-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Landmark Baptist thinking support?
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
What part of Landmark think are you referring to?
"Landmark theology, or heritage theology, is the belief among some independent Baptist churches that only local, independent Baptist congregations can truly be called “churches” in the New Testament sense. They believe that all other groups, and even most other Baptists, are not true churches because they deviate from the essentials of landmarkism." (from: What is Landmarkism? What is “Baptist Bride” theology? | GotQuestions.org)
First, I'd say this is more of a theological discussion than an historical one. Second, I took a look a the article at Got Questions and would say that the article is somewhat of caricature of "landmarkism" into one monolithic ecclesiology which it is not. There are many variations.
One caricature is in the title. Landmarkism and “Baptist Bride theology” have similarities and overlap, but they are not one and the same.
One caricature is in the title. Landmarkism and “Baptist Bride theology” have similarities and overlap, but they are not one and the same.
Can they support their beliefs biblically? Are they saying in effect that they are the only valid church in God’s kingdom?
That is part of the question that the OP was raising.
Would it not be good to explore various thinking within this group, not so much to bring some accusation, but to explore the veracity of the Biblical support they use for their doctrinal positions, and their presentation on the view of a historical line of continual baptists.
Yea of course.
Can you present so that others may know?
As I understand the situation, the Landmark "position" grows out of their belief that ekklesia refers only to a local assembly, not a universal one. Mind you this belief is not unique to the Landmark movement.
A New Testament Church is:
An organized, autonomous band of immersed believers, having New Testament officers, practiving New Testament ordinances, and actively carrying out the Great Commission. (Dr. Richard Weeks)
No... I am not well versed in Landmark.
The website of the American Baptist Association, which I suppose is a Landmark denomination, says this in their statement of beliefs, "We believe that Jesus Christ established His church during His ministry on earth and that it is always a local, visible assembly of scripturally baptized believers."
1) The English word "church" literally means the church building, not people. It comes from "the Lord's house". So, someone who refers to a church building as a church is using the word correctly and literally.
2) The Bible often uses the word ekklesia (church) in a universal sense, e.g. "upon this rock I will build my church." Not only does that quote necessarily mean the universal church, but it's a metaphor of a physical building.
3) The ABA's own statement uses the word church in a universal sense, "His church", when it paradoxically defines the word as the local congregation." To avoid contradicting themselves, they should say "His churches..."
4) Even if "church" means literally a local congregation, why do they object to the figurative use of the word church? How many of them ever say something like, "Kids, get in the car so we can go to that building that houses our church"?
5) Some of their preachers will go on to say that the "church" is the congregation only when it's assembled. So, every Sunday when the service is over, the church ceases to exist until next Sunday. <eye roll>
Landmark and other Fundamentalist Baptists have a lot nonsense doctrine to which they demand fealty.
Some of their false doctrines. (Not all groups of them follow all of these, but all follow SOME of them.)
Some landmark groups believe in regenerational baptism.
Like many false churches, they claim theirs is the ONLY way to Jesus.
They believe the KJVO myth.
They deny the one universal church that includes ALL NT believers, regardless of denomination or non-denom status.
They believe in an unbroken succession of their church, a view unsupported by history.
They simply have too many false doctrines & should be avoided.
Some landmark groups believe in regenerational baptism.
Like many false churches, they claim theirs is the ONLY way to Jesus.
They believe the KJVO myth.
They deny the one universal church that includes ALL NT believers, regardless of denomination or non-denom status.
They believe in an unbroken succession of their church, a view unsupported by history.
They simply have too many false doctrines & should be avoided.
Can you document one landmark Baptist Church that teaches salvation is through baptism and/or their church?
Thanks.
Virtually all of the "Primitive Baptist" of the landmark denom teach that, & that baptism is the gateway for entry into their congregation. If one moves & begins attendina another PB church, one must be re-baptized. Most other LM churches teach that only their denom has the authority to baptize. And most say one's salvation isn't complete without that church's baptism. While they don't outright say salvation saves, they IMPLY it subtly by saying it COMPLETES one's salvation. SAME DIFFERENCE !
Primitive Baptists and Landmark Baptists are not the same thing.
Here are a few statements from actual churches.
New Hope Primitive Baptist Church:
Valley Landmark Missionary Baptist Church:
Here are a few statements from actual churches.
New Hope Primitive Baptist Church:
Valley Landmark Missionary Baptist Church:
I disagree with many aspects of Landmark theology, but I have never run across a church that claimed that baptism is salvific.
Some claim that only some (i.e., Landmark) churches can validly baptize and other congregations are not true churches. None, however, that I know of or have read of maintain that salvation is confined to Landmark churches. This is not to say that there aren't some; you can find heresy in every corner of Christendom.
The Primitives that I know of accept baptism from churches of like faith and order, i.e., other Primitive Baptist churches with whom they are in communion. As Baptists, they DO NOT believe that baptism conveys salvation. This was the major bone of contention between the Old School and Regular Baptists and the Campbellites.
Baptist Bridism is an extreme development of Landmarkism, and I do not tar all Landmarkers with the stain of Bridism. It is, in fact, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that only 144,000 Witnesses will be chosen to live in the New Jerusalem and the rest of believers will live in the suburbs.
As far as the OP, I no longer argue about Landmarkism. I refer Landmarkers to John Dagg and leave it at that.
Some claim that only some (i.e., Landmark) churches can validly baptize and other congregations are not true churches. None, however, that I know of or have read of maintain that salvation is confined to Landmark churches. This is not to say that there aren't some; you can find heresy in every corner of Christendom.
The Primitives that I know of accept baptism from churches of like faith and order, i.e., other Primitive Baptist churches with whom they are in communion. As Baptists, they DO NOT believe that baptism conveys salvation. This was the major bone of contention between the Old School and Regular Baptists and the Campbellites.
Baptist Bridism is an extreme development of Landmarkism, and I do not tar all Landmarkers with the stain of Bridism. It is, in fact, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that only 144,000 Witnesses will be chosen to live in the New Jerusalem and the rest of believers will live in the suburbs.
As far as the OP, I no longer argue about Landmarkism. I refer Landmarkers to John Dagg and leave it at that.
I previously ripped on the American Baptist Association, a Landmark Baptist denomination, for their definition of "church" as the congregation, within their Statement of Beliefs (showing how important their nonsense definition is to them). But, under baptism, they say, "Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
That looks innocent enough, until you consider what they probably mean by "a New Testament church." If they didn't have a special meaning, they would have just left out that phrase: "Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That phrase suggests they don't consider most, maybe all non-Landmark, churches to be legitimate.
So, they'll want to rebaptize you, even if it's the fifth time you've been baptized. But, I don't see anything there about baptism saving.
I was taught much the same thing by a non-Landmarker Historic Northern Baptist. The idea of under the authority of an NT Church means the baptism is done on a church's authority. I can remember being in a meeting where the Gospel was presented and an invitation given. We then adjourned to the motel's outdoor pool for a baptismal service.
Possibly, but not necessarily. This can and will vary a lot from church to church.
Right, because they don't believe that. As rsr says above, "This is not to say that there aren't some; you can find heresy in every corner of Christendom." But if one finds an odd duck, you don't say all ducks are that way. Robycop is in error confusing this as part of either Landmark or Primitive faith and practice -- even if one could find an odd duck among them who teaches that. "Blood Before Water & Christ Before the Christ" has been a slogan used by many a Landmark Baptist, such as Landmark Southern Baptist of bygone days, J. H. Grime, when he wrote a booklet under that title in response to the Campbellite view of salvation through baptism.
What you say could easily apply to the American Baptist Association, but it doesn't seem to. Their statement of beliefs also mentions closed Communion, but without saying the church has to administer it. Is it their intent to approve laity to administer Communion? Or, is it just unnecessary to give more details in something as abbreviated as that of a one-page statement of beliefs? If it's unnecessary, why do it for baptism?
And, why use the phrase "New Testament"? Are there any Old Testament churches around? It seems to me they add that phrase as as signal that other churches which practice Believers Baptism are illegitimate, not real New Testament churches. They wouldn't put in that qualifier just to dismiss a few churches (per the rule that something as short as one page isn't going to include minor, fine, or obvious detail).