|
Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage
Landmarkism Under Fire
A Study of Landmark Baptist
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 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, 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 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 Highlighting this error is the fact that other writers have
correctly understood 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 Liberal Baptists and apostate Landmarkers would have us to
believe all the early Baptist churches in 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 Let the question be explicitly asked–did 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 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 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 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 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]
[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, [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
[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. [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 [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 [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
Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage |