"Landmark Baptist sentiment in the Southern Baptist Convention
Landmarkism continued as the dominant ecclesiology among Southern Baptists well into the twentieth century and some Landmark concepts continue to influence the Southern Baptist Convention as evidenced by the recent decision of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board to require its missionaries to abstain from receiving alien immersions. In this vein it should be remembered that the original separation of the Landmark churches from the Southern Baptist Convention was as much a reaction against Conventionism itself than to any perceived drift of Southern Baptists away from Landmark principles of ecclesiology. Many Southern Baptists have no interest in Landmarkism and even those who embrace some Landmark concepts of ecclesiology usually disassociate themselves from the Landmark movement. There are exceptions to this, particularly in the Mississippi River valley (Southern Illinois, western Kentucky, western Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana), as well as in parts of Texas, Michigan, and Oregon. There are many Southern Baptists in these areas who are strong landmarkers in both doctrine and in name. " (taken from the Wikipedia article on Landmarkism)
"Though numerous churches and some organizations use the terms Landmark and Landmark Baptist in their name, there is no identifiable sub-group of Baptists known as the Landmark Baptist Church.Landmark ideas of ecclesiology still exist within the Southern Baptist Convention, but are more closely associated with the American Baptist Association, the Baptist Missionary Association of America, and the Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association. Many Independent Baptist churches and most unaffiliated Missionary Baptist local associations also hold this ecclesiology...Some other Baptists, such as Primitive Baptists, hold ecclesiological viewpoints that are very similar to Landmarkism." (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Landmark:Baptist:Church.htm)
This is definitely an avenue that I would like to explore more deeply. I have for a long time wished that all Baptist churches who are still standing for Bible truths on salvation and the church in both doctrine and practice could somehow unite into one fellowship.
This would include those who hold to what are considered the fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as: salvation by grace apart from works or ceremonies, the virgin birth, literal Creation, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, his incarnation and sinless humanity, security of the believer, substitutionary atonement, the divine inspiration of the original autographs and the preservation of the Scriptures in all native languages (especially the KJV in English), the indwelling of the Spirit in all believers from the point of saving faith, etc.
Also, they would need to hold to the cessation of the miraculous, spiritual manifestation gifts excluding only faith, hope, and charity with the close of New Testament revelation.
Also, they would need to hold to a literal, premillenial, personal, bodily return of Christ and the bodily resurrection of all those dead in Christ as well as the Great White Throne judgment of the lost at the expiration of Christ's thousand year reign.
They should also reject the five-points of Calvinism, or the TULIP doctrine.
Also, they should use unleavened bread and grape juice as the elements for the Lord's Supper.
Then, they should be Landmark Baptists in ecclesistical doctrine and practice including: that salvation is in no way based upon church affiliation or totally dependent upon church influence; that while those in other churches may be saved, Baptist churches are not Protestant churches, but rather predate Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and nondenominational churches, that these are schisms from Baptists and are therefore invalid churches; belief in the nature of the church to be local only; belief in the perpetual succession of Baptist churches from the shores of Galilee; that practice a strict discipline; the rejection of all alien immersions (non-Baptists), open communion, participation in ministerial alliances, union worship services, nondenominational conferences, singing conventions, or in any other function, cooperation in any secular cause, or support of any program or use of materials that would construe recognition of false churches and false ministers as gospel churches and gospel ministers or that directly promotes ecumenism; and their interchurch cooperation should be by support direct to missionary, benevolent, or Christian educational causes, sponsored by local churches or through an associated program of missions, benevolence, and Christian education which is based upon church representation, equality, independence, and sovereignty, and are under direct control of the churches.
As to a name, this fellowship could be called the Landmark Association of Missionary Baptists (LAMB) with the slogan being: "Proclaiming the Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world..." (John 1:29)
What think ye?
Don't think it would "work". You might get five or six churches who were interested. Several of the things you wish to unite on are what churches are already divided over.
ReplyDeleteBut if anyone is interested they certainly have the right.
Bro. Younglandmarker,
ReplyDeleteI too, have wished (and still do) that we could have a fellowship (and a loose one at that) very much like, if not like, you are advocating. I believe it would be desirable. (The statement and basis for fellowship would have to be broad but still not compromise what we might could call the basics: such as, Salvation by Grace, Security of the Believer, Scriptural Baptism, Closed Lord's Supper, Local Church only etc. and if one is sound on these he will usually be sound on the others essentials.)
I have found that there are some so-called Independent Baptists that believe much like the 21 point doctrinal statement that has been adopted by the ABA. They are definitely Landmark in belief and practice. Many of them have fellowships but they shy away from the word association.
As to the elements of Lord's Supper I agree with you. However, I know of some who fellowship in the ABA and no doubt some so-called independents who definitely believe in using what I call alcoholic-content wine and yet believe in closed Lord's Supper. I believe they are incorrect on that stance (alcoholic-content wine), but do not believe it is an issue in which is serious enough to break fellowship over.
When you are out of Ark, LA, TX, OK, FL, MS, and CA and other like areas you have to travel a long long way to have fellowship with other ABA pastors and churches.
Well, there is more to be said but I must at this time sign off. May God Bless.
Joseph L. Looney II
Gillette, WY
***Preaching Jesus Christ and Him Crucified: ***The only ONE who can forgive our sins:
***The only Way of Eternal Salvation; ***The One and Only Saviour.
Bro. Looney,
ReplyDeleteI for the life of me don't understand where some are so sound on other points, and would never accept anything but unleavened bread which is by definition a process of fermentation (and all would agree that leaven pictures sin) and yet will accept fermented wine. What makes it fundamental to me is that it is an issue of the representation Christ's blood.
The same with the King James. It is a question of the Word of God. Clearly all can't be right because of Revelation 22:18,19 which says "don't add to or take away." There are too many fundamental differences. A good example is Acts 8:37: it is out, in brackets, or out in the footnotes of modern versions. What is the worst is when you point out the differences to those who favor modern versions, they will say something to the effect of: "Well, at least we have the message." This is the same argument used by those who doubt the inspiration of the Scriptures. When you read 2 Timothy 3:16,17 you even more clearly see it is not just a matter of preference but actually an inspiration issue. Many will say the originals were inspired...well, we don't have the original autographs, so do we not have the inspired Word of God today? If it cannot be translated properly from one language to another, do we want to pass off what we preach from as the Word of God? Also, God promised to preserve His word and to all generations. We would agree that we are not a Greek and Hebrew speaking generation. I don't understand why so many want to consider especially these two issues as minors. It apppears to me that if we can't get a consensus in the ABA, then we should just call it a minor and let it go.
There is another issue which if you really examine it, is a fundamental issue, because it's a hindrance to carrying out the Great Commission, but I will not go into it, at least for now.
As for some other issues, such as footwashing, to me this is in error, because it was a custom used by the Lord to teach an object lesson in humility and not an ordinance instituted in the Lord's churches, but I would not make a divide over it because it really violates no cardinal doctrine.
Brethren, as far as true "fellowship" for there to be such thing, you first recognise the other fellow's rights to His own study and interpretation of the Scriptures. The 21 articles of the ABA statemant have ben gone over and over for the last 38 years that I have ben attending. altho they have changed some. I have even seen one or two people storm out of a meeting shouting at the Messingers because they would not adopt His statement on useing the KJV excluesively. No fellowship can ever occur where one brother would try to dictate to another Brother. Marlin Freeman
ReplyDeleteDefinitely don't think this idea will ever come into reality. After all, those who agree in their own bounds can't stay unified (notice the NABA split.)
ReplyDeleteBrethren,
ReplyDeleteThis post may truly be a little idealistic on my part, but had at least two goals: 1) It shows there is a positive side of defending the faith. 2) I am not so anti-non ABA Missionary Baptist Baptist as some probably think that I am.
Bro. Freeman,
Do you think that being KJV is just a matter of interpretation? I showed Scriptures to prove that all can't be the Word of God as they claim. I would rather stick with the KJV than others that remove whole verses (I picked out Acts 8:37 which is a Biblical example of a profession of faith required for baptism for an example. Go to any parallel translation website on the net. Change the verse to any popular translation such as NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, TM, HCSB (has it in brackets), or NKJV (out in footnotes) to see if it is true.), the blood, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, etc. Also, I like Bro. Looney have come across folks that are very sound otherwise but believe it must be wine for the Lord's Supper. These same people would not dare use fermented (leavened) bread but claim that fermented wine is better than unfermented grape juice. The Bible clearly teaches that the Israelites were to remove all things leavened from their houses. As much as there are those I would desire fellowship with, when you mess with the Word of God and the elements that represent the blood of Christ, it hinders our fellowship. I also gave an example of a doctrine I disagree with but would not make a test of fellowship (foot washing). You don't have to agree with me 100% to have fellowship.
One doctrine I failed to add is that a church in the fellowship would be one that has a pure congregational form of church government.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100% on the grape juice issue, but I did recently hear a church tell me why grape juice is not used.
ReplyDelete#1 - You must know that wine can be taken on long trips or preserved without gaining harmful bacteria. Wines are, therefore, purer. This is why Paul told Timothy to stop drinking water, and instead take a little wine with him for his stomach's sake. The water gained bacteria, whereas the wine could be taken on trips and remain clean.
#2 - You must know this is a picture of the pure blood shed.
#3 - You must know that the grape juice which allows and contains bacteria taints the picture of the pure blood of Christ, whereas the wine which is without harmful bacteria is a better picture of the pure blood of Christ (just like the bread which must be unleavened).
So you see, this argument some use actually does "picture" a pure blood in their mind. They also realize the Jews use alcoholic wine in their passover and have for quite some time.
They also argue that churches only stopped using alcoholic wine when Prohibition began.
So, the only real way to argue this (in my opinion) is to show how it contradicts other Scriptures about not looking on wine when it gives its color or moves itself, and it is a mocker, and how it is not for princes or kings to drink wine.
Bro. Melton, I never spoke in favor of nor aganst the KJV. I only pointed out a historic incinent that happened in 2002 at an ABA meeting.
ReplyDeleteI set that bit of history out to prove that for fellowship to be had, you must not make "everything" a test of fellowship.
Historically, Baptists are suspicious and reluctant to associate in official capacities. The bigger the association, the more suspicious we become. This is rooted in our fear of the violation of church autonomy, as well as our fear of false doctrine infiltrating our churches like leaven.
ReplyDeleteSolid associational activity comes when pastors and churches network and fellowship. Sometimes this is done within an organized association (like the ABA) and sometimes this is done through unofficial networking and fellowshipping (such as when a Landmark ABA church cooperates and fellowships with a Landmark BMA, or Landmark Independent Baptist Church).
In a perfect world, all Landmark Baptist Churches would gather together, form an association, and go about planting other Landmark Baptist Churches. In reality, the afore mentioned fears (however legitimate) will likely prevent such an association from forming.
Hope I didn't miss the point of this post.
Bro. Freeman,
ReplyDeleteI do not make "everything" a test of fellowship. However, the issue of Bible versions is an issue of whether we have the Word of God or not and wine or grape juice is an issue of the representation of the blood of Christ. You cannot get more fundamental than that. It rather irks me that we seemingly declare an issue to be a "minor" whenever we cannot come to a consensus in the ABA.