Landmark Baptist

Rich Hamlin wrote:

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1Ti 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

I understand that much of the effort to introduce and substantiate Landmark doctrine to the masses was done through a work of fiction, a fable if you will, called "Theodosia Earnest." I suppose, then, that all the fables on this forum have some historical precedence....

Still, what we find three times in two very short books of the bible should count for something, right?

I committed myself not to add to Bro. Acker's story time thread, but this could not be left alone, so I started a completely new topic. I confronted Bro. Hamlin about this comment here, asking him whether he was making a jab at Landmarkism or no? He never categorically denied the charge, but referred me to a book which apparently seeks to debunk Landmarkism to a much greater degree. While I said I never read the work in question in this quote, I did not say I had never heard of it. When someone makes a statement that much effort to substantiate Landmark doctrine was done through a "fable," would not anyone else consider this to be a strike on the Biblical doctrines concerning the church? Am I inferring too much from his statements? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here, and Bro. Hamlin is more than capable of speaking for himself. However the Richard Hamlin that I am acquainted with has no problem substantiating the Landmark Doctrines from the scripture. If I understand your assertion, then yes I would say that you are incorrect to consider his statements to be a "strike" on the Biblical doctrines concerning the church. Yet, he can answer for himself if he so chooses . . .

Younglandmarker,

My original post was designed to express my opinion of all the stories and fables that have shown up recently, and was in fact presented as a response to one of them. I acknowledged the well-known and greatly used work of A.C. Dayton called, "Theodosia Earnest", because on a forum full of people called "Landmarkers" I expected someone to reference it in response. As in, "But what about Theodosia Earnest? Wasn't it a work of fiction or a fable?" It was. Yes, it had a tremendous circulation. Yes, it was acknowledged by even the enemies of Landmarkism as one of the ways the views went to the "masses" (as opposed to preachers and seminarians). Still, I thought the biblical instruction to avoid fables -- like the ones we've had over and over lately on this forum -- deserved consideration. That's all I said and all I meant to say. Now in response, young sir, you wrote this:

(quote) Hmmm...that's interesting. I never read that book you speak of. The only thing I have read on the subject has been my Bible...Interesting. Just curious, but are you taking a jab at Landmark Baptist ecclessiology? That's alright. I'll go ahead and answer for you, but you can respond if you like. You'll just deny it and say I'm saying things that you are not saying and have never said like you have on other issues. (quote)

In South Arkansas, and I'm sure in East Texas and North Lousiana, we had a name for young people who spoke in this fashion, the polite version of which is "smart eleck." Still, I responded with information I felt you needed and now post again:

(quote)
Younglandmarker,

"Theodosia Earnest" was written by A.C. Dayton, one of three men known as the "Great Triumvirate" where Landmarkism was concerned, along with Graves and Pendleton. If you haven't read it or know nothing about it, I would suggest you take the time to learn more about our own history. If you want to see what it looks like when someone takes a "jab" at our ecclesiology, I suggest you read Dagg's work, "A Manual of Church Order." He addressed Dayton's arguments as presented in "Theodosia Earnest" point by point and step by step.

The book is available here:

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/A. ... ernest.htm

More about Dayton is here:

http://www.knoxcotn.org/tnbaptists/dayton_ac.htm

The chapter where Dagg addressed Dayton's work is here:

http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol2/ch3.html

I apologize for assuming that someone who calls himself "younglandmarker" and who writes in defence of all things "Landmark" on a "Landmark" baptist forum would know what Theodosia Earnest was and how greatly it was used to advance the system of beliefs that bare this name. (end of quoted material)

If I were Jeff Haney I would probably talk to you about a hair and a bisquit, but since I'm not I'll say you need to get this gnat out of your throat before you choke on it.

Rich

younglandmarker wrote:I confronted Bro. Hamlin about this comment here, asking him whether he was making a jab at Landmarkism or no? He never categorically denied the charge, but referred me to a book which apparently seeks to debunk Landmarkism to a much greater degree.

Perhaps if you would learn to ask a question rather than "confront" it would help you to get better answers -- most especially when you decided to make up your mind about what I said and give your own answer to what you decided. Some months ago you apologized sincerely and asked us all to be patient with your youthfulness and inexperience. I'm out of patience. Your attitude is inappropriate considering your lot in life. Come confront me when you've served the Lord's churches for 30 years if I'm still alive -- until then maybe you need to read a few scriptures like this one:

1 Timothy 5:1 ¶ Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

Rich

While Bro. Hamlin and I have had many disagreements, he is exactly correct in his response and advice (and mild rebuke).

It is almost breathtaking to me how this is not easily understood and agreed by all.

There are some vital principles involved that need not be so thoughtlessly trampled.

Bro. Hamlin, as a fellow minister of roughly the same length of experience, you and I stand together on this one.

Bro. Mike, you tread on dangerous ground with your careless statements.

Well Utah, I thought I produced a pretty good case for what I said and thought it was very appropriate in light of the comments younglandmarker has been making to me lately. But since you brought it up, then moderator or not, I think they apply even better to you. But on the other hand, you are the boss.

I didn't tell younglandmarker to shut up and listen. I told him his attitude toward me was wrong and should at least show a measure of respect to my years of life and service since the bible we all think so much of says for him to do it. His remarks were uncalled for and completely off base, as is this entire thread.

Rich

Amen to Hamlin and Howard.

Ditto to what Bro. Haney said!

Bro. Hamlin,

I admit that the tone and attitude of my comments were over the top, especially to an elder, for instance (but not limited to) when I answered my own question. For that, I apologize. I have been working on that (like when in an earlier discussion concerning, from my understanding, what is your stance on the body of Christ, I said that one who taught that taught universal church. I then attempted to show what the logic of it carried to a full extent was, saying it could be either intentional or unintentional).

To the substance of my comments and the issue I had with your post on the story time thread, I have reread and rethought about it, and when you say that a work of fiction, "Theodosia Ernest", helped to introduce and substantiate Landmark doctrine and you reference the Scriptures that command us to refuse fables, it appears that you are saying that you are conceding to our enemies that Landmark doctrine did not exist until the Great Triumvirate and that the proofs for our beliefs lie in a "fable."

Younglandmarker,

In both cases you present, I disagree with your logic and therefore disagree with your conclusions. Had I left out the expression "to the masses" in the statement you admittedly went "over the top" about, then your accusation might have merit. Instead, the incredible popularity of Theodosia Earnest in its historical context did exactly what I said it did -- both introduced and substantiated or proved Landmark doctrine to incredible numbers of people who had never heard about it before, either because they were pedobaptists or in the Baptist churches that were sympathetic to them. I find it strange to have to explain such things on a forum called "Landmark." The tract that started it all was called "An Old Landmark Reset." Still, none less than J.R. Graves himself saw the need for a book called, "Old Landmarkism: What is It?" When I speak of such books on this forum I expect people to know what I'm talking about, but I suppose it is possible to claim to be a Landmark Baptist and know nothing about these works or the impact they had on the Baptist world. Some, I guess, have never read them. I find it just as strange when I talk to some of the great "landmarkers" today who don't know about the Cotton Grove Resolutions or what a pedobaptist is. Regardless, my point in the post was that while stories have their place and have even been used in the past in great ways, the bible says "avoid fables." That's it.

Rich

Besides the issues dealt with already, one main truth this thread illustrates that is also true of most of the threads on this forum is how self-evident it is how we expect each poster to read our posts with great thought and meditation, while we read other's posts in a rushed manner and reach a conclusion that may be much different than what the poster intended.

If we would all be honest, we expect each reader to hang on our every word and to be able to understand our motives and be able to put each post into proper context, reading each scripture reference with prayer. But, we almost automatically read into other's posts dubious intent as we scan over it quickly so we can fire off a response based on sometimes faulty conclusions.

I find myself making myself slow down and actually read the posts from you brethren properly before I reply, and I still get it wrong at times.

Preachers can be the most guilty of principles we freely expect, even demand, our congregations to practice toward each other.

Brother Hamlin, I am in general agreement with you, both as to respecting elders and that in the forum we could use more asking and discussing rather than confronting. But...

richhamlin wrote:Come confront me when you've served the Lord's churches for 30 years if I'm still alive...

There's something about that statement I don't like. Perhaps it is that it seems to put one into an "untouchable" position for those who do not have the same amount of experience. When a "younglandmarker" has 30 years experience, by then the one with 30 will have 60 years experience. Must the "30-yearer" still keep quiet? Where does it end? Perhaps this is not what you mean?

Brother Vaughn,

I understand your point. The concern that prompted my remark was based on a comment younglandmarker made that at best I can describe as "cynical." Young seminary students should not be cynical. Young preachers should not speak cynically to their elders, whether pastors or the men of the church. If young preachers begin to think it is allright to speak scornfully to their elders, then both they and the churches they serve will suffer. That was all my comment was designed to emphasize, and I realize now that it could be misconstrued or misapplied.

Rich

Bro. Hamlin,

What do you mean when you described my comment as cynical?

Younglandmarker,

According to Merriam/Webster’s online dictionary, “cynical” implies having a sneering disbelief in the sincerity, motives, or integrity of another. The thesaurus, in addition to “sneering”, cites scornful, distrustful, contemptuous, and disparaging, among a number of others. “Sneering distrust or disbelief” is as good of a definition as I can give. I see that very clearly in this statement for example:

(quote) Hmmm...that's interesting. I never read that book you speak of. The only thing I have read on the subject has been my Bible...Interesting. Just curious, but are you taking a jab at Landmark Baptist ecclessiology? That's alright. I'll go ahead and answer for you, but you can respond if you like. You'll just deny it and say I'm saying things that you are not saying and have never said like you have on other issues. (quote)

I could produce other statements, but honestly I’m really tired of talking about this. This entire thread was based on presumption on your part. The issue should have been cleared up with one answer on my part. To insist on starting another thread when I had already offered a clarification goes even further in this direction.

Now having said that, I must also confess to having made the same mistakes and to fighting the cynical and presumptuous bug myself – not always successfully. “Entreaty” is much better than “cynical” or “presumptuous” at any age or state in life, and a goal to which we should all aspire.

Rich

Brother Hamlin, thanks for your explanation.