Landmark Baptist

Calvinism is widely associated with the acronym T.U.L.I.P.
Total Depravity (aka Total Inability)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (aka Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace (aka Effectual Call)
Perseverance of the Saints (aka Security, Preservation, OSAS)

For my purposes in this thread, I will usually simplify to mean Calvinism distinguishes between Limited Atonement and General Atonement. I think that is the crux of what many Landmark Baptists object to when they speak of Calvinism, TULIP, etc. -- that God through the sacrifice of Jesus only undertook to redeem a chosen part of the human race, rather than generally making it accessible to all.

In the Pendulum Swing thread http://landmarkbaptist.freeforums.org/pendulum-swing-1peter-3-8-9-t598-15.html, Brother W. A. Dillard wrote:

I can only assume that you [revcathari] understand what T.U.L.I.P. stands for as the cornerstone of some Baptist churches which refer to themselves as Primitive. I refuse to refer to them as primitive, but rather as decadent because there is not a Landmark Baptist church in my field of knowledge that would call them anything other than heretics.

One definition of heretic is: "A heretic is one whose errors are doctrinal, and usually of a malignant character, tending to subvert the true faith." (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

Do you believe in church succession? How many of you are aware of "Calvinism" in our/your Baptist history and heritage? How do you view it? Does your church descend from TULIP heretics? Can a church descended from heretics be a scriptural church?

Bro. Vaughn,
I do believe in Baptist succession. I do know that you will find error along the way. The church I presently pastor was organized by a church that in now Calvanist but from what I understand was not at the time. You ask some thoughtful questions. I do not know if this will help or add to the discussion. Because of our heritage and that you will find error along the way, there are some questions I have difficulty with: 1. Can scriptural churches do unscriptural things? 2. If yes to the first question, then how much unscripturalness until they are unscriptural (no longer recognized as a New Testament church)? 3. If the answer is that it is not our place to question whether or not they have lost their authority as a NT Church it belongs to Christ to determine that then 3. When do we break fellowship with churches who we find in error? Maybe you or others can help in this area as well.
Thank you for your post!
Pastor Todd

PastorTodd wrote:Bro. Vaughn,
I do believe in Baptist succession. I do know that you will find error along the way. The church I presently pastor was organized by a church that in now Calvanist but from what I understand was not at the time. You ask some thoughtful questions. I do not know if this will help or add to the discussion. Because of our heritage and that you will find error along the way, there are some questions I have difficulty with: 1. Can scriptural churches do unscriptural things? 2. If yes to the first question, then how much unscripturalness until they are unscriptural (no longer recognized as a New Testament church)? 3. If the answer is that it is not our place to question whether or not they have lost their authority as a NT Church it belongs to Christ to determine that then 3. When do we break fellowship with churches who we find in error? Maybe you or others can help in this area as well.
Thank you for your post!
Pastor Todd

Bro Dornan I think much of your questions can be answered by seeing what Christ said to the Seven Asian Churches. They had error and He gave them time to correct the errors, some of those errors would for many modern Baptist be reason enough for immeadiate dis-fellowship

Brother Vaughn,

Rlvaughn wrote:Do you believe in church succession? How many of you are aware of "Calvinism" in our/your Baptist history and heritage? How do you view it? Does your church descend from TULIP heretics? Can a church descended from heretics be a scriptural church?

I do believe in church succession. I am aware that many Baptists in the past and present have taught the TULIP doctrine. I am also aware that the term "Calvinism" has been used with some degree of misapplication and lattitude, just as the term "New Lighter" has been used among Missionary Baptists.

Because I don't believe in programs and because I preach that God exercises providential control over all the creation, I have been accused of being a Calvinist, though I have ever preached that Jesus Christ tasted death for every man and bids all men come to Him.

I know for a fact, based on the Scripture, that our Baptist heritage includes Jezebel of Thyatira, who taught fornication and idolatry. I know that it includes the churches of Galatia which taught the heresy of Judaism, which heresy had also infected the church at Jerusalem.

Doubtless, all sorts of heresies have effected the Lord's churches past and present - universalism, modernism, evolutionism, open communion, Conventionism and others. Doubtless there have been times that those who held to the truth and those who embraced error have been mixed together in the same churches and the same associations.

But if a doctrine is wrong it is wrong and won't become right because of when or where it popped up among the Lord's churches. If it cuts my ecclesiastical throat, error still won't become truth any more than God would allow me to go to heaven if, after all, Christ did not die for me!

But, thank the Lord, I know Christ died for me because the word of God declares that He died for all. And for a man to assert that He did not die for all when, in fact, He said that He did, is a heresy of the grossest sort.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

PastorTodd wrote:age and that you will find error along the way, there are some questions I have difficulty with: 1. Can scriptural churches do unscriptural things? 2. If yes to the first question, then how much unscripturalness until they are unscriptural (no longer recognized as a New Testament church)? 3. If the answer is that it is not our place to question whether or not they have lost their authority as a NT Church it belongs to Christ to determine that then 3. When do we break fellowship with churches who we find in error? Maybe you or others can help in this area as well.

Pastor Todd, you have some interesting questions. Others may want to address them, and I may get back to them as we discuss this. But in this post I want to clarify my original. One thing that may do that is to contrast what you are asking. In distinction of asking when a NT church may lose its authority and distinction as a church, I am asking a question of those who have already determined that a Calvinistic church has lost its authority and distinction as a NT church. IOW, if we don't believe the Calvinistic Baptist church down the street or the Primitive Baptist church across town are scriptural churches because they believe in Particular Redemption, then how can we maintain that the churches that we descend from that believed in Particular Redemption are scriptural churches?

Mark Osgatharp wrote:But if a doctrine is wrong it is wrong and won't become right because of when or where it popped up among the Lord's churches. If it cuts my ecclesiastical throat, error still won't become truth any more than God would allow me to go to heaven if, after all, Christ did not die for me!

Brother Osgatharp, this is a good point to make here. I am not trying to determine what is right or wrong doctrine based on what we have historically believed. I am trying to determine how people can determine the Baptist church down the street is not a NT church because it holds Particular Redemption but that the Baptist church they descend from is A-OK to give scriptural baptism. I feel like I have failed to make the question clear.

So perhaps this will clarify it. If you believe that Particular Redemption is a heresy that invalidates the validity of a church, how do you reconcile that with the fact that your church has descended from churches that held Particular Redemption? Wouldn't consistency demand that you deny the validity of your church as well?

Or let's put real life to it. One family of charter members of the church where I grew up came from White Plains Baptist Church in Greene County, GA. That church, according to their covenant adopted when organized in 1806, held "We also take the old and new testament as our only rule of faith and practice believing in the sublime doctrines contained therein (viz) the fall of Adam and the imputation of his sins to his posterity, the everlasting love of God in Christ to his people before the world began, particular redemption, affectual calling, Justification by the righteousness of Christ imputed, Sanctification by the holy Spirit, and the final perseverance of the Saints in grace, as preparatory to eternal glory." That is straight-out tulip without the fancy acronym. Now if Calvinistic/Tulip doctrine invalidates a church, isn't the White Plains Church not a scriptural church? If the White Plains church is not a scriptural church, isn't mine not one either? If not, why not?

I personally don't believe that my home church is not a scriptural church. And I have not conveniently jumped ships just because I recently learned this history. I begin to think about this many years ago when I read what one of our Texas old guard Landmark Baptists, Rufus C. Burleson, wrote: "You ask me if I regard baptism administered by Primitive or Hard-shell Baptists valid? This is a question of great and growing importance, and for years I have given it earnest and prayerful study, weighing carefully everything on both sides, and my deliberate conclusion is that baptism administered by Primitive or Hard-shell Baptist preachers in good standing to a converted believer is as valid as if administered by John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, John A. Broadus or James H. Stribling. My reasons are: 1. A mistake from honest conviction, or prejudice about preaching the gospel to the heathen, does not invalidate baptism. If so the baptism of the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost and the 12,000 during the first revival at Jerusalem would be invalid. For nothing is clearer in the New Testament than that Peter and all the apostles were at first Anti-missionary or Hard-shell Baptists. And the whole Church at Jerusalem was so intensely Anti-missionary or Hard-shell, that as soon as Peter returned from his first foreign missionary tour the church arraigned him for trial...My third reason is that our Primitive or Hard-shell brethren have never rejected any ordinance or doctrine of the Baptist church as founded by Christ and the apostles 1,892 years ago, on the banks of Jordan. It is a mournful fact that while some of our Hard-shell brethren have become fatalists, scores of our Missionary Baptists are only immersed Methodists in the Baptist church. I repeat, our Primitive brethren have never rejected any doctrine or ordinance of Christ; but with wonderful tenacity they cling, as we do, to all the doctrines and ordinances as they came from heaven, pure, simple, holy, sublime. Let us invite them to meet us in a great Christian convention, and let us Seek a living union with the 150,000 Anti-missionary Baptists in the United States..." -- Baptist and Reflector, April 28, 1892

Now here is a Landmark Baptist in the field of my knowledge that called the Primitive Baptists other than heretics. He had a bunch of Missionary Baptists pegged quite well all the way back in 1892 too, if you notice.

So, again, if the Primitive Baptists or any other Baptists are not valid churches because of holding Particular Redemption, how can the churches that we descend from that held that view be valid churches? To me it seems that either Particular Redemption doesn't make them invalid churches, or some of us need to disband our churches and seek baptism from those in a line that isn't tainted with that view (if we can find any). Perhaps there is a third answer. I don't know; is there?

Brother Vaughn:
As one studies Baptist history, he cannot but be impressed that most any doctrinal error can be found in some churches at some times. About the only truly large consistency that marks them as a whole are their cornerstone doctrines of salvation by grace through faith and deep water baptism. So what does this mean? Are there no scriptural churches because such errors, even grave errors, have existed? In the scope of church history, Calvin and the Protestants are relatively newcomers. Can we find diversity among Baptist churches before Calvin? Of course.
Sometimes we forget how different life and theology in particular must have been before there were copies of the scriptures for the churches to own. . . before there were printing presses, etc. A History of the Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont by Samuel Moreland is a good example of this.
I for one do not believe that the Calvinistic T.U.L. I.P. doctrines permeated all Baptist churches from which we descended. Nevertheless, the existence of error is not so much the issue as the importance of how that error was dealt with. It is obvious that the great body of Baptist churches rejected limited atonement. I would consider that anyone who rejects the plain teaching of the Bible that Jesus died for all men has had more than adequate time and theological counterbalancing to know and embrace the truth. Therefore, I would not receive their baptism today just as I would not receive the baptism of a church that today was practicing the errors of the Lord's Supper as was the church of Corinth.

Brother Dillard, I find much in your statement with which to agree. I agree that the Calvinistic T.U.L.I.P. doctrines did not permeate all Baptist churches from which Landmark Baptists descended. But that misses the point of the mixing and mingling of all these churches, and most of all the fact that it was the dominant view of Regular Baptists in England and America for some 300 or so years. It's not like it got a foothold for a couple of years and then was rooted out.

But if I am reading you correctly, you are positing that somehow it is worse to hold heresies today than for our churches to have done so in the past. If I am misunderstanding you, please clarify. If I am not misunderstanding you, then you are presenting a third option (though it is one I cannot embrace). It seems to me whatever minimum faith is required to be a scriptural church must be consistent from its beginning until now.

I just wanted to see if I could get some opinions on something I wrote in a different thread but has to do with what we are talking about here. I had a deacon in the past tell me that, in his opinion, that the farther along in church history time went there was more understanding of the Word and more false doctrine that was taught. As time went along from Christ till now the requirements for a scriptural church had to get narrower for these reasons. So a church in the 300 A.D. would be given more leeway than a church now. I was wondering what everyone thought about that and does it have any validity to it?

Jude 3 ¶ Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

So, Brother Denny, your deacon is arguing that it's OK to have really, really bad error as long as it was long, long ago in a church far, far away? That doesn't seem to be what Paul was saying here:

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,
18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

In spite of Paul's warning about the malignant spread of error, the "foundation of God stands."

In my opinion, and I label it strictly as such, any church has the right to choose which churches, if any, they will fellowship. This of necessity includes or involves which churches whose baptisms/ordinations we sanction and which we reject. It is only when we add in the whole "authority by succession" argument and start rejecting the baptisms of churches because they lack a succession that we run into the issue this deacon is trying to respond to. On the other hand, "like faith and order" has long been the standard of Baptists, and that means "similar beliefs and practices." Every church must determine what "similar" means to them. In the church I pastor, it means "pretty similar."

Rich

Brother Vaughn:

I do indeed imply that with the increase of knowledge comes added responsibility. Consider that in the council of the apostles, their advice and counsel to the newly formed gentile churches was simply that "they abstain from fronication and from things strangled." Moreover, they said if they did this, they would do well. Did they have the whole counsel of God? Obviously not. Were they responsible for the fine points of doctrine the New Testament presents? I think not! Churches caught up in error were given space to repent: that is to consider what is the truth through counselling with such others as had knowledge then making decisions as what to believe and how to practice. How far into the future did that leeway extend? If we knew that , we might be able to pinpoint exactly when a scriptural church becomes unscriptural.
Moreover, I am convinced that too much is made from what little is written about what went on in history. So few undertood to write. Only those who aggressively claimed the limelight did so. As we know even today when communications is within easy access to everyone, only a few speak and those who say they speak for others really do not speak for others.

Brother Denney, I would not agree that the requirements for a scriptural church gets narrower as time goes on. As Brother Hamlin notes, the faith was once delivered to the saints. While God may judge us based on the amount of light He has given us, I see that as a whole different issue of what a church is. While all events happen in time and it may take some time to get them corrected, I see nothing in Scripture that Christ has an evolving church that becomes more complex as time rolls along.

BTW, I'll give the links to where this was discussed:
http://landmarkbaptist.freeforums.org/requirments-in-church-history-t565.html
http://landmarkbaptist.freeforums.org/problems-of-successionism-t424.html

Brother Dillard, I agree that it is possible to make too much of what is written without understanding much went on that was not written. But we also cannot just assume that what was not written would open up some kind of "Calvinism-free" line all the way back to Christ. Not when some of our churches can be traced to exactly where they came from and we know those ancestors held TULIP ideas. There are quite a few primary records -- church minutes. e.g. -- so that we don't just have to depend on what someone else wrote. These records often lay down tracks of those who sought no limelight but were merely keeping up with their conference proceedings. This research is a harder and more time consuming than just picking up Christian or Cramp or whomever. But more such primary records are available than we might think. Plus Morgan Edwards' and John Asplund's first-hand records of their visits up and down the eastern seaboard give us a decent snapshot of what Baptists looked like in their day, though I'm sure they did miss some churches (and it's possible that some weren't completely forthcoming in what they revealed about themselves).

Also consider that the time frame of which I speak is not when churches did not have the completed word of God. The Bible was complete by circa 100 AD, and the churches I am referencing are some 1500 years later than that. They also existed after the printing press and the printed word made widely available.

Finally, does your argument based on the findings of the Jerusalem council -- "abstain from fornication and from things strangled" -- mean that these early churches would have been true churches if they held a false doctrine of salvation or sprinkled babies? I'm not sure I can follow exactly what you're getting at there.

richhamlin wrote:Jude 3 ¶ Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

So, Brother Denny, your deacon is arguing that it's OK to have really, really bad error as long as it was long, long ago in a church far, far away? That doesn't seem to be what Paul was saying here:

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,
18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

In spite of Paul's warning about the malignant spread of error, the "foundation of God stands."

In my opinion, and I label it strictly as such, any church has the right to choose which churches, if any, they will fellowship. This of necessity includes or involves which churches whose baptisms/ordinations we sanction and which we reject. It is only when we add in the whole "authority by succession" argument and start rejecting the baptisms of churches because they lack a succession that we run into the issue this deacon is trying to respond to. On the other hand, "like faith and order" has long been the standard of Baptists, and that means "similar beliefs and practices." Every church must determine what "similar" means to them. In the church I pastor, it means "pretty similar."

Rich

Thank you for the insite I really appreciate it. I agree with each church fellowshipping with the churches they feel are Scriptural. I know for some the "like faith and order" is easy because all they do is say, "Are they doing everything we are doing the exact same way?", and that becomes the standard by which every other church is judged by. It's when you start to wrestle with the fact that the Lord's churches in Scripture weren't perfect and so there are churches that are in error but still are churches. Then deciding, from Scripture, what we are going to consider error but not to the point of cutting off all fellowship.

Thank you Brothers Rlvaughn and W. A. Dillard this subject in Church History has always been a thing that I have been trying to understand. Most of our churches would go to their church's doctrinal statement and say that is what we consider scriptural churches. Then I look at the additions of points to the doctrinal statements and I ask myself, "Are the ones that held to the doctrinal statement 50 years ago and there were less points in it just as scriptural as the ones that hold to the one now with more points?"

Rlvaughn wrote:Brother Denney, I would not agree that the requirements for a scriptural church gets narrower as time goes on. As Brother Hamlin notes, the faith was once delivered to the saints. While God may judge us based on the amount of light He has given us, I see that as a whole different issue of what a church is. While all events happen in time and it may take some time to get them corrected, I see nothing in Scripture that Christ has an evolving church that becomes more complex as time rolls along.

Is there a difference in who a church trades letter with and who we go and cooperate and fellowship with? Can we do either of these with churches that have beliefs that we don't hold but churches in our history had? I totally believe through Scripture that at least one local church has been on this planet since Christ started His. I just ponder these other things and I know other brethern are too because they talk sometimes with me about. So I am just looking for help with out being crucified. Thanks everyone.

First, I want to clarify in reference to some things said above. I believe the faith was once delivered to the saints. I do not believe that either the saints then or the saints today have to hold to all the complex systems that we have developed over the years.

Wesley Denney wrote:Is there a difference in who a church trades letter with and who we go and cooperate and fellowship with? Can we do either of these with churches that have beliefs that we don't hold but churches in our history had?

Brother Denney, I would say concerning the first question that there is some difference. I would add a third difference. Many will not agree. But there are some from whom I would accept baptisms but not letters. Letters are not a transfer of membership, but simply a recommendation. But to accept a letter implies some degree of confidence in a church that we may not actually have. In other words, their recommendation doesn't mean anything. Nevertheless, we might investigate the situation of a person coming from such a church and in some cases find that they could be accepted on their statement or the statement of someone familiar with the situation. There are some churches I probably could have enough confidence in to accept a recommendation/letter from them, and yet not feel close enough in practice to want to have any church-to-church fellowship with them. Hope this makes sense. And I would say yes to the second question, and hope the above explains why. In regards to the subject of this thread, I personally can exercise a fairly wide latitude toward those in either direction with whom I can agree that salvation is a work the Lord must perform and not man.