|
Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage
Landmarkism Under Fire
A Study of Landmark Baptist
by Elder J.C. Settlemoir
Appendix VIII. - Objections to Self Constitution Valid objections are always welcomed by honest men because they recognize there is no position which does not raise some questions and no error which does not seem to have some support, as someone has said “every heretic has his text.” Thus we will deal with what we believe to be the strongest objections which EMDA has produced. If these can be answered, all the others of a lesser nature will be eliminated in the process. 1. I do not want a human founder for my church.[687] The implication in this objection is that if a church does not have EMDA it must have a human founder. This is just unclear and unbiblical thinking. We agree with J.R. Graves who covered this well in his debate with Ditzler in 1875. He said: Now I wish Elder Ditzler to know that there is a world-wide difference between originating an organization different from anything that can be found in the Bible, different from anything the world had ever before seen or heard of, and calling it a Church, and organizing a Christian Church. It is true that two or three baptized individuals can organize a Church, provided they adopt the apostolic model of government, and covenant to be governed by the sole authority of Jesus Christ.[688] Did Graves believe Baptist churches had human founders? Each particular Church is independent of every other body, civil or ecclesiastical, and receiving its authority directly from Christ, it is accountable to him alone.[689] This is Christ’s authority; Heaven sent authority; Divine
Authority; and thus no church founded with this authority has a human founder!
This is what Furthermore, there are great numbers of churches in history which are stated to have been constituted by one elder or by two. Now these churches, it will be argued, had authority from a mother church and the elders were only acting for the mother church. Yet, these records were recorded by sound Baptists who were clerks, preachers, and historians. They found no fear in stating that a certain elder or two constituted a particular church.[690] It seems quite evident from the information given, that they understood it was the Lord who constituted the church and the elders and others present were not there as essential authority but as helps. This fact of history shakes the EMDA house like an earthquake and leaves them with cracks which make them wary to enter it, properly so! 2. We do not believe in “spontaneous generation.” The creation of God was spontaneous by the power of the Creator! The sea brought forth abundantly by His fiat! Was that “spontaneous” or not? EMDA brethren say self constituted churches spring out of nothing, as if evolution were in operation. But when Christ promises in Mt 18:20 to be in the midst of every group of disciples who gather together in His nameBthat is with His authority–those so gathered are a church and they have Christ as their foundation. They are built upon the apostles and Christ is the chief cornerstone. You don’t need a mother church which is nothing but a man-made requirement but you do need Christ in the midst and He promises to be in the midst of every church so constituted! This is the word of Christ Himself. Therefore you don’t need the authority of a mother church. You do not have to have a presbytery. You do not have to have recognition services but you must have Christ’s authority. This authority does not come from a church, presbytery or elders, nor any other earthly entity but directly from Heaven and it is Christ who tells us it is so according to Mt. 18:20. But the problem with the EMDA objectors is that they have introduced an unscriptural practice in church constitution and their prejudice prevents them from seeing that churches sprang up all over in NT times without any direct connection with the first church. See Acts 8:31. There is not a single instance in the NT where it says one church gave authority to start another church! If this was an essential of church constitution, why did the Lord give us Mt. 18:20 stating He would indwell every church so constituted and never mention EMDA? But the formation of a church out of prepared materials–those who
have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, who have been scripturally baptized
by a NT church, and who are following the leading of the Holy Spirit as to the
constitution of a new church–is not “spontaneous generation” in the sense in
which EMDA men use it but is the constitution of a church in the manner
commanded by Christ. We read of no EMDA given to those who formed the churches
of Judea, 3. We do not believe in evolution but we believe “like begets
like.” This cliche has been bandied about so long that it is difficult to get men to think about what they are saying. Churches are not organisms in the same sense animals are. They do not conceive or give birth. Churches are societies. A society is “a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially: an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession”[693]. Because of this churches can “beget” non- like things and they do. We hear of churches all the time which are not what their parent churches were. This cliche pressed to this illogical extreme, would mean that no Baptist church ever went bad! No Baptist church could ever go into error if started by EMDA, according to this theory, because “like begets like” but I can certainly think of a dozen or so churches off the top of my head which will prove like does not beget like when referring to churches! 4. I feel more comfortable using EMDA to start churches. Comfort does not equate scripturality. Comfort is not the criteria
of obedience. It is not when we feel comfortable with some doctrine that we are
right, but we are right when it is taught in the Word of God. You may feel a
considerable amount of discomfort when you first follow the commandment of the
Lord relative to some particular doctrine. We must learn to be comfortable with
what the Lord has commanded. When New England Baptists practiced the laying on
of hands as a church ordinance and other Baptists tried to show them this was
not an essential ordinance, they probably felt more comfortable carrying on
with this practice, even though it was unscriptural. But being comfortable with
it did not make it right! The Pharisees were more comfortable following
tradition than truth, but it was wrong just the same. Uzziah felt comfortable
with his incense burner in the 5. Mt 18:20 is in the passive voice, and therefore it refers to
believers being gathered together, rather than to them gathering themselves
together. It is quite surprising that an EMDA advocate admits this passage does refer to church constitution! I say this because most of these brethren will walk two miles out of the way just to keep from dealing with this text! In fact most of the EMDA men will not even discuss the meaning of Mt 18:20 when they write a book on church constitution.[694] Some boldly contend the text has nothing to do with Church constitution.[695] Still others (as this objector) contend this text is actually EMDA in disguise! It is easy to see that confusion is reigning unopposed in the EMDA camp. As to the grammar consider the following. The Prodigal in Lk 15:15 is said to “join himself” to a citizen of the far country and this is passive.[696] Did he himself join himself to this citizen or did someone else do it for him? For those who wish to consider some other passages where the verb συναγω is in the passive,[697] I submit a few examples. Mt. 22:41; Acts 4:31; Acts 20:8. Take this last passage: “And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.” Would anyone claim that this was a case where authority by a mother church was given and a new church was established? Was this a meeting where those present were gathered together by someone else? Also look at Acts 4:31: “And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.” Again it is easy to see this whole concept is fatally flawed and no one ever would have thought of it if not looking for an out. Again look at Mt 22:41, “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them”. Perhaps these brethren will claim that the Pharisees got EMDA to meet from some source! Wuest translates: “Now the Pharisees, having been gathered together...” Of course all of this merely proves these brethren are grasping at straws. That some call this text a powerful pretext,[698] while others say if it referred to church constitution, it would require at least six people to constitute a church, and then another says, “Oh, yes! It refers to church constitution but it is actually teaching EMDA”, demonstrates my proposition that these brethren are somewhat like the Ephesians were—somewhat confused![699] 6. EMDA is given when a church grants letters. Or EMDA is
given by the granting of church letters. This objection is made because these brethren cannot find EMDA stated or expressed in the church records of history, consequently they have fallen to grasping at straws–EMDA, they say, is given through granting church letters for the purpose of constituting a church! Let me reply that this would then mean either, the church giving and the church receiving would both recognize this as EMDA or they would not. If they did recognize it, then how is it that they never state this was what they meant and this is what they were doing when they granted letters for constitution? But if they did not know they were doing it, then how strange that for 1900 years churches should practice something essential for their very propagation but without even knowing what they were doing! This essential was unknown and unstated by them! Who can imagine such a thing? But let me go further and insist there is not a single case in the NT of one church granting letters to form a new church. This again is just some more tradition which is elevated into doctrine because they do not have any Scripture for their theory. A church letter is merely a recommendation to another church. A church letter cannot authorize anything. It cannot authorize an ordination, it cannot send a preacher to a mission field, it cannot disband a church. It cannot settle a church problem authoritatively. And it necessarily follows, that if a church cannot disband a church, it cannot constitute one. A group of saints in gospel order do not need a mother church to give them permission to constitute themselves into a church. Nor do they need a mother church to give them authority to ordain a pastor or deacon; they do not need a mother church to give them permission to preach the gospel; Why not? Because they have the authority of Jesus Christ the Lord, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Mt. 18:20. Even when churches are expressly stated to be self-constituted, the
EMDA brethren are able to come up with some artifice to inject their theory
into that constitution! Concerning the case of the Welsh Tract church which was
organized in 7. Into what church does the first convert get baptized? This objection pertains to situations such as where a missionary is working in a new field. Bro Cockrell puts it like this: Here goes a traveling ordained preacher. He preaches and one man is converted. This convert asks for baptism. Question: Into what church does this first convert get baptized? Is it the church that is hope-to-be born in some days in this town? If so, it is an invisible church, for at this point no church exists. If such a person is baptized he is baptized outside of the body of Christ, and he is not added to any church.[701] This objection strikes as hard against EMDA as it does against our
position. For example, how is it that members on the far strung mission fields
are baptized into the church that is half a world a way? Under the EMDA
umbrella these churches actually vote to baptize these non-resident candidates,
receive them as members without ever seeing them, without hearing their
experience in grace, without even knowing them! These members never see the
church into which they are baptized. They never visit that church and when
these churches grant letters saying these members are in good and regular
standing, the church certainly does not tell the truth! These foreign members
are invisible to the church and the church is invisible to them and that is
about as invisible a church as any Protestant ever desired! Let any man survey
the history of our churches and see if he can find any such thing as a man in
early It is not a multitude that makes a church. Christ had fore-designated how few would be recognized by Him–“two or three are gathered in his name,” under his authority, he would be present with them as their Head, e.g., our missionaries to foreign fields are sent forth, two or more with their families, and on reaching their stations they organize themselves into a church, by covenanting to take the New Testament as their constitution, and Christ as their Head. Two males and two females generally compose Our first mission churches. These disciples were gathered under his authority, to obey his laws, and he himself was with them. They were a body “of faithful men, to whom the pure word was preached, and by whom the ordinances were duly administered, according to Christ’s appointment in all things.” How far soever we may fail to administer them, there is not one of us that doubts they administered them just as Christ commanded, and how far soever our most renowned churches may fail in purity of membership, this was without doubt, the purest body of Christians that ever met on this fallen earth.[702] The old Landmark Baptists were not agreed on the subject. Then you do not claim that baptism is the door of entrance into the Church? Strictly speaking, it is not, sir. It is the way of entrance into the ‘visible kingdom;’ and through the kingdom to the Church. No on can reach the Church, except through baptism; but every baptized believer is not a Church member. The eunuch was in the viable kingdom as soon as he was baptized; but he was not a member of any Church. The Church consists of such baptized believers as have voluntarily associated themselves together according to the scriptural constitution, to administer Christ’s ordinances, and enforce his laws among themselves. But it is just as true that no one can be a Church member who has not been baptized, as though baptism were itself the door of entrance into the Church. [703] Thus it is important to recognize whether we agree with Graves or 8. What about the quote of B.H. Carroll from his Interpretation of The English Bible in SCO?[704] While this may sound like B.H. Carroll believed in EMDA I do not believe that is the case. I have not searched the records of the church or churches B.H. pastored, but I believe this quote is just a misunderstanding of what Carroll meant. There are a few passages in Graves, Pendleton, Moody, Hall, Bogard, Ford and other Landmark Baptists which on the surface sound like EMDA (and many of these have been produced just for the sound) but when we examine the records where they expressly speak on the subject of church constitution they all to a man believed in divine constitution. I believe the same is true of B.H. Carroll. Note carefully this statement of Carroll: And the New Testament says, ‘Where two or three of you are gathered together in my name, I will be with you.’ Wherever a number of God’s people covenant themselves into a congregation, each several building groweth up into a holy temple for the habitation of God through the Holy Spirit.[705] B.H. Carroll is here speaking about church constitution. He uses Mt. 18:20. He says where a number of people covenant themselves into a congregation they become a holy temple for the habitation of God. This is as good a statement of self constitution as one could ask for. 9. There does not seem to be any proof that the men you have quoted [those who re-set the Old Landmarks in the 1800s] ever practiced any other form of church organization than we are practicing today [i.e., EMDA], what has been gained? What about the young preachers who have been offended? Is it worth the division it has caused?[706] The proof of how these men constituted churches is found in their doctrinal statements on how to constitute churches and in the church records and these are in unity. They did not use EMDA. And they did not teach EMDA. This objection sounds like Jay Adams, who with all the scholars and lexicons of the world before him yet contends that baptizein means to sprinkle[707] and reduces his credibility to zilch! I have given many quotes in this book which will verify how the old Landmarkers started churches. Nothing more needs to be said. If this mass of evidence does not convince someone, it is because they refuse to consider facts! But notice this objector attempts to put the burden of causing division and offending young preachers on those of us who have denied EMDA is scriptural! He half admits it is not scriptural but yet seeks to make those who have called attention to their mistake to be at fault for division and offences! Those who introduce tradition as doctrine but who cannot give a “thus saith the Lord” for their theories are those who have caused the offence. Christ said: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” Matt 18:6‑7. But he who points out an error is not the cause of that error but those who introduce it and especially those, who when the error is pointed out, still contend for it! Christ was not at fault because he pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and their traditions, even though some were offended at Him![708] Paul rebuked Peter for his dissimulation. Was it Paul’s fault that Peter refused to eat with Gentiles as he knew he should have done?[709] Did Paul do wrong for rebuking Peter’s error?[710] Imagine a bookkeeper laying blame for his mistake on the auditor who discovered his error! Surely, it is the height of deception to blame those who call attention to an error and accuse them of offending young preachers! [711] This objector also fails to realize the magnitude of the problem of introducing a tradition and making it into a doctrine! It is not we who contend for self constitution who have caused this problem but they who maintain that if you do not practice EMDA you cannot constitute a scriptural church. The division to which the objector refers was not caused by our objecting to their innovation, but by their making this innovation and then elevating it into essential doctrine! The one who points out error and who thereby causes division is not the cause of that division but those who introduce the error! You will notice that this objector almost admits their teaching is but a tradition, but pleads that it should be continued lest we cause division! 10. But you still constitute churches as we do, so where is the beef? This objector is alluding to the fact that we have other churches come and help us, when possible, in church constitution. Isn’t it amazing that some of these brethren claim we constitute churches in a false way while others claim we follow their methods! We do have elders assist in the actual work. We read the various letters from the churches. But there is a vast difference. We do this in the same way we do in the ordination of a pastor. We invite other churches to send their ordained men. We ask these churches to come and meet with us. We invite their ordained men to examine the candidate to verify his orthodoxy. They give their opinion on the qualifications of the candidate–but here is where the rubber meets the road–the church alone ordains the pastor–not the Presbytery! The presbytery cannot do it! The assisting churches cannot do it! An association cannot do it! The ordination is done by the church and is just as valid without the other churches as it is with it! The church does not derive any authority from the elders present, from the churches represented, or from the presbytery’s recommendation. This belongs to the church under Christ. And they, in calling for helps, neither seek nor gain authority from those who are present. The ordination belongs to the church. And the analogy for church constitution holds. In exactly the same manner a new church, in its constitution, may ask for helps. Other churches may be involved. A presbytery may be invited to examine the proposed church for its orderliness, doctrine and scripturality. But the organization is given directly by Christ alone and He gives this authority and status to the new church without any other intermediary! None of the helps, in whatever form, contribute anything at all to the legitimacy of the constitution of a church! The authority comes from Christ Himself! The church is self constituted because Christ commanded it so. But, let me also say that the similarity between their constitution and ours is only in appearance. EMDA maintains you must have the mother-daughter authority and if you do not have it, you cannot constitute a scriptural church. It is, according to EMDA, the mother church which is the main actor in a church constitution whereas we believe the main actor is Christ Himself. We maintain that the only authority in a church constitution is from Christ. It is His promise and His direct authority which constitutes a church and you do not get this authority from a presbytery, from an association or from a mother church or from a father church or from elders. This authority does not slip in horizontally by the vote of a mother church, nor by the elders as representatives of other churches nor by letters from another church or churches, as they sometimes contend[712] but rather it comes directly and vertically from Christ! EMDA makes church constitution to be God’s ratification of what men have done on earth, whereas we believe it is God’s declaration of what He has done. In our position Christ constitutes! In their position the mother church constitutes! That is the difference and it is a major difference! 11. But what about the cases in historical records where members
petition the mother church for a constitution? Now this is a good question. And this is a fact, as many church histories reveal. We recognize that members of a church are under the authority of that church. And if they, as members, desire to constitute, it is right and proper for them to ask the mother church for a constitution, that is, to be dismissed for this purpose. They also may ask the mother church for help. We know this was not EMDA in history, however, because of the records where there was no mother church, or where several churches were involved, or where there was a division and the division was then recognized as a church.[713] But we contend this was not an essential of church constitution neither in the eyes of those who were the actors nor in the historians who recorded these events. 12. Self constitution makes Adventists and Campbellites true Churches.[714] We will deal with the Campbellite part, for if that can be
answered, the Adventist part will also go away. First, Bro Cockrell believes
the Campbellites constituted themselves into a church. They got no authority
for their church. They never claimed any. Yet, the Redstone Baptist Association
received them without a hitch! Is it not then evident this Baptist Association,
to say the very least, did not require a church to have EMDA? I have never read
of any Baptist association that did. This proves that EMDA was not operational
at that time, at least in the Redstone Association. The next thing is the
Campbellites were not excluded because they did not have EMDA! They were forced
out for “disbelieving many of the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures”–and this was
sixteen years after their formation as a 12. Everybody agrees a church organized by another church is a
true church. Then why not organize all churches in this manner? First off, let it be clearly stated that this premise is false.
Just because something is recognized as valid, does not mean that the manner it
was produced is right. If a Methodist preacher is admitted to a Baptist
ordaining council, and the candidate is recognized and ordained by the church,
does this mean that we should always admit non-Baptists in our ordinations? In
an ordination where a church believes the power of that act is in the hands of
the presbytery, the man may be recognized as ordained but that is not the
proper way to ordain–the church is the only proper ordaining authority. So we
must insist that the candidate, the presbytery and the churches represented
know that the power of the ordination is in the churchBnot
in the hands of the ordaining council. In the same way churches must know, and
preachers must recognize, that constitution comes directly from Christ and not
through a church. And it is no approval of the false system of EMDA if we
recognize a church constituted in this improper way. The Philistines may haul
the 13. You take it by faith that baptism up through the centuries
has always been by immersion and in the same way we take the It is true we accept by faith that baptism has been practiced from the times of John the Baptist until now by immersion. But the great difference between the case with baptism and that of EMDA is that we have consistent records of those churches in history and they did immerse.[716] Many were put to death for this very thing.[717] The subjects and mode of baptism among the anabaptists has been a consistent and undeniable article of faith and monuments of it are found in every century. This is a clearly demonstrated fact. But when you look for EMDA there are no records of its practice or existence before modern times. Thus no one can claim they receive this doctrine on faith because there is no record of it–in the Bible or in history! Instead of taking this on faith, they must take it on tradition–and a very late tradition it is! Footnotes [687] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 6.
[688]
J.R. Graves. Great
[689] Op. Cit. p. 995.
[690]
“Tates Creek Association decided that one ordained preacher and two elders
might constitute a church. But since one ordained preacher, with the advice of
two judicious brethren (or without it, in case of emergency) could constitute a
church, the elders could not be necessary in this work.” J.H. Spencer. History
of
[691]
The term is
[692] I Thess. 2:14. [693] Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Tenth Edition. [694] Cf. Milburn Cockrell. SCO. In this book Mt 18:20 is mentioned only once in passing, p. 36. Robert Ashcraft in Revisiting Landmarkism, does not mention the text at all, if my memory is correct. This last book has 297 pages.
[695]
BBB. Sept. 5, 2002, p. 1 .Mt. 18:20 by Ronnie Wolfe. Also Bro Wolfe had this
article posted on his web site http://www.firstharrison.org [696] Cf. Vines Expository Dictionary. P. 334, Article, Join. [697] Cf also: Re. 19:19; Mt 27:17. [698] Ronnie Wolf. BBB, Sept. 5, 2002, p. 1, Art. Matt. 18:20. [699] Acts 19:32. “Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. “ [700] Morgan Edwards who served as one of the early pastors of this church translated their minutes into English and here is his account: “In the year 1701, some of us, who were members of the churches of Jesus Christ in the counties of Pembroke and Carmarthen, South Wales, in Great Britain, ( professing believers in baptism, laying on of hands, election, and final perseverance in grace), were moved and encouraged in our minds, to come to these parts, namely, Pennsylvania. And after obtaining leave of the churches, it seemed good to the Lord, and to us, that we should be formed into church order, as we were a sufficient number, and as one of us was a minister, that was accomplished, and withal letters commendatory were given us, that if we should meet with any congregations or Christian people, who held the same faith with us, we might be received with them as brethren in Christ.” [701] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 36.
[702]
J.R. Graves. Great
[703]
A.C.
[704] Cf. Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 92. [705] B.H. Carroll. Interpretation of the English Bible, vol. 2, p. 243. [706] Personal letter to author Sept 27, 2000. [707]Jay E. Adams. The Meaning and Mode of Baptism. P. 5, note 6. [708] Matt 13:57; Mark 6:3; Matt 15:12. [709] How could Peter have forgotten the sheet and the Holy Spirit falling on the household of Cornelius? Acts 10:11, 28. [710] Gal 1:11-14. [711] Cf. Le 19:17;. Gal. 4:16. [712] Milburn Cockrell, SCO, p. 17,18.
[713]
Cf. Sidling Hill; Hill Cliffe; John Leland’s church & John Spilsbury’s
church and The Baptist Encyclo- pedia, p. 1091, Art. Spilsbury. [714]Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, p. 48.
[715]
[716] Cf. John T. Christian. Did They Dip?
[717]
Balthasar Hubmaier was burned at the stake and his wife drowned in the
|