An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity - Chapter 6

Landmarkism

(May the reader remember that this was written back in 1973, which means it was at a time when Landmarkism was stronger in the Southern Baptist Convention than it is today. But this is given as part of Baptist history, which cannot be denied.)

The logical outcome, extension, and further development of the doctrine of the church among Baptists, as we have been discussing it, was a movement which came to bear the name of Landmarkism. This viewpoint, as represented in its founder, James R. Graves, sought to deny completely the universal aspect of the church, while at the same time holding to the Calvinistic doctrines of soteriology, which stemmed from the covenant of grace, but without the covenant of grace itself. This is not to say that all Landmarkers were Calvinists, but nevertheless, the movement had a great impact on Baptist thought in many areas for years to come.

Actually the movement developed and spread within the Southern Baptist Convention in the second half of the nineteenth century, as Graves served as editor of the Tennessee Baptist, the state paper of Southern Baptists in Tennessee. As editor of that paper from 1864 to 1893, Graves wielded much influence as a gifted writer and speaker, and even more as an extremely dangerous opponent in debate. Just to read or even browse through his writings convinces one of his keen, organized, systematic, and convincing mind.256

Concerning Graves' captivating power as a speaker, T. T. Eaton said of him:

We have seen him hold a congregation packed uncomfortably for three hours and a half without any sign of weariness on their part. This was not done once or twice, but scores of times.257

It cannot be denied that it was Graves' hope to make his landmark view the doctrinal commitment of the Southern Baptist Convention, even though he failed in this attempt.258 Still his influence during and following the days of his life is widely acknowledged. For one thing, the Tennessee paper he edited served not only as the paper for that state, but it also was at the same time the official organ of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi Baptists.259 Besides this wide reading through the state paper, he debated, spoke, and carried the battle for his view of the church to the top echelon of the Convention organization.260 The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists concludes that Graves influenced Southern Baptist life of the nineteenth century in more ways and probably to a larger degree than any other person.261

The same publication states further:

Although many Baptists refused to accept his position, a great number did, making the new Southwest a stronghold of Landmarkism. By 1880 Graves could boast that a majority of denominational papers had endorsed Landmarkism.262

Torbet says the influence of Landmarkism is still felt in the Southern Baptist Convention.263 Steely speaks of the influence of Landmarkism even today when he says, " . . . it is a flourishing force in the convention in the mid-twentieth century, evidenced in currents of thought, patterns of preaching, and organizational principles."264 Hill and Torbet tell us the Landmark doctrine of the church has been extremely influential among Southern Baptists, including many persons who would knowingly reject the view on the whole.265

Before entering into a discussion of the main tenets of Landmarkism, we shall clarify the origin of the name. It stems from two passages of Scripture, namely, Proverbs 22:28 and Job 24:2. The first passage contains a command not to remove the landmarks, while the second passage announces that some have already done so. Graves used these passages to emphasize his burden to reestablish what he felt were the old Biblical landmarks of a true New Testament church. It shall now be our aim to summarize these landmarks, drawing from the writings of Graves and those who followed him.

The Complete Earthly Localization of the Church

We noted in our last chapter the tendency among many Baptists early in the nineteenth century to be so individualistic as to overbalance the local church against the universal church in definite contradiction to their earlier forefathers. The Landmarkers completed the overbalance by denying any universal concept of the church, while completely localizing the church on this earth. The heart of their argument was that the word ecclesia always refers to a local assembly. Graves stated his case as follows:

. . . the only church that is revealed to us is a visible church, and the only church with which we have anything to do, or in connection with which we have any duties to perform, is a visible body. It has specified organization, officers, faith, laws and ordinances, and a living membership, and therefore it must be visible. Christ never set up but one kingdom, was never constituted king of but one kingdom, and His Word recognizes but one kingdom; and if this is visible, He has no invisible kingdom or church, and such a thing has no real existence in heaven or earth. It is an invention employed to bolster up erroneous theories of ecclesiology.266

He says further, " . . . the locality of Christ's church, and therefore kingdom, is this earth; all subjects of His kingdom are here; all the work of His church are here.267 Concerning the Greek word ecclesia, he contends that it had only one possible literal meaning, that of a local congregation or organization.268 He says this word is used one hundred and ten times in the New Testament in a Christian reference, and in one hundred of these references it undoubtedly refers to a local organization.269 If one would wonder about the other ten instances, he says the word in those cases is used figuratively by synecdoche, that is, a part for the whole, the singular for the plural, or one for all. In each of these instances, what is true of all churches is true of any one.270 Others since Graves, who stand in the Landmark tradition, sometimes give a slightly different explanation of these passages, but all of them in some manner bring them to refer to a local assembly.271

The Perpetuity of the Church

From the preceding discussion it is a clear assumption that for Graves, Matthew 16:18 has to refer to a local visible church. That is, when Christ spoke of building His church, promising the gates of hell would not prevail against it, He was speaking of building the local church in Jerusalem, which He founded and organized, and local churches in other places. The next inference drawn by the Landmarkers is what is known as the perpetuity of the church. In other words, because of Christ's promise in Matthew 16:18, local New Testament churches would continue down through history, be preserved and perpetuated in every age, and bearing the same essential characteristics of the first local New Testament church founded by Christ.

Graves states the doctrine as follows:

Landmark Baptists very generally believe that for the Word of the Living God to stand, and for the veracity of Jesus Christ to vindicate itself, the Kingdom which He set up "in the days of John the Baptist," has had an unbroken continuity until now.272

In stating his goal for the book Graves says he wishes to accomplish the following:

To establish the fact in the minds of all, who will give me an impartial hearing, that Baptist Churches are the churches of Christ, and that they alone hold, and have alone held, and preserved the doctrine of the gospel in all ages since the ascension of Christ.273 (Italics added; underlined in the original.)

He further states:

I have not space to devote to the historical argument to prove the continuity of the kingdom of Christ, but assure the reader that, in our opinion, it is irrefragable. All that any candid man could desire---and it is from Catholic and Protestant sources---frankly admitting that churches, substantially like the Baptists of this age have existed, . . . from the earliest age until now; and, indeed, they have been the only religious organizations that have stood since the days of the apostles, . . . 274

If one were to ask what these early Baptists were called, Graves quotes in agreement an author who names the ancient Waldenses, the Cathari, the Paterins and the Donatists as Baptist ancestors.275 Further, let one accuse Graves of holding to apostolic succession, and he clearly denies this accusation.276 Also, his view does not refer to the succession of any particular church or churches.277 Rather, his conviction is that the church had one beginning and from that beginning it spread, flourishing for awhile in one place, than another, and another, while decaying in earlier locations. The point is that the church has always been present on this earth somewhere in local form at all times, and these true local manifestations were Baptist churches, whether related organizationally or not.278 To question these convictions, for Graves, was to doubt the word of Christ and to impeach His veracity.279. Also, these convictions were to him as important as the deity of Christ.280 Furthermore, he claimed the burden of proof about the matter rested not on himself, but on those who denied the doctrine. He was convinced that his understanding was without doubt Scriptural, and that history would verify his claims. But it was not his duty to prove the claim from history, for Scripture took precedence over history. For anyone to deny his claim, they had to prove, " . . by incontestable historical facts, that Christ's kingdom has been broken and removed one year, one day, or one hour from the earth . . . 281 Graves said if anyone could do that he would surrender his position and his Bible.282

Thus we have set forth Graves' claims of the perpetuity of the church---the local church---local Baptist churches, in fact. He claims it to be so on the basis of history, but more so, on the basis of the Bible, especially Matthew 16:18, even if he could not prove it by history. Christ said He would build His church, that is, a local visible organization. He began it, while on earth, promising its continuance, and protection. If local Baptist churches have not continued from the day of Christ, then the Scriptures have been broken. For Graves the breaking of the Scriptures was an impossibility, and therefore, true New Testament churches, or Baptist churches, have been in existence and protected by Christ in every age, though not always known by the name Baptist.

Baptist Churches Then are the Only True Churches

This point has already come out quite clearly in our discussion of perpetuity, but the writer feels the need to stress it separately and more fully, in light of its great importance to Landmark thinking. The contention and conviction is that only Baptist churches are true churches, while all other organizations bearing the name church are human societies with human founders. Baptist churches, on the other hand, are divine organizations, founded by Christ.

We have already quoted Graves concerning this matter.283 A more recent Landmark writer presents the argument by dating the various churches and their founders as follows:284

1. The Roman Catholic Church from Gregory the Great, 590-604

2. The Lutheran Church from Martin Luther abut 1520

3. The Episcopal Church from Henry the VIII on November 23, 1534

4. The Congregationalists from Robert Brown in England in 1580

5. The Methodists from John Wesley in 1740

6. The Christian Church (Church of Christ) from Alexander Campbell in 1827 (Italics added; underlined in the original.)

Mason then summarizes his argument as follows:

We have shown that every sect, denomination, and so-called church, Baptists alone excepted, can be traced to a human founder, and originated long after Christ started His church. Plainly all of these being of post-apostolic origin are eliminated.285

Concerning Baptist churches, he continues:

Baptist churches are unique and clearly distinguished from all others in that no one can truly point to anyone as human founder. Neither can the date be fixed for their beginning this side of Christ.286

Then quoting a Dr. Tull, Mason strongly contends that not only was Christ the founder of Baptist churches and Baptist churches alone, but the Holy Spirit is the administrator of Baptist churches' activities, and with the New Testament as their guide for faith and practice, pure Baptist teaching has survived the tides of time and history from Christ to our present day.287

If one queries what the essential characteristics of a Baptist church are, that is, the standards of judgment one might apply to groups in history to determine if they were Baptist churches or not, not all Landmarkers are agreed. For Graves, the model church includes at least the following:

1. It must be a local, visible, divine organization.288

2. It must demand regeneration before membership.289

3. It must practice baptism by immersion, and that baptism must follow regeneration as a profession of faith.290

4. It must practice the Lord's Supper in a closed manner, and as a memorial of the sacrificial death of Christ for His people.291

Mason gives two essential doctrines that would qualify a church as a Baptist church, namely, regenerate membership and believer's baptism. He acknowledges there are other important doctrines to Baptists, but a church may depart from some of these other points of doctrine and still be a New Testament church, if it holds to his two essentials.292

The writer's assessment of both Graves' and Mason's essentials would be that they are saturated with theological naivety, and they are impossible to apply to some of the groups they claim as Baptists. The naivety consists of a failure to see the depths of the doctrine of regeneration and its dependence on other doctrines, namely the person and work of Christ. Their essentials do not state clearly the way of regeneration or the foundation of regeneration, the person and work of Christ. The writer is positive that without doubt both Graves and Mason would be quite orthodox concerning both regeneration and the person and work of Christ. However, when one begins to look into the groups they circle as Baptist ancestors, their case for perpetuity breaks down completely, as some of these groups prove to be quite heretical in the area of Landmark essentials and the foundational doctrines upon which the essentials rest.

We do not have time nor space at this point to go into the subject in any depth, but for example, the Novations of the third century viewed baptism as a saving ordinance.293 This view surely would disqualify them from Baptist ancestry. The same was true of the Montanists of the second century, excluding them from the Baptist camp.294 The Paulicians of the seventh and eighth centuries, according to Latourette, were dualists, holding that Christ was born of the good God, but derived nothing from Mary's flesh, thus making his birth and death unreal, and his work to be that of a teacher.295 The reader can draw his own conclusions as to what such a view does to the orthodox viewpoint of the person and work of Christ. The writer finds it sad that the anti-historical attitude of some Baptists, which developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, baptized some also in an historical ignorance, which opened the way for many to fall prey to the Landmark's twisted view of history and Scriptures. As for Graves himself, he gives evidence of having read some history,296 but he seems to choose ideas which aid his cause, while ignoring facts which would destroy his view.

Other Tenets of Landmarkism

Briefly, before concluding this chapter, we present several other tenets of the Landmark position. First, since Baptist churches are the only true churches, then only they have the divine right and authority to administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.297 Again, only Baptist churches have the authority of ordination, making Baptist preachers the only divinely authorized and ordained ministers of the gospel.298 All others supposed minister are unordained, and thus they are to be excluded from preaching in Baptist churches and pulpits.

The most shocking tenet, probably, is the conviction that only those who have been or are now members of Baptist churches are members of the true New Testament church, the Body of Christ! As Mason plainly states it, "Only baptized believers or Baptists are members of the churches of Christ."299 However, the implications of this statement are not as shocking as they first appear. Landmarkers do not say that all others besides Baptists are lost for eternity, which could be a conclusion from Mason's statement. The explanation is that Landmarkers make a distinction between the family of God, the kingdom of God, and the church of God.300 The family of God consists of the saved of all ages, Baptists and all others. The kingdom of God is composed of the saved from all supposed churches, true or false, including all who are not alive and excluding those who have already died though in the Lord. The church of God, on the other hand, is made up of those who are members of the true New Testament Baptist churches. We hasten to point out that these distinctions between the family of God, the kingdom of God, and the church of God are Mason's, and there might be a strong definite question as to whether Graves would be in agreement, especially in light of his very strong statement we have already noted concerning the church being equal to the kingdom.301 However, it is certain that Graves did not deny true salvation and regeneration to those who were not Baptists, but only their part and presence in Christ's church.

Summary and Conclusions

In summary we state the following as basic tenets of the Landmark doctrine:

1. They insisted that the word ecclesia always refers to a local New Testament assembly, when used in the Christian sense in the Scriptures, and never to any concept of an invisible church, which would be made up of the redeemed of all ages. The word especially does not refer to the saints of the Old Testament era.

2. They held to a concept known as perpetuity, which claims that Baptist churches have existed in every age of history from the New Testament times to our day.

3. They claimed only Baptist churches are the true New Testament churches, and because of this belief they were convinced that only Baptist churches have the right and authority to administer the ordinances and to ordain ministers.

4. They insisted only those who are members of Baptist churches are members of the body of Christ.

In conclusion we stress several points. First, we have presented the Landmark position as a testimony of the truthfulness and accuracy of the arguments that we have presented previously. In earlier chapters we have shown an anti-theological, anti-historical, and anti-confessional attitude developing among Baptists of the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. Our point is that Landmarkism could never have arisen had Baptists been strong in these areas of weakness, If these weaknesses didn't breed and produce Landmarkism, it certainly laid them open to its assault, doing nothing to protect them from it.

Second, the Landmark position is further proof of the departure of Baptists from the covenantal concept of the church. The fact that many were entrapped in the Landmark ecclesiology, which completely localized the church, while others further denied any universal or invisible aspect, shows clearly a weakness in Baptist ecclesiology prior to the Landmark invasion. This is not to say the Landmarkers were Arminian, for they were not. Our assessment is that though Baptists in general were anti-theological, anti-historical, and anti-confessional, still a man like Graves, who was sharp and well read, could glean from these areas and disciplines what he wished in a superficial manner, and then convincingly argue and speak, as if he were a scholar who knew the whole. Couple with this his natural abilities to organize thought and to debate, then one can see why his views were co captivating to the uneducated and untrained masses of preachers and laymen.

In one of his books he speaks clearly of the covenant of grace saying, " . . . there never was and is not but one Covenant of grace, and that it was made before the foundations of the earth was laid."302 He acknowledges that the persons of the Trinity were covenanting parties.303 He boldly states again that the Son will save all whom the Father game Him in Covenant, and it is obvious that not all men were given to the Son by the Father.304

Just exactly how Graves put together these statements concerning the covenant of grace and his view of ecclesiology, as we have outlined, is uncertain to the writer and beyond the scope of this paper. It seems highly inconsistent and even impossible to speak of the covenant of grace and then to reject any concept of the universal church, to completely localize the church, to confine it only to the New Testament to the exclusion of the Old Testament saints, or try to blend with it the total ecclesiological structure and pattern developed by Graves. Further research would be required to understand his complete theological system. One thing is certain---Graves was not in agreement with the early English Baptists, the Baptists of the Philadelphia Association and tradition, and most Baptists before him or even after him.

Notes:

256 See especially James R. Graves, Old Landmarkism: What Is It? (Ashland, Kentucky: Calvary Baptist Church Book Store.
257 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), Volume I, p. 576.
258 Ibid., p. 576.
259 Ibid.
260 William Wright Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention 1845-1953 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1954), pp. 103-113.
261 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, p. 576.
262 Ibid., p. 757.
263 Robert G. Torbet, "Landmarkism," Baptist Concepts of the Church, Edited by Winthrop S. Hudson (Chicago: The Judson Press, 1959), p. 194.
264 John E. Steely, "The Landmark Movement in the Southern Baptist Convention," What Is the Church? Edited by Duke K. McCall (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), p. 134.
265 Samuel S. Hill, Jr. and Robert G. Torbet, Baptists North and South (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1964), p. 64.
266 Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 28.
267 Ibid.
268 Ibid., p. 32.
269 Ibid.
270 Ibid.
271 See Roy Mason, The Church That Jesus Built (Tampa: Buffalo Avenue Baptist Church, no date), pp. 26-34, and O. W. Rone, Southern Baptists and the Concept of a Catholic (Universal) Church (Paducah, Kentucky: The Paducah Printing Company, 1959), pp. 1-19, and B. H. Carrol, Ecclesia---The Church (Ashland, Kentucky: The Baptist Examiner, no date), 3-22.
272 Graves, Old Landmarkism, p. 84.
273 Ibid. p. 24.
274 Ibid., p. 81.
275 Ibid., p. 81. Other Landmark writers, such as, J. M. Carroll, The Trail of Blood (Lexington, Kentucky: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, Copyright 1931) lists as Baptists such groups as: the Montanists, the Novations, the Paterins, the Cathari, the Paulicians, the Arnoldists, the Albigenses, the Henricians, and the Waldenses. (See the chart in the back of the book).
276 Ibid., p. 84.
277 Ibid., p. 79
278 Ibid.
279 Ibid.
280 Ibid.
281 Ibid.
282 Ibid.
283 Supra, p. 115.
284 Mason, Church, pp. 51-56.
285 Ibid, p. 57.
286 Ibid.
287 Ibid. Though Mason quotes Dr. Tull, he does not identify him nor give the reference from which he quotes. This is his practice throughout the book. At the end he does give a list of books he has read or quoted, but never a footnote or any documentation. Such methods do not convince nor indicate careful or reliable scholarship, and certainly raise questions concerning the author's position.
288 Graves, Old Landmarkism, pp. 26-30.
289 Ibid., pp 41-47.
290 Ibid., pp. 48-57.
291 Ibid., pp. 58-72.
292 Mason, Church, pp. 60-85.
293 Robert A. Baker, A Summary of Christian History (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1959), p. 38.
294 Ibid., p. 39.
295 Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York, Evanston and London: Harper and Row Publishers, 1953), p. 299.
296 Graves, Old Landmarkism, see chapters 14 thru 17, where he seeks to use history to prove previous Baptists refused to recognize other groups as true churches.
297 Ibid., p. 35.
298 Ibid., p. 164.
299 Mason, Church, p. 41.
300 Ibid., pp. 37-45.
301 Supra.
302 James R. Graves. The Work of Christ in the Covenant of Redemption Developed in Seven Dispensations (Texarkana, Arkansas: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1883, p. 67.
303 Ibid., p. 80.
304 Ibid., 96.