Landmark Baptist by definition

Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by mark, Mar 29, 2003.

  1. mark

    mark
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/mark.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know Landmarkers believe in Baptist succession, but does the "definition" of a a Landmark Baptist include a belief that one must be baptized by someone who can trace their baptism lineage back to the apostles? I heard that... If so, how is that possible to trace?
     
  2. mark

    mark
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/mark.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, is Landmark a generalization or a specific Baptist group?
     
  3. Frogman

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

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    As near as I can tell there are two camps of landmarkers. Those who do believe the authority to baptize is traceable and those who believe it is not important.

    To prove or to trace this lineage is something that some claim landmarkers will accept what ever they have to in order to make the connection.

    I am a landmarker who believes the authority is valid. I have been studying this for a while and many disagree with me; yet I feel more and more this is true.

    I do admit the trace is difficult to find, mostly for the reason that there is no information given in scripture specifically dealing with this topic. However, this is primarily because there was but 'one' baptism as such there was but one church. The link becomes weaker as churches become more irregular.

    If you are interested in the topic a good read is J.R. Graves. I am not an authority on the subject, but I do believe the authority lays in the church as such and this succession can be traced.

    I also believe this makes baptism the entrance into the church. Many who are landmarkers will not take this belief, but I see it as that which makes one a member. It is certain that no believer is a member of the church without submitting to believer's baptism.

    Hope this helps somewhat.

    Some concerns are: What membership was the eunich baptized into? What about the Damascus body, through which Ananias baptized Paul, was this to make Paul a member of that body? Yet later Paul is joined to Antioch and is ordained of them. Some believe this breaks the landmark position, I do not think these pose a problem.

    Bro. Dallas
     
  4. mark

    mark
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/mark.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Dallas, this is very helpful and interesting. Thank you. Can I ask.. do you know the heritage of your baptism? I tried to trace mine. My pastor was an older gentleman who has gone on to heaven and his wife told me this pastor had been an elderly man and I couldn't get back before the 1800's.
    You mention the baptism of the eunich on the road, I also think that is an excellent argument for immediate baptism, I know every church I have ever attended waits quite a while to baptize.
     
  5. Frogman

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

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. Mark,
    The particular church into which I am baptized has traced itself back through a scripturally organized church in Tennessee, through Rhode Island, and back.

    The thing I believe to substantiate this claim (of church authority) apart from Christ establishing the church is that at the time of the resurrection there was one church in Jerusalem.

    Once the persecution started and they scattered churches were organized. Ananias was the agent which baptized Paul; the problem is this would have been (in my view, if valid) into the membership of the body at Damascus. However, it is from Antioch that Paul is ordained and sent out to the mission work. Prior to this Paul did preach the Gospel, scripture does not say that he baptized any until after his being sent out by the Antioch church.

    So I believe Paul had moved his membership to the church at Antioch. The simple truth (at least to me it is simple) is that the errors of the present day were absent from the church and the baptism would have been readily accepted by Antioch.

    These things then I believe were carried on by other bodies of believers and these were never in need of reform by Luther or any other.

    As I have said, this is what I believe truth, there are landmarkers who do not agree with me, that the succession can be traced. Really I think it is a matter of what is accepted as 'marks' of a "Baptist" church or rather the N.T. church.

    I believe baptism is a major source of division; and it is the introduction of pedo-baptism that first brought the churches into error. I (note "I" beleive) these denying such error in baptism point significantly to the presence of those who would perpetuate the church that Christ established.

    Whether any agree or disagree is not important so much to me. Though I originally did not like it, this belief has gotten me a 'brider' label, but I guess if the shoe fits wear it.

    I do hope what I have said will further encourage your study that the truth would be settled in your heart by the peace of God. I do not intend to tell any they must believe this; but I do not deny my own belief of it.

    This teaching I feel guards the church against errors such as the baptism of a heretic apart from church authority. Such as I beleive the baptism of Alexander Campbell constitutes. The error is that some believe the authority lays with the pastor, but this I believe places the authority where Christ put it, with the church.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  6. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Brother rl vaughn, Clint, and Brother Jeff and I had a discussion a ways back... One was titled... Back To Our Roots and the other On The Banks Of The River... Both can be found in the archive thread here in 2002. One I believe was tracing our roots back to the original and can it be done using a people or by doctrine only. Both these discussions can be read by going into the 2002 Archives and typing in either title... Ask any of these brethren about these two discussions and they will tell you they remember them fondly... Hope you find what you are searching for... Brother Glen The Primitive Baptist [​IMG]

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=000941;p=3

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=000938
     
  7. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Mark,

    If you would like to learn more about Landmark Baptist, this is the web site for the Southern Baptist Landmarkers

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/

    I was schooled under two Landmark professors and consider myself leaning to the Landmark position historically, but by succession.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     

Share This Page

Loading...