# Errors of Landmarkism



## Pergamum

I am looking for resources on Landmarkism, it's good points and, good refutations of its errors.

Thanks.


----------



## Sven

I have never heard of such a thing, but based upon the name, I had a feeling I could guess what it was. I was pretty close. How did you hear about Landmarkism, and how wide spread is it? 

I was not able to nail down any good resources, but I could tell you that I'm sure you might find some applications from the Anti-Donatist writings of Augustine (as long as you do not fully accept his views on the Church), and the writings of the Reformers against the Anabaptists. 

The search I did on the internet gave a bunch of resources refuting Landmarkism, but most of them (if not all) were from non-Reformed backgrounds.


----------



## Kevin

Pergy I am not aware of any good points. 

Perhaps you could say that none of its advoctes wasted alot of money on the graduate study of history...


----------



## DMcFadden

Pergy, most of the Baptist histories and archives include loads of stuff on Landmarkism. I will try to pull up some stuff later today after returning from running some errands.


----------



## Marrow Man

McGoldrick's book _Baptists and Successionism_ is not exactly addressing the same topic (he is dealing more with the "trail of blood" literature), but it might prove fruitful, as it interacts with some of the groups Sven mentions above.


----------



## TimV

Anabaptist cults have for centuries claimed that they were the only true churches, the only churches that never came out of the great whore of Babylon, that no baptism, even of adults is valid unless it's done in one of their type of churches, that they are a small minority, but that's fine since the church at Corinth only had 20 members, Calvin was taught the doctrines of grace by his wife who was the widow of a landmark baptist......I knew one of their pastors who wore his green suit on St. Patrick's Day since St. Patrick was one of them....and it just goes on and on.

Another thing that, in common with baptists who use the same names for themselves but don't have hierarchical denominations where the individual churches aren't held accountable is obvious. One is of necessity limited when pinning their beliefs down, since one church doesn't have to believe what the other down the road believes.

Not to say that many of them aren't great people; they are! It's just that the poison of baptist beliefs followed to their logical outcomes, as in landmark, missionary and associated baptist churches leads to strange practices. I look back on my short time in one of their churches (just after college) with memories a mix of nostalgia for the good times and embarrassment at what I used to believe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin said:


> Pergy I am not aware of any good points.
> 
> Perhaps you could say that none of its advoctes wasted alot of money on the graduate study of history...



 It's sort of the Baptist version of the RCC's "...we've always been the true Church..." with historical redaction to try to draw a straight line to current form and practice.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is why I ask these questions on Landmarkism:


My church describes themselves as "Sovereign Grace Baptist." They agree with the 1689.

However, many of the other churches that we fellowship with describe themselves by the same label of "Sovereign Grace Baptist" but are Landmarkers and describe themselves as "Non-Protestant, local church only, and Landmark" descriptions that I am right now disputing. 

A group of people, many from churches affiliated with my church, started a facebook group and are advancing the definition of "Sovereign Grace Baptist" by these labels of "Non-Protestant, Landmark, and local church only." Not content to let sleeping dogs lie, and being in the thick of churches labeled as Sovereign Grace and being from a very respected Sovereign Grace Church, I am disputing this description.



The key battleground right now is the nature of the church, which they claim is only local. They say that I have bad ecclesiology because I advocate the universal church, as per the 1689.


So, I need specific resources regarding the universal nature of the church, preferably by calvy baptists from the past (John Dagg hasproved helpful). 


The latest article posted in order to counter my assertions is this article by AW Pink: 






> DOES FIRST CORINTHIANS 12 MEAN THE
> 
> UNIVERSAL CHURCH
> 
> OR
> 
> A LOCAL NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH
> 
> Arthur W. Pink
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> For almost ten years after his regeneration the writer never doubted that the "body" spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 had reference to "the Church Universal." This was taught him by those known as "Plymouth Brethren," which is found in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and is widely accepted by evangelicals and prophetic students. Not until God brought him among Southern Baptists (a high privilege for which he will ever be deeply thankful) did he first hear the above view challenged. But it was difficult for him to weigh impartially an exposition which meant the refutation of a teaching received from men highly respected, to say nothing of confessing he had held an altogether erroneous concept so long, and had allowed himself to read 1 Corinthians 12 (and similar passages) through other men’s spectacles. However, of late, the writer has been led to make a prayerful and independent study of the subject for himself, with the result that he is obliged to renounce his former view as utterly untenable and unscriptural.
> 
> The Authorized Version of 1 Corinthians 12:13 reads as follows: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into the body"—concerning this we shall have more to say later on. On 1 Corinthians 12 Dr. Scofield, in his Reference Bible, has this to say: "Chapter 12 concerns the Spirit in relation to the body of Christ. This relation is twofold: (1) The baptism with the Spirit forms the Body by uniting believers to Christ, the risen and glorified Head, and to each other (vs. 12, 13). The symbol of the Body thus formed is the natural, human body (v. 12), and all the analogies are freely used (vs. 14-26). (2) To each believer is given a spiritual enablement and capacity for specific service," etc., etc. In capitalizing the word "body" Dr. Scofield unquestionably has in mind "the Church Universal." Should there be any doubt upon this point it is at once dispelled by a reference to the notes of Dr. Scofield on Hebrews 12:23—"The true church, composed of the whole number of regenerate persons from Pentecost to the First Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:52,) united together and to Christ by the baptism with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12, 13), is the Body of which He is the Head." It is to be noted that in both places the Doctor speaks of "the baptism with the Spirit," but in 1 Corinthians 12:13 there is no mention made at all of any baptism "with" the Holy Spirit, either in the English or in the Greek; such is merely a figment of the Doctor’s imagination.
> 
> The Revised Version of 1 Corinthians 12:13 reads thus: "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body." We believe this is much better and a more accurate translation of the Greek than the Authorized Version rendering. But we have one fault to find with the Revised Version rendering too. The capitalizing of the word "spirit" (pneumati) is utterly misleading, and while it is well nigh impossible to get the real meaning of the verse. For the benefit of those who do not read the New Testament in the Greek, we may say that in the language in which the New Testament was originally written there are no capital letters used, except at the beginning of a book or paragraph. Pneuma is always written in the Greek with a small "s," and it is a question of exposition and interpretation, not of translation in any wise, whether a small "s" or a capital "S" is to be used each instance where the word for spirit is used. In many instances it is translated with a small "s"—spirit (Matt. 5:3; Rom. 1:4; 1:9; 1 Cor 2:11; 5:3; etc.). In others, where the Holy Spirit of God is referred to, a capital is rightly employed. Furthermore, the Greek word pneuma is used not only to denote sometimes the Holy Spirit of God, and at others the spirit of man ( as contra-distinguished from his soul and body), but it is also employed psychologically; we read of "the spirit (neuma)of meekness" (1 Cor. 4:21), and of "the spirit (neuma) of cowardice" (2 Tim. 1:7), etc. Again, in Philippians 1:27 we read "stand fast in one spirit." Here "spirit" has the force of oneness of thought, accord, object. Note that in Philippians 1:27 the Greek for "in one spirit" is precisely the same in every respect, as the Greek at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 12:13, and in Philippians 1:27 even the translators of the Authorized Version have used only a small "s" for "spirit"—as they most certainly ought to have done in 1 Corinthians 12:13. One other point concerning the Greek: The preposition translated "by" in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is "en," which is translated in the New Testament "among" 114 times, "by" 142, "with" 139, "in" 1,863 times. Comment is needless. "In one spirit were we all baptized" should be the rendering of 1 Corinthians 12:13. The "baptism" here is not Holy Spirit baptism at all, but water baptism. Note: whenever we read of "baptism" in the New Testament without anything in the verse or context which expressly describes it (as in Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:5, etc.), it is always water baptism which is in view.
> 
> "In one spirit were we all baptized into one body." Into what body? The "church Universal" or a local church of Christ? We submit that a careful study of 1 Corinthians 12 can furnish only one possible answer—a local Baptist church. Note the following points.
> 
> (1) The head of the "body" described here in 1 Corinthians 12 is seen to be on earth—verse 16, 17. Now it would be utterly incongruous to represent the Head of the mystical, universal church (supposing such a thing existed, which, as yet it certainly does not) as on earth, for the Head of that church which, in the future, will be the universal Church of Christ, is in heaven, and it is in heaven the universal church will assemble (see Heb. 12:22-24). But it is perfectly fitting to represent (in the illustration of the human body) the head of the local church as on earth, for wherever a local New Testament church assembles for worship or to transact business for Christ, He is in their midst (Matt. 18:20).
> 
> (2) In 1 Corinthians 12:22, 23, we read of members of the body which seem to be "more feeble," and of those "less honorable" and of "uncomely" parts of members. Now such characteristics of members of the human body accurately illustrates the differences which exist between the spiritual states of various members in a local assembly, but the illustration of the "body" here fails completely if the "Church Universal" is in view, for when the Church Universal meets in heaven every member of it will be "like Christ," "fashioned into the body of glory," and such comparisons as "more feeble," "less honorable," "uncomely members," will forever be a thing of the past!
> 
> (3) In 1 Corinthians 12:24 the apostle speaks of what God has done in order that there should be no schism in the body (v. 25). Now let any impartial reader ask, in what body is a schism (division) possible? Certainly not in the Church Universal for that is solely of Divine workmanship, into which human responsibility and failure do not enter. When the church of the First-Born assembles in heaven, glorified, "not having spot or wrinkle or anything," there will be no "schism" there. But in the church which the apostle is contemplating in 1 Corinthians 12 there was "schism" (see 1 Cor. 11:18, etc.). Therefore it is proof positive that it is the local church, and not the Church Universal, which is in view in 1 Corinthians 12.
> 
> (4) In Corinthians 12:26 we read "and whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it: or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." Now is this true of a Universal Church? Certainly not. Is it true that whenever a believer in Christ in India or China (of whom I have never even heard) "suffers" that "all the members," all believers in America, "suffers" with it or him? Certainly not. But it is true ideally, and often in experience that when one member of a local church "suffers" all the members of that local church suffer too. We must refrain from adding further arguments.
> 
> Sufficient has been advanced, we trust, to prove that the "body" referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is a local church, and that the "human body" is here used to illustrate the mutual dependence and relationship existing between its various members. From this established and incontrovertible fact several conclusions follow:
> 
> First, the "baptism" by which one enters "into" a New Testament church is water baptism, for the Holy Spirit does not "baptize" anybody into a local assembly.
> 
> Second, no matter what our nationality—Jew or Gentile—no matter what our social standing—slave or freeman—all the members of the local church have been baptized "in one spirit," that is, in one mind, purpose, accord, and there is therefore oneness of aim for them to follow, oneness of privilege to enjoy, oneness of responsibility to discharge. Furthermore, they are said to "drink of one spirit," that is, they are one, and all appropriate (symbolized by "drink") this oneness of spirit.
> 
> Third, there is only one way of entrance into a local church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is by "baptism" scripturally performed by a scripturally qualified and scripturally authorized administrator, for we read "in one spirit we were all baptized into one body." It therefore follows that none save those who have been Scripturally "baptized" have entered "into" a New Testament Church, all others being members of nothing but man-made institutions. Hence the tremendous importance of "keeping the ordinances" as they have been delivered by Christ Himself to His churches.
> 
> The writer would apologize for writing at such length (he has condensed as much as he possibly could) but cherishes the hope that his own personal confession with which he began this article will exercise others to search the Scriptures more diligently and to "prove all things" for themselves, not accepting the teaching of any man, no matter who he may be. Brethren, let us covet to be "Bereans."



Of course, rather than disputing about identity issues, I guess I could just jump ship and officially use the label Reformed Baptist rather than Sovereign Grace Baptist, but their "decency and order" appears to me as "rigid formalism" sometimes. What do we calvy baptists call ourselves anyhow?


----------



## ReformedFundy

Pergamum said:


> I am looking for resources on Landmarkism, it's good points and, good refutations of its errors.
> 
> Thanks.



I'm not terribly familiar with many websites or webpages that devote time to the errors of Landmarkism. I've known quite a few from my former life, so the topic does hold some interest for me. Here's one webpage that I know of that devoted an entire page to some of the primary errors of Landmark Baptists. Landmark Baptists

-----Added 12/19/2009 at 07:18:22 EST-----

J.R. Graves was one of the leaders of Landmarkism in the 19th century, you may find this book by him of some use. Old Landmarkism: What Is It?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Even if Pink were right in his interpretation of this passage (which he's not), is there an invisable universal church or not? Are we not built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone? Were the OT saints in the same body or not? Did not Abraham rejoice to see Christ's day?

-----Added 12/19/2009 at 07:33:10 EST-----

Here is a Baptist response to 'landmark' Baptists. I certainly would not agree with everything in it but it does point out some of thier errors.
Landmark Baptists


----------



## Pergamum

Can you tell me why Pink is wrong?


----------



## DMcFadden

Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (1999-2003). The encyclopedia of Christianity (1:191-192). 

Founders Journal, The - The Founders Journal 2002 - How Do We Know Who We Are? Issue 49, Summer 2002 - How Do We Know Who We Are?

The Founders Journal 2003 - How to Fire Your Pastor Issue 51, Winter 2003 - Confessions of a 19th Century Baptist

A Theology for the Church, by Daniel L. Akin, Section 7. The Doctrine of the Church - Chapter 13. The Church - What Has the Church Believed? - History of the Idea of the Church

Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, A - A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith - 26. Of the church - I. The universal church (paras 1-4) - A. Its identity (paras 1-2) - 1. The universal church as invisible (para. 1)

POLITY, Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life, Edited by Mark Dever; Polity - Section I. Introductory Essays - 1. The Noble Task: The Pastor as Preacher and Practitioner of the Marks of the Church

Short History of the Baptists by Henry C. Vedder

A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States by A.H. Newman, Chapter 6

The Baptist History Collection of Denominational Histories: The Southern Baptist Convention and its People 1607-1972 by Robert A. Baker

The Baptist History Collection Denominational Histories: The Southern Baptist Convention
1845-1953 by William Wright Barnes

A Baptist Source Book compliled by Robert A. Baker

A Vindication of the Continued Succession of the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ
By John Spittlehouse & John More


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks for all your help.

Here is a selection that was sent my way, trying to prove that Baptists are not Protestants. Wouldyathink about it?




> Baptists Not Protestants
> By C. C. Carroll
> 
> The nature of the church.
> 
> Back of the question why Baptists are not Protestants lies that of the nature of the church which Christ built. It is important that we understand what is His divine pattern for the church and that we frequently bring our own churches to the test of conformity to this pattern. The term "Protestant Church" is derived from the Reformation which bears the name of Luther. In that Reformation Christians broke away from the Catholic dogma of salvation by works, and everywhere preached the great truth of salvation by faith. Yet different church groups organized out of the Reformation in varying degrees held on to conceptions of Roman Catholic teachings that were basally inconsistent with salvation through faith alone. Most of them, for instance, held to infant baptism and practised for baptism the substitution of sprinkling or pouring, in principle conforming to the claimed right of substitution which had been exercised by Roman Catholics. These bodies were and are known as "Protestant Churches," from the fact that their origin is coupled with Luther's protest against the Roman Catholic hierarchy. On the other hand, Baptists have always from the earliest days appealed directly to the New Testament as their only authority for the form, power and purpose of church organizations.
> 
> Scriptures give the church pattern.
> 
> Baptists contend that there can be no proper standard for the Bible-believer of what constitutes the church other than that set forth in Scriptures. They claim that the Scriptures themselves determine in principle the laws that govern the church of Christ throughout all ages until the Lord shall come again. In conformity to this principle they insist that the church is not a legislative body. What it shall do and the power by which it shall live and act are truths of divine revelation. Its nature and the methods by which its life is replenished and strengthened are revealed in the Scriptures alone. Also it has the promise that the Spirit of Christ, in response to the constant prayers of the church for guidance, will guide it and give it power and wisdom to do the work for which it was established. Thus it is an executive body, equipped and empowered by God to carry out His will for it in its witness in the world to the Gospel of Christ.
> 
> Its adequacy for all ages.
> 
> If it is said that men in the first century, however devout and wise, could not co-ordinate an institution that would be adequate and adapted to all of the changes that would ever come in the world, it is granted that this is true. But it is our claim that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself organized the church and that He endowed it with all of the powers it would require to accomplish its ordained work. In Colossians 2:13-20 (Weymouth) Paul set forth our Lord's headship over the church and His authority over all created things in heaven and on earth in these words:
> It is God who has delivered us out of the dominion of darkness, and has transferred us into the Kingdom of his dearly-loved Son, in whom we have our redemption -- the forgiveness of our sins. Christ is the visible representation of the invisible God, the Firstborn and Lord of all creation. For in Him was created the universe of things in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers -- all were created and exist through and for Him. And He is before all things, and in and through Him the universe is one harmonious whole . . . He is the Head of the Church. He is the Beginning, the Firstborn from among the dead; in order that He Himself may in all things occupy the foremost place. For it was the Father's gracious will that the whole of the divine perfections should dwell in Him. And God purposed through Him to reconicle the universe to Himself, making peace through His blood, which was shed upon the Cross — to reconcile to Himself through Him, I say, things on earth and things in heaven.
> 
> Gospel not bound by men.
> 
> Baptists cannot accept as authoritative any centralization of power in hierarchy, arch-episcopacy, council, synod, convention or consistory, claiming the right of interpretation. The Gospel is not bound. No principle of interpretation that requires any post-Biblical additions to teachings or methods of reaching the meaning of the teachings in the New Testament about the church, has any weight with Baptists. Any claim of Apostolic succession that would take to itself authority to make decrees is as devoid of authority to bind Baptists in their doctrine of the church as would be the claims of a sect of the Jews that they sat in the seat of Moses. The law of the Spirit of Life in Jesus Christ, which has set us free from the law of sin and death and from the spirit of bondage, operates to teach the children of God in the right interpretation for themselves of the Word of God. Therefore, Baptists hold that the New Testament is the sole authority on the laws that govern the churches. It is their constitution and bill of rights, their constant court of appeal and end of all controversy.
> 
> An assembly of believers.
> 
> In the search to find what the church is, what it should know and do, and how it is to accomplish its mission, we first discover that it is an assembly of believers associated with Jesus Christ and spoken of as His body and bride. The assembly is so related to the Holy Spirit as to be called His tabernacle, and so related to God the Father as to be called the house of God. The New Testament church was composed of members who had received the glad tidings of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, and who had made confession of their sins in repentance toward God, and of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and were baptized. It is with definiteness that leaves no room for argument taught that the preaching of the glad tidings and the initiation of the ordinance of baptism were established at the hands of John the Baptist, nor is there any doubt that God had given John his authority to preach and to baptize. It is taught that he was set apart for his work from his mother's womb. His forerunner work had been foretold in Old Testament prophecy, which presented Him as a herald of God's new dispensation of grace in the redemption of lost men. From John until the consummation of all things in Christ the administration of God's grace is declared to be in the hands of the King to whom and through whom and for whom the church assembly is the authorized witness to mankind from the time of its enduement by the Holy Spirit. This new dispensation was to fulfill the old through the coming of the prophecy-announced King according to God's unchanged plans.
> 
> Christ placed baptism in the church.
> 
> The fact that Jesus was baptized by John separates baptism from the actual sacrifice of the Lamb, and leaves it forever as an ordinance to picture the likeness of His death and burial, and of His resurrection. Later, as the head of the church assembly of baptized witnesses, Jesus expressed His sovereignty over the act and its perpetuation, but did not Himself baptize the disciples resulting from His preaching. That the authority to perpetuate the act was His alone is made clear in the fact that John never sought to organize his disciples into any kind of organization, nor did he authorize any of them to baptize others. To the contrary, John pointed his disciples to Jesus as the person in whom they had been planted and to whom they had been joined in the likeness of His death and the promise of His resurrection. Jesus committed the stewardship of baptism to the church assembly and authorized and directed its perpetual observance. This He did in the Great Commission to His assembly. The authority for the act, therefore, inheres in the stewardship of the church and its perpetual observance is guaranteed in the perpetuity of the church -- which in turn is guaranteed to His disciples in the promise of the ever-living and ever-reigning Christ.
> 
> John's disciples built into the church.
> 
> It is the writer's purpose to show that the Lord Jesus called out the baptized disciples of John and built them into an assembly upon the sole foundation rock of His being the Christ, the Son of the living God. At Caesarea-Philippi He explained to His disciples what was the foundation basis of edification of the church. It was himself, and the God-imparted power given to men to receive Him. Vast credulity is required to enable one to imagine that the Lord Jesus turned away from explaining this one and sufficient foundation, that He might follow a tangent of explanation about Peter that would in effect leave out the foundation. That is to say, it would require that one of the living stones to be built upon this foundation (Peter) should himself become that foundation and able to bear the whole superstructure. Peter himself had no such illusion concerning the matter, nor did any of the other Apostles or disciples. Neither did Paul, the Apostle born out of due season, but personally indoctrinated by the Lord Himself. For Paul wrote of the Lord Jesus as the foundation of the church and explained the relationship of the Apostles to that foundation. Paul was in thorough accord with Peter's testimony in doing this. Only the Anointed One, the Christ, could be the Head of the Church, and the Rock upon which the Church is built. John the baptizer saw the anointing of the Christ, saw the Lord coming up out of the water, and the Holy Spirit descending upon Him as a dove, and he heard the confirmation of His anointing in the words of the Father, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
> 
> No authority for a "church" of churches.
> 
> The setting up of a centralized authority that presumes to speak for and pass out laws to the local church assembly which Christ built, is entirely without New Testament authority. But it is in consonance with the material power by which men seek to secure impressive world results and it has therefore not failed to seduce many groups of professing Christians. The papal system, with headquarters in Rome, and with a multiplicity of officials down the line between the pope and individual members of the flock, is an impressive world spectacle and vehicle of material power among men and nations. But it is utterly at variance with the church that Christ built and over which He alone was ever to be the Head, Himself empowering and guiding each church through the Holy Spirit dwelling within it. Protestant bodies in varying degrees have sought to set up centralized instrumentalities of power that would authoritatively function for and direct the local assemblies within their spiritual body. Insofar as they have done this, they have held on to principles of the Roman body out of which their forebears came in the protest of the Reformation.
> 
> Other errors from hierarchical assumptions.
> 
> When vaulting human ambition changed the New Testament pattern of the church into the papacy, it was inevitable that it would be followed by other unwarranted assumptions of authority in church organization and life. This exhibited itself, contrary to the New Testament teaching, in the change of ordinances, doctrines, terms of discipleship, and in entangling alliances between Church and State. It is unfortunately true that not all of the Christian fellowship which came out by way of protest from Romanism, cleared their skirts at all points in relation to world-conforming heresies. In the New Testament we find in the churches certain officers and servants, whose functions are clearly exhibited. Some of these were to be in perpetuity under the setting apart by the assembly. But we find no provision for this except for pastors and deacons, the service of which two classes of ministers is definitely prescribed. Baptists have brought themselves into grief and confusion whenever they have failed to confine the work of pastors and deacons to that which is exampled and prescribed for them by the Holy Spirit in the written Word. Most Protestant bodies, following the Roman example, have numerous ecclesiastical officials with recognized ecclesiastical authority, all of which is without New Testament authorization. Baptists place individuals in places of responsibility and honor them for faithfulness in spirit and service, but none of these has any ecclesiastical authority over the church. Roman Catholics, claiming authority under God to change whatever "the Church" wants to change, turns from New Testament baptism — which was always by immersion — to the sprinkling substitutes therefor. Catholics did not and do not claim that this is Scriptural. Therefore Protestant bodies, influenced by the Catholic change, yet refusing to claim authority to change the Scriptural requirements, found it necessary to claim that their substitutes for Scriptural baptism were valid on the ground of sound scholarship. They have done so and a sorry mess they have made of it. The matter is mentioned here for its light upon our thesis that Baptists are not Protestants. Aside from their personal spiritual weaknesses, which they share with other Christians, Baptists are without reason, temptation, or even excuse, for turning away from the New Testament pattern in order to conformity to whatever happens to have popular vogue in the world about them.
> 
> Churches are built and grow under the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Witnessing power came to Christ's assembly in the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Churches were rapidly multiplied under the direct jurisdiction and empowering of the Holy Spirit. He guided them in indoctrination, polity, comity, stewardship, spiritual understanding and knowledge, and in the scope and method of their witness. It is vital to understand that the multiplication of churches was the direct result of the increasing number of believers. The believers increased through the preaching of the Gospel by the church, which in its witness-bearing was honored and sustained and guided by the regenerating and sanctifying Holy Spirit. Thus each believer had in himself the witness and life of an incorruptible seed. When he became a disciple, he also became a tabernacle of the Holy Spirit. The assembly of baptized believers became the house of God, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit. Both the believer and the church became capable of receiving spiritual communications from God through His Son, by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit measured the gifts to those whom He set in the church for its edification as a witnessing body. Thus order and not confusion resulted in the early churches, through gifts of the Spirit which Paul enumerates in l Corinthians 12:27, 28: "Now are ye the body of Christ and members in particular. And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." The use of the gifts are explained in the preceding context, and it is later shown how they pass away when their purpose is accomplished.
> 
> The two church ordinances.
> 
> Our Lord has set two ordinances in the church. Baptism precedes church membership, but it is administered under the authority of the church to those who profess repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Credible profession of faith in Him constitutes discipleship and follows next in the order of the Great Commission. Disciples are next taught to observe all things whatsoever Jesus has commanded His church. The Lord's Supper was instituted by Him, and committed to the Apostles to deliver to the church for its observance. It was so committed to Paul, and how he delivered it to the churches is illustrated in the case of the church at Corinth. The supper is explained by the Lord to be a memorial to His death, and a prophecy of His final assembling of all of the redeemed to be forever with Him. Its observance on earth is put into the hands of the churches until He shall come in glory, and it is not subject to be changed in any way. It was not given as a means of salvation, for those who received it did so on the basis of their already having eternal life. They received it, too, because He was in them and they were in Him and in God through Him, in a mystical union of regeneration and adoption by the Holy Spirit. It is thus a memorial of His death, in which He was offered once for all as the sacrifice for sin. The Priesthood of Jesus is set forth in Hebrews, where we read that the sin-offering of His blood was made once and forever and cleansed forever all who believed in His name, so that repeated crucifixions would put Him to open shame. There is absolutely no authority in the New Testament for changing either of the two ordinances.
> 
> We should avoid man-made patterns and follow the divine.
> 
> Baptists acknowledge their obligation of obedience only to churches of Christ which He has patterned in the New Testament. Yet they need to be watchful lest by imperceptible processes they shall be found seeking the apparent advantages of ecclesiastical hierarchy and centralization. These advantages are on the side of worldly appearance and not of inner spiritual reality. The church of Christ, the only church He built, antedates in origin every hierarchical and centralized ecclesiasticism. Christ's church differs from them fundamentally. The difference is in the means of growth, in doctrines, and in fidelity to the ordinances. The two groups also differ in devotion to New Testament order and faith. But Baptists today need to examine themselves in regard to the danger of internal inconsistencies and in regard to comity and methods of co-operation. If they do not, the danger is real that they shall increasingly exchange the revealed church pattern of God for expediency. And they shall also be in danger of neglecting the Scriptures of Truth while they mistakenly seek to profit by adopting systems that appear to catch the world-mind and that in spectacular results seem to work better than God's revealed plan. These world-pleasing devices are being mightily pressed among many Protestant churches today, and many Baptists are
> already being caught in the net of over-organization or that of unscriptural alliances made in the fair name of unity. Baptists must hold firmly to the standards clearly set out for them in the New Testament in regard to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and they must not become enamoured or be seduced by the world's standards of knowledge and education or their worldly notion of what constitutes proper religious comity, which carries with it the demand that Baptists reject their deepest principles, in order to conform, not to Bible principles, but to the false teachings of men.
> 
> Baptist principles in the first century and the twentieth.
> 
> The successors of those disciples whose testimony was empowered at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, and which rang throughout the Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, continued to multiply until the wilderness period described in the Book of Revelation. Faithful churches went into that wilderness period which through their testimony left many spiritual descendants and from these other churches were formed of the New Testament order. Baptists hold that we have received from this succession of churches that bore faithful witness to the New Testament church pattern and teaching of continuity. We contend that it is only by the distribution of the Gospel through such assemblies that the blessed hope of the resurrection may be maintained on earth and religious liberty kept alive within the human race. We also hold that this true church testimony to the field and nature of civil government is essential to the preservation of civil liberty. We have faith to believe that the multiplication of these New Testament churches will continue, for we find in the closing Book of the New Testament that the enlightenment of the world is through the shining of the Lord's face. He continues to shepherd that light into the assemblies as lampstands, and into their pastors as His angels or messengers as stars. This He does through the work of the Holy Spirit who brings to life and to life more abundant preachers and churches to bear the witness Christ has commanded them. We believe that God's call to Baptists for this consistent ministry of His Word shall not be eclipsed nor cease. For the Son of God walks in the midst of the lampstands, and He holds His stars in His hands.
> ============
> [From Victor I. Masters, editor, Re-thinking Baptist Doctrines, 1937, pp. 175-188. — jrd]




Is this belief common among baptists? It seems that we owe more to the Reformed Baptists that came out of the Reformation than to any Anabaptist roots. Does anyone have links, quotes, etc, to help me deal with this assertion?

-----Added 12/20/2009 at 07:36:41 EST-----

See also this quote by Charles Spurgeon:




> We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.


----------



## ReformedFundy

Pergamum said:


> Thanks for all your help.
> 
> *Here is a selection that was sent my way, trying to prove that Baptists are not Protestants. Wouldyathink about it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this belief common among baptists? It seems that we owe more to the Reformed Baptists that came out of the Reformation than to any Anabaptist roots. Does anyone have links, quotes, etc, to help me deal with this assertion?



It's a common belief among Independent Fundamental Baptists, and Landmark Baptists. Although the two tend to differ on different matters of theology and ecclesiology, but at some points they do end up intertwined. Many Fundamentalists believe that there has always been a succession of Baptists or Baptist-like groups(commonly referred to as "The Trail of Blood") through church history that were faithful to the Bible and whose offspring Baptists currently are. 

Here's the Trail of Blood Forum.

Here's an online copy of the book "_The Trail of Blood_" by J.M. Carroll. 

The Trail of Blood line of thought originated in the 19th century I believe, and was especially enjoyed by Southern Baptists. In the 20th century it gained favor with Fundamental Baptists, many of whom had left the SBC during it's shift into Liberalism. It is still held to by some Southern Baptists, but usually you will find that it's held to by Fundamental Baptists.


----------



## Pergamum

Reformed Fundy:

Do you have any refutations of this Baptist Successionism doctrine?


----------



## buggy

What is Landmarkism? What is “Baptist Bride” theology?

Try this link - it has some brief refutations of Landmarkism. 
A "reformed" (albeit 4-pt Calvinist) resource.


----------



## ReformedFundy

Pergamum said:


> Reformed Fundy:
> 
> Do you have any refutations of this Baptist Successionism doctrine?



Baptist Successionism doctrine is a difficult thing to root out of someone's mind. I used to hold to it in my former life. Any discussion with someone who holds to this usually goes to something like this: 

You: "Well the Paulicians are known to be heretics. Why do you claim that they were Ana-Baptists?"

Successionist: "You're just saying that because you're getting your information from Rome, who changed what history records that the Paulicians believed because they were in power. If you would do your research, then you would discover the falsehoods of official history as Rome has taught it, and you would realize that Paulicians were in fact Baptistic."

You: "Ummm...so if Rome says it, then it is false, regardless of what other sources say?"

Successionist: "The other sources got their information from Rome, because it was the Roman Church that kept the annals of history. And they changed it as they saw fit. Sources that are not Roman had to have gotten their information from Rome."

It is extremely difficult to discuss Successionism with somebody who has that mindset. It is very much a part of their identity. It's like trying to convince a Roman Catholic that their church became corrupt. It's something that takes a while. 

What really convinced me that the Trail of Blood could not be considered accurate was the book "_The Key of Truth_." It is a book that contains the teachings of the Paulicians. After reading it, I became quite convinced that the Paulicians could not be described as Baptists even a little bit, although they did practice adult Baptism only(at the age of 30). They couldn't even be described as Protestants for the most part.


----------



## TimV

When talking about refuting Carroll you have to keep in mind what Kevin said. These people are seriously ignorant, and how do you argue history with someone who hasn't got a clue? You should try just going through the Trail of Blood sometime

_2. This Empire at that period embraced nearly all of the then known inhabited world. Tiberius Caesar was its Emperor. _

At the time of Christ, Rome was trading with China, India and was glaring across a heavily armed border with Iran (Parthia). All educated people knew that then, and all know it now. And that's the sort of research the whole work is based on.



> 9. "Baptismal regeneration" and "infant baptism." These two errors have, according to the testimony of well-established history, caused the shedding of more Christian blood, as the centuries have gone by, than all other errors combined, or than possibly have all wars, not connected with persecution, if you will leave out the recent "World War." Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths, mainly because of their rejection of these two errors during the period of the "dark ages" alone -- about twelve or thirteen centuries.



And one of my favorites



> 5. During the 5th Century, at the fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, 451, another entirely new doctrine was added to the rapidly growing list -- the doctrine called "Mariolatry," or the worship of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. A new mediator seems to have been felt to be needed. The distance from God to man was too great for just one mediator, even though that was Christ, God's Son, the real God-Man. Mary was thought to be needed as another mediator, and prayers were to be made to Mary. She was to make them to Christ.



And the whole book is like that. "Well-estabished history" indeed.

Trail of Blood


----------



## buggy

Erm... anyone knows Landmark Baptists view on church membership? 

I've got a friend who was once part of a Landmark Baptist church... she disagreed with its doctrines and requested to resign from the membership, and was not allowed. Is this their practice - once you're with us you're always with us? I'm not sure about this...


----------



## ReformedFundy

buggy said:


> Erm... anyone knows Landmark Baptists view on church membership?
> 
> I've got a friend who was once part of a Landmark Baptist church... she disagreed with its doctrines and requested to resign from the membership, and was not allowed. Is this their practice - once you're with us you're always with us? I'm not sure about this...



Yes.


----------



## TimV

> I've got a friend who was once part of a Landmark Baptist church... she disagreed with its doctrines and requested to resign from the membership, and was not allowed. Is this their practice - once you're with us you're always with us? I'm not sure about this...



It stands to reason. Theirs is the only true fellowship of believers, so if even a person from another baptist church has to get re baptised (in some of their churches) to join, then of course they won't transfer membership to one of the daughters of the great whore of Babylon. How could they in good conscience?


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks, keep it coming.


I am trying to mobilize churches for missions and fill some vital needs where I am at, and my efforts at recruiting among the more Landmarker Sovereign Grace Baptist churches is failing miserably because they just cannot cooperate at all with anyone. 

...And, if I did have a Landmarker want to come and help me, I would be fearful of what he would do to the work.

Praise, God, however, that there are several workers in the pipeline to come out and fill needs...just none from the churches that I often labor hardest among.


----------



## A.J.

Pergamum said:


> Thanks, keep it coming.
> 
> 
> I am trying to mobilize churches for missions and fill some vital needs where I am at, and my efforts at recruiting among the more Landmarker Sovereign Grace Baptist churches is failing miserably because they just cannot cooperate at all with anyone.
> 
> ...And, if I did have a Landmarker want to come and help me, I would be fearful of what he would do to the work.
> 
> Praise, God, however, that there are several workers in the pipeline to come out and fill needs...just none from the churches that I often labor hardest among.



Pergy,

According to Dr. Gerald Priest of the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, there have been "four views" on the origins of Baptists. He examines these in an article, Are Baptists Protestants? (click link for a pdf copy) and defends the existence of a universal church (he looks into 1 Corinthians 12). Dr. Priest also deplores the anti-Calvinist tendencies of many people who hold to "Baptist succesionism."

Blessings,


----------



## Marrow Man

Pergamum said:


> Reformed Fundy:
> 
> Do you have any refutations of this Baptist Successionism doctrine?



Pergy, the book by James McGoldrick which I referenced back in post # 5 is a refutation of Baptist Successionism. McGoldrick, For what it's worth, is a former Baptist (and Secessionist) who currently teaches church history at Greenville Seminary.


----------



## A.J.

Pastor Phillips, thanks for fixing the link. Blessings!


----------



## Marrow Man

A.J. said:


> Pastor Phillips, thanks for fixing the link. Blessings!



No problem. Somehow a comma had wandered into the URL. I read the article and it was very informative, so thanks for posting it!


----------



## Pergamum

Here's another article about Baptist Successionism or Baptist Church Perpetuity:




> Baptists from the Time of Christ to the Reformation- Royce Smith
> 
> Matthew 16:18
> 
> INTRODUCTION: It is clear from this passage that Christ Himself built His ekklesia or church during His earthly ministry. It is also evident from Ephesians 3:21 that the ekklesia of Christ would continue to exist through the ages. Matthew 28:20 confirms this conclusion. What Christ was building during His earthly ministry must still exist in the world; otherwise, His promise was bogus. Holding to the authority and inerrancy of the sacred Scriptures, we believe the same kind of ekkelesia Christ instituted during His ministry still exists today, even as the same kind of marriage God instituted between one man and one woman continues to exist today despite attempts by men to institute new kinds of marriages. That other sorts of so-called churches exist does not mean Christ’s ekklesia has ever ceased to exist. While individual local churches do cease to exist, the ekklesia of Christ as an institution has ever existed somewhere in the world from the days of Christ until this very day.
> 
> The Nature of the Church. The church or ekklesia Jesus built was a local and visible institution, not a universal, visible church, as Rome claims, or a universal, invisible church as the Reformers affirm. Sometimes the word ekklesia is used in a generic sense, as in Ephesians 5:23. Sometimes it is used figuratively for all the redeemed, as J. M. Pendleton explains in his Church Manual Designed for the Use of Baptist Churches, p. 5. All of the redeemed are not the church, but they are like a church or ekklesia in that they are the called-out.
> 
> The Meaning of Church Perpetuity. “All that Baptists mean by church ‘Succession,’ or Church Perpetuity is: there has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament existing on earth.” (Baptist Church Perpetuity, W. A. Jarrel, p. 3).
> 
> The Sources of History. Most of what we find written in history about the various groups of ancient Baptists was written by their enemies, although some of their own writings have survived to this day. The enemies of these ancient people misrepresented and calumniated them. They not only burnt and otherwise martyred them but burned their books as well. However, enough truth has survived even in the false accusations of their enemies to tell the story of these ancient Baptists.
> 
> The Name “Baptist.” Baptist denotes a baptizing or immersing church. The term anabaptist which is applied erroneously to all ancient Baptists refers to a church which ostensibly rebaptizes, hence; they are said by their enemies to be rebaptizers. This name was given to the ancient Baptists; they did not take it to themselves and always denied they rebaptized anyone.
> 
> The Prominent Issue in Church History. Ancient Baptists are always recognized by the fact they always immersed believers, not infants. The immersion of believers only on the profession of their faith has always characterized true Baptists. We must remember that many orthodox teachings were held at first by the apostate Church of Rome. Little by little, the apostate or false church exchanged these orthodox beliefs for novel ones. The Nicene Council established new doctrines which differed from those held by the original New Testament Churches. All Baptists have held a Biblical Theology and their practices have been consistent with that theology. If we as Baptists hold to the same Biblical truths today as the early New Testament Churches held, then we will expect to find churches adhering to these same doctrines and practices in every century between the first and the twenty-first. We do in fact find in every century groups of believers and churches known by different names who were Baptists, i.e. they practiced the immersion of believers only.
> While every group of ancient Baptists may not have agreed with one another, or with us on every issue, let us remember that various fellowships of modern-day Baptists do not always agree in all their doctrines and practices. The independency of each church and liberty of conscience among believers accounts for such differences.
> 
> THE MONTANISTS, About A.D. 156-180
> 
> Perhaps no other group has been more maligned and falsely accused of heterodox views than the Montanists. The Montanists get their name from one Montanus who was accused of believing he was the Holy Spirit by the Lutheran historian, John Lawrence Mosheim. This slander was corrected by Mosheim’s translator in a footnote (Ecclesiastical History, John Lawrence Mosheim, Vol. 1, p. 65). Schaff wrote of Montanus, “His adversaries wrongly inferred from the use of the first person for the Holy Spirit in his oracles, that he made himself directly the Paraclete, or, according to Epiphanius, even God the Father.” (History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Vol. 2, p. 418). The Montanists have been vindicated of many false accusations against them by other historians such as Agustus Neander as well as Philip Schaff. Schaff cites a work by Wernsdorf Theoph entitled Commentatio de Montanistis Saeculi II, golgo creditis hoereticis which is “A vindication of Montanism as being essentially agreed with the doctrines of the primitive church and unjustly condemned.” Montanus’ aim was to maintain or to restore the scriptural simplicity, nature and character of the religion of the New Testament with a constant reliance on the promise of the Holy Spirit (Jarrel, p. 70).
> 
> Thomas Armitage wrote of the Montanists, “Both the opposition of Tertullian, and the open denial of the Montanists that baptism is the channel of grace, renders it unlikely that they adopted this practice [infant baptism]. They insisted so radically on the efficacy of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, that to have immersed unconscious babes would have nullified their basic doctrine of the direct agency of the Spirit, and have thwarted their attempts at reform, in the most practical manner.” (A History of the Baptists, Thomas Armitage, Vol.1, p. 177). Armitage also said of the Montanists, “The one prime-idea held by the Montanists in common with Baptists, and in distinction to the Churches of the third century was, that membership in the Churches should be confined to purely regenerate persons; and that a spiritual life and discipline should be maintained without any affiliation with the authority of the State” (Armitage, p. 175). Jarrel concludes that “when Montanism arose, no essential departure from the faith in the action, the subjects of baptism, church government or doctrine, the Montanists, on these points, were Baptists.” (Jarrel, p. 69)
> 
> THE NOVATIANS, About A.D. 250
> 
> This group of ancient Baptists was called Novatians after the name of Novatian. The Novatians are linked with the Montanists in that they renewed the moral protests of Montanus (Jarrel, p. 77). Many of Novatians followers united with the Montanists (Schaff, Vol. 2, p. 197). When a division occurred in 251 A.D. in the church at Rome over the election of a pastor, the conservative element of the church sided with Novatian against a more liberal group which elected Cornelius as pastor. The issue was a lax discipline on the part of Cornelius and the church at Rome toward those who had denied their faith because of persecution. The liberal party was for receiving them back into their fellowship; the conservative party opposed it. The conservative and minority group withdrew from the liberal majority and elected Novatian as their pastor. Thus, the Novatians stood for the purity of the church in both doctrine and practice. They maintained the discipline of the church was essential to its doctrinal purity.
> 
> The baptism of Novatian has been questioned. It is asserted by some that he was not immersed. Because he was ill, Novatian received what is called clinic baptism. He was covered with water while on his sick bed. The intent was to cover him in water, which act would have been immersion. It is difficult to believe that, if he had not been properly immersed while sick, he would not have sought to be baptized properly when he was well. Novatian, however, was not the founder of a church. He was simply a leader among those who stood for the purity of the church. Since the Novatian Churches certainly immersed, it is highly unlikely Novatian himself was unbaptized.
> 
> Neander says, “The controversy with the Novatian party turned upon two general points:—1. What are the principles of penitence? 2. What constitutes the idea and essence of a true church? “ (General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Agustus Neander, Vol. 1, p. 339). Neander further quotes Novatian as saying, “We ought doubtless to take care of those who have thus fallen, but nothing can be done for them beyond exhorting them to repent, and commending them to the mercy of God. . .they must not be received to the communion; they should only be exhorted to repentance--the forgiveness of their sins must be left to that God who alone has power to forgive sin.” (Neander, pp. 339, 40). It is not surprising to learn that the Novatians were the first to be called the cathari or pure. J. M. Cramps concludes, “We may safely infer that they [the Novatian Churches] abstained from compliance with innovation [infant baptism], and that the Novatian churches were what are now called Baptist churches, adhering to the Apostolic and primitive practice.” (Baptist History, J. M. Cramp, p.45.).
> 
> THE DONATISTS, About A.D. 311
> 
> The Donatists were given this name by their adversaries because of their leader, Donatus. The Donatists were much like the Novatians (Neander, Vol. 3, p. 258). Schaff links the Donatists with both the Montanists and Novatians (Schaff, Vol. 3, p. 360). It is obvious, that they, like the two aforementioned groups, held to the purity of the church. Armitage quotes Merivale as saying of the Donatists: “They represented the broad principle of the Montanists and Novatians, that the true Church of Christ is the assembly of really pious persons only, and admits of no merely nominal membership.” (Armitage, p. 200). Henry Danvers quotes Cryspin’s French History as saying, “We put the Donatists and Novatians together, because they did so well agree in Principle” (A Treatise of Baptism, Henry Danvers, p. 225). They considered their own churches pure and denounced the catholics as the schismatics. Mosheim wrote, “The doctrine of the Donatists was conformable to that of the church, as even their adversaries confess. . .The crime, therefore of the Donatists lay properly in the following things: in their declaring the church of Africa, which adhered to Caecillanus, fallen from the dignity and privileges of a true church and deprived of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. . .” (Mosheim, Vol. 1, pp. 109,110).
> 
> Bohringer, a biographer of Augustine is quoted by Jarrel as saying, “Infant baptism is the only point of difference between Augustine and the Donatists, and this grew out of the Donatist notion of the church.” (Jarrel, p. 96). That the Donatists rejected infant baptism is obvious from the fact that Austin’s controversy with them was over this issue (Danvers, p. 107). David Benedict in his History of the Donatists concludes that the Donatists were “thorough-going antipedobaptists” (p. 134).
> 
> The Donatists believed in the independency of the local church. Jarrel quotes W. W. Everts, Jr., .of whom he wrote, “perhaps, no one in America has a better knowledge of church history” (p. 96) as saying, “We clearly trace among them the polity of the apostolic and Baptist church. Independence of the hierachy was universally maintained, and no higher authority than the local church was acknowledged.” (Jarrel, p. 98). That the Donatists believed in a local, not a hierarchal church is evident from the fact that at the Council of Carthage 279 Donatists bishops were present. At another time 410 Donatist bishops assembled together. In a hierarchal church, only a few bishops are necessary for the largest country, but the bishops among the Donatists were obviously pastors of local, independent, and individual churches.
> 
> Jarrel quotes Prof. Heman Lincoln, Professor of Church History in Newton Theological Seminary as writing: “The Donatists held. . .many of the principles which are regarded as axioms by modern Baptists. They maintained absolute freedom of conscience, the divorce of church [and state], and a regenerate church membership. These principles, coupled with their uniform practice of immersion, bring them into close affinity with Baptists.” (Jarrel, p. 105). It is clear, then, that the Donatist Churches consisted of regenerate members who were baptized by immersion. Because they were falsely called Anabaptists, it is obvious they baptized those who came to them from the catholic party.
> 
> THE PAULICIANS, About A.D. 611
> 
> The Paulicians were given their name by their enemies because of their adherence to the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Like Baptists today, they strictly adhered to New Testament Order in their faith and practice. They are linked with the Montanists, the Novatians, and the Donatists in doctrine and practice. As we shall see later, they are also linked with the Albigenses and known as Bogomiles, Patereni, and Cathari. They received the New Testament as their inspired guide. Because they did not use the Old Testament as their rule of faith and practice, they were falsely accused of rejecting the Old Testament. They had a high regard for Scripture. Neander says, “. . .it is evident, even from the manner in which their teachers write to the members of the sect, and from the order and denominations of their ecclesiastical officers, that they designed and strove to derive their doctrines from the New Testament; and particularly from the writings of the Apostle Paul.” (Neander, Vol. 5, p. 339).
> 
> The Paulicians are falsely called Manichaeists or dualists, a system of belief that claims there are two basic and opposing principles of good and evil. Men derive the elements of goodness in the world from the former and badness from the latter. Neander wrote, “We find nothing at all, however, in the doctrines of the Paulicians, which would lead us to presume that they were an offshoot from Manichaeism; on the other hand, we find much which contradicts such a supposition.” (Neander, Vol. 5, pp. 337,338).
> 
> Jarrel writes, “In these churches of the Paulicians, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper they held to be peculiar to the communion of the faithful; i.e. restricted to believers” (Jarrel, p. 115). He then gave this summation of the Paulicians: “While I have more testimony to prove the Paulicians were Baptists as to the ordinances, I conclude this point with these as amply sufficient: (1.) They did administer the ordinances. (2.) Only to believers. (3.) They recognized the scriptural truth, that only immersion is baptism. (4.) As they baptized only believers they believed in a regenerate church membership.” (Jarrel, p. 119).
> 
> George Stanley Faber vindicated the Paulicians of all the calumnies their enemies brought against them concerning the orthodox faith. He writes,”They held the allied doctrines of theTrinity and the Incarnation: but they renounced the worship of the Cross and of the Virgin and of the Saints; while they evidently disbelieved that material presence of the Lord’s body and blood in the consecrated elements which finally received the name of Transubstantiation. The God-denying speculation, which explains away the doctrine of the Trinity and which asserts Christ to be a mere man, they abhorred.” (The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, George Stanley Faber, p. 54).
> 
> THE ALBIGENSES, About A.D. 900
> 
> The Albigenses get their name from Albiga or Albi in southern France. They were both numerous and influential there for many years. In fact, it is said they filled and molded France and Italy with their pure lives, affecting in a lesser degree other parts of Europe as well. Coming from Asia where they had been known as Paulicians, they came also to be known as Albigenses. Jarrel quotes a Dr. Carl Schmidt, an eminent German authority of Strasburg, speaking of their being called Albigenses, saying: “Before that time the sect was spoken of as Publicants or Publicani, probably a corruption of the name Paulicians, which the Crusaders had brought back from Western Europe” (Jarrel, pp. 124, 125).
> 
> Like the Paulicians, the Albigenses were falsely called Manichaeans, a charge that Faber literally destroys in 131 pages of his excellent work. Since they are linked with the Paulicians, they are also linked with the Donatists, the Novatians, and the Montanists. They were also known and Paterines and Cathari.
> The Albigenses denied marriage was a sacrament but did not reject marriage, as they are falsely accused. They rejected both infant baptism and baptismal regeneration (Armitage, pp. 278, 280). They also had a very simple ecclesiastical organization. The Albigenses are one and the same people with the Waldenses.
> THE WALDENSES, About A.D. 1100
> The Waldenses received their name from a valley of the Pyrenees Mountains, not from Peter Waldo. They have been called the Valdenses, Vaudois, Vallenses, as well as the Waldenses. As it is with Baptists today, there were different groups or fellowships of Waldenses. They believed in a professedly regenerate church membership, practiced immersion, rejected baptismal regeneration, held to the authority of Scripture, and believed in salvation by grace and election (Jarrel, pp. 161-166). They issued a Confession of Faith in 1120 A.D. They were persecuted mercilessly by the agents of Rome. Many of them later became Protestants and practiced infant baptism, though there are still some Waldenses who hold to the true and Apostolic faith.
> THE LOLLARDS About A.D. 1315
> The Lollards were given this name by their enemies for their leader, Walter Lollard, a German preacher of renown among the Waldenses who came to England. The Lollards are known best for John Wycliffe, the great translator of the Bible, of whom Danvers wrote, “Of whose opinions and doctrines so well agreeing with the Waldenses of old, we have an account, as from his own writings, so from many authors that have collected the same from them. . .” (Danvers, p. 278). That Wycliffe was a Baptist is evident from 29 tenants he held as listed by Danvers (Danvers, pp. 279-287). The Lollards were among the forerunners of the English Baptists. Obviously they were linked with the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Paulicians, the Donatists, the Novatians, and the Montanists.
> CONCLUSION: WE HAVE THUS SEEN THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH Jesus BUILT! Running like a pure mountain stream from its source, the church has continued, though at times unseen because of being underground, to this very day. It has been called by various names but is known for its uncompromising stand for the faith once delivered to the saints. Existing today because of Christ’s promise and the fidelity of its members, the church will continue into the ages of the ages. Will we who are privileged to be members of the Lord’s churches continue to be faithful and willing instruments whom the Holy Spirit uses to perpetuate the Church of Jesus Christ?
> 
> BIBLIOGRAPHY
> 
> Armitage, Thomas. A History of the Baptists. 2 vols. Watertown, Wisconsin: Baptist Heritage Press Reprint, 1988 (First Published in New York, 1890).
> 
> Benedict, David. History of the Donatists, with Notes. Gallatin, Tennessee: Church History Research & Archives Reprint, 1985 (First Published in Providence, R. I. 1875).
> 
> Cramp, J. M. Baptist History from the Foundation of the Christian Church to the Present Time. Watertown, Wisconsin: Baptist Heritage Publications, 1987 Reprint (First Published in London, 1871).
> 
> Danvers, Henry. A Treatise of Baptism. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications Reprint, 2004 (First Published in London, 1674).
> 
> Faber, George Stanley. An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses. Gallatin, Tennessee: Church History Research & Archives Reprint, 1990 (First Published in London, 1838).
> 
> Jarrel, W. A. Baptist Church Perpetuity. Dallas: Published by the Author, 1894.
> 
> Mosheim, Henry Lawrence. An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, from the Birth of Christ to the Beginning of the Eighteenth Century. Trans. Archibald Maclaine. 2 vols. Rosemead, California, 1959 Reprint. (First Published in 1764).
> 
> Neander, Dr. Augustus. A General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Trans. Joseph Torrey. 9 vols. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1850.
> 
> Pendleton, J. M. Church Manual Designed for the Use of Baptist Churches. Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1867.
> 
> Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Reprint, 1995 (First Published in 1910).





How do I counter this? Especially quotes like this:




> The Meaning of Church Perpetuity. “All that Baptists mean by church ‘Succession,’ or Church Perpetuity is: there has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament existing on earth.” (Baptist Church Perpetuity, W. A. Jarrel, p. 3).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

On the historical question, you need to get McGoldrick's book. It is completely anti-historic to claim that _your_ enemies preserved the only (false) history, which explains why _their_ enemies (of the past) must have been maligned at every turn. This is pure, patent nonsense. Are we to think that there never were true heretics outside the main-branch of the church?

"Literate" people (which is what they assume that their own people were, being people of the Bible) ALWAYS preserve some link to the past. And if we suppose that some did not, guess what? It is impermisible to assert your own version of that history, on the basis of some a priori belief. If you can do it, then so can the other guy.

Theologically, just about anyone can tell you how hard it is to get a self-reinforcing position to bend. We are right, because we are right.

We are Jesus' church.
Jesus promises to preserve his church.
Ergo, Jesus has preserved OUR church.

Obviously fallacious, however it is very appealing to people, and spieces of the same crop up in almost every denomination (or religion).

There are other tendentious assertions in those paragraphs. He is (perhaps deliberately?) a bit ambiguous on Waldensian practice. According to their own version of their own history, they practiced infant baptism down through the centuries. This would militate against the claim that they only believed in "regenerate church membership," but perhaps by the way it is worded above the author meant to claim them for "his side" while hiding the relevant fact that they baptized infants (by their own self-profession).

Obviously, you can believe that members of the church *should be* regenerated (sooner rather than later), AND practice infant baptism. But this is the kind of thing that should call the whole rest of his claims into question. The whole thing is a tissue of assertions, and an appeal to authority (not primary or even secondary sources).

But in the end, it is the a priori that drives this argument. Baptists are the true believers; Jesus was a Baptist; ergo, he preserved the Baptist church in all ages, no matter what the "record" states.

Perg, time to move on, in my opinion.


----------



## JM

This is a good thread. Where else can I find historical writings about the invisible church before Luther?


----------



## Pergamum

Contra_Mundum said:


> On the historical question, you need to get McGoldrick's book. It is completely anti-historic to claim that _your_ enemies preserved the only (false) history, which explains why _their_ enemies (of the past) must have been maligned at every turn. This is pure, patent nonsense. Are we to think that there never were true heretics outside the main-branch of the church?
> 
> "Literate" people (which is what they assume that their own people were, being people of the Bible) ALWAYS preserve some link to the past. And if we suppose that some did not, guess what? It is impermisible to assert your own version of that history, on the basis of some a priori belief. If you can do it, then so can the other guy.
> 
> Theologically, just about anyone can tell you how hard it is to get a self-reinforcing position to bend. We are right, because we are right.
> 
> We are Jesus' church.
> Jesus promises to preserve his church.
> Ergo, Jesus has preserved OUR church.
> 
> Obviously fallacious, however it is very appealing to people, and spieces of the same crop up in almost every denomination (or religion).
> 
> There are other tendentious assertions in those paragraphs. He is (perhaps deliberately?) a bit ambiguous on Waldensian practice. According to their own version of their own history, they practiced infant baptism down through the centuries. This would militate against the claim that they only believed in "regenerate church membership," but perhaps by the way it is worded above the author meant to claim them for "his side" while hiding the relevant fact that they baptized infants (by their own self-profession).
> 
> Obviously, you can believe that members of the church *should be* regenerated (sooner rather than later), AND practice infant baptism. But this is the kind of thing that should call the whole rest of his claims into question. The whole thing is a tissue of assertions, and an appeal to authority (not primary or even secondary sources).
> 
> But in the end, it is the a priori that drives this argument. Baptists are the true believers; Jesus was a Baptist; ergo, he preserved the Baptist church in all ages, no matter what the "record" states.
> 
> Perg, time to move on, in my opinion.



The reasons that I have not moved on:

--These churches pray and support me,

--I personally know many of their pastors,

--There are grades and degrees of Landmark error and some men have shifted their views the last couple of years, one man by my own efforts in dialogue.

--Where do I go? I guess I could become Presbyterian! I really liked the last OPC church I attended!


----------

