Landmarkism--Truth or Heresy?

Tom Butler · Jan 1, 2007

Just sorta curious why the Landmark ecclesiology draws such venomous criticism. Usually it's described as the "Landmark heresy," as if the two words are forever linked.

So why is it heresy?

Why is the notion of Baptist perpetuity such an anathema?
Why is the idea of Baptist church successionism so disliked?

Why is the idea that the universal church is a useless figment of the imagination attract such angry dissent?

I can understand honest disagreement, what I don't understand is why Landmarkers are considered heretics.

HankD · Jan 1, 2007

It would be helpful for all, new and old alike, if the doctrine(s) of "Landmarkism" were presented (preferably from a Landmarker or a Landmark publication).

HankD

Martin · Jan 1, 2007

I read a quote from Spurgeon just last night about that deals with at least part of this...

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man..."—Charles H. Spurgeon

Not saying that I agree, just an observation.

Jim1999 · Jan 1, 2007

It is strange how so many claim the baptist churches are the closest to the New Testament church and yet take a huge leap of nothingness until the birth of the English baptist church.

Landmarkism makes an attempt to follow similar churches down through the ages. Some groups embraced heretical beliefs, but what is new. Some so-called baptist churches to-day follow weird beliefs too.

The Trail of Blood gives a reasonable trace of baptistic history.

Cheers,

Jim

pinoybaptist · Jan 1, 2007

Here's something from Wilkipedia.

Landmarkism is a type of Baptist ecclesiology. Landmarkism may also appear as Old Landmarkism in some works. Adherents are normally styled Landmark Baptists or simply Landmarkers within the United States, but are known as Landmarkists in the United Kingdom.

Definition
Scholars have offered several proposed definitions of Landmarkism, most of which agree on several fundamental aspects of the movement, but nevertheless differ at significant points.

Points of consensus
Most theologians and historians who have dealt with Landmarkism have agreed that the following ecclesiological convictions were inherent to the system:

The exclusive validity of Baptist churches
Although different champions of the Landmark Baptist cause have identified different required characteristics, or "marks," that validate a legitimate Baptist church, all varieties of Landmarkism stipulate that legitimate Baptist churches are the only legitimate churches. According to Landmarkism, congregations of other denominational varieties are merely religious gatherings, or "societies," with no claim to the title "church."

The invalidity of non-Baptist churchly acts

Landmark Baptists have refused to recognize as valid any baptisms or ordinations performed in circumstances other than under the auspices of a Baptist church. Thus, Landmark Baptists have declined to allow non-Baptists to preach in Landmark Baptist churches and have required prospective members who have received "pedobaptism" or "alien immersion" to be baptized by a Baptist church before receiving them into membership. Expressed as a syllogism, the Landmark Baptist argument is:
Major premise: To be valid, Christian ordinations and baptisms must be performed by a valid New Testament church.
Minor premise: Only valid Baptist churches are valid New Testament churches.
Conclusion: Therefore, only ordinations and baptisms performed by valid Baptist churches are valid Christian ordinations and baptisms. Disputed Points

Beyond this basic argument, scholars have proposed other elements as inherent to Landmarkism, but these do not enjoy the same scholarly consensus as the foregoing ecclesiological kernel.

Church succession

Church succession is a theory of Baptist history before 1609—a type of Baptist successionism. Virtually all Baptist historians up through the nineteenth century emphasized in some manner the antiquity of Baptist ideas. This was an exercise in apologetics, designed to debunk criticisms of Baptist thought as an innovation (a word that did not, in seventeenth-century religious circles, enjoy the positive connotation that it has today). In particular, Baptist historians labored to demonstrate the antiquity of believer's baptism and, to some degree, of congregationalist church governance. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, most Landmark Baptists adopted G. H. Orchard's more ambitious assertion that actual organized Baptist congregations had existed at all times throughout the preceding centuries all the way back to the New Testament era. Believing that their origins predate those even of Roman Catholicism, Landmark Baptists have generally refused to refer to themselves as Protestants. Not all Landmark Baptists subscribed to this particular concept of Baptist history, but it did come to dominate Landmark Baptist thinking about Baptist origins.

Non-church-intercommunion
Baptists debated as early as the eighteenth century about whether churches should allow Christians to participate in the Lord's Supper before receiving valid baptism. In the final decades of the nineteenth century, some Landmark Baptists began to assert that Baptist churches should not allow even Baptists from other congregations to participate in the Lord's Supper away from their home congregation. This idea was controversial among Landmark Baptists, although it did eventually build strong support within the movement. James Madison Pendleton was one prominent Landmark Baptist who vehemently opposed this idea.

Baptist missionary Tarleton Perry Crawford proposed in the late nineteenth century a theory of missiology that criticized at several points the missionary structures and methodologies of Baptist conventions and societies. Crawford's theories were popular among Landmark Baptists. Authors like James Tull have analyzed Gospel Missions as a submovement within Landmarkism. Adrian Lamkin has disputed this claim.

Some Baptists in the Southern Baptist Convention objected to the practice of apportioning messengers to the various congregations according to their respective numbers of members or dollars contributed. These Baptists insisted that each local congregation have equal representation in convention bodies. This issue was prominent in controversies provoked by Samuel Augustus Hayden and Benjamin M. Bogard. The majority of scholarly analysts have tied this dispute to Landmarkism, but recent dissertations by Joseph Early and Bart Barber have challenged the link between Landmarkism and these controversies.

to be continued.....
Click to expand...

pinoybaptist · Jan 1, 2007

Landmarkism.....

More about Landmarkism from Wilkipedia ...

The Great Triumvirate

James Robinson Graves

James Robinson Graves is the undisputed father of Landmarkism. Through his Tennessee Baptist newspaper, Graves popularized Landmarkism, building for it a virtual hegemony among Southern Baptists west of the Appalachians. Graves was especially popular in the states of the lower Mississippi River Valley and Texas. In 1851, Graves called a meeting of likeminded Southern Baptists at the Cotton Grove Baptist Church near Jackson, Tennessee to address five questions:

Can Baptists with their principles on the Scriptures, consistently recognize those societies not organized according to the Jerusalem church, but possessing different government, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinances, doctrines and practices as churches of Christ?

Ought they to be called gospel churches or churches in a religious sense?

Can we consistently recognize the ministers of such irregular and unscriptural bodies as gospel ministers?

Is it not virtually recognizing them as official ministers to invite them into our pulpits or by any other act that would or could be construed as such recognition?

Can we consistently address as brethren those professing Christianity who not only have not the doctrine of Christ and walk not according to his commandments but are arrayed in direct and bitter opposition to them?

The majority of the gathered Baptists resolved these questions to the disparagement of non-Baptist congregations, and then published their findings as the Cotton Grove Resolutions. The Cotton Grove Resolutions essentially comprise the organizational document of the Landmark Baptist movement.
In addition to his many articles in the Tennessee Baptist, Graves wrote Old Landmarkism: What Is It? He served as the publisher for the two other members of the Landmark Triumvirate.

James Madison Pendleton

James Madison Pendleton was the most scholarly and perhaps the most focused (or at least the most minimalist) member of the Landmark Triumvirate. Pendleton's book An Old Landmark gave the movement its name. His Church Manual was also influential in perpetuating Landmark Baptist ecclesiology. Ironically, although Pendleton was the only native Southerner in the Landmark Triumvirate, he was the only member to oppose slavery and secession. As a result, his influence among Southern Baptists declined precipitously in the days leading up to the War Between the States. A recent dissertation by James White has provided the most thorough treatment of Pendleton's theology to date.Amos Cooper Dayton
Amos Cooper Dayton's major contribution to Landmarkism was the novel Theodosia Ernest. Dayton's early death limited his ability to shape the Landmark movement.

Other influential Landmark Baptists

John Newton Hall (1849-1905), publisher of the Kentucky Baptist Flag newspaper, was a forceful advocate both of Landmarkism and of the Gospel Mission Movement.

Benjamin Marquis Bogard, after leading a schism out of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention became the most popular leader of Landmarkism into the twentieth century.

Samuel Augustus Hayden led a schismatic movement in Texas that many have associated with Landmarkism.

Thomas Treadwell Eaton championed Landmark sentiment in Kentucky and led the charge against anti-Landmark scholar William Heth Whitsitt.

John T. Christian prolifically defended the Landmark Baptist conception of Baptist successionism.

James Milton Carroll authored one of the most enduring Landmark Baptist publications, The Trail of Blood.

A number of prominent Southern Baptist leaders were also Landmark Baptists (e. g., Benajah Harvey Carroll), although their primary contributions to Baptist history lay in fields other than ecclesiology.

History of the movement

Landmarkism before 1851?

Many adherents of Landmarkism dispute that the movement originated in the 1850s. Instead, they claim that the Landmark Baptist movement has apostolic origins. Most scholars from outside the movement dispute this claim. In fact, the central thesis of James Tull's dissertation was the demonstration that Landmarkism did not represent (as Tull termed it) "historic Baptist ecclesiology."

Antebellum Landmarkism

The Landmark controversy erupted into Southern Baptist life in the 1850s, fueled by the press influence of Graves. At times, vitriolic conflict between Landmark and non-Landmark elements within the Southern Baptist Convention clashed during this epoch. The epitome of such conflict was the struggle between Graves and Robert Boyte Crawford Howell. By the late 1850s, Landmarkism had become the default ecclesiology of the Western Frontier.

War and Reconstruction

When Nashville, Tennessee fell to the Union Army, Graves was displaced from his seat of power. Furthermore, during Reconstruction more pressing matters than ecclesiology stole Baptist imagination, as they struggled for the survival of their churches and denominational institutions. During this period, no other point of view gained ground against Landmarkism, but neither did Landmarkism progress.

The New South
Landmarkism returned to the forefront with renewed vigor after Reconstruction. In the final years of his life, Graves led the Landmark movement from Memphis, Tennessee. Graves died in 1891, with Landmarkism at the zenith of its acceptance.

THE WHITSITT CONTROVERSY

William Heth Whitsitt, the third president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, presented the first major academic challenge from within Baptist ranks to the theory of church successionism. On the basis of primary source research in England, Whitsitt wrote that early English Baptists prior to 1641 had not baptized by immersion. Enraged Landmark Baptists successfully ousted Whitsitt in 1899. Ironically, this Landmark victory ensconced Edgar Young Mullins into the presidency of the seminary—Mullins became one of the most influential non-Landmark Baptists in the Southern Baptist Convention during the twentieth century.
Click to expand...

pinoybaptist · Jan 1, 2007

More on Landmarkism...

still on landmarkism from Wilkipedia Dictionary...

Twentieth-century Landmarkism
[edit] Landmark Baptist denominations

Though numerous churches and some organizations use the terms Landmark and Landmark Baptist in their name, there is no identifiable sub-group of Baptists known as the Landmark Baptist Church. A "Landmark Baptist Church" is one that holds the idea of Landmarkism or Landmark ecclesiology.
In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, two major ruptures occurred among Southern Baptists in the "Landmark Belt" (the area of strongest Landmark influence, including Arkansas and Texas). In Texas, Hayden led a group out of the Baptist General Convention of Texas to form the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas. In Arkansas, Bogard led a group out of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention to form the General Association of Baptist Churches in Arkansas. The General Association of Baptists in the United States of America was formed in 1905, which gave way to the American Baptist Association (ABA) in 1924 in Texarkana, Texas; the BMA of Texas also became affiliated with the ABA but continued as a state organization.
Joseph Early has attributed the Hayden schism to interpersonal conflict in the BGCT rather than to Landmarkism. Bart Barber has attribued the Bogard schism to heightened agrarianism in Arkansas and the political career of Arkansas Governor Jeff Davis. Further division has fractured the ABA as the twentieth century has progressed.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Landmark ideas are most closely associated with the ABA, the Baptist Missionary Association of America (with which the BMA of Texas is now affiliated), and the Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association. Many Independent Baptist churches and most unaffiliated Missionary Baptist local associations also hold this ecclesiology. Some other Baptists, such as Primitive Baptists, hold ecclesiological viewpoints that are very similar to Landmarkism.

[edit] Landmark Baptist sentiment in the Southern Baptist Convention

Landmark ideas still exist within the Southern Baptist Convention, but scholars have differed as to their extent and influence. William W. Barnes interpreted the Hayden and Bogard schisms as a catharsis of Landmarkism from the SBC, enabling the advent of a golden age of Southern Baptist growth and cooperation. James Tull has posited an insidious covert Landmarkism in the SBC serving as a constant impediment to such (according to Tull) noble causes as ecumenism and moderate Baptist theology. Stephen M. Stookey has treated Landmarkism as a unifying force in the SBC that staved off potential division along Fundamentalist/Modernist lines.
Click to expand...

pinoybaptist · Jan 1, 2007

Personally, I think that Baptist churches, most of them, anyway, but particularly Primitive Baptist churches and those of like doctrines and practices,are the closest one can get to seeing or joining a New Testament church.

However, I will not lay claim to any direct descendancy from the first New Testament church founded by the Savior because it cannot be proven by Scripture, and any claim to be so is therefore unscriptural..

Tom Butler · Jan 1, 2007

pinoybaptist, thanks for doing the legwork to background everybody on Landmarkism. I guess I assumed everybody was familiar with it.

There is one other aspect that arouses passions: The supremacy of the local church. Basically, the view is that there is no such thing as the Universal Church. It holds that any reference in the Bible which seems to refer to such an entity is in fact a generic reference, similar to such institutions as the "family." It holds that the generic takes concrete expression in the specific--that is, local--church.

In the same way, there is no such entity as the family, as in "the breakdown of the family." The breakdowns occur in individual families.

A corollary to that, which also stirs emotions, is the view that Jesus established a congregation, made up of the twelve, during his earthly ministry. This, as opposed to the view that the church was formed on the Day of Pentecost.

Now, that everybody is up to speed, release the hounds!

mnw · Jan 1, 2007

Baptists, at least in my circles, do not have the idea of linking churches all the way back to the NT like some kind of Roman Catholic apostolic succession.

What they do claim is a succession of churches who held to and were defined by the fundamentals. (Here I refer to the fundamentals as of 100 years ago, not necessarily what are viewed as the fundementals by many today.)

Here in the UK we do not have Landmark churches so my understanding is limited. Something that has struck me is their tendency towards being baptist briders and perhaps a dogmatism in areas of Christian liberty.

It is strange how so many claim the baptist churches are the closest to the New Testament church and yet take a huge leap of nothingness until the birth of the English baptist church.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is an accurate statement, but I know Jim has studied a lot more and a lot longer than I. We must have just come out to different conclusions.

I believe there is a viable link going back a lot farther than the English Baptists... but this is probably starting to go off topic

Tom Butler · Jan 1, 2007

mnw, you mentioned "Baptist Briders." I grew up in a Landmark stronghold in Western Kentucky and Tennessee , but I had never heard of that view before about 30 years ago.

To explain, if Baptist churches constitute the only true NT churches, that only Baptist churches (and their members) constitute the Bride of Christ. Therefore, only Baptists will be permitted to participate in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

As one old preacher told me, "everybody else will have to stand around and watch."

PastorSBC1303 · Jan 1, 2007

Tom Butler said:

Just sorta curious why the Landmark ecclesiology draws such venomous criticism.
Click to expand...

I am not going to call it heresy.

However, my problem with Landmarkism is the arrogant notion that comes a long with it that Baptists hold a monopoly on the truth. I just fail to see this in Scripture.

I had an old Landmark Baptist Pastor tell me one time that I had absolutely no business having any non-baptist authors on my bookshelves.

Tom Butler · Jan 1, 2007

PastorSBC1303 said:

I am not going to call it heresy.

However, my problem with Landmarkism is the arrogant notion that comes a long with it that Baptists hold a monopoly on the truth. I just fail to see this in Scripture.

I had an old Landmark Baptist Pastor tell me one time that I had absolutely no business having any non-baptist authors on my bookshelves.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not for arrogance, of course. And I have some solid books by non-Baptists in my library.

But here's the problem we Baptists have. We do, in fact, believe that what we believe is informed by scripture. Therefore, those who do not agree are by definition wrong. They do not hold the truth. These days we try to be polite and make noises like, we just see it differently. The fact is, they are wrong and we are right. It's hard to say it that way without sounding arrogant.

Do other denominations have some truth? Of course. Do Baptist have a monopoly on truth? Of course not.

But, but...if we do not believe that what we hold as Baptist distinctive are true, supported by scripture, why are we still there?

All denominations claim to be the repositories of Biblical truth. Every one of them. Why should Baptists, particularly Landmark Baptists, be the only ones considered arrogant for making such a claim?

As a matter of fact, what if your pastor said to you, "well, we get most of it right, but we're wrong on a few things. We don't have a monopoly on the truth, you see. Why, to claim that would be arrogant." You'd be gone in a New York minute.

By the way, what is a New York minute?

mnw · Jan 2, 2007

Sorry Tom, didn't mean to misrepresent any one.

I guess looking from the outside in it is hard to see exactly what goes on.

Tom Butler · Jan 2, 2007

mnw, I can't see where you misrepresented anyone or anything.

You used the term "baptist briders" and I suspected that some folks wouldn't know what that meant, thus the explanation.

Jim1999 · Jan 2, 2007

Stretching the facts is a common error made by most of us. Sometimes a statement of fact must rest on itself and does not require exploration.

We often find this with theology. We take a doctrinal viewpoint and expand it to death, so that the basic premise makes no sense whatever.

We see this with the expansion of a simple verse of scripture. It says what it says and does not need, out of context, elaboration. Yet we tend to do it.

Some concepts such as morality, does not need chapter and verse, it just makes common sense compared to the standard of God set by His own nature.

Whilst we are instructed to be holy as God is holy, we fully appreciate that man has the innate ability to stray. God has chosen to use the whole man, and fully accounts for man's ability to commit sin in this fleshly state. God used Peter with all his flaws. Paul admitted he had difficulties in his flesh. Believers down through the ages did not profess perfection in this life.

Who are we to be any different? The point is, we must keep our eyes on Jesus, and His standards, and then live accordingly.

Landmarkism is no different. If we push it to the extreme, we end up with nebulous concepts and contradictions. If we simply state we believe the Baptist local church to be modelled after the New Testament Church then we have no difficulty with it, and we are where we ought to be.

Frankly, the various denominations within the Christian realm on earth helps to keep some sense of common fellowship and unity. I can differ with some groups, and yet be one with them in Christ. Neither of us need to compromise what we believe to be true, but our commonality is the essence of Christianity; the Christ and His truth.

Cheers,

Jim

Tom Butler · Jan 2, 2007

Jim, you are so right.

I have what I call Landmark "tendencies." I embrace some aspects, but not the extremes.

Here's an example. I'm aware of some Landmarkers who disapprove of a college Baptist Student Union's sponsoring a campus revival, because it is not under the auspices and authority of a local church. I think that's taking it too far.

dh1948 · Jan 3, 2007

Former Landmarker

I was saved through the ministry of an ABA Landmark Baptist church in 1963. My formative years as a Christian were spent in Landmark churches. Eventually, I was married in...became a teacher in...surrendered to preach in a Landmark Baptist church.

I surrendered to preach while a university student. My Landmark preacher friends convinced me that I did not need a secular education. I needed to go to an ABA Bible institute for my education so I could get grounded in the faith. In fact, at that time the institute presidents, aka: seminary presidents, were making their rounds among ABA churches encouraging young people to attend Bible institute before college so they could get firmly grounded in the faith (Landmark teaching). There was concern that Landmark students were running off to secular colleges and winding up being Southern Baptists.

To shorten a long story...I earned a couple of diplomas from an ABA Bible institute, taught in that institute, and served as pastor of three Landmark churches. My skepticism about teachings such as a Baptist bride and Landmark Baptist perpetuity began to arise after about 12 years of pastoring. I "stuck it out" for another 5 years before I decided that it was time for me to move on. The seventeen years I had pastored as a Landmark Baptist had left me with an attitude of superiority and arrogance. Like many other Landmark pastors in that day, my favorite pasttimes were gloating in my rigid orthodoxy and bashing Southern Baptists.

Maybe Landmarkism is a heresy. I am not sure. But I do know that the attitude it nurtured in me was so unlike the attitude of Jesus. Though my journey from being a staunch Landmark Baptist to being a Southern Baptist is too long to recount here, I can assure you that once I left the Landmark "movement" my entire perspective changed. I could never go back.

PastorSBC1303 · Jan 3, 2007

dh1948 said:

The seventeen years I had pastored as a Landmark Baptist had left me with an attitude of superiority and arrogance. Like many other Landmark pastors in that day, my favorite pasttimes were gloating in my rigid orthodoxy and bashing Southern Baptists.

Maybe Landmarkism is a heresy. I am not sure. But I do know that the attitude it nurtured in me was so unlike the attitude of Jesus. Though my journey from being a staunch Landmark Baptist to being a Southern Baptist is too long to recount here, I can assure you that once I left the Landmark "movement" my entire perspective changed. I could never go back.
Click to expand...

Very nice testimony dh1948, thanks for sharing.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post.

Landmark theology naturally leads to an arrogant, unChristlike attitude and ministry.

Karen · Jan 3, 2007

PastorSBC1303 said:

Very nice testimony dh1948, thanks for sharing.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post.

Landmark theology naturally leads to an arrogant, unChristlike attitude and ministry.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't see it. I was raised in a very ABA, Landmark family.
Went to a number of such churches many times in MO.
(Although my parents were SBC. I am still SBC.)

There is, in my opinion, no necessary link between Landmark theology and arrogance. If you don't think what you believe is true, do you really believe it? :saint:

That would be, in my opinion, as false as saying that the theology of SBC churches aligned with the Founders movement necessarily leads to deemphasizing evangelism.

Landmarkism--Truth or Heresy?

Tom Butler New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Martin Active Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

Tom Butler New Member

mnw New Member

Tom Butler New Member

PastorSBC1303 Active Member

Tom Butler New Member

mnw New Member

Tom Butler New Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

Tom Butler New Member

dh1948 Member
Site Supporter

PastorSBC1303 Active Member

Karen Active Member

Useful Searches

Landmarkism--Truth or Heresy?

Tom Butler New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Martin Active Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

pinoybaptist Active Member Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member Site Supporter

Tom Butler New Member

mnw New Member

Tom Butler New Member

PastorSBC1303 Active Member

Tom Butler New Member

mnw New Member

Tom Butler New Member

Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

Tom Butler New Member

dh1948 Member Site Supporter

PastorSBC1303 Active Member

Karen Active Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

dh1948 Member
Site Supporter