Historians debate reasons for rise of Landmarkism in 19th century

I find it curious that of all those groups cited by Landmarkers as progenitors, apparently none of them can qualify as having New Testament doctrines and practices. Not a single one. That's why I asked in the previous post if there were any, and could somebody name them.

Successionism is not a hill on which I'm willing to die. But perpetuity is. Is the Landmarker list a list of perfect groups? Naw, of course not. But I repeat, if this list doesn't qualify, which ones do? If there are any.

 

Hello Brother Jim,

You too Tom..


You said jim...

There were other churches. It would be silly to say there were no other churches other than the RCC.

Many indeed.

But were they Baptist? That is the point trying to be forced by landmarkers. I say no.

Not at all Jim.

Why must there be only two choices on this?

Yes. In a technical way you are right.

CULT>>>>> A Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream. wiki

We were not in the mainstream at all, if you look at our numbers side by side with the RCC

God has never depended on man to approve and then go on to argee with his Words in order for it to become truth. Truth is truth even if mankind never agrees.

Please don't be amazed. The church didn't recognize the full canon at all times, but that does not mean the full canon was not always there. The Trinity was truth before man know it to be truth. You may remember the dark ages. They were "dark" days, because the churches...all of them both the RCC and outside the RCC, stopped preaching grace. Yet while the church stopped preaching it...grace was still true.

***********

When it comes to history in landmarkism, you have two choices.

1) Believe it in faith.

For this...there is not much I can say that will change your mind. Thus far this has been the arugment seen on these threads. Its hard to debate just faith.

2) You can prove it with facts from history.

This you will have a hard time doing.

 

Maybe it would help if we say "what makes us Baptist?"

I mean, if had a RCC and a Methodist and a Baptist, what would set a Baptist apart from the others?

 

Not all landmarkist claim that the aside churches were baptist. Some of them held to very weird viewpoints and doctrines, but essentially they passed along baptism by immersion of believers only and church autonomy.....Others maintained additional doctrines.

Much of church history is dominated by the Church of Rome and we utilize profane history for evidences of the aside churches or groups.

Some make the claim for Smythe, but there were Baptist Churches in Wales before Smythe and these churches planted a church in England long before Smythe in Holland or the other chaps in New England.

Where did the Welsh Baptist Churches come from?

I admit there are gaps, but I can wait to discover who filled those gaps.

I don't make landmarkism a test of fellowship, but I still believe it is true. Some made a "denomination" out of it; I don't.

Cheers,

Jim

 

James, there is an element of faith involved in this. I have faith in Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. There follows an element of reasoning from that faith.

First, if Jesus' promise is true, there have always been New Testament churches.
Second, I believe Baptists as a general rule hold to doctrines and practices nearest to those we see pictured in the first-century New Testament.
Third, New Testament churches which existed from then to now held similar doctrines and practices as modern Baptists.

Were they exactly alike? Are today's Baptist churches exactly alike? We still claim kinship with each other for the most part. That kinship is based on our view of baptism--believers only, by immersion, no infant baptism, no sacramentalism. And those views were the basis of persecution by the RCC before the reformation, and post-reformation churches afterward. Which, by the way, still practiced infant baptism.

 

Hello Tom and Jim,

I have high respect for both of you. Through the few years I have been on the BB, your post have enlighten me many times to truths I had never seen. This maybe the case again on this subject. However, I do not come to the debate with just a small amount of information from a book or two. I once wanted this idea to work for me. I spent years trying to prove the trail back to the early church, way before I even knew it was called Landmarkism.

I want to say this about church history. I know so much about church history, that it has lead me to KNOW, that I know very little about church history. History is so vast that you can only read and study highlights. I say this because each time I have brought myself to believe I have mastered one time frame, someone will show me something I never knew before.

Now on the subject of Landmarkism, as I said I spent years trying to make it work, both from a historical standpoint and logical. In both cases I failed. Before I start in showing you what I see as major problems, I want to ask two things.

Does Landmarkism, holdup your faith? If you remove it as if it were not true, would your faith still remain?

second...
It is very very importain to know what a Baptist is. You have brought a short list...."..baptism--believers only, by immersion, no infant baptism, no sacramentalism".

Must these elements be in place in order for us to call them Baptist? If we remove just one of these elements is the group no longer baptist? Are there other elements we must add?

I want you to really think about this before you post. Let me show you why. If we were to include all groups in history to show a trail based only on these elements, we would have to include groups like JWs. Are JWs Baptist? I'm sure you would say no.

In Christ..........James

 

James, when you write, I pay attention.

Were Landmarkism found to be untrue, it would not diminish my faith. I am not a complete Landmarker. I have what I describe as Landmark tendencies.

I recognize that the paper trail from now to back then is not complete. A former pastor of mine gave me this example:

"If you come up to a pond, with wagon tracks running to the waters edge, and find wagon tracks on the other side of the pond, you may with some assurance know that a real wagon went through the pond. When you find a wagon a few miles down the road, it is a reasonable assumption that this is the same wagon that went through the pond."

the paper trail problem does not diminish my belief that God has always had a people who went through the pond. We may disagree on whether those groups normally claimed by Landmarkers as spiritual progenitors are actually that. But we can certainly believe that God preserved his churches. The point of contention is whether we can identify them.

Now, what if you remove one of those elements of baptism from my short list, are they still Baptists? May answer is no. A sprinkling church, a baby-baptizing church, a baptismal regeneration or sacramental church cannot rightly call itself Baptist. And yes, we probably could add other elements to flesh out the description. Eternal security, for one. The deity of Christ for another.

James, I have to admit that derive a lot of fun on this board by pushing people's hot buttons. I learned early on that when you attack the idea of a Universal Church, people get bent out of shape. So when the Landmark topic surfaces, I know I'm about to have some real fun. My sinful nature, I guess.

Some elements of Landmarkism (or the logical extension of those elements) I am not quite ready to accept. But some of them I do, and truth be known, a lot of Baptists who would reject the whole package buy into some elements.

So, a hill on which to die? No, but a hill on which to do some rough-housing, yes..

 

History itself is not perfect. Some delineates facts recorded by someone else, some record events and include a lot of opinion.

Tracing landmarkism is not a perfect science. We interject some history. Generally we work backwards. We start with the modern church and its concepts and work our way, as logically as we can, in history.

Just as there are multiple types of baptists to-day, so in history there were all kinds of church groups with variations in doctrines. We take some essentials: Lordship of Christ; deity, parts of the word in truth, baptism by immersion of believers only, the need of the new birth. Some of the groups retained a few of these, some all of them, and some of them even disputed some of them. The latter demonstrated that someone did believe that doctrine for another to dispute it.

The big question is where did the truth of the NT go if someone didn't retain it along the way. There were baptistic churches before the reformation and they didn't come out of the Church of Rome. Still, even the Church of Rome retained some essential theology whilst adding things that aren't in scripture.

The Church of England did immerse early on. Queen Elizabeth I was immersed. Old Anglican Churches in England have immersion tanks. Some are under the lecturn and some are off to the side of the church. The fact is, they are there. Also, if an adult requests adult believers baptism, the vicar must accomodate them by church laws. My wife is Anglican and is immersed as a believer.

Baptist distinctives were delineated in later years, but we claim they stem from the NT churches.

Landmarkism is not just American. It existed in England and was brought to America by the Particular Baptists. I am not connecting the two with American Landmarkism. I think they were formed without each other.

I don't force it on anyone. Some do. There are shortcomings, but the basic thesis is always in my mind. Who did the Church of Rome persecute for doctrines alien to it; baptism by immersion being one of them.

Then, why were all the church groups formed out of the reformation, adopt different governments and infant baptism?

Did someone after the reformation suddenly wake up and discover believer's baptism? Smith didn't even get it right. He poured water on his own head and did the same to some of his followers. Yet many claim him on "our" side.

If someone wants to follow landmarkism I am ok with that. If someone wants to make it a test of fellowship, I will have something to say about that. It is not a soul-saving thing. It is just another historical read.

Cheers,

Jim

 

sorry it has taken so long to post again.

It is hard to know just how to start on this. I do feel we must define a Baptist before we begin or will will not know what we are looking for. Its a given by all that the "other groups" of the past that line the trial in Landmarkism have somethings we would not agree with. But do they have what it takes to call them Baptistic?

so...I must ask agin what is a Baptist?

 

bump one, two, three, four