Landmarkism and Baptist Bride

[Darrenss1]

Hello all, I trust everyone is well.

I've known for about a year that my current church is a landmark church, which in summerizing (hopefully not too much) means they believe the Baptist church existed throughout the centuries (in principle) down to the first church and was never part of the Catholic church, the reformation or the protestant movements (teaching is based on a book called the "Trail of Blood"). With this comes some significant doctrines such as a type of isolation from other baptist churches such as baptist union or baptist churches that aren't independant/fundamental or Calvinist/differing doctrines and especially exclusive from denominations. Another doctrine involved in this is the Baptist Bride teaching (although I haven't got alot of info on it) as I understand it means that in order to become part of the Body of Christ one must be water baptised into a scripturally approved and authorised local Baptist church (such as any like ours).

Another issue these doctrine entail is the belief that the only authorised christian church is one that was started by a scripturally approved baptist church (which must meet certain checklists of doctrines and cannot have differing doctrines) which by their definition excludes even other baptist churches of having the right to exist by the will of God.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what others think of these things, whether or not it ought to be a worry or if most find these teachings to be the usual thing among Baptist churches?? Any thoughts or comments??

Darren

 

[saturneptune]

Hello all, I trust everyone is well.

I've known for about a year that my current church is a landmark church, which in summerizing (hopefully not too much) means they believe the Baptist church existed throughout the centuries (in principle) down to the first church and was never part of the Catholic church, the reformation or the protestant movements (teaching is based on a book called the "Trail of Blood"). With this comes some significant doctrines such as a type of isolation from other baptist churches such as baptist union or baptist churches that aren't independant/fundamental or Calvinist/differing doctrines and especially exclusive from denominations. Another doctrine involved in this is the Baptist Bride teaching (although I haven't got alot of info on it) as I understand it means that in order to become part of the Body of Christ one must be water baptised into a scripturally approved and authorised local Baptist church (such as any like ours).

Another issue these doctrine entail is the belief that the only authorised christian church is one that was started by a scripturally approved baptist church (which must meet certain checklists of doctrines and cannot have differing doctrines) which by their definition excludes even other baptist churches of having the right to exist by the will of God.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what others think of these things, whether or not it ought to be a worry or if most find these teachings to be the usual thing among Baptist churches?? Any thoughts or comments??

Darren

I think a good case can be made for landmarkism, even though it will never be proven one way or the other.

The second issue is a bunch of baloney to put it nicely.

 

[Jim1999]

I am a Landmarkist, but there are extremes in any belief system. I certainly don't dissasocitiate any groups because they don't adhere to Landmarkism. For example, I pastored Regular and Fellowship Baptist Churches in Canada. Landmarkism was not a doctrine held by either group, even though some believed in Landmarkism.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[FR7 Baptist]

One issue with Landmarkism is that they don't accept "alien immersion," that is, baptisms from non-Landmark (or at least non-Baptist) churches. For example, if a person was baptized by immersion, in water, as a believer, using the Triune formula, it is a valid baptism even if it occurs in, say, an Episcopal church. A Landmark church will not agree and will "baptize" the person a second time.

 

[Darrenss1]

One issue with Landmarkism is that they don't accept "alien immersion," that is, baptisms from non-Landmark (or at least non-Baptist) churches. For example, if a person was baptized by immersion, in water, as a believer, using the Triune formula, it is a valid baptism even if it occurs in, say, an Episcopal church. A Landmark church will not agree and will "baptize" the person a second time.

Yes that's correct. Even transferred members from other baptist churches were asked to be re-baptised to be accepted into the membership. The alien immersion is significant to the idea that the church they were baptisted in did not have the authority to do so as they were not an authorised Baptist church from their perspective anyway. I have seen this many times in the last 4 years in my church, I always wondered why that was the case, granted I had no clue about membership let alone tranferred memberships at the time.

Darren

 

[Jim1999]

Well, I came to Christ in the Church of England, was baptized in a Plymouth Brethren Gospel Hall, was ordained in the British Baptist Union,,,,need I go on. To me, Landmarkism is an historical tracing of Baptististic churches.

As I said, there are extremes in many systems.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Well, I came to Christ in the Church of England, was baptized in a Plymouth Brethren Gospel Hall, was ordained in the British Baptist Union,,,,need I go on. To me, Landmarkism is an historical tracing of Baptististic churches.

As I said, there are extremes in many systems.

Cheers,

Jim

Do you believe in re-baptizing people who have already been baptized by immersion as a believer?

 

[Darrenss1]

Well, I came to Christ in the Church of England, was baptized in a Plymouth Brethren Gospel Hall, was ordained in the British Baptist Union,,,,need I go on. To me, Landmarkism is an historical tracing of Baptististic churches.

As I said, there are extremes in many systems.

Cheers,

Jim

Being new to Baptist churches (4 years) I find it is very much diverse and each church can support slightly different views, positions, including their geneology. Are there differing views in Landmarkism as to tracing the history of the Baptist church? Our church takes the position that the Baptists were completely separate from the Reformation/protestants/Catholic church and they view that all other groups come from the Catholic church.

I read on the net that some of the groups that J.M Carroll (Trail of Blood) named wouldn't even constitute as an "authorised baptist church" by the standards today they use to judge an authorised baptist church, which sounds kind of funny, yet they would include them in their geneology.

Darren

 

[kyredneck]

Isn't a landmark church supposed to have an unbroken chain of baptisms back to the apostles? So I've heard.

I personally don't put much stock in it but many around me do.

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

 

[Darrenss1]

Isn't a landmark church supposed to have an unbroken chain of baptisms back to the apostles? So I've heard.

I was told it is more like succession. The Lord planted His church, which planted a church, which planted a church...etc All the way up to todays churches. The succession as I have been told is an unbroken line of "church authority", they have to be planted from a church that was planted from a church, that was planted from a church...etc all the way back to the churches planted by the Apostles themselves.

Darren

 

[Tom Butler]

One issue with Landmarkism is that they don't accept "alien immersion," that is, baptisms from non-Landmark (or at least non-Baptist) churches. For example, if a person was baptized by immersion, in water, as a believer, using the Triune formula, it is a valid baptism even if it occurs in, say, an Episcopal church. A Landmark church will not agree and will "baptize" the person a second time.

Then you certainly won't mind if your church invites a Mormon elder, a Jehovah's Witness overseer, or a just plain atheist to do the next baptisms at your church. Just as long as they immerse with the Triune formula.

Jesus walked along way to submit to baptism by God's designated preacher. He could have grabbed anybody along the way and requested that they dunk him.

Seriously, this is one of the big dividing points between Landmarkers and non-Landmarkers. They will generally agree on the mode (immersion), the design (symbolic of death, burial and resurrection), and the subject (a believer). Landmarkers hold that the authority to baptize resides in the congregation, and only it may determine who will immerse, what is valid baptism and whom the church will accept as members.

Even non-Landmarkers draw the line. While vesting the right to determine the validity of one's baptism in the individual himself, they would certainly not accept a baptism done by an atheist.

Would you?

 

[Tom Butler]

I first heard of the Baptist Bride concept about 30 years ago. An old preacher described it this way:

When we gather for the marriage supper of the Lamb, only Baptists will be allowed to sit down. Other believers will be present, but they will have to stand and watch, since they were not members of the true Church (Baptist, of course).

Of course, this springs from the idea that if there is a true New Testament church in existence today, it is a Baptist church. Now that's something I can agree with.

 

[Darrenss1]

Then you certainly won't mind if your church invites a Mormon elder, a Jehovah's Witness overseer, or a just plain atheist to do the next baptisms at your church. Just as long as they immerse with the Triune formula.

Hang on Tom, no one has even used alien immersions from that context at all. A condition of baptism means one first must be saved, of course those situations must be judged, I'm referring to christian churches where coming into a Landmark church they are to be re-baptised, that is the context.

Jesus walked along way to submit to baptism by God's designated preacher. He could have grabbed anybody along the way and requested that they dunk him.

That is an irrelevant counterfactual, John the Baptist was always going to baptise Jesus this wasn't the general baptism, John the Baptist's ministry was significant in passing his followers on to the Lord, pointing the way. Another example would be Phillip baptising the Ethiopian, or Paul whom baptised many, that would be the better example to use, surely it has never been a case of "just anyone" in any church that I know of.

Landmarkers hold that the authority to baptize resides in the congregation, and only it may determine who will immerse, what is valid baptism and whom the church will accept as members.

Yes but when a Landmarker knows a christian was baptised in "THAT" church (even another baptist church) that baptism did not count for them, that's the attitude I refer to. The former pastor of our church was re-baptised into the church when he first took to the ministry, he was orignally baptised in another baptist church that was suspect of not having the "right" authority to baptise him.

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

Of course, this springs from the idea that if there is a true New Testament church in existence today, it is a Baptist church. Now that's something I can agree with.

Maybe so but WHICH Baptist church is the true church within the baptist church label. I can imagine 2 Baptist Briders standing there both saying, "Your church is not the true church, my church is..". :laugh:

A friend whom believes in this BB and Landmarkism was telling me that one of their missionaries they planted is no longer going to support "closed" communion (but close communion) so my friend has labelled the missionary's church as being "unscriptural and universal" over even that one issue, they are debating dropping the support for that man even over that issue. Surely anyone they baptise in that missionary's church would be deemed as an "alien immersion".

Darren

 

[Tom Butler]

Darren, I am aware that there are some Baptist churches which require all new members to be baptized. I don't agree with this position.

My position is that I would accept a baptism from not only a Baptist church, but also one of like faith and order that may not call itself Baptist.

The question to debate is the who is the proper administrator of the ordinance of baptism. Landmarkism holds that a local Baptist church is the proper administrator, since it is holds to the same doctrines espoused in the scriptures by Jesus and the Apostles. Since other faith groups do not, in the Landmark view, they do not qualify as New Testament churches, thus their baptism is in-valid.

The baptism of faith groups which sprinkle, which hold to baptismal regeneration, which hold to baptism as sacramental, are thus invalid.

My reference to John the Baptist was to make the point that Jesus placed importance on the administrator. Many modern Baptists contend that the administrator is irrelevant as long as its done the right way for the right reason.

By the way, Paul did not baptize a lot of his converts. He himself baptized only two people, Crispus and Gaius, he said.

 

[Darrenss1]

By the way, Paul did not baptize a lot of his converts. He himself baptized only two people, Crispus and Gaius, he said.

Yes, I know that. I'm just making a point.

Darren

 

[Tom Butler]

A clarification, if you please.

In my most recent post, I stated that I would accept the baptism of a Baptist church or one that is of like faith and order, though it might not carry the name Baptist.

There are some Baptist bodies whose baptism I would not accept. They would generally include Free Will Baptists, General Baptists, Seventh-Day Baptists and Two-Seed-in-The-Spirit-Predestinarian Baptists. (Yes, there is, or was, such a group).

They would not be of like faith, or of like order.

 

[Allan]

A clarification, if you please.

In my most recent post, I stated that I would accept the baptism of a Baptist church or one that is of like faith and order, though it might not carry the name Baptist.

There are some Baptist bodies whose baptism I would not accept. They would generally include Free Will Baptists, General Baptists, Seventh-Day Baptists and Two-Seed-in-The-Spirit-Predestinarian Baptists. (Yes, there is, or was, such a group).

They would not be of like faith, or of like order.

General Baptists? As in not particular or Calvinistic? Maybe I'm misunderstanding

 

[Bethelassoc]

A clarification, if you please.

In my most recent post, I stated that I would accept the baptism of a Baptist church or one that is of like faith and order, though it might not carry the name Baptist.

There are some Baptist bodies whose baptism I would not accept. They would generally include Free Will Baptists, General Baptists, Seventh-Day Baptists and Two-Seed-in-The-Spirit-Predestinarian Baptists. (Yes, there is, or was, such a group).

They would not be of like faith, or of like order.

What about the person that performs the baptism? Should they also be scrutinized?

 

[Tom Butler]

General Baptists? As in not particular or Calvinistic? Maybe I'm misunderstanding

Allan, General Baptists are called that for the reason you think. They are not Particular Baptists. The one big difference between Generals and SBCers is that they believe on can lose his salvation. Otherwise, around this part of the country they are pretty conservative and as best I can determine, are inerrantist in their view of scripture. But their view on apostasy is the deal-breaker for me in accepting their baptism.