Heirs of the Landmark Movement

I have no idea whether this is true, though I would not find it surprising if it were. I would suspect this is some kind of general observation someone made with no actual statistical research made to support it. Interesting, though, is that Landmarkism was apparent early and with some strength in places quite a ways from this line - Florida, California, Oregon and Washington. Florida had a state Landmark association in 1920 and California in 1933. This may not sound old, but considering the oldest "Landmark Association" (separate & distinct from the SBC) dates only to 1900, this is fairly early for so far away. But note also that two west coast Landmark Associations date back to 1873 (Eastern Assn of CA & OR) and 1883 (Middle Oregon Assn). Middle Oregon withdrew from the Oregon State Convention & Northern Baptists in 1907. Most of these churches are now either independent, in the California State Assn, the ABA or the BMAA.

As far as the unaffiliated Landmarkers, I found them in every state but Vermont. No surprise that the largest areas were Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee, respectively. Some surprises might be the strength in Ohio, Illinois and West Virginia.

Landmark Baptist Church Survey

 

Brother Vaughn,

I'm not very well informed on this subject.

I do know that Spencer Cone, of northern Baptist reputation, had worked with the American Bible Society but eventually started a separate Bible society among the Baptists when the ABS insisted on transliterating, rather than translating, baptizo in it's foreign translations.

Cone also wrote an often quoted statement in which he asserted that the influential Baptist leaders of his early ministry had stood opposed to alien immersions and lamented the liberal drift in this area.

He certainly stood as a unique example of a prominent northern Baptist who stood for Baptist doctrines. Whether or not he had any influence on the Landmark movement I don't really know.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Wow, I did not expect to get attacked on a Baptist board. Especially the use of bad language by someone whom I would assume to be a Christian. Landmarkism is not a part of Campbellism. Landmarkism drew its audience from Baptists who wanted to put a long history up against a new movement. Campbellism was claiming to be a restoring of the old Christian way of worship and ecclesiology. By claiming Jesus and John in the Jordan, Landmarkers were able to say that they are the true vine of original Christianity. Some of the tenets of Landmarkism are also a reaction to Landmarkism. No Creeds. (to show that when Campbellites say "where the bible speaks we speak and where the bible is silent we are silent" Baptists could say we have always believed that. No pulpit affiliations with non-Baptists. Though some Particular Baptist churches never let a non-Baptist preach, many did. This was to make sure that Campbellites could not use their own pulpits against them. I could go on for days. In closing, if there had been no Campbellite movement there would have been a much smaller Landmark movement. Just look at the situation with Graves and FBC Nashville. When Graves showed up the church had been gutted by the Campbellites who used their own pulpit against them. Please in whoever replies, do not swear.

Best,

Joe

 

I forgot to say, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a landmarker. I am not a landmarker, but have some of the tenets. The BMA seminary in Texas has some of the best people I have ever met serving at it.

 

Erasmus,

A. I did not swear.

B. You said,

I don't doubt that this is a true statement within itself; I would contend the same thing to the Campbellites today.

What that has to do with the origin of Landmark principles, I am at a loss to comprehend. We know for a fact that Jesse Mercer, so prominent a Baptist that the Baptists of Georgia saw fit to name their college after him, wrote in 1811 - while Alexander Campbell was still a Presbyterian - that the Baptists had a succession of churches and ordained ministry directly from Christ and that Baptists did not accept the immersions of pedo-baptists because they were not part of this succession. Mercer's paper on the subject was endorsed by the Georgia state association as a circular letter.

Since the Baptists already believed that duly authorized ordination of the administrator was essential to the validity of baptism, it would only be natural that when a new heresy arose which separated itself and renounced the Baptist doctrines and Baptist churches that they would treat it's baptism with the same contempt they had always treated alien immersion.

So the principles of Landmarkism did not originate as a reaction to Campbellism. The Landmarkers simply dealt with Campbellism as the Baptists had always dealt with schismatic groups. The only reason Landmarkism became a distinct movement among the Baptists is that some Baptists had begun to forsake the old Baptist way and thus there was a need to call them back to the old landmarks.

Since you apparently missed it, I will quote the statement from Mr. Mercer one more time. Remember, it was written and endorsed by the Georgia state association in 1811 before Alexander Campbell had started his movement and was still preaching as a Presbyterian:

Mark Osgatharp

 

No one said that Landmarkism was not around before Campbellism. I am just saying that Landmarkism was be reduced to just a few pockets of people if it were not for the Campbellite Controversy. If you want to believe in successionism go ahead. By the way do you believe in linked or genetic successionism?

 

Pardon my typo. I have been driving for 12 hours.

 

I'm not sure what the difference would be.

In any event, I believe the gospel and the ordinances were committed to the churches and have been preserved in every age by the churches. I believe that for a church to be valid it must have succeeded (not seceded) in some orderly way from an existing church.

I believe that the only valid ordination is that conferred by a baptized church.

I believe that baptism, to be valid, must have church authority behind it.

I don't believe that means every time someone is baptized or that every time a new church is founded that the church must vote on it (though this is a safe and common practice among Baptists of many stripes). I think that the normal way in which baptism and church succession were perpetuated in ages past is through the work of the ministry which received it's authority by ordination from the churches.

I believe that any man who takes it on himself to preach, baptize, or organize churches has no validity whatsoever. In other words, I don't believe in self ordination any more than I believe in self-baptism.

I believe that any church which secedes in a disorderly way from an existing church has no validity whatsoever. Legitimate churches don't come into existence by schism, human fiat, nor by accident; but rather by divine appointment through the intentional ministry of existing churches.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Would you explain how you are defining the differences in the two?

Also, you mentioned the Seminary in Jacksonville. Did you ever know Louis Asher? Have you read Philip Bryan's dissertations on Associational Baptists and A Critique of the English Separatist Descent Theory? If so, what do you think?

Also I would agree more with the idea that Campbellism "fed" the Landmark movement rather than birthed it, the last of which many appear to be saying.

 

Joe, I happened to be looking at the Nacogdoches paper obituaries today. There was a short article about the oldest member of Iron Wheel Baptist Church. I found out the origin of the name. It was not what I expected (though they still might be or might have been Landmark).

"...there weren't any churches in the small community where she moved to on First Street in New Town. In 1924 Reverend Moran Allen had a vision of a church, he saw an iron wheel lying on the ground. It was a wheel they beat on to get the people's attention to come to church." - The Daily Sentinel, Friday Jan. 6, 2006, p. 6a

 

That is a great story. Almost like something out of Isaiah or Jeremiah.