Is it 'An Old Landmark' to pass positional judgement?

Frogman · Jan 19, 2008

Recently, discussions have seemed to be focused toward an assumed fact of the ability of individual believers and perhaps of churches to pass judgment upon the eternal validity of one's testimony related to one's position in Christ.

Below is an excerpt from J.R. Graves' Old Landmarkism in ch. 11 refuting contemporary opposition to his stated beliefs of the scriptural NT church. He speaks better on the topic than I can or do. Here is his statement:

A very interesting statement made by J.R. Graves in his book Old Landmarkism,
Chapter 11

Found at: http://www.pbministries.org/History/J. R. Graves/Old Landmarkism/old_landmarkism_11.htm

Landmark Baptist are continually charged by all who oppose their characteristic principles and policy—Baptists who know better, not excepted—with many and grievous offenses, in order to make us obnoxious to our own brethren and, detested by all others. It seems proper, therefore, at this point, to refute all these, by stating, first, what Old Landmarkism is not, before making a summary of what it is.

1. Old Landmarkism is not the denial of spiritual regeneration to those with whom we decline to associate ministerially or ecclesiastically.
Still we by no means feel warranted in saying that we believe that the members of those societies, which hold and teach that baptism is a sacrament or seal of salvation, or essential to the remission of sins—as all Pedobaptists and Campbellite societies do hold and teach—are Christians, or even presumptively regenerate, since they do not require a credible evidence of regeneration as a condition of membership. They may believe that baptism, "duly administered," confers the grace of regeneration upon adults and infants as well, but Baptist do not, and, therefore we cannot believe that because they are members, it is therefore probable that they are regenerate, as we are justified in believing with respect to Baptist Churches that require a credible profession of regeneration in every instance. It must be true that the vast mass of Pedobaptists, and the overwhelming mass of the membership of Campbellite societies are unregenerate, and we are not justified in applying to them the title of brethren in Christ; for we will thereby mis-teach them, and brethren, ecclesiastically, we know they are not.
But Landmarkism does not pretend to sit in judgment upon the state of any man’s heart, but upon his ecclesiastical relations only. Refusing to affiliate with them, ministerially and ecclesiastically, is not declaring by our act that we believe their ministers and members are unregenerate, but that they are not members of scriptural Churches. Refusing to invite their ministers to preach for our churches, and to accept their immersions, is no more denying their Christian character than refusing to invite them to our communion table—Baptist know this, and all Pedobaptists ought to know it. We mean by our refusal, to emphasize our protest against their organizations as scriptural churches, and consequently against their ministers as authorized to preach and to administer the church ordinance’s. We do not recognized unbaptized and unordained men, who are Baptists in sentiment, as scriptural ministers, and qualified to administer Church ordinances; and why should we be expected to recognize those we regard as disqualified, and who violently oppose our faith and practice? It is manifestly inconsistent in Baptists to do so, and Pedobaptists know and freely admit it. In all mere Christian duties, as private Christians, we are at liberty to participate, but never ministerially or ecclesiastically. By no act that can possibly be so construed, must we recognize other societies as Christian churches, or other ministers as Scriptural ministers.

Click to expand...

Useful Searches

Is it 'An Old Landmark' to pass positional judgement?

Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr