SBC Prof & Landmarkism

Rhet, I am curious where the article states that the prof at SBTS is a "Landmark Baptist." I must have missed that part?

 

This isn’t the issue Mr. York. No one disagrees with this. It seems Mr. York has brought his IFB legalism with him when he joined the SBC.

Here is the Pastor in question and his sermon regarding his position:

http://www.emmanuelenid.org/sermons/Principles.htm

Here is his blog:

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2006/02/political-conservatives-vs-cooperating.html

 

Grasshopper,

is your contention really that saying that baptism is by immersion only is some sort of legalism? This is a basic Baptistic tenet, one which far more than just IFBs hold to. And when are we going to get over the habit of linking IFB hand-in-hand with legalism?

It would be just as offensive if I came in here and said "How sad, a good IFB preacher has gone over to the liberal side by joining an SBC organization."

(calm down, I said "IF"....Im not saying that...)

 

A pastor who had retired (SBC), but had been involved in at least two churches that split (I'm not accusing him, just stating fact.) He started attending our church and has become real active in supporting the regular pastor and also filling in and teaching discipleship training.

I walked into a room next to where he was teaching one night and he was giving the link on the internet where people could download the GREAT document "Trail of Blood" from a Landmark Church Website.

I do not know how much formal training he has considering that we are a relatively small church. Our regular pastor does, but a lot of the older pastors from small churches didn't have much, in fact they often frown on it claiming modern liberalism in the Seminary's.

Thoughts?

 

I agree. I see where the article is trying to tie the two together, but the real issue is the clarification rule issued by the IMB on Baptism. I see no place in the article where it is mentioned that the Professor is espousing Landmarkism as a fact or even theory.

Many Southern Baptists are backing the IMB in their published rules, and many are not, but what does this have to do with Landmarkism. Being a pastor at a Landmark church does not qualify one for preaching it while in the SBC denomination.

Did I read this wrong?

 

Sure, too bad he doesn’t want to give it to missionaries on the mission field. There are Missionaries right now that would be required to be re-baptized because of the new “rules”. Despite the fact that their local Church recognizes their baptism as scriptural.

No. Evidently Mr. York is under the assumption that immersion is the “hang up”. Immersion is not the issue. No one disagrees with his statement that I quoted.

That is a fair criticism. I just go by personal experience so perhaps I paint too broad of a picture. Here is the portion that led me to my statement:

Before joining the faculty of Southern Seminary, York served 14 years as associate pastor and pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington, Ky., long an Independent Baptist church that re-entered the Southern Baptist fold in 1996.

The church holds the copyright to a booklet titled The Trail of Blood, written in the 1930s and popular among fundamentalists holding to a view of Baptist origins introduced on the 19th century American frontier called "Landmarkism."

Here is Wade Burleson’s problem with the new rules. I agree with him as I’m sure many do:

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2005/12/old-imb-policies-compared-to-new-imb.html

 

Grasshopper,

thanks for your clarification. I didn't realize that Ashland held the copyright for that booklet, but I know we were taught it at Maranatha BBC....

Is Landmarkism considered wrong by most people here?

 

If the man believes there must be a proper authority as in a proper Baptist, then Jesus' and the apostles baptisms are null and void. Baptisms of believers until the second Baptist must be also null and void.

Being baptized in a Baptist church building is nothing like getting baptized in the ocean in front of many non-believers in the community.

Baptist understandings of doctrine have changed throughout history but the Bible has not and neither has the genuine biblical view.

Can you just imagine any of the apostles asking which Baptist church the people were baptized in before they let them become a member.

I wonder what they would say to me? I was baptized in a non-denominational Bible Church by an IFB pastor.

 

I'll speak for myself and say YES! My understanding is that if you were baptized in a church that is not a Landmark Church, they do not consider you to be scriptually baptized. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Ok, so the problem with what we are calling Landmarkism is their extreme views about baptism? I haven't looked into it much at all....but Im going to venture that just using the "Trail of Blood" does not make one an extreme Landmarker.
In fact, we used it as an integral part of our Baptist History course at Maranatha, and Id never even heard the term Landmark back then. This was over ten years ago, so I don't know what they currently use. We certainly wouldn't claim that someone had to be baptized in a Landmark church in order to be scriptural.

I do believe what I was taught about the origins of the Baptist church, though.

 

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in my part of Western Kentucky, there are Baptists who hold to Landmark views; there are Baptist Churches who do the same. I know none of them who ever made it a test of fellowship with other churches. Forty years ago, there were few non-Landmark Baptist churches in Western Kentucky. Not so today. But even so, as far as I know, the Landmarkers and the non-Landmarkers exchanged letters. And of course, one who was baptized post-salvation, by immersion, non-sacramental, eternal security-believing churches (Baptist, of course) was considered scripturally baptized, whether it held to Landmark views or not.

Tom Butler