Return to Table of Contents                                                                          Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage

 

Landmarkism Under Fire 

A Study of Landmark Baptist Polity on Church Constitution

by Elder J.C. Settlemoir 

 

Chapter 2 - Old Landmarkism Defined

Contrary to what many think, including some Landmark Baptists, Landmarkism never had anything to do with EMDA.[14] Bro Bob Ross gives this as an essential element of Landmarkism in his book.[15] He clearly misunderstands this aspect of Landmarkism. For example he asserts that EMDA is an essential part of Landmarkism and quotes Ben M. Bogard to prove it. But Bogard himself taught self-constitution not EMDA! When Bogard speaks of “links” of churches, he does not mean one church giving authority to another. The same is true of the other older writers quoted.[16] This is easy to verify simply by comparing The Baptist Way-Book, p. 69.[17]

Bro Milburn Cockrell takes the same position dubbing those who do not believe in EMDA as “Neo-Landmarkers” or “Liberal Landmarkers” and churches formed by them in less than flattering terms.[18] Bro Medford Caudill in the tract “What is Landmarkism” says: “If Landmarkism is to be so, it must rise or fall upon a link chain succession,”[19] that is, EMDA or organic church connection. 7 Questions on Church Authority published by Calvary Baptist Church presents this same erroneous idea. Another book which sets forth this view is Landmarkism Revisited by Bro Robert Ashcraft. This is the best book on Landmarkism since Graves’ Old Landmarkism, which I have seen. It is scholarly, kind, fair and manifests a Christian spirit throughout–yet Bro Ashcraft mistakenly teaches EMDA is a part of Landmarkism.[20] Bro. Tom Ross also makes the same claim in one of his books.[21]

We also have Barnes[22] and Patterson[23] making the same mistake. One building on the other. All of these men have plainly misunderstood what J.R. Graves and Old Landmarkism taught on this subject. The proof of this is demonstrated by the fact that not one of these writers gives a single quote from Graves, Pendleton, Dayton or any other early Landmarker to prove his proposition![24] I do not believe any such quote exists!

These writers all build upon what someone else says or what they assume Old Landmarkers believed. Why not let the Old Landmarkers speak for themselves?[25] Bro Bob Ross says it is Graves’ position that “New churches must be granted authority by a ‘mother’ church....”[26] But where did Graves ever say this? Bro Bob Ross recognizes he has no support for his claim and attempts to salvage his allegation by logic:

Irrespective of Graves’ personal opinion on a theory of succession, it is perfectly logical to conclude that if authority comes only through the local church, then each baptism and each new church, must receive its authority from a previously existing church.[27]

Of course it is perfectly illogical for any writer to make such a claim![28] Why? Because these men all taught that the authority to constitute a church did not come from another church but directly from Christ. When one does not have clear statements on what a writer believes, he ought to say so. No man should be represented as believing what bias wants him to believe! Why speculate about what Graves believed when he so clearly stated his position? Graves wrote, preached, debated and contended for his position for nearly fifty years! His books cover about two feet of shelf space. His papers ran to some 40,000 pages![29] If men can’t find a quote in this mass of materials to support their preconceived opinions, they ought to be honest enough to say so. But instead, we are given positive statements about what Graves (and the other old Landmarkers) believed–but without quotation marks! Landmarkism is tried and convicted of believing EMDA without a single witness! This is what Bre Bob Ross, Tom Ross, Milburn Cockrell, and these other writers have done. They have misrepresented J.R. Graves and Old Landmarkism on this subject!

Highlighting this error is the fact that other writers have correctly understood Graves and Landmarkism on this subject. Bro Gilliland points out the dissimilarity between Graves and some modern Landmarkers who embrace EMDA. “Modern Landmarkism goes much further than Graves in conferring authority from a “mother” church to her daughter, which Graves did not teach.”[30] If Bro Gilliland recognized this from Graves’ writings these other men are inexcusable for not perceiving this fact. Bro John Kohler on the Historic Baptist Symposium said:

What is the essence of Old Landmarkism? Some say the essence of Old Landmarkism is a belief that the Greek word “ekklesia” always refers in the New Testament to a local, visible assembly, but if this is the case, then J.M. Pendleton was not an Old Landmarker. Others say the essence of Old Landmarkism is a belief that a new church must be formally and officially voted into existence by a true church in an unbroken succession all the way back to the first church in order to qualify as New Testament congregation. If this is the case, however, neither J.R. Graves nor J.M. Pendleton were Old Landmarkers.[31]

Brother W.R. Downing says:

This concept of church succession necessitates the idea of a ‘mother church’ or ‘proper church authority’ for subsequent churches, i.e., a church must have been started and have derived its authority and baptism from a proper New Testament church or its own authority and baptism are invalid. This is essentially the theory of ‘Landmarkism’ in its present form. According to this theory one church logically ‘succeeds’ another. It is common to hear of a ‘chain-link succession’ of certain churches or historical groups forming ‘links in the succession chain’ back to the New Testament era. Such thinking is at variance with New Testament church polity and cannot be proven from history. It is one thing to prove historically that New Testament churches have existed in every age since the apostles; it is altogether different to seek to prove a linked succession of such churches! This is what distinguishes historic Baptists from those who are ardent ‘Landmarkers’ or ‘Baptist Briders.’[32]

Brother Downing then goes on to quote Jarrel “to set the issue of church perpetuity in the proper perspective ...,”[33] which indicates he does not see EMDA as a part of Old Landmarkism. Bro. Wayne Camp has recognized and refuted the erroneous position that EMDA is Landmarkism in several articles.[34] Bro R.E. Pound says concerning the Baptist writers of the 1600s:

Modern Missionism and Modern Landmark Baptist Concepts are not present; The succession is in baptism, not in a church voting on baptisms, but in qualified administrators sent out by a church; The succession is in churches being formed following baptism by mutual consent, not by being taken back to a mother church and then being voted out or given authority to form into another church;[35]

He goes on to say:

Our thesis,[36] there is an unbroken succession of baptism, properly administered, between the old Waldenses-Anabaptists and the English Particular Baptists. We are not talking about any church voting on baptisms, or churches voting other churches into existence, nor members being carried back to a mother church and then given authority to organize into a new mission or church. These, I feel, are all extra scriptural practices. Nor am I talking about a minister going back to receive a vote on new baptisms, nor new church constitutions. I am talking about the baptismal succession between the Particular Baptists and the old Waldensian-Anabaptists.[37]

We have Jarrel’s Baptist Perpetuity which stated the Landmark Baptist position on church constitution so concretely in his first chapter[38] that no one could question what the Landmark position on church constitution was. And it is diametrically opposed to EMDA. This book has been before Landmark Baptists for a hundred years, and so far as I know, without a single objection to it until Scriptural Church Organization appeared![39] Then we also have the testimony of C.D. Cole in his Doctrine of the Church.[40] Thus just a cursory investigation by any seeker of truth could have, and would have, prevented men from this blunder of imputing EMDA to Landmarkism and to the old Landmarkers, had they only been willing to be guided by facts instead of their predisposition!

These references show clearly enough that these men who contend that Graves and Old Landmarkism originally taught EMDA have failed to consult primary sources. Instead they took secondary sources, suppositions, implications, personal bias, hearsay or hope-so to prove old Landmarkism included EMDA as an essential element. Both their method and conclusion are patently false. For example: Bro Cockrell said:

Liberal Baptists and apostate Landmarkers would have us to believe all the early Baptist churches in America were self constituted by a few baptized members in some case without a minister or missionary without church authority. According to them, no church ever dismissed members to form a new church until J.R. Graves and J.M. Pendleton come on the scene and invented the teaching of Landmarkism in the mid 1800s. This is just simply not true.[41]

Bro Cockrell here implied that J.R. Graves and J.M. Pendleton definitely taught that churches must have authority from an existing church to constitute a new church–i.e., EMDA, and that EMDA is Landmarkism–yet he did not actually say Graves and Pendleton believed EMDA! Certainly, those who have read his book would be led by this statement, and others in this book, to suppose Graves and Pendleton believed in EMDA.

Let the question be explicitly asked–did Graves and Pendleton believe EMDA?

The answer is an unequivocal no!

With one voice they taught self constitution and this is so constantly stated throughout their books no one can be excused for claiming otherwise. Several of these pertinent quotes from these men have been published in various articles in Grace Proclamator and Promulgator (hereafter GPP) so no one who read those articles could misunderstand.[42] Furthermore not one EMDA advocate, since the publication of these quotes, has made any effort whatsoever to refute them!

Why not?

It is interesting how the very thing which these men, Bre Cockrell, Bob Ross, Ashcraft and these other writers needed to prove concerning the Old Landmarkers–that the old Landmarkers taught EMDA–is skipped over! And with good reason. Bro Cockrell led his readers, in the above quote, to believe that Graves and Pendleton believed in EMDA. It is unfortunate but many who read Scriptural Church Organization will never bother to check and see what Graves and Pendleton said for themselves but accept these implications without proof!

In the interest of clarity the definition of Old Landmarkism in its essential and original meaning will now be given. We will let these old Baptists, and other writers, of the 1800s, give the definition of old Landmarkism.

Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopedia gives this definition of Old Landmarkism:

The doctrine of landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as ‘a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,’ etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization. Hence the non-recognition of Pedobaptist ministers, who are not interfered with, but simply let alone.

At the time the ‘Old Landmark Reset’ was written the topic of non-ministerial intercourse was the chief subject of discussion. Inseparable, however, from the landmark view of this matter, is a denial that Pedobaptist societies are Scriptural churches, that Pedobaptist ordinations are valid, and that immersions administered by Pedobaptist ministers can be consistently accepted by any Baptist. All these things are denied, and the intelligent reader will see why.[43]

Cathcart gives this biographical information concerning the unidentified author of this article: “The following sketch was written at the editor’s request by one of the ablest Baptist ministers in this country. His account of the opinions of all landmarkers is entirely reliable...”[44] There can be no question as to the validity of this definition. The Baptist Encyclopedia was published in 1881.

Landmarkism teaches there are only two essentials of a true church. One, it must preach the true gospel and two, it must practice the ordinances properly. In this definition Landmark Baptists agree with other denominations. Because Landmarkers believe immersion alone is scriptural baptism and that scriptural baptism is essential to church membership, they believe those who are not scripturally baptized are not members of a Scriptural church. Churches composed of those who are not scripturally baptized are not in gospel order and therefore cannot give scriptural baptism, regardless of the mode. Nor can they execute properly any gospel act any more than a society not in legal order can organize a posse, pass legislation or appoint an ambassador.

Landmark Baptists do not question the salvation of those who compose such churches nor their good intentions but believe because they are not in gospel order they are not gospel churches. If scriptural baptism is essential to church status and church membership, it is difficult to see how anyone can deny the conclusion. This used to be the position of Protestants as well as Baptists. They understood these issues in former times just as we do but differed on the subjects and mode of baptism. To verify this I will now quote from Dabney:

All parties are agreed, that baptism is the initiatory rite which gives membership in the visible Church of Christ. The great commission was: Go ye, and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the Trinity. Baptism recognizes and constitutes the outward discipleship.....

Now, if all other forms of baptism than immersion are not only irregular, but null and void, all unimmersed persons are out of the visible Church. But if each and every member of a paedobaptist visible Church is thus unchurched: of course the whole body is unchurched. All paedobaptists societies, then, are guilty of an intrusive error, when they pretend to the character of a visible Church of Christ. Consequently, they can have no ministry; and this for several reasons. Surely no valid office can exist in an association whose claim to be an ecclesiastical commonwealth is utterly invalid. When the temple is non-existent, there can be no actual pillars to that temple. How can an unauthorized herd of unbaptized persons, to whom Christ concedes no church authority, confer any valid office? Again: it is preposterous that a man should receive and hold office in a commonwealth where he himself has no citizenship; but this unimmersed paedobaptist minister, so-called, is no member of any visible Church. There are no real ministers in the world, except the Immersionist preachers! The pretensions of all others therefore, to act as ministers and to administer the sacraments are sinful intrusions.

It is hard to see how intelligent and conscientious Immersionist can do any act, which countenances or sanctions this profane intrusion. They should not allow any weak inclinations of fraternity and peace to sway their consciences in this point of high principle. They are bound, then, not only to practice close communion, but to refuse all ministerial recognition and communion to these intruders. The sacraments cannot go beyond the pale of the visible Church. Hence, the same stern denunciations ought to be hurled at the Lord’s Supper in paedobaptist societies, and at all their prayers and preachings in public, as at the iniquity of “baby-sprinkling.” The enlightened immersionist should treat all these societies, just as he does that ‘Synagogue of Satan,’ the Papal Church: there may be many good, misguided believers in them; but no church character, ministry, nor sacraments whatever.[45]

Dabney understood these issues just as Landmark Baptists do. He did not believe you could have a scriptural church without baptism. He did not believe you could ordain a man to preach the gospel without a church. In the 1800s very few men of any denomination believed the Quakers were in gospel order because they were without baptism. Nor would they admit them to communion without baptism. Protestants of those days uniformly agreed that Scriptural baptism was essential to scriptural church constitution, communion and the gospel ministry. Landmark Baptists agreed with them on this score and maintained there can be no scriptural church without scriptural baptism.

Today Landmarkism still embraces these conclusions and contends that those societies who do not have Scriptural baptism are not Scriptural churches! Not being Scriptural churches, they have no authority from Christ. They may do much good-and they often do. They may hold forth many precious doctrines-and they do. They may have great scholars, preachers and writers-and many of them do. But this does not mean that they are in gospel order, for, as Dabney says, without being in gospel order there is “...No church character, ministry, nor sacraments whatever.” Landmarkers, then, do not recognize the ordinances or ordinations of any church not in gospel order.

Thus with due love and consideration to every brother or sister who may be a member of such a church, yet we cannot receive their churches as sister churches, nor their members as properly baptized until these irregularities are corrected.

We hold the ordinance of baptism to be the immersion of one who professes to have been saved by the grace of God before he was baptized by a gospel church. This ordinance cannot be given to those who cannot believe nor to anyone who does not believe and any society which does so is not a scriptural church. And its ordinances, even when given for the right reason are invalid. Those who have, for any reason, changed the purpose of the ordinances of Christ into sacraments, or who make them essential to salvation or who change the purpose, mode or the candidate of baptism are not scriptural churches. This is what Landmark Baptists believe.

But let me give a quote by J.M. Pendleton to make this very plain.

The controversy was and is a strange one: In one sense, all Roman Catholics and all Protestant Pedobaptists are on the side of the “Landmark.” That is to say, they believe, and their practice of infant baptism compels the belief, that baptism must precede the regular preaching of the gospel. This is just what Landmark Baptists say, and they say, in addition, that immersion alone is baptism, indispensable to entrance into a gospel church, and that from such a church must emanate authority, under God, to preach the gospel. All this is implied in the immemorial custom, among Baptist churches, of licensing and ordaining men to preach. But I will not enlarge: I have said this that my children and grandchildren may know what the “Old Landmark” was, and why I wrote it. Baptists can never protest effectually against the errors of Pedobaptists while the preachers of the latter are recognized as gospel ministers. This to me is very plain.”[46]

Thus it seems very clear, EMDA is not now, and never was, a part of Landmarkism! It is not now a part of it although some Landmark Baptists hold to it. EMDA is no more a part of Landmarkism than is the priesthood of the church[47] although some Landmarkers take that view. Not one of the leading men of the Landmark movement in the 1800s ever taught EMDA! No quote of any one of these men has ever been produced where they espoused this doctrine. The old Landmarkers specifically taught self-constitution with the authority coming directly from Christ! So the idea that these men embraced EMDA or that it was an essential part of Landmarkism is erroneous. This is a misconception and a misrepresentation of Landmarkism by EMDA advocates, and some of the opponents of Landmarkism.[48] This misrepresentation has been so pervasive that multitudes think EMDA is the essence of Landmarkism. But now the truth is being reclaimed and the old Landmark on church constitution restored. EMDA is not Landmarkism nor is EMDA any part of Landmarkism!

In the next chapter we will consider specifically the teaching of old Landmarkism and church constitution as set forth by J.R. Graves.

Footnotes

[14] EMDA is an acronym for Essential Mother Daughter Authority.

[15] Bob Ross. Old Landmarkism and The Baptists.

[16]Bob Ross. Old Landmarkism and The Baptists. pp. 35,36,38, 43,44.

[17] Cf. Chapter 9 for Bogard’s quote.

[18] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, p. 80. He refers to a

church formed without EMDA as “This bastard church...”

[19] Medford Caudill. “What is Landmarkism.” A Tract. No publishing data.

[20] Robert Ashcraft. Landmarkism Revisited. pp.6, 35,194.

[21] Tom Ross. Resetting an Old Landmark, p. 9.

[22] William Wright Barnes. “The exponents of Baptist Church Succession have viewed the New Testament doctrine of the church primarily in terms of a local assembly. According to this theory, each ‘congregation grows out of and is formed by the authority of another.’” The Southern Baptist Convention: 1845-1953, p. 100. Barnes gives no reference for his claim. This is the first express mention of EMDA which I have found. This book was written in 1954. Is it possible that the EMDA movement began with Barnes misconception of Landmarkism?

[23] W. Morgan Patterson. Baptist Secessionism. “According to this theory, each ‘congregation grows out of and is formed by the authority of another.” P. 10. Patterson is quoting Barnes. But,as we have seen, Barnes gives no source for this statement. Is this not using a “secondary source”?

[24]Indeed, some of these writers assert Graves, Pendleton, Dayton, and others held to EMDA, but not one of them cites a single reference to prove their assertion!

[25] Cf. Chapter 13.

[26] Bob Ross. Old Landmarkism and the Baptists, p. 19.

[27] Op. cit., P. 36.                   

[28]Bro Bob Ross refers to Dave Hunt’s imputing conclusions to others which they do not expressly affirm in the following: “13) His imputing conclusions and consequences to others when they do not expressly affirm them is contrary to the Hedge’s ‘Rules of Controversy’ and would not be allowed by responsible Moderators in a public debate.” From: pilgrimpub@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:15 PM Subject: HUNT’S PLOYS AND DEVICES [11/30/2004]. Is this not what Bro Ross has done to Graves?

[29] J.R. Graves wrote many books. Cf. Edward C. Starr. A Baptist Bibliography, vol. 9, pp. 111-120 for a partial list of his works. Graves published at least one book not in this list the Graves-Watson Debate. Cf. B.H. Carroll. An Interpretation of the English Bible, vol. V, p. 139. Graves edited The Baptist which was a sixteen page weekly and The Southern Baptist Review and Eclectic which was a 64 page monthly.

[30] Duane Gilliland. Landmarkism. Electronic edition, p. 3. It is not Landmarkism which goes “much further”, but it is the misinformed advocates of EMDA, and some of the opponents of Landmarkism, who have made this journey beyond Landmarkism.

[31] John Kohler. Historic Baptist Symposium. The Essence of Old Landmarkism: Proverbs 22:28; Job 24:2, p. 1. Electronic copy.

[32]W.R. Downing, The New Testament Church, p. 132. I think Bro Downing’s adjective “ardent” is appropriate. However, advocates of EMDA are not Landmarkers because of EMDA but in spite of it, as it has nothing to do with Landmarkism.

[33] Ibid. 133.

[34] Wayne Camp. Grace Proclamator and Promulgator (Hereafter GPP), April 97; July 97; Sept. 97 p .5; Oct. 97, p. 1; May 2000, p. 1,3; Jan. 2002, p. 3; Dec. 2002, p. 7; Feb. 2001, p. 1.

[35] R.E. Pound. Particular Baptist Treasury, p. 206. Electronic copy.

[36] It seems the connective has been inadvertently left out–JCS.

[37] Op. cit. p. 13.

[38] W.A. Jarrel. Baptist Perpetuity, pp 2-3.

[39] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization. p.16.

[40] C.D. Cole. Definitions of Doctrine: The New Testament Church, p. 7.

[41] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, p. 84.

[42] GPP. In addition to those issues already mentioned, see: Kind of Old Landmarker I Am; Link Chain Ecclesiology, July 1, 1997; The Church at Rome Self Constituted, Jan. 1, 2002; Constitution of Churches, April 1, 2000; The Only Scriptural Baptist Churches on Earth are Self Constituted, June 1, 2002. http://www.gpp‑5grace.com/graceproclamator

[43] William Cathcart. The Baptist Encyclopedia. p. 867-8.

[44] Ibid. Was J.M. Pendleton the author of this article?

[45] R.L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 774-5. Note: I have broken up this long section into paragraphs for easier reading.-- JC.

[46] J.M. Pendleton. Pendleton’s Reminiscences. pp. 103-105. Published 1891. Quoted in An Old Landmark Reset, Published by the Baptist, 1976, no page numbers.

[47] Cf. Joe W. Bell. God’s Priesthood on Earth, p. 91.

[48] Cf. other treatments of Landmarkism: J.H. Spencer, A History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. I, pp. 715-716; I.K. Cross. Landmarkism: An Update; Douglas A. Moore. Old Landmarkism vs. The Pedigree Pushers; J.J. Burnett. Sketches of Tennessee’s Pioneer Baptist Preachers, 1919, pp. 191-192. Elwell. Elwell Evangelical Dictionary. Art. Landmarkism. Also Cf. Bro James Duvall’s web site for many articles and references to Landmarkism: http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/landmarkism.10.premises.html

 


Go to Chapter 3

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage