Heirs of the Landmark Movement

I should add something concerning those that I list above as "Landmarkers". I have found some of the old-time Missionary Baptists do not accept/use the term for themselves. I think this may hark back to some "bad" encounters with other Missionary Baptists who adamantly declared themselves to be Landmarkers and an accompanying desire not to be associated with them. Despite the rejection of the terminology, their practice reveals the traits of that commonly recognized as Landmarkism, and their history traces to it through the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

I don't really understand the Landmark movement--would somebody kindly explain in simple terms exactly what it is and what their doctrine is?

Thanks,
Linda

 

Linda, you might try this Into to Landmarkism and see if it helps. If might. If not let us know. Have a great day.

 

I thought Landmarkism started with Carroll in the SBC and resulted in the dismissal of Whitsitt at SBTS.

 

Thank you all for your answers--I posted the question in the other Landmark room. I will check out that link rlvaughn.

God bless

 

Landmarkism is predominantly a Southern Baptist movement. Graves, Pendeleton, and Dayton, though from the North made their moves in the south. I recently wrote an article on Landmarkism in Tennessee and you are correct, FBC Nashville was almost destroyed by the Graves/Howell debate over Landmarkism. There are pockets of landmarkism all over the South. THe strongest areas are in east Texas and Louisiana. I believe someone asked about Kentucky. Pendleton was very active in western Kentucky. Over near Owensboro and Paducah there are many Landmark churches. Over in my neck of the woods there are very few. I also believe that someone asked about Nacogdoches Texas and the Ironwheel Baptist Church. I go to Nacogdoches twice a year. I will find out this Spring. I could not imagine that with a name like that it would not be a Landmark church. I have been correspondence with a pastor who identifies himself as a Landmarker in western Kentucky. I am surprised by the fact that he does not understand the tenets of Landmarkism. He has just been told to be a Landmarker and to reject infant baptism. It is my strong belief that Landmarkism was an overreaction against Campbellism and possibly Methodism. Just look at antebellum FBC Nashville.

Best,

Joe

 

Brother Vaughn,

I forgot to say thank you for your kind words about my book. I am glad you enjoyed it. It seems to be doing well, but I am catching some heat from a few individuals.

Joe

 

Joe, I have a few questions. When you wrote that the strongest areas of Landmarkism are in east Texas and Louisiana, were you referring to Landmarkism among Southern Baptists? Second, when you say that you are "catching some heat from a few individuals" over the Hayden book - what kind of heat and from which direction? Third, I think I noticed that you are going to be on the program of the East Texas Historical Society sometime this spring. Will that be held in Nacogdoches or elsewhere?

Thanks.

 

I should have clarified my statement better. Landmarkism is a Baptist in the South thing not particularly a Southern Baptist Thing. Concerning my book, some members of the SBCT do not particularly like the last chapter of my book. I have actually received me attention from the article that was written about in in last Saturday's Dallas Morning News. Some of my statements were taken out of context. Yes, I am in charge of the religion session at the ETHS. This semester we are at Huntsville on the campus of SHSU. I am presenting on the birth of the BMA and Hayden's role. I hope that you can make it. I am not sure how far Huntsville is from Flat Rock.

Joe

 

I have been told that if you draw a line on a map from Lexington, KY to Fort Worth, Texas, that you will find 90% of the Campbellites in the world 200 miles either side of that line, and 90% of the Landmarkers as well. I don't know how one could verify that...

 

Here we are againg, listening to the same tired old lame line that Landmarkism is the bastard child of Campbellism. So again, I will post what I already posted on this matter:

Now you can split all the hairs you want and point out all the things that Mr. Mercer might have said or done that is inconsistent with modern Landmarkism. The fact still remains that if he were among us today he would be classed as an out and out Landmark chain link successsionist Baptist. And he had the weight of the Georgia State Association behind him.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Rehtorician,

Credentials don't mean a thing in the world to me; facts do. If Mr. Early, you, or anyone else have some facts - not opinion but facts - on how the Landmarkers were influenced by the Campbellite movement I'd be glad to hear it and might find some value in it.

I was raised a Landmarker and am a Landmarker. My daddy was raised as a Campbellite in an area of Tennesee where Campbellism rules the religious day. I was raised in Searcy, Arkansas which is one of the biggest hotbeds of Campbellism in this country. I know Campbellite doctrine better than most Campbellites do and I know Landmarkism inside and out. I know full well that Baptists have been effected by the Campbellite movement.

All of that notwithstanding, I also know that the principles on which Landmark eccesiology rests - the most significant of which, in my opinion, is the doctrine of church succession - did not originate with the historic movement we know as Landmarkism and did not originate in reaction to Campbellism, as is so often asserted and as my above post proves.

Now unless you can provide evidence that Jesse Mercer did not actually write the above quoted circular or that it was not adopted by the Georgia State Association of Baptists year 1811, it will stand as a monument to the fact that Baptist successionism was well accepted Baptist doctrine before ther rise of Campbellism and before the rise of the Landmark movement.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Since we are engaging in so much historical guess work here, let me do some of my own. I think the alienist movement among Baptists grew up as an accomodation of Campbellism.

Prior to the rise of Campbellism non-Baptist immersions on a profession of faith (what came to be known as "alien immersions") were rare. The Baptist associations had, with only a few exceptions, advised that such immersions were null and void, as one astute observer pointed out, "no better than if you fell in a mud hole."

But with the rise of Campbellism and the schism that followed, such immmersions became common. Numerous Baptist churches were rent assunder and many individuals and families were swayed one way and the next. Ultimately, the Baptist churches were put in the position of having to decide whether to receive immersions administered within the Campbellite schism.

The more conservative Baptists, adhering to the old Baptist principles, viewed Campbellite immersions in the same light as immersion in the Protestant churches - null and void, "no better than if you fell in a mud hole." But a good number, perhaps a majority, of the Baptists accepted the Campbellite immersions and thus opened the door for all alien immersion (including, in some cases, Mormon immersion).

Thus the old Baptist positition of authority for baptism through a regularly ordained Baptist ministry began to fade. That is when the Landmark movement arose in an effort to restore what had been lost and strengthen what remained. By God's grace they were highly successful in their efforts and by the end of the 19th century there were few southern Baptists outside the southeast (which had become a seed bed for the pseudo-intellectualism and acedemic elitism that almost always accompanies loose religious views) which received alien immersions.

Unfortunately, the leaven of acedemic elitism which kept the southeast in bondage to religious liberalism kept it's hold within the southern educational system and thus, by the middle of the 20th century, the Landmarkism which had triumphed in the later 19th century was suppressed and supplanted by Fundamentalism, neo-evangelicalism and raw infidelity.

It is interesting to note that in the southeast, the area which held out against Landmarkism, modernism gained it's strongest hold. Where once Landmarkism was decried, now infidelity and even sodomy is lauded! Oh, what a sad and bitter commentary on the fate of those who move the ancient landmarks which our Father set!

Mark Osgatharp

[ December 31, 2005, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Mark Osgatharp ]

 

I think this is a valid point to investigate. Many of the previous baptisms necessarily rejected were infant baptisms and non-immersion. The need for Baptists clarifying their position because of the Campbellites did help give rise to Landmarkism as a movement. It might have even caused some extremism on the part of some. It DID NOT create the doctrines of Landmarkism, all of which existed among Baptists prior to the movement.

The following is an account of the Mississippi Baptist Association and its statements on the issue of Campbellism. Mississippi Baptist Association was the oldest Baptist association in Mississippi, which began in 1806 at Salem Baptist Church in Natchez.

It appears that Ezra Courtney, moderator of the association, first drew the sword against Campbell and Campbellism in a circular letter written in 1831, pointing out their doctrine as heresy. Two years later the association "Resolved, unanimously, That this Association discountenance and will not fellowship or knowingly commune with any church or individual member who holds the doctrines or dogmas held by the Christian Baptists, alias the Campbellites..." (pp. 48-49, 51)

In 1839 the association gave its opinion on valid baptism (especially in relation to the Campbellites): "That a regularly authorized administrator, a believer in Christ, and an immersion in the name of the Trinity, are the three things necessary. Therefore, immersion administered by Campbellite preachers, or 'reforming teachers,' as they styled themselves, was not valid baptism." (p.56)

The problem of Campbellite baptisms appeared to still be troublesome. In 1848, New Providence Church presented the following query, "Is it according to gospel order to receive members from the Campbellites without rebaptism?" Some technicality about how queries were to be presented prevented the association's consideration of it, so to set forth their position, they adopted a resolution:

"Resolved, That this Association deems it unscriptural for a church to receive a person as a member from the Campbellites, Reformers, or any other denomination without baptism." (p. 69)

All quotes from Abstract History of the Mississippi Baptist Association by T. C Schilling, (J. G. Hauser, New Orleans, 1908)

 

Speaking of the Campbell contribution to the rise of the Landmark movement, what do you all think of the American Bible Society controversy over "baptism/baptizo" contributing to the rise of it?

In his thesis, A Study of the Antecedents of Landmarkism, LeRoy B. Hogue wrote, "The immediate concern of this chapter is to show the relationship of the Bible controversy to the development of the Landmark movement of later years. It will be seen that the conflict did undoubtedly contribute to the fostering of ideas and attitudes among Baptists which not only aided the beginning of the Landmark movement but also made possible its rapid spread among Baptists."

I've not heard this idea oft-promoted. Is he wrong? Hogue doesn't particularly assert influence of Graves, et al. as much as the denomination in general.