Landmarkism

It is the baptist form of catholicism.

 

Actually, Landmarkism is the Baptist form of Campbellism; it developed parallel with, at the same time as, and as a reaction to the Campbellite (Church of Christ) movement, which claimed to have the only real baptism in the only true church.

Let me start by saying I am not a landmarker, but I know plenty of them. One thing I can say with true appreciation is that I have never met a liberal landmarker. They are orthodox to the faith once delivered.

The founders of Old Landmarkism were men such as J.M. Pendleton and J.R. Graves, along with many others. These men were conservative, orthodox, Bible-believing Baptists.

Landmarkism's distinctive doctrines are:

1. There is no church except local churches.

2. There is a true succession of churches from the beginning of the first church at Jerusalem on up through today.(Gunther misunderstands, this is not apostolic, through men, as the Catholics, but through congregations, local assemblies). Some landmarkers believe this can be traced from church to church, all the way back, others accept it as a concept which cannot be definitively proven.

3. Only baptistic churches have this true succession, whatever their name might be.

4. Baptist churches should not accept the baptism of non-baptistic churches, even if that baptism was by immersion. (the doctrine of Alien Immersion).

5. In the Lord's supper, only members of the local church should partake (closed communion).

6. Some Landmarkers also believe in the so-called "Baptist Bride" theory, that the Bride of Christ is the Baptist churches, and other believers are invited to the marriage of the Lamb, but only as guests. Most Landmarkers don't believe this, by the way.

"J.R. Graves" (not the original, but an internet handle), and R. Charles Blair, both on this board, can probably add or correct to this post, and are welcome to do so.

 

SEB,

The term "Landmarkism" originated with a tract written by J.M. (James Madison) Pendleton, a Kentucky Baptist pastor, in the mid 19th century which was called "An Old Landmark Re-Set." Though written by Pendleton, the tract was actually named by J.R. (James Robinson) Graves, a Tennesee Baptist pastor and editor, who became a primary promoter of the doctrines that came to be known as "Landmarkism."

The "old Landmark" which Pendleton endeavored to "re-set" was the belief that Baptist churches ought not to recognize the validity of non-Baptist ordinations nor invite non-Baptist ministers to preach in their pulpits. As a side note to that point, he also asserted the old Baptist belief that immersions performed by non-Baptist ministers ought not be recognized as valid baptisms by Baptist churches.

Though there are many variations among Landmark Baptists, the general idea of Landmarkism is that the New Testament churches were baptistic in doctrine, that such churches have existed in uninterupted succession from the time of Christ, and that only such churches have a valid ministry and valid baptism.

Today, Landmark Baptist beliefs are found primarily in the American Baptist Association and the Baptist Missionary Association, and to a lesser degree within the Baptist Bible Fellowship and various independent Baptist movements. There remains a small minority of avowedly Landmark churches among the Southern Baptists as well as a great influence by Landmark concepts on Southern Baptist practice.

Mark Osgatharp

 

What connection, if any, is there between Landmarkism and the teaching of "British Israelitism"?

 

Just to wanted to offer some great books on Landmarkism:

"The Doctrine of the Church: A Baptist view"
by John Thornbury.
Great refutation of Landmarkism.

"Old Landmarkism and the Baptists" by Bob L. Ross
both of these are from Pilgrim Publications, this is a really great history.

"Baptist Successionism" by James Edward McGoldrick is a great history of the groups alleged by Landmarkers to be of the "like faith and order" such as the Paulicans, Cathars, etc. are not exactly who the Landmarkers claim them to be.


In Christ

 

I hold to many Landmark positions, such as local church as opposed to universal church, and yet I disagree with the affirmation that claims we are the descendants of certain "anabaptists" groups which are heretical in nature.

 

One indication that a particular church or group are Landmarkers is that you'll hear them make references to "the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem", and the like.

 

My understanding of Landmarkism is that it is a futile effort to trace Baptist roots backs to Jesus. Whitsitt was fired from Southern Seminary for teaching the same things as what is being taught today. He was not a landmarker.

 

An intersting look at an earlier (called "the first") confession of faith of a baptist church. Notice in the introductory paragraph the distancing from "ana-baptists."

http://www.thebaptistpage.com/Distinctives/confessions/london_1644.htm

-Pluvivs

 

My understanding of Landmarkism is that it is a futile effort to trace Baptist roots backs to Jesus.

Landmarkism affirms that the true church of Jesus has existed since its origin by Jesus.

It does not affirm that any local church may trace herself back to Jesus

 

There are apparently at least two different schools of thoughts within Landmarkism. One would hold tenents basically as Rufus states above. There are others, however, who do hold to the notion that they can trace their church in chain from the Apostolic times.

I personally don't hold to either position. I believe that all churches and brands of churches have varying mixtures of truth and error. Of course if we could see the error, then we ought to correct it. We have to do the best we can.

I personally believe that the Primitive Baptist churches are as close as one can get to the Apostolic model. Others will choose to believe something different, and that is alright. I am sure that we have some error among us. Most of what I personally see is minor. Others would disagree. They might feel the same about their own brand of church. I am constantly reminded of Paul's comment that we know in part, see in part, and look through a glass darkly. So we do the best we can with our understanding of the scriptures. Of course we must study, as Paul told Timothy.

Jeff.

 

Landmarkism isn't based on "current vs. orignial" models. If you make the following assumptions, Landmarkism is the only logical construct for church authority: 1) a church can only be started by, at the very minimum, a faithful man from another church, 2) only members of a local, visible church can baptise another with authority, 3) a church or person outside of the realm of the aforesaid authority cannot convert itself or officially join a congregation unless they are rebaptised by one with that authority. From those statements, it falls out that most congregations that started or appeared during the Reformation never had that authority, and that therefore most of todays institutions are not authorized from God.

It says nothing of the other doctrines, principles, or teachings of the church, though there is usually heavy correlation between conservatism and Landmarkism.

-Pluvivs

 

RE "Pluvius" on earliest "Baptist" confession - it is generally agreed that Menno Simons was a major figure among 16th cent. Anabaptists. Over and over he stated in his essays, "I am not an Anabaptist." "We are not Anabaptists." The reason? The same one early British Particulars would have given (aside from some heresies among some of the diverse groups tabbed "Anabaptists")- nope, it isn't persecution; it is to correct the fundamental Catholic/Protestant misunderstanding of what real baptism is. We are not ANA-Baptists in that we do not re-baptize, because these other folks weren't baptized to start with! But if there is a succession of NT churches (and Jesus said there would be), it must be among these persecuted, misunderstood folks, who didn't have much time to "theologize" as they were off hiding in the hills, with few texts and no secluded monasteries to breed scholasticism. They were too busy evangelizing to get into all the minute details. Maybe we'd be better off ... whoops! Better not go there! I'm sitting at a computer dealing with the details! Best - RCB - Ro.8:28

 

I think that the idea of a succession of evangelical churches was first held by some of the earliest Baptists, like Spittlehouse. Some believed in a succession of apostolic ministry, like Thomas Grantham.

Are Landmark Baptists usually Calvinist or Arminian? Do they embrace Dispensationalism?

Dean

 

Helwys, I guess, had an influence on some of the English General Baptists. His church is supposed to have been the first General Baptist, but their were churches of Dutch origin in sixteenth century England, and many of their doctrines and beliefs carried over into the General Baptists, which makes me wonder if the Generals origintated from the Dutch churches, and not from Helwys. The Particular Baptists seemed to have believed in some form of succession, or at least some of them like Spittlehouse. Most American Baptist churches originate out of the Particulars, yet they definately came out of English separatism, though some of them received their baptism through the Dutch Mennonites in Holland.