|
Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage Landmarkism Under Fire
A Study of Landmark Baptist
by Elder J.C. Settlemoir Old Landmarkism has never lacked opponents. The attacks against Landmarkism and those who believe it are relentless.[1] While we have learned to expect this from those who are not Landmark we are still a little surprised when these attacks come from Landmark Baptists! And the amazing thing about these assaults is that they are ostensively made in defense of Landmarkism! How is it that Landmark Baptists attack Landmarkism? I fear they do so because they do not know what Landmarkism is! They believe the theory that every Scriptural church must be given authority for constitution from a mother church and that such authority is the essence of Landmarkism and conversely that self constitution is not Landmarkism at all![2] Because of this misconception, they actually direct fire on Landmarkism itself! Landmarkism is under Fire–both from those without and from friendly fire! For example. A number of the books (pro and con) on Landmarkism have appeared in recent years.[3] Several of these teach the Essential Mother Daughter Authority[4] is an integral doctrine of Landmarkism. The advocates of EMDA unite with some opponents of Landmarkism in teaching this idea. The former also maintain this doctrine is revealed in Scripture and confirmed by Baptist History. This book is an attempt to defend old Landmarkism on Church constitution. Old Landmarkism taught the doctrine that every church is self constituted and receives all its authority directly from Christ without any other intermediary. We will set forth the old Landmark position on church constitution and show how EMDA is not only not Landmark, but it is not Baptist and it is not Scriptural! It is my position that EMDA was not taught by a single old Landmarker in the 1800s. This doctrine is not now, and never was, a part of old Landmarkism. The early Landmark leaders, and J.R. Graves in particular, not only did not subscribe to EMDA but specifically and consistently taught churches are self constituted being directly authorized to constitute by Christ Himself. It is also my purpose to show that this Landmark principle of Divine church constitution[5] is in full agreement with Baptist History. I regret that Bro Cockrell was called home before I could finish this book. He was an able defender of the Faith and was one of the most well-read men among Landmark Baptists. We were good friends. He preached for me and I preached for him. We were in many conferences together. I have never had any ill feelings toward him concerning our differences on EMDA and have none now. I told him the last time I saw him that he was welcome to preach in our church.[6] Nor should anyone think that I am now seeking to take advantage of him because he is no longer in this world. It is to his position and to his book to which I respond, not to him personally.[7] That I differed with him on this subject is evident. But this does not at all mean that I counted him an enemy. He was a friend of mine and a brother beloved in the Lord. What I have written as to his views, and those of the other men referred to herein, is my effort to set forth the truth as I see it. I have named those to whom I refer so the reader will be able to make a valid judgment of the arguments presented. I have given references throughout so the reader can compare the sources quoted. I have allowed the authors to state their own positions. I do not mean to impute anything to these men which they have not expressed in their own words.[8] Yet I have not hesitated to examine their arguments or to check their sources. Bro Cockrell himself used this approach when he differed with any of the brethren. He said: I have just finished writing a book that I did not want to write. You have just read a treatise which was written because I felt it must be done for the good of Christ’s churches. I found it most grievous to have to expose the unsound doctrines of men I love and hold as dear brethren in Christ. I have sought only to admonish them as brethren, not as my enemies.[9] In another book of his we have this statement: I bear no bitterness toward those who may be persuaded to disagree with me on this matter. I could only hope and pray that the Great Teacher, the Holy Spirit, may be pleased to open many eyes to see this truth. Oh, that every reader would ‘be fully persuaded in his own mind’ (Rom. 14:5) .... “I would appeal to ministers of the Word to preach this truth to their people. But, brethren, do so in fear and trembling. Speak the truth in love to the edifying of God’s elect. Do not try to cram down the throats of your sisters this truth in an ungodly spirit . . .”[10] Again Bro Cockrell said: I ask the right to be heard . . . I ask the reader to examine the facts and evidence carefully. Then search the Scriptures and see if what I say is so. If my book contains religious errors I ask my brethren to call these to my attention in a Christlike manner; no one will read the refutation of my writings with more consideration than I.[11] Thus my thesis is that EMDA is a false doctrine not found in Scripture, History, nor in Landmarkism. This doctrine has been falsely charged upon Landmarkism and imputed to the old Landmarkers. In this study I have examined the old Landmarkers especially and have quoted them frequently.[12] I have striven to give evidence of my position in the manner suggested by Bro Cockrell. I am but following his request, as I believe his position and his book contain “religious errors.”[13] Several other writers who have attempted to make EMDA an essential part of Landmarkism have also been noticed. Whether my conclusions are correct or not will be the domain of others to judge. Footnotes [1] Cf. Patterson. Baptist Succession; Tull. History of SB Landmarkism; Bob Ross. Old Landmarkism and the Baptists; Tom Ross. Resetting an Old Landmark; Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization; Robert Ashcraft. Landmarkism Revisited; 7 Questions and Answers as to Church Authority. I.K. Cross. Landmarkism: An Update. Duane Gilliland. Landmarkism. [2]For example. Cf. Voice in the Wilderness, June 13, 2002, edited by Bro Mark Minney. On p. 66 the logo is: “We believe in the ‘link chain’ succession of the Lord’s church....We are Landmark Baptists!” [3] Cf. Patterson. Baptist Succession; Tull. History of SB Landmarkism; Bob Ross. Old Landmarkism and the Baptists; Tom Ross. Resetting an Old Landmark; Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization; Robert Ashcraft. Landmarkism Revisited; 7 Questions and Answers as to Church Authority. I.K. Cross. Landmarkism: An Update. Duane Gilliland. Landmarkism.
[4]Hereafter
EMDA. Essential Mother Daughter Authority.
That is, that every church must have the authority of a mother church before it
can be constituted, and without this mother church authority no scriptural
church can be formed. But the truth is, one church has no more authority to
constitute another church, to mother another church or to birth a church than
did Pope Leo III to crown Charlemagne as Emperor! This took place on Nov. 24,
AD 800 and was the inception of the “ [5] This is also called “Divine Authority”. [6] He did not say I was welcome to preach for him, however!
[7]
Cf. J.R. Graves. Old Landmarkism: What is
it? [8]Another Brother, who took the view I oppose in this book, Elder Joe Wilson, has also passed on since I began this book. He too was a friend and a beloved brother in the Lord. Cf. Bro. Wilson’s message: “My Reply to J.C. Settlemoir.” Taped message. Gladwin Conference, 2001. [9] Milburn Cockrell. Sacerdotalism and The Baptists, p. 63. [10] Milburn Cockrell. The Veiled Woman. p. 55. [11] Milburn Cockrell. Sacerdotalism and The Baptists, p. ii. [12] In a few cases I have repeated quotes so the reader will not have to go back and forth for a reference. [13] See Bro Cockrell’s quote given above. Sacerdotalism and The Baptists, p. ii.
Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage
|