What distinguishes a Landmark baptist from the rest?

[The Biblicist]

TCassidy, I have two questions:
1. Do you believe that God has never worked through a paedobaptist church?
2. Do you believe that a Baptist church is ipso facto a biblical church?

Hey Martin, back into it huh? May I take a stab at your questions? God works through all things, including Baalam's donkey but that does not make his donkey qualified to fill the office of Bishop.

Of course I don't believe the title "Baptist" over a building where a group of immersed believers makes them a true church ipso facto. The title is no proof of anything. It is like faith and practice that determines whether a group of people are to be regarded as a true church of Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

Tom, I do not believe that there is a substitution for baptism by immersion.

So, how can they be scriptural churches if they don't have baptism?

 

[The Biblicist]

So, how can they be scriptural churches if they don't have baptism?

I may be wrong, but I think they really believe that where any two or three believers, whether baptized or not gather, that may be a church and if they gather habitually it is a church of Christ. They are forced to this conclusion because they don't recognize sprinkling or pouring as baptism and so it would make no difference if the believers never were baptized by any mode - thus salvation and getting together equals a true church. They are forced to accept any professed believers in the true gospel that habitually gather are a true church (even when the membership majority may be unregenerate infants or those not yet confirmed) regardless of anything they may or may not believe or practice, because if baptism is optional to be a true church, then so is the Lord's Supper, so is church government, so is church discipline, so is etc., as they are basing the definition of a true congregation simply upon salvation period. Hence, the Great harlot would have to be recognized by them as a true church of Christ because God says it consists of true believers (Rev. 18:4). Certainly the ratio of true believers and unregenerate in the Great harlot may not be any worse than in a paedobaptist congregation because the vast majority of their membership begins with infants plus the unconfirmed who are unregenerate.

 

[TCassidy]

1. Do you believe that God has never worked through a paedobaptist church?

No. (God worked through a donkey in the Old Testament.)

2. Do you believe that a Baptist church is ipso facto a biblical church?

No.

I add, do you believe in Closed Communion?

You may, and yes.

 

[The Biblicist]

Paedobaptist congregations and ministers have been the leading persecutors and murders of baptized congregations since the dark ages. However, among these persecutors there was great learning. Calvin persecuted other Christians as did many of the Reformers and yet because of their great learning in other areas of Bible knowledge they are now to be considered role models and their institutions that persecuted baptized congregations are to be regarded as true congregations. I wonder if we were living in the 16th century if our friends who receive them as true churches now would have done so then? No Anabaptist living during that period did!

 

[The Biblicist]

If the true body of Christ has its visible expression in local congregations, then no congregation should have any membership requirements other than a profession of salvation and should never make any other doctrine a test of fellowship since the true body of Christ includes believers with totally diverse doctrines. Hence, a true N.T. Congregation would simply be whatever professed Christians happened to show up on any given meeting as such constitute the "true" body of Christ don't they?

If baptism is optional and only salvation is absolute then why should any other ordinance or doctrine be a test of fellowship since the true body of Christ is all inclusive of the very same persons?

 

[JonC]

The question was if you thought God never worked through a paedobaptist church..

No. (God worked through a donkey in the Old Testament.)

How can you answer Martin that you do not believe God never worked through a paedobaptist church and then keep on me by claiming there is no such a thing as a paedobaptist church. For consistency, brother, I think you need to reexamine your answer here.

So, how can they be scriptural churches if they don't have baptism?

They are not scripturally correct. But I still believe that they are churches (I do not believe that rejecting baptism by immersion is enough to cause an assembly of Christians gathered for the purpose of discipleship, worship, building up the saints, and functioning as the body of Christ to be anything less than a church.

 

[JonC]

I may be wrong, but I think they really believe that where any two or three believers, whether baptized or not gather, that may be a church and if they gather habitually it is a church of Christ. They are forced to this conclusion because they don't recognize sprinkling or pouring as baptism and so it would make no difference if the believers never were baptized by any mode - thus salvation and getting together equals a true church. They are forced to accept any professed believers in the true gospel that habitually gather are a true church (even when the membership majority may be unregenerate infants or those not yet confirmed) regardless of anything they may or may not believe or practice, because if baptism is optional to be a true church, then so is the Lord's Supper, so is church government, so is church discipline, so is etc., as they are basing the definition of a true congregation simply upon salvation period. Hence, the Great harlot would have to be recognized by them as a true church of Christ because God says it consists of true believers (Rev. 18:4). Certainly the ratio of true believers and unregenerate in the Great harlot may not be any worse than in a paedobaptist congregation because the vast majority of their membership begins with infants plus the unconfirmed who are unregenerate.

If you include me in they, then yes, you are wrong.

 

[The Biblicist]

If you include me in they, then yes, you are wrong.

Ok, would you please be precise about your distinction between doctrine and application with regard to baptism as the prerequisite for church membership, thus for church constitution?

 

[TCassidy]

For consistency, brother, I think you need to reexamine your answer here.

Jon, you are grasping at straws in utter desperation. I answered the question in the same context it was asked. The word church can be used in a generic sense without it being used to describe a true New Testament church. We use the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" regularly without suggesting the monolithic monstrosity is a true New Testament church.

I do not believe that rejecting baptism by immersion is enough to cause an assembly of Christians gathered for the purpose of discipleship, worship, building up the saints, and functioning as the body of Christ to be anything less than a church.

You say, "I do not believe." But you give no scriptural reasons why you believe a church lacking the necessary criteria as outlined in the bible, which you say you accept, can be a true New Testament church.

 

[JonC]

However, before I dive into it I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Please tell me precisely what aspect you are referring to when you claim it is "application" we are in disagreement about.

Sure brother. I agree that the doctrine of baptism is not only a church doctrine that has existed throughout church history but I also believe it is a necessary part of church life. I believe that there has always existed baptistic churches (although perhaps not churches just like us). But just like the anti-missions movement, Landmarkists have taken truth too far.

What you are calling “Landmarkism”, if you’ll notice, is nothing more than Baptist doctrine. Yet the Landmarkism you speak of arose in the 19th century. Pendleton applied these commonly held Baptist doctrines in An Old Landmark Reset by concluding that Presbyterians were not true ministers and their churches not legitimate churches. This was good doctrine applied poorly.

It is not that there existed, as Graves insisted in Old Landmarkism, “true and uncorrupted churches” insofar as the doctrines that individual churches held. As Douglas Weaver noted, Graves and Pendleton could never support this claim via history so they tried to by hermeneutics (ultimately by assumption and implication).

The problem is that Christ and being united in Christ for the purpose of discipleship, worship, building up the saints, evangelism, etc. no longer because good enough to constitute a “church”. They had to possess a correct understanding of believers baptism as well as the mode of baptism to be a “true church”. And this was the difference between many Baptists (who believed the same biblical doctrines) and Landmarkists who misapplied those doctrines.

 

[The Biblicist]

The question was if you thought God never worked through a paedobaptist church..
How can you answer Martin that you do not believe God never worked through a paedobaptist church and then keep on me by claiming there is no such a thing as a paedobaptist church. For consistency, brother, I think you need to reexamine your answer here.

I think you have misinterpreted Tom's answer. I answered the same question the very same way. What we both said is that God can work through anything, including donkey's or paedobaptists. So we are not denying God can work through paedobaptists but we are not claiming that God working through them makes them a true church any more than God working through Balaam's donkey makes the donkey qualified to be a Bishop.

They are not scripturally correct. But I still believe that they are churches (I do not believe that rejecting baptism by immersion is enough to cause an assembly of Christians gathered for the purpose of discipleship, worship, building up the saints, and functioning as the body of Christ to be anything less than a church.

Once again, the issue is determined by what you define as doctrine versus application. If it is Biblical doctrine that baptism is the prerequisite to church membership than a church cannot be formed without baptized materials. If it is not doctrine that baptism is prerequisite for church membership, but only an issue of capricious application that scripture does not confirm one way or the other then your position is solid.

Doctrine is determined by precepts. Doctrine is determined by precepts with corresponding supporting examples. Doctrine is determined by necessary inferences.

Are you seriously going to tell me that there is no Biblical precepts with corresponding examples or necessary inferences that baptism is the prerequisite to church membership but that is simply a capricious application that scripture does not demand or deny?

 

[JonC]

Jon, you are grasping at straws in utter desperation. I answered the question in the same context it was asked. The word church can be used in a generic sense without it being used to describe a true New Testament church. We use the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" regularly without suggesting the monolithic monstrosity is a true New Testament church.

You say, "I do not believe." But you give no scriptural reasons why you believe a church lacking the necessary criteria as outlined in the bible, which you say you accept, can be a true New Testament church.

Tone down the ad hominem, brother, you may hurt my feelings .

No, Tom. I am not grasping at straws. You dealt with those churches as churches with Martin yet you deny that they are churches when you deal with my posts. Either Whitfield, Edwards, and Knox were ministers, pastors, and belonged to churches or they were false ministers, fake pastors, and belonged to fake churches. There is no third option.

I simply do not believe that a church that misunderstands baptism is not a church. You want scripture to prove that and all I can offer is how the church is represented in Scripture. Christ died for the church. The church is the body of Christ. Those who believed were added to the church. You can only provide a passage that says those who believed and were baptized were added, but you cannot prove your point via Scripture. For me to denounce another servant of Christ I'll need a bit more than your opinion.

As an illustration of your line of questioning here - You are a Calvinist. Do you hold that non-Calvinists believe a false gospel? If not, then how can you claim your's to be true. If so, then how can you justify trumping Scripture that claims there exists but one gospel?

Do you have a passage of scripture that denounces calling an assembly of Christians gathered in the name of Christ for the purpose of functioning as the body of Christ, for the building of the saints (I take it you believe those false ministers like Edwards, Wesley, and Whitefield to be saved, at least), for the worship of God, for discipleship, etc., a church?

 

[The Biblicist]

Sure brother. I agree that the doctrine of baptism is not only a church doctrine that has existed throughout church history but I also believe it is a necessary part of church life. I believe that there has always existed baptistic churches (although perhaps not churches just like us).

If you think Graves believed that all true churches in his day or days past were identical in all beliefs you are sorely mistaken - he did not. Graves did not agree with Pendleton about everything or with many other Landmarkers of his day. His view was that there were essentials that must be embraced to be a true congregation of Christ and those essentials are spelled out in the Great Commision and in the very definition of landmarkism that I provided you.

What you are calling “Landmarkism”, if you’ll notice, is nothing more than Baptist doctrine.

No, that is absolutely false! What I am calling "landmarkism" is nothing more than BIBLE doctrine as not all who claim the name "Baptists" embrace "Bible" doctrine. You can find every false doctrine under the sun under the title of "Baptist."

Yet the Landmarkism you speak of arose in the 19th century.

No, the systemization of it arose in the 19th century, but the practice can be clearly seen in the minutes of the English Particular Baptist's up to 1660. It can be clearly seen in many American Baptists in Georgia, Texas long before Graves was even born. It is found in scriptures. What you are claiming is like saying the doctrines of grace arose with Calvin in the 16th century when it fact it can be found in the writings of Paul.

Pendleton applied these commonly held Baptist doctrines in An Old Landmark Reset by concluding that Presbyterians were not true ministers and their churches not legitimate churches. This was good doctrine applied poorly.

You are not distinguishing between what you considered to be doctrine versus what you are defining as poor application.

It is not that there existed, as Graves insisted in Old Landmarkism, “true and uncorrupted churches” insofar as the doctrines that individual churches held. As Douglas Weaver noted, Graves and Pendleton could never support this claim via history so they tried to by hermeneutics (ultimately by assumption and implication).

Have you read Graves book "Old Landmarkism what is it?" You may disagree with his historical support but don't say he did not support it via history because he did. He supported it by scripture, by logic, by examples and by history.

The problem is that Christ and being united in Christ for the purpose of discipleship, worship, building up the saints, evangelism, etc. no longer because good enough to constitute a “church”.

So you think that mere spiritual union with Christ is the church and that is all that is necessary for the purpose of discipleship, worship, building up the saints, administration of the ordinances and evangelism????? May I ask where in the Scriptures do you get that idea?

They had to possess a correct understanding of believers baptism as well as the mode of baptism to be a “true church”. And this was the difference between many Baptists (who believed the same biblical doctrines) and Landmarkists who misapplied those doctrines.

Jon, that is simply not true! Understanding believers baptism and its mode were secondary. What was primary was that baptism preceded church membership. Define baptism and its mode any way you please and yet it had to precede church membership, thus church constitution was impossible without baptized materials. Thus, as John Spilsbury said, where there is no baptism there can be no true church of Christ. However, when scriptural baptism is defined according to scripture then it MUST be by immersion of believers or else you simply got wet and are still without baptism and therefore without scriptural materials for church constitution.

 

[JonC]

I think you have misinterpreted Tom's answer. I answered the same question the very same way. What we both said is that God can work through anything, including donkey's or paedobaptists. So we are not denying God can work through paedobaptists but we are not claiming that God working through them makes them a true church any more than God working through Balaam's donkey makes the donkey qualified to be a Bishop.




Once again, the issue is determined by what you define as doctrine versus application. If it is Biblical doctrine that baptism is the prerequisite to church membership than a church cannot be formed without baptized materials. If it is not doctrine that baptism is prerequisite for church membership, but only an issue of capricious application that scripture does not confirm one way or the other then your position is solid.

Doctrine is determined by precepts. Doctrine is determined by precepts with corresponding supporting examples. Doctrine is determined by necessary inferences.

Are you seriously going to tell me that there is no Biblical precepts with corresponding examples or necessary inferences that baptism is the prerequisite to church membership but that is simply a capricious application that scripture does not demand or deny?

Do either of you believe that a Christian has any business even considering the doctrines of false ministers? Is that what the Bible says to do with false teachers?

What you should be doing is denouncing John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Martin Luther,....all of the Reformers.... John Wesley, Charles Wesley, B.B. Warfield, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, Alister McGrath, Tim Keller, N.T. Wright (oops...that one's covered I think ), and many more as heretics because you believe at a minimum that these are false ministers lording over false churches. What is that but cultists and their cults.

I think that your opinions betray a lack of conviction as the rubber never meets the road. Your convictions look good on paper until one of you claim to be Reformed or dare quote any of those false ministers.

You know what, besides baptism, is commanded the church? Flee from false teachers.

 

[The Biblicist]

Tone down the ad hominem, brother, you may hurt my feelings .

No, Tom. I am not grasping at straws. You dealt with those churches as churches with Martin yet you deny that they are churches when you deal with my posts. Either Whitfield, Edwards, and Knox were ministers, pastors, and belonged to churches or they were false ministers, fake pastors, and belonged to fake churches. There is no third option.

You are indeed grasping at straws. I read his response and it was the same as mine. I told you I called them pastors and their institutions I called churches and you realized exactly what I meant in calling them such. Tom did the very same thing and you accuse him of being inconsistent. Come on, lets keep this debate above board. Even you acknowledged your church could not claim they were scripturally qualified candidates for the office of Bishop as your church would not call them or ordain them to be a pastor. Are there two different BIBLICAL qualifications for pastor???? If John Knox can qualify as Bishop according to the qualifications set forth in scripture then you should have no problem ordaining an calling him as the pastor of your congregation. If you claim some reason for not ordaining him that is not found in the Biblical qualifications then it is you and your congregation that is being unbiblical not John Knox. So which is it? Is he Biblical qualified for your church office of Bishop or is he not? If he is not qualified for your church office he is not qualified for any church office UNLESS there are two different standards of Biblical qualifications????? Which is it?

 

[JonC]

If you think Graves believed that all true churches in his day or days past were identical in all beliefs you are sorely mistaken - he did not. .

To clarify, what I am saying is that Graves taught that, since the days of John the Baptist, Baptist churches have existed and these churches are the body that Christ will rule over when he returns. I am saying that Graves taught that these churches have always held to correct doctrine insofar as it pertains to Landmarkism. This is something he could he could never prove (it is impossible to prove) so he inferred it from Scripture.

Have you read Graves book "Old Landmarkism what is it?" You may disagree with his historical support but don't say he did not support it via history because he did. He supported it by scripture, by logic, by examples and by history..

Yes, I have. And it was Douglas Weaver that said he could not support it by history. He was right, BTW. Graves could not provide an unbroken line of such churches to "John the Baptist".

I have also read R.B.C. Howell's arguments against Graves. Not only what was published, but his letters and journals housed in Nashville. I spent my vacation one year at that place. All of this started because y'all rejected the idea that Howell disagreed with Graves on Landmarkism.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do either of you believe that a Christian has any business even considering the doctrines of false ministers? Is that what the Bible says to do with false teachers?

First, your wording is improper. You are contrasting "a Christian" with a "false minister" when you should be contrasting "a Christian" with a "unqualified saved bishop." You are making the false assumption that "a Christian" cannot be led astray into false doctrine or that the only serious false doctrine in the Bible is to deny the docrine of salvation both of which are false assumptions. Even elders can be led astray into false doctrine and leave the congregation or is Paul lying in Acts 20:29-30??????

What you should be doing is denouncing John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Martin Luther,....all of the Reformers.... John Wesley, Charles Wesley, B.B. Warfield, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, Alister McGrath, Tim Keller, N.T. Wright (oops...that one's covered I think ), and many more as heretics because you believe at a minimum that these are false ministers lording over false churches. What is that but cultists and their cults.

Again, your wording is incorrect. Notice the last phrase in the historical definition of Landmarkism. There is nothing in that definition to suggest such ministers are lost people. There is nothing to suggest they are "heretical" in all that they believe. The issue is what constitutes a true N.T. Congregation not what constitutes true salvation. The heretical area is restricted to church truth not all Biblical truth. And yes I do denounce them as heretical when it comes to church truth. No people can be a true church when they don't even know what is essential to be a true church. No unbaptized people can be members of any church found in the pages of the New Testament and so I ask you why should such be considered as TRUE churches outside the pages of the new testament.

I think that your opinions betray a lack of conviction as the rubber never meets the road. Your convictions look good on paper until one of you claim to be Reformed or dare quote any of those false ministers.

Only when you place your words in our mouth and misrepresent the position of Landmarkism. However, when things are stated correctly the rubber meets the highway perfectly.

You know what, besides baptism, is commanded the church? Flee from false teachers.

And you dont think paedbaptists are false teachers when it comes to the church and its ordinances, the government of the church and their view of church officers etc??? Hint: You don't have to be lost to be a false teacher!

 

[The Biblicist]

To clarify, what I am saying is that Graves taught that, since the days of John the Baptist, Baptist churches have existed and these churches are the body that Christ will rule over when he returns. I am saying that Graves taught that these churches have always held to correct doctrine insofar as it pertains to Landmarkism. This is something he could he could never prove (it is impossible to prove) so he inferred it from Scripture.

The definition of Landmarkism is very clear and I have provided it for you to read. It is impossible to prove that every man comes from Adam, but do you believe it and why do you believe it? If secular history is the final word, then you ought to be a Catholic not a Baptist. However, it is equally true that no one can take secular history and prove such congregations (as defined by the Landmark definition) did not exist since the days of Christ till the present.

Yes, I have. And it was Douglas Weaver that said he could not support it by history. He was right, BTW. Graves could not provide an unbroken line of such churches to "John the Baptist".

No he was wrong and so are you. Look at your wording! There is a great difference between the word "support it by history" and "provide an unbroken line of such churches to 'John the Baptist'". If you read his book you KNOW he never did try to prove a historical unbroken line. However, he did "support" it by history.

I have also read R.B.C. Howell's arguments against Graves. Not only what was published, but his letters and journals housed in Nashville. I spent my vacation one year at that place. All of this started because y'all rejected the idea that Howell disagreed with Graves on Landmarkism.

I could care less what R.B.C. Howell said. My primary issue is does the Bible clearly and explicitly teach by precept and/or example that baptism is the prerequisite for church membership. If it is, then you are wrong. If it does not then I am wrong and there is no middle ground.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think we are all getting a little to intense. I am going to put it rest for the night and come back tomorrow. I apologize for coming across a little crusty. I am interested in the real issues rather than tit for tat and I think you probably are too.