Landmark Link Source from Dyer TN

[Frogman]

Does anyone know the source for the following quote?

(152)"In 1921 or 1922 I clipped an article that appeared in the Oklahoma
Baptist Messenger, and simultaneously in several other
denominational papers of the South. This article deals with the
ancestry of the Baptist church at Dyer Tennessee. It shows a
continuity of Baptist church life from the present to the days of
Jesus. I am not informed as to the one who made the research,
neither have I had at my command all the books necessary to enable
me to verify each historical reference given. I give the article in
full below for the consideration of the reader:

BAPTIST SUCCESSION BACK TO CHRIST

Link One. The Baptist church at Dyer, Tenn., was organized by J.W.
Jetter, who came from the Philadelphia Assocaiation.

Link Two. Hillcliff church, Wales, England. H. Roller came to the
Philadelphia Association from the Hillcliff church. See minutes of
Philadelphia Association, book 3, item 1.

Link Three. Hillcliff church was organized by Aaron Arlington, A.D.
987. See Alex Munston's Israel of the Alps, p. 39.

Link Four. Lima Piedmont church ordained Aaron Arlington in 940.
See Jones' Church History, p. 324

Link Five. Lima Piedmont church was organized by Balcolao, A.D.
812. See Neander's Church History, vol. 2, p. 320.

Link Six. Balcolao came from the church at Timto, Asia Minor. See
Neander's Church History, vol. 2, p. 320.

Link Seven. Timto church was organized by Archer Flavin, A.D. 738.
See Mosheim's History, vol. 1, p. 394.

Link Eight. Archer Flavin came from the Darethea church, organized
by Adromicus, A.D. 671, in Asia Minor. See Lambert's Church History,
p. 47.

Link Nine. Adromicus came from Pontifossi, at the foot of the Alps
inFrance. See Lambert's Church History, p. 47.

Link Ten. Pontifossi church was organized by Tellestman from Turan,
Italy, A.D. 398. See Nowlin's Church History, vol. 2, p. 318.

Link Eleven. Turan church was organized by Tertullan from Bing Joy,
Africa, A.D. 237. See Armitage's Church History, p. 182.

Link Twelve. Tertullan was a member of the Partus church at the
foot of the Tiber, that was organized by Polycarp, A.D. 150. See
Cyrus' Commentary of Antiquity, p. 924.

Link Thirteen. Polycarp was baptized by John the Beloved or
Revelator, on the twenty-fifth of December, A.D. 85. See Neander's
Church History, p. 285.

Link Fourteen. John was with Jesus on the Mount. Mark 3:13-14; Luke
6:12-13.

I will have some remarks and/or questions regarding these. As for
now, if anyone can identify this source please let me know. Above
found in () is the page number in the book. From the end of Link
twelve to the completion of link fourteen is found on p. 154.
Directly across from this page is the Heading (in the center of the
page) What is the Mission of the Church that Jesus Built?.

Is this heading another chapter beginning, or is this the title of
the book?

I don't know. My pastor gave me this source from a copy he had. I
asked him, but he either did not hear me, or did not know, or did
not want to go further.

We are strict landmark (chain-link).

I say that, because when I post later regarding these links, that
fact will perhaps come into question or at best be made suspect by
some here.

More later.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[rsr]

The book you are referring to is The Church that Jesus Built by Elder Roy Mason. I have a publication date of 1977 by Baptist Bible Church Publications, Clarksville, Tenn.

There are a number of similar chains out there. Another example: http://www.abaptist.org/CHAC/tw_succession.htm

 

[Frogman]

Thanks rsr for the link. As I said, I am what I consider a 'strict' landmarker. This means to me that I am opposed to self-constitution of churches.

I love history and have always loved much more the history of the church.

Because of the mission work in Cookeville, Tn. now deciding they wish to organize, these questions are becoming more significant to me.

Below I will try to provide discussion of the aricle posted:

The writer says:

neither have I had at my command all the books necessary to enable
me to verify each historical reference given.

Frogman observes: Can alot of these sources be found online? I think something as controversial as this issue (at least as it is among landmarkers) should make all involved to desire as much verification as possible for what first scripture relates and what baptist history witnesses to us.


The writer says:

Link One. The Baptist church at Dyer, Tenn., was organized by J.W.
Jetter, who came from the Philadelphia Assocaiation.

Frogman replies: I really really want to see the minutes of the Philadelphia association. Elder Milburn Cockrell (another strict landmarker) denies an association has any authority to 'send' missionaries into the field. (Scriptural Church Organization, p.37 quoting from THE CHURCH by Harvey Hezekiah Phil. PA.: American Baptist Publication Society, 1879, pp. 36-37).

Does this Link 1 reference to an instance where the Philadelphia association sent a missionary? If not, what role did the Phi. Assoc. play?

The writer says:

Link Two. Hillcliff church, Wales, England. H. Roller came to the
Philadelphia Association from the Hillcliff church. See minutes of
Philadelphia Association, book 3, item 1.

Here, imho, is the correct method. So, why did H. Roller come to the Philadelphia Assoc. ? Was this only to make known to baptists in America of his being ordained from the Hillcliff church? Did the Philadelphia Assoc. recognize his ordination as an authority given from Hillcliff to do what was necessary, including organization of NT churches, ordaining to the clergy, deacons, and administration of the ordinances?

If this is the case, especially in the last question, then would the authority of the ordinances of the church be found in the ordained ministry? I believe this authority is found in the church. We can discuss that more later, but I add it here so you will know what I believe.

We can go through each of these links point by point, but I don't think that is necessary.

As I understand the strict 'chain-link' position there is no NT church organized outside of having received an arm extended from a previous NT church. (Elder Cockerell p. 33). This arm provides its authority (received from another NT church, and so on to Christ giving the Great Commission).

I am in basic agreement to this.

The SE (self-constituted position) is as I understand it that any group of believers are scripturally able to organize themselves into a NT church. This would mean they look to a continued authority from heaven for the administration of the ordinances rather than to those who have kept the succession through the ages. Therefore, there is no need for an 'authority' to baptize be extended to any other; this authority if an ordinance of the church, how can the unconstituted 'church' have or possess that authority. And if this authority is with the ordained ministry, then a travelling minister can administer the ordinances without a view of the person receiving these be or become a church member.

Is this what the purpose of the Great Commission is?

Bro. Dallas

more later....

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Frogman:
As I said, I am what I consider a 'strict' landmarker. This means to me that I am opposed to self-constitution of churches.

So am I.

I think something as controversial as this issue (at least as it is among landmarkers) should make all involved to desire as much verification as possible for what first scripture relates and what baptist history witnesses to us.

It is fine to be aquainted with history, but I don't think you will ever find enough history to credibly verify the links in the chain back to Christ. I do believe the chain exists, I just don't believe it can be documented.

There must be another way of knowing whether or not any particular church is a link in the chain. The only way I know is by examination of the doctrine and practice of a church. If it bears the marks of a New Testament church, then we have every reason to believe it is a New Testament church.

Does this Link 1 reference to an instance where the Philadelphia association sent a missionary? If not, what role did the Phi. Assoc. play?

When Baptist associations "send" missionaries they usually send only those who have an endorsment of a local church. The associational endorsement is more for the purpose of financial support than as an authorization. Even the Southern Baptists usually, if not always, have a sponsoring church for the missionaries endorsed by the board.

If, however, a missionary were sent soley on the authority of an association, I would say he had no authority to do the work of the ministry; that authority can come only from a New Testament church.

So, why did H. Roller come to the Philadelphia Assoc.? Was this only to make known to baptists in America of his being ordained from the Hillcliff church? Did the Philadelphia Assoc. recognize his ordination as an authority given from Hillcliff to do what was necessary, including organization of NT churches, ordaining to the clergy, deacons, and administration of the ordinances?

It is my understanding that the Baptists of the past considered ordination an authorization to preach, baptize, and gather churches.

If this is the case, especially in the last question, then would the authority of the ordinances of the church be found in the ordained ministry? I believe this authority is found in the church.

The authority is found in the church. When a church ordains a man they are authorizing him to do the work of the ministry. They may, however, put limits one what he can or cannot do; as, for example, when the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas to go "as far as Antioch." Had Barnabas gone any farther he would have been usurping the authority of the church.

When I was ordained, I can assure you it did not include an authorization to indiscriminately administer baptism or gather churches. However, I see no reason that a church could not give a man a blanket commission to do these things; in fact, that is what many churches do when they send out a man as a "missionary."

Mark Ogatharp

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I quite agree with Brother Mark:

It is fine to be aquainted with history, but I don't think you will ever find enough history to credibly verify the links in the chain back to Christ. I do believe the chain exists, I just don't believe it can be documented.

There must be another way of knowing whether or not any particular church is a link in the chain. The only way I know is by examination of the doctrine and practice of a church. If it bears the marks of a New Testament church, then we have every reason to believe it is a New Testament church.

This is particularly true of churchs in the West founded in the 19th Century. In the case of my home church in San Francisco, Zion Baptist (the name has changed in the last 123 years) was founded in 1881. Though there were at the time seven other Baptist Churchs in the City, none felt lead to start a new work in the Western Addition. This though this district's population was growing and was in need of a Gospel wittness. So, a group of Western Addition residents drawn from the churchs mentioned above gathered in Capt. Gustavus Schroeder's front parlor. They organized themselves for this purpose

The object of this organization shall be: the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His sacred Word; to guard and promote the spiritual welfare and growth of its members; minister to its sick and care for its needy; to seek the salvation of those who know not Christ; minister to the spiritual welfare of the community; promote the missionary aims of the Church; and to do everything possible to made known Christ Jesus our Lord and His Work to a lost world.

These brethren then applied for the proper letters to transfer mebership to this new work. In the next year (sorry for the vaugness, I don't have the minutes of that period before at this moment), they invited sister churchs to a recognition council.

Hiscox, in his Directory of Baptist Churchs, wrote that letters of transfer could be open i.e. not written to a specific church but more as a recommendation of Christian character and church standing. Considering the state of the mail service at the time, this is not an unreasonable action to take. E.g. Brother Smithers and his family are lead of the Lord to leave their home in Ohio and settle in the new territories in Oregon. Their home church, XYZ Baptist of ABC, Ohio votes to authorize the writting by the church clerk of a letter of recommendation and dismissal for the Smithers. When the Smithers arrive in Oregon, they can either join an already existing Baptist church or if none exists they can gather with other Baptists in the area and organize a new work.


I know this way of going about matters is outside the box for some on this board. But that's the way things happened out here in the West.

Again as Brother Mark observed:

However, I see no reason that a church could not give a man a blanket commission to do these things; in fact, that is what many churches do when they send out a man as a "missionary."

One of my personal truisms is

Almost anything can be done on the vote of a Baptist church

 

[Frogman]

That is why I posted this, and though I am imho, a strict landmark baptist, this article breaks from that view with the first link.


Unless it provides along with this link that the Phil Assoc. only lent financial assistance to its missionaries, I would suspect this to be true.

Another source however, says that Jetter spent some time in St. Louis, and established two churches there, but his biography never places him in Dyer TN. Only Virginia and St. Louis.

From what I have read of the strict landmark brethren here are the requirements of organizing a NT church:

1. a group of believers must express intent or desire to organize.

2. The missionary having been sent from a NT church then makes notice to his sending church of this.

3. The sending church receives the letters of the believers, or receives them on statement, or baptism.

4. The sending church grants letters for these to organize into a local independent body.

This is the 'method' that will be followed in organizing the group I am ministering to in Cookeville.

I am willing to submit to it because it has been determined by my local church to be the correct method.

But, I am not certain of its necessity. I also would hesitate to trace a lineage through the Philadelphia Association as this article does, without showing along with that link that the Association only received the missionary as from a local church and not actually sending the missionary.

Perhaps this is the case. Still, I was not aware of the above described method of receiving and releasing members.

Any more thoughts or comments?

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Frogman]

This article also seems to go against the strict position that the ordinances are under the authority of the church and not the ordained ministry.

Just thought I would throw that in there. For a defense offered from the strict camp, this article seems awfully weak, again, imho.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Frogman:
But, I am not certain of its necessity. I also would hesitate to trace a lineage through the Philadelphia Association as this article does, without showing along with that link that the Association only received the missionary as from a local church and not actually sending the missionary.

Perhaps this is the case. Still, I was not aware of the above described method of receiving and releasing members.

Any more thoughts or comments?

At least some of the work of the Philadelphia Assocation was to go into already established churches and lead them into Calvinism. That fact within itself makes the legitimacy of it's work highly suspect. Notwithstanding, there could well have been true churches that came under it's influence, just as there were true churches that came under the influence of the Judaizers in the days of the apostles.

The bottom line is, we don't really know all the details of what the Philadelphia, or any other assocation, or church, did in the past. That is why we must determine the validity, or lack thereof, of any particular church on an observation of it's current doctrine and practice, not on the historical record.

I have said this before, as have many others: I know I am a human being because I possess the characteristics of humanity, not because I can document my genealogy back to Adam. However, since I know I am a human being, I know there is an actual organic - "chain link" if you will - line of ancestery from myself back to Adam.

Likewise, since the church of my membership possesses the characteristics of a New Testament church, I don't feel it necessary to document it's history back to Christ. Notwithstanding, I have no doubt that when the Lord comes and His books are flung open there will be, in fact, a step by step succession from Lakeview Missionary Baptist Church back to the shores of blue Galilee.

Even so come Lord Jesus!

Mark Osgatharp