Featured What distinguishes a Landmark baptist from the rest?

In the South and Southwest. Though, one of the seminal figures in the movement was an abolitionist who moved North from Kentucky. He taught IIRC at Crozer thus influencing some Northern Baptists.

 

Though, Dr. Cedarholm (the president referred to below) preached an annual Chapel message on Why We Are Not Landmarkers.

 

Closed communion with no saving merit.

 

That would be J.M. Pendleton who, BTW, acknowledged in his Church Manual that church "In its application to the followers of Christ, it refers either to a particular congregation of saints, or to the redeemed in the aggregate. It is employed in the latter sense in Ephesians 1: 22; 3:2I; 5:25, 27. In these passages, and a few more like them, it would be absurd to define the term Church as meaning a particular congregation of Christians, meeting in one place for the worship of God."

 

Landmarkism does not endorse the primacy of the local church; it assumes there is only the local church. Practically all Baptists believe in the primacy of the local church. J.L. Dagg, who defended the concept of the universal church (though not the universal church as the magisterial reformers interpreted it) also was an ardent proponent of the local church and its primacy. I don't personally know a Baptist who doesn't believe in the primacy of the local church.

 

Yes, Pendleton rightfully saw the word "church" used in the aggregate, or generic way. No church in particular, all churches generally. And, of course, none of us deny the universal church as a yet future, glorified, heavenly assembly.

 

Aggregate is not the same as generic. Entirely different things.

 

It is true that many seem to want to simplify landmarkism as holding churches equal to the kingdom (or, as you point out, the view shared by Graves and Howell that the Baptist church has always existed). I don't find, however, your mention of the personal divide between the two man helpful. We need to be careful not to diminish the fact that Howell strongly objected to Landmarkism itself while acknowledging that his objection was very much in application rather than in doctrine (he viewed Landmarkism to err in that it was an extreme position...very similar to his struggles with the anti-missions movement.

On a side note, it is interesting that Graves appeal against the discipline and decision of FBC was to the "Church" and not the local church (that is another topic, but it is a topic that Howell deals with in detail in his personal journals).

 

The churches, in aggregate, make up the church, generic.

The actual universal church is yet future, glorified, and assembled in heaven.

 

I was at work when I responded the first time and was not at my computer (my memory is not the best so I keep notes and references on my "other brain" ).

Graves illustrated the relationship of “true churches” throughout history as being in accord with the relationship between any regular Masonic Lodge and the first Lodge that was instituted. Within Freemasonry, lodges exist and pass away, but this does not affect the continuity of Masonry. Likewise, individual churches exist and pass away, but this does not affect the continuity of the Kingdom of Christ in the visible church (Graves, Old Landmarkism: What is it?, 122)

Howell seems to hold a similar position. But there are differences.

“The scriptures speak of the kingdom of Christ upon earth, and the churches of Christ upon earth. These however are by no means identical and must not be confounded together. The kingdom of Christ upon earth is purely spiritual. It is consequently invisible. All these persons are subjects of this kingdom in whose hearts Christ reigns as supreme Ruler and Lord. Everyone who is regenerated by the Spirit of God is legitimately and truly a member of the invisible kingdom of Christ. All persons will be saved whether baptized or not, or whether in or out of a visible church.” What Howell viewed as the most fatal error of the Landmark argument was an assumption of “the existence of a universal visible church upon the earth, with an actual government, officers, and ordinances” (Howell, A Memorial of the First Baptist Church, 156-157).

In a letter to the Mississippi Baptist State Convention Howell addressed Landmarkism as “heterodox in principle” and “incapable of any practical application” (Howell addressed a series of letters for publication in the Baptist Standard, but they were never published due to the suspension of the paper. They are housed at the Baptist Historical Library and Archives in Nashville).

Howell believed that the visible church is a “congregation of believing men and women, organized for the worship of God and the assembling for that end in one place”; that regeneration initiates the believer into the kingdom of God, this “invisible kingdom”, while baptism initiates into the visible church; “visible churches on earth are the multitudes of congregations scattered everywhere, each one of which is a distinct church, and responsible to no other, but only to Christ its head” (Howell, The Terms of Communion at the Lord’s Table, 248-250).

 

So how, exactly, does Howell differ from historic landmarkism?

"What Howell viewed as the most fatal error of the Landmark argument was an assumption of “the existence of a universal visible church upon the earth, with an actual government, officers, and ordinances.”"

Except that is not a Landmark position.

Roman Catholicism: A Universal Visible Church.

Protestantism: A Universal Invisible Church.

Landmarkism: A Local Visible Church.

The Kingdom of God (The rule of God in the hearts of men)

1. Is Universal
2. Is entered by salvation
3. Is comprised of all the saints of all the ages

The Church of Jesus Christ

1. Is local
2. Is entered by baptism following a credible testimony of faith in Christ as Savior
3. Is comprised of born again, baptized, believers, assembled to keep the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

[Edited to add:]

And always bear in mind that the systemization of Landmarkism in the SBC was a reaction to the "Restoration Movement" or "Campbellite Movement" of Thomas/Alexander Campbell that was drawing a goodly number of ill-taught members of SBC churches into its error.

It was this growing error which also provided the impetus for the Southern Baptist Seminaries to theologically train Baptist ministers so their congregations would be less ill-informed."

Every response to a perceived heresy tends to move the responder to the opposite extreme in order to try to balance the discussion.

 

Graves seems not to draw the distinction that Howell draws in terms of churches and this "invisible kingdom". Looking at Graves "Old Landmarkism" he serms to find that continuity of the kingdom exists within visible local churches where Howell draws a greater distinction between churches and the kingdom.

Howell objected to Landmarkism as presented by Graves. Whether or not Graved erred in understanding the doctrine I do not know. But that Graves and Howell differed is apparent when we compare Graves doctrine in "Landmarkism. What is it" to Howell's objections. I have been looking at the topic from a SBC context (Graves and Howell). If Landmarkism carries other definitions to other denominations then their perspectives may not apply.