|
Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage
Landmarkism Under Fire
A Study of Landmark Baptist
by Elder J.C. Settlemoir
In this book I have tried to show that EMDA does not come from Landmarkism. It is not a Landmark Baptist doctrine. EMDA is a tradition which has attached itself to Landmarkism but does not belong there and it must be removed. It is a complete misunderstanding of Landmarkism to charge it with EMDA. Those who have attempted to superimpose EMDA upon Landmarkism, whether from within or without, suffer from a delusion. That the original men responsible for re-setting the old Landmarks never believed or practiced EMDA we have carefully documented. Can anyone question the evidence submitted? Thus it is high time for those responsible for this misrepresentation of Landmarkism to face this issue. In spite of the accusations by those opposed to Landmarkism and those who think EMDA is Landmarkism, the charges are false. Landmarkism never had any thing to do with this tradition. Nor is EMDA specifically revealed in the Bible and its chief exponents
admit this. All their arguments melt under the light of Scripture. The
Scripture is as silent on this theory as it is on the baptism of infants! And
because the Scripture does not teach EMDA, the case is settled beyond all
question for Baptists. EMDA is not for Scripture, it is not from
Scripture and it is not in Scripture! As far as this theory being found
in Scripture reminds me of what Meyer’s Commentary says on another subject. It
“is an entirely arbitrary assumption of exegetical helplessness. “[554]
EMDA advocates have tried to find Scripture for EMDA, but like the magicians of
Nor is EMDA found in Baptist History. The history of Baptists
affords EMDA no relief. We have carefully searched the full spectrum of Baptist
documents for four hundred years and instead of verifying EMDA, we have found
not one single statement by a Baptist preacher, historian, writer or leader in
any book, sermon, or church record presenting this idea until 1900! As far as
Baptists are concerned History is silent on this theory until it was brought
forth in the last century. This is a new idea among Baptists! It is a doctrine
which still has a new paint smell. Hunting EMDA in Baptist history is
like hunting the For those who accept EMDA, or who may be considering it, we have demonstrated a great number of churches widely dispersed all across the Baptist family and deep back into our history which were not only started without EMDA but were statedly started with an appeal to Christ’s direct authority as promised in Mt. 18:20. This makes the search, for a line of churches adhering to this doctrine in history and so essential to EMDA, not only unlikely but impossible! It simply cannot be done. None of these brethren and none of these churches who proclaim this doctrine as an essential for valid church constitution can give any line of churches which taught this doctrine before modern times! They are selling a bogus pedigree to others, a pedigree which they themselves do not have![557] Bro Jarrel Huffman said: Fifth, let us be slow to sanction, promote, or teach any doctrine that our Baptist forefathers knew nothing of. This is not to say that any man is now inspired, nor is it to declare that confessions of faith are inspired, but the point is this: IF TRUE BAPTISTS IN HISTORY KNEW NOTHING OF A TEACHING, AND DID NOT PUT SUCH IN ANY CONFESSION OF FAITH, IT IS SUSPECT TO SAY THE LEAST![558] We have shown how these old Baptist writers explicitly state, define, defend, and enunciate their belief and practice of Divine Constitution, that is, churches are self constituted by the direct authority of Christ Himself! The authority comes not from another church but from Christ! No other church is necessary! No presbytery is essential! No ordained elder is required! This is the consensus of Baptist History. All the arguments, objections, and implications of phrases, customs, theories, and traditions amount to nothing in the light of this singular testimony of Baptist History! The Scripture itself which is above all practice, ancient or modern and outweighs all writers and settles all arguments as to doctrine, is not only devoid of EMDA, but expressly teaches self constitution by the direct authority of Christ Himself in Mt 18:20! And if this text does not pertain to church constitution, then what text in the New Testament does? EMDA advocates rightly demand a Scripture mandate for all other essential doctrine but they beg the question on EMDA! They cannot, therefore, hold to EMDA and the authority of Scripture. To be consistent they must give up one or the other! EMDA, for all the claims of its advocates, is now seen for what it is. A mere facade. It is an attempt to put the law of man into place by tradition without any biblical foundation and without any basis in Baptist History! I close with these propositions. Let the advocates of EMDA do any or all of the following:[559] 1) Produce a quote from any Landmark Baptist who taught EMDA 2) Produce a Baptist church covenant which teaches EMDA 3) Produce a Baptist confession which teaches EMDA 4) Produce a Baptist manual which teaches EMDA 5) Produce any Baptist history which specifies EMDA 6) Produce any Baptist Association which included EMDA as a requirement for membership 7) Produce the record of any Baptist Association which refused to admit a church because it was not formed via EMDA 8) Produce one church ever re-constituted because it did not obtain EMDA 9) Produce a “thus saith the Lord” for EMDA 10) Produce a reasonable explanation of why so many Baptist leaders explicitly stated the authority for church constitution came directly from Christ according to Mt 18:20. 11) Produce the lineage of any Baptist church which has an EMDA to EMDA succession up to 1600 Let the reader ask himself, why the advocates of EMDA have never before, and will not now, address these propositions? Unless these men who defend EMDA will first respond to these
propositions, especially numbers one, eight, nine and ten, I will treat their
arguments just as I do those of a man who argues the world is flat! If they
answer these propositions not only will I gladly consider all they say but I
have a “.... perfect readiness to modify any statement which can be disproved,
and to alter any error which can be demonstrated...”[560]
If they try to merely find fly specks of error in my treatment, they will find
many.[561] But I
am not the least concerned they will be able to find any major error as to
Landmark Baptist Church Constitution. While EMDA claims it is Landmarkism it is in reality an attack against Landmarkism and the self constitution of churches! It claims to be a part of Landmarkism or even Landmarkism itself, but it is neither. It is no part of Landmarkism at all. Rather it is a parasite and it is attempting to do to Landmarkism what parasites usually do to their hosts. It also claims to be a friend of Landmarkism but instead it is an enemy of Landmarkism within Landmarkism and they direct all their firepower against Landmarkism and the old Landmark Baptists. Now that we recognize the real nature of EMDA for what it is, and where it is, we can effectively repulse this attack. Footnotes [554]H.A.W. Meyer. Meyer’s Commentary, vol. 11, p. 154. The comment is by Friedrich Dusterdieck. [555]Ex. 8:18. [556]Ex. 8:19. [557] Cf. Thomas Williamson’s Got Perpetuity in PPP. April 1, 2004, for many good points on this subject. [558]Jarrel E. Huffman. Church Truth At a Point of Crisis, p. 13 . [559] Of course, I mean before the year 1900. [560] Farrar, The Life of Lives, p. vii. [561] No one is more aware of my inabilities than I am. I would never have published this book but for the sake of the truth. |