer. It is merely giving an answer that is different from yours. Where you believe the kingdom of God consists only of local Baptist churches and any other is false and "open rebellion to Christ as the only King of Zion (Graves), I believe that there always has been Baptist belief, but I favor a "spiritual kinship" rather than Landmarkism.
Now you are taking up R.B.C. Howell’s argument against J.R. Graves. Howell (and many early SBC leaders) believed that there was always a church that could be called a “true church of Christ.” I agree. But you are watering down Graves doctrine (and Old Landmarkism) to comply with their arguments. If you were correct, then Landmarkism would have never been an issue. J.R. Graves would never have divided First Baptist Nashville (and there never would have been two churches claiming that name), the Graves/Howell debate most likely would never have occurred, etc. Howell insisted on a "spiritual kinship," that is chruches holding true doctrine through history. Graves held that the only true church was and always has been local Baptist churches.
And, I’ll add…I do not consider Baptists to have ever been a part of the Catholic Church (which again is one of R.B.C. Howell’s beliefs even as he opposed Graves).
The Reformation was simply some Catholics realizing how wrong the RCC was and trying to change it.
But they didn't change it. They got thrown out, instead!
Unfortunately history does show you wrong here. There were groups (often called Anabaptists) who existed apart from the Reformers and the Catholic Church. But they joined the Protestant movement (Luther commented that they were among them, but were not a part of them....misapplying Scripture and indicating them to be heretics). Have you ever heard of the Second Front (also called the Radical Reformation)? Those were not necessarily former members of the Catholic Church. I would suggest that you study the subject - it is very interesting and you can appreciate what those baptistic churches stood far. They were persecuted by both the Catholics and the Reformers.
Last edited by a moderator:
:wavey: It is an interesting topic. Both Graves and Howell debated each other openly, and much was a matter of church record. Their personal journals are in the SBC archives, and many are digitized.
I'm just thankful that they are a minority group. We have a very large population of Church of Christ who, if you substitute "CoC" for "Baptist," mirror Landmarkism. (This is not, BTW, coincidence. Graves developed Landmarkism as a reaction to the Campbellites who became CoC).
Last edited by a moderator:
I am a borderline Landmarker without the succession doctrine. The landmarks being: The Baptism and The Supper. If one follows how these doctrines have been practiced since the First Church in Jerusalem, there is a definite trail of landmarks to follow. This trail is also bloody from the deaths of The Saints who refused to baptize their infants nor bow to Rome.
Alexander Campbell believed in baptismal regeneration. This is a false gospel. CoC still teaches such error--along with the majority of so-called Christendom. Now what?
The Lord knows them that are His. They are sealed and kept by His power. The gates of hell cannot prevail.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Alexander Campbell believed in baptismal regeneration. This is a false gospel. CoC still teaches such error--along with the majority of so-called Christendom. Now what?
The Lord knows them that are His. They are sealed and kept by His power. The gates of hell cannot prevail.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Hi James,
If I understand you correctly, that is not Landmarkism (J.R. Graves position). That would be "spiritual kinship" (R.B.C. Howell's position).
Grave places the church, and therefore the Kingdom of God, as in this earth. Baptist churches are the only true representation of Christ's Kingdom. While others may be saved (outside of the Baptist church) they are not a part of the "Body of Christ," "the Bride of Christ," or the Church. Instead they are actively in "open rebellion to Christ as the only King of Zion." There is an unbroken continuity of Baptist churches since the apostles time. If you believe this, then yes, you are a borderline landmarker. To be a full fledged member you need to accept the "landmarks." But if you reject the succession doctrine then you hold a "spiritual kinship" view.
And yes, the CoC believes in Baptismal Regeneration. I don't know how that ties in, but you are right. Graves simply took their succession doctrine and applied it to Baptists (and from there developed it into Landmarkism). That is what I meant when I said Graves doctrine was a reaction to (an overreaction, IMHO, to) Campbellism.
An irony just struck me…ouch...... The Graves - Howell debate centered around church discipline. J.R. Graves had been disciplined by his local church, and rather than accepting this he sought other churches to overturn his local church's verdict. R.B.C. Howell insisted that church discipline was a matter for the local church. It is ironic that Graves, the father of Landmarkism, would seek other churches to overrule his own local church in a matter of discipline (ironic as he taught the church to be a local organization, a single congregation....there should have been no assembly called outside the local church to begin with).
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe in the "spiritual kinship" theory, and as I read "The Trail of Blood," Carroll says pretty much the same thing in his introduction. I don't believe he is saying there is a direct succession, but rather there exists in every age churches similar to ours in belief though under a different name.
There is no shortage of "us four and no more" churches, IMO Landmark teaching can overreach and fall into this error.
The essence of the error is in the thinking that man has to do with the building and maintenance of the church (part of which although residing on earth)is a heavenly institution of which Jesus said I will build MY church.
ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
Hebrews 12
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
We may lay on sinful hands and do other works to "confirm" HIS choices but sinful hands can be wrong hands.
This may be a church version of an urban legend but I heard it said that when Spurgeon was asked why he was never ordained he said - I don't want someones empty hands on my empty head.
We do have scriptural guidelines for church polity but the "we four and no more" attitude is IMO a definite overreach.
HankD
The essence of the error is in the thinking that man has to do with the building and maintenance of the church (part of which although residing on earth)is a heavenly institution of which Jesus said I will build MY church.
ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
Hebrews 12
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
We may lay on sinful hands and do other works to "confirm" HIS choices but sinful hands can be wrong hands.
This may be a church version of an urban legend but I heard it said that when Spurgeon was asked why he was never ordained he said - I don't want someones empty hands on my empty head.
We do have scriptural guidelines for church polity but the "we four and no more" attitude is IMO a definite overreach.
HankD
What somewhat concerns me is when a group of supposedly "Landmark" preachers / churches claim that each individual local church is absolutely autonomous & independent of each other in the realm of said local church's "internal" decisions (e.g., what missionaries and/or other evangelistic outreaches to support) but then apparently have little / no qualms about soundly (and publicly) condemning another "Landmark" pastor's / local churches' decision(s) in said matters.
Comments on these kinds of "Landmarkers"?
Comments on these kinds of "Landmarkers"?
That is exactly what Graves did. When First Baptist Nashville disciplined Graves he sought other like minded churches to for support. What they ended up doing was taking a minority who followed Graves and claimed hold of First Baptist (they were the "true church"). There was, for a while, two First Baptist churches of Nashville. Graves claimed his was true and the other false.
:thumbs: That's the 3rd building. The first was overtaken by Campbellism (they met, if I remember correctly, for a while in a Masonic lodge after that). The current building was built in the late 1800's....1880..."ish"...I think.
If you live around the area, the church (at one time anyway) had a book of their history in their library.
Last edited by a moderator:
About the only part of the c. late 1800's building that remains much in public view would be its bell tower.
Wouldn't even wanna be anywhere near downtown Nashville right now: CMA Fan Fare is currently going on (+ the 80-90 o F temps & 1,000,000% humidity). :tear:
Paul C. Hwu
New Member
I do not need to spend the time to write to you but because the love for the truth do I need to share it with you.
Landmark Baptist doctrine claims apostolic succession of the "baptist (or anabaptist)" faith as they co-existed with Catholicism but separated from them and use "ites" or "ians" or "ens" as suffixes to distinguish their separation from Catholicism. For example, Waldensians as Landmark Baptist would claim to be a form of the earlier "anabaptist" group.
Landmark Baptist based their doctrine of co-existence but separated from Catholicism is based on a few very flawed assumptions:
1) God's true church cannot be "corrupt" (as Catholicism has a long history of spiritual and material corruption through prayer beads, inquisition and sales of indulgence).
If that assumption was true, then the seven churches Christ oversee and advised in Revelation would be inaccurate because even the corrupted churches in Revelation 2 and 3 did Christ saw and sent warnings.
A) Waldensians later merged with the Methodist (see Waldensians - Wikipedia ) in 1975.
A1) Methodist are not firm with the position of against same gender marriage and LGBT as an abomination (see Will views on same-sex marriage split one of America's largest Protestant religions? ) as that denomination is divided on such issue.
A2) Methodist also ordain females into the clergy and pastoral positions.
B) God's church cannot be corrupted. But OT clearly shows after Joshua, corruption became blatant and glaring. God did not abandon His covenant with the seed of Abraham despite the continuous and increasingly lack of faith and spiritual adultery of the Jews.
"Catholicism" had a decent beginning as evident through the Counsel of Nicea and First Council of Constantinople. Those two early Council was invoked and guided by the holy spirit to identify and separate the Aranian and other denomination heresies that was growing in areas as Egypt.
When Landmark Baptist claims separation from early Catholic counsil is to claim that they are in alignment with the heretic teachings as Aranian which did not believe in the trinity doctrine as mainstream churches believe it today. There were variations of heresies throughout mankind that claimed Christ to be a "created or generated" creature and never co-existed with the Father and other strange thinkings.
The First Council of Constantinople established in writing the divinity of the holy spirit in 381 AD.
More importantly, Landmark Baptist is self-centered rather than God centered as they, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, tries to look for flaws in established clergy and boast on their denomination and lacks trust in the holy spirit that teaches and warns churches about what is going on that God does not approve about. The holy spirit and Christ gave Emperor Constantine a dream about Christ purchasing the sin of mankind with his righteousness for our unrighteousness. Constantine became a convert after that because God saw Constantine the proper vehicle to end persecution AND to deliver the gospel throughout the world efficiently and effectively AND to declare some Christian sects as dangerous heresies. IF "anabaptists" was co-existed while being separated from the early Catholic counsels then it only shows that "anabaptists" was the heretics in the eyes of early Catholic Counsels. However, Baptist group's version of trinity is consistent with catholic's view more than the declared heretics of early Catholicism.
The Landmark Baptist doctrine is dangerous and possibly a blasphemy against the holy spirit because it makes the assumption or accusation that the holy spirit cannot work through the early Catholic councils. The Watchtower Society does not make such apostolic succession as the Landmark Baptist but they make the same claim of Landmark Baptist that the holy spirit cannot or did not or cannot work through the early catholic councils.
2) ANABAPTIST means to "baptize again". That is a claim that is to be distinguished from Catholic's infant baptismal practice. There is the false assumption that to "re-baptize" was not a practice of Catholic faith. However, early Catholic councils shows that an ex-communicated or exiled heretic was required to be re-baptized to be accepted to their church membership as they taught membership of the church was required for salvation (something I do not totally agree upon).
3) If Anabaptist and Baptist were separated from Catholic from the beginning, then why does Baptist also celebrate "Christmas". Please remember that Christmas has the suffix of mas or mass, which is a catholic term. Jesus never commanded His disciples or apostles to remember His birth but did command us to remember His death. Now, Revelation 11:1-2 shows that we are commanded to measure God's temple. Measuring God's temple has exact measurement, not more and not less. If you measure beyond the temple's exactness then you are going into the unbelieving gentiles' courtyard, something that verse 2 warned against. Celebration of Christ's birth is adding to the word.
Historical evidence shows that Christmas was not celebrated by the early churches and did not become more of an established event until the fifth century.
B) I spent lot of money and time to buy and read the early church councils to read what was true and see how the holy spirit was working through the early Church councils. I diligently prayed to God through Christ as mediator to not to deceive myself or let anyone deceive me since age 15. But my stubborn attitude was I slow to hear Christ voice and readjust my flawed thinking on following many false doctrines by preachers and pastors throughout my life. Sadly, Bethel Baptist chruch (El Sobrante California) and many other alike offers many variation of damnable heresies as Landmark Baptist doctrine
Paul C. Hwu
New Member
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.
- Status