Heaven Past Present Future Ministries

ENCOURAGEMENT TO ETERNAL FOCUS IN UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP OF THE GOSPEL

The Right Hand Of Fellowship

Previous Section        Next Section   Table of Contents    Homepage

Email Article             Printer Version    

Are Baptist Not the Same In Baptismal and Ordination Acceptance?

Greatly affecting the practice of acceptance in Baptist churches today are the extremes of two divergent opinions over the present construction of Jesus design for the church in His assigned kingdom work. As is often the case between the two extremes is found the truth upon which the Lord’s churches should practice and stand.

At one corner in Baptist work today are the “Landmark^[i],[ii]” churches who currently are in the minority opinion. Mainly, but not exclusively, their interpretation of the teachings on “the church” is that it only and always in Scripture refers to local assemblies of immersed believers responsible to disciple – baptize – and teach what Jesus commanded in the work of the kingdom. In these assemblies after faith in the gospel in salvation, association with a local New Testament church as a body of Christ is by immersion of that believer by church authority so given by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In strict application often the conclusion of some Landmark contenders is that only Baptist churches, Baptist baptisms, and ordained Baptist ministers are true to Christ having kingdom work authority.

In the other corner are Baptist who claim the Bible teaches a spiritual universal invisible non-assembling ‘body’ called “the church” or “the Body of Christ” -existing today as all collective believers.  In this view of Christ’s Body all believers living in the world are responsible for kingdom work according to specialized diverse ability. These Baptist teach the same gospel as the Landmark churches. One is saved only by repentance and faith in the work of Christ apart from works of men. Further, greatly emphasized is the truth that the believer at salvation experiences a ‘spiritual baptism’ apart from water baptism into “the church – the Body of Christ”. According to Scripture, a spiritual baptism ‘in Christ’ was promised[iii] to New Testament believers culminating in the ultimate unity of all believers in Christ to assemble future as Christ’s body, bride and house in the kingdom to come.

However many ignore the logical conclusions of this belief of teaching that “the church – the Body of Christ” exists visibly or invisibly today as all those who are saved in Christ. The full application is that all the saved as “the church” does Christ’s work on earth collectively regardless of denominational or congregational gospel purity. This reasoning usually eventually leads to acceptance of nearly all religious rites and practices without consideration of Holy Spirit approval. Baptist also experience ultimate contamination of the pure gospel held by most Baptist up until this time by acceptance and tolerance of other gospels. While possibly being true believers many children of God hold variances of the gospel.  The danger is the belief and practice that one generation tolerates the next will embrace and perform.

While there is some truth in both views, both extremes neglect embracing the entire truth of the Bible’s use of the word “church” and Jesus design for such in kingdom work. The word for “church” in Scripture is used both in reference to the local institution on earth that would do the work of the kingdom in this dispensation today and Jesus building of a local future assembly in heaven of all believers. The many expanded references by Baptist authors of the past such as John L. Dagg[iv], William B. Johnson[v], J.P Boyce[vi], John A. Broadus⁶⁶, Hershel H. Hobbs, A.T. Robertson[vii], B.H. Carroll, W.R. Whit and others will thoroughly show both uses in Scripture. 

Never in the Scriptures inspired of the Holy Spirit does the word “church” refer to a universal dispersed body of scattered believers either geographically or spread over centuries of time in this world. On earth Biblically the term “the church” is used as a figure of speech[viii] to teach a truth that applies to all local churches. Yet these particular functional local assemblies of physically baptized believers are a type or figure⁶² of the coming local general assembly of all spiritually baptized believers in Christ kingdom.

Many of the Landmark persuasion forget that Landmark Baptist authors[ix]^{,[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii]} of the past wrote of the Biblical[xiv] truth of the eventual future unity in Christ as one general assembly[xv] or “church” of all believers. This interpretation was consistent with the use of the term “church” in Scripture in speaking of this future local gathering since the meaning of “ecclesia” in Greek always refers to an “assembly” or “congregation”. As mentioned in the introduction mainstream Baptists have never taught only members of Baptist churches will be in heaven. This future “assembly” (“church” in modern translations since the early seventeenth century) will consist of all the redeemed of the ages where all are one with Christ. Salvation has only to do with belief in the gospel as the sole means of heaven. 

The Landmark position is often accused of an over-emphasis in the authority of the local church as administrator of ordinances, ordinations and kingdom work protocol. Often it appears that Holy Spirit authority actually resides in the will of local churches. Concerning religious rites of ordinations and baptism many[xvi] of these reject all but those precisely like themselves in nearly all manners of faith and practice beyond the consideration of the purity of their gospel. The threshold varies greatly for rejection or acceptance of other assemblies of dissimilar faith and practice of such religious rites. The reason for this practice is better understood by looking at the development and growth of Landmarkism.

Generally speaking[xvii], Landmarkism grew out of the Baptist churches, which made similar claims as Anabaptist before them, as a response[xviii] to new challenges of differing faith and practice in presentation of the gospel of Christ. As briefly mentioned the Lord’s assemblies as early as the third century[xix] were called Anabaptist by their opposition since they only immersed adult believers and further baptized those who came from other faiths. By the sixteenth century[xx] the term in the religious world for this practice of baptizing regenerate adults was often shortened to just “Baptist”.  Landmarkism initially grew as a defense of the purity of both of the gospel and baptism as a symbol of that gospel. 

In the nineteenth century J. R. Graves as a leader in the Landmark movement would say the Baptist were the only religious assemblies of the then known religious world[xxi] to correctly preach the pure gospel. At that time all other historically known religious organizations were sacramentalist believing salvation came by keeping the sacraments of baptism, communion and living righteously through the direction of their denominational churches. In nearly all groups other than Baptist infants were immersed or given rites involving water as part of a process of acquiring salvation through Christ. As Paul told the Galatians[xxii] a gospel that involved an addition such as righteous works was really no gospel at all.

By the late nineteenth century Landmarkism had further evolved as the result of standing against the claims of the restorationists such as Campbellites[xxiii] and Mormons[xxiv]. These taught the true gospel had been lost and needed restoration by new revelation to the New Testament pattern in Acts. In defense, rather than defend the purity of the gospel, Landmark Baptist claimed “secessionism[xxv]” telling these new denominations the Lord’s assemblies had correctly done the work of the kingdom in presentation of a pure gospel since the time of Christ so there was no need for restoration to other new or old resurrected variances of the true gospel.

Along with teaching a “succession” view of Jesus promise of “church perpetuity” in Matthew 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” NASB, as part of this defense “church authority” was elevated as absolutely essential for proper kingdom work of disciple –baptize – and teach. Following this thought no kingdom work would be blessed unless the “local church”[xxvi] approved it in formal sponsorship. Further the new modern wealth and prosperity of the churches was incorporated into this position. In this view of the kingdom work of the gospel, presentation could be enhanced by a benevolent collective organization of Baptist churches working together assisting church sent missionaries, establishing like churches, meeting educational needs, and reaching specialized concerns.

Ultimately highly structured para-church organizations of associations and conventions[xxvii] to support this work arose to spend and direct the combined wealth. As disagreeing over the level of organization for decades Arkansas Baptist split[xxviii] in 1901 over such organizational issues[xxix] into what is known today as Missionary Baptist and Southern Baptist. The goal was the same in presenting the pure gospel but the rural churches and city churches could not agree on the depth of organization and numerical rights[xxx] of church messenger representation by church contribution[xxxi] to the cooperative program in decisions made for such collective work together.

For the Baptist, Landmarkism well protected the purity of the gospel in defense against the new, evolving, and growing movements of the Reformation from Catholicism. These Protestants and Pedobaptist to assist each other against common Catholic and Anabaptist opposition began teaching[xxxii] a spiritual invisible non-assembling universal body-church-assembly as corpus Christi to justify existence apart from the Catholic state approved model of corpus Christianum⁵⁰. The doctrine by design enhanced an ecumenical fellowship and tolerant acceptance of all who identified with Christ regardless of gospel purity.

Anabaptist and then Baptist correctly taught rejection of the religious rites of these Protestant and Pedobaptist groups because of an impure gospel. Acceptance of their religious rites involving water was called “alien immersion” (the word alien meaning “outside”) and recognition of ordinations of their ministers for preaching in Baptist pulpits was called “pulpit affiliation.” In the nineteenth century as written by J. R. Graves the easy test for distinguishing the true churches of Christ from unscriptural churches was “Christ before the church, and blood before water.” All other churches but Baptist failed this test at that time having changed to a different gospel for salvation.

Landmarkism effectively defended against corruption of the gospel until the explosion of denominations of varied names in the twentieth century. Many of these new denominations preached a similar gospel while holding to other errors in faith or differing worship practices. Could Baptist then by name claim to be the only true churches when other assemblies were preaching a similar gospel under different names?  Many of these would use the proper symbolism for baptism practicing immersion of adult believers. Here the Landmark position fails since history seems to reveal while holding to a pure gospel for salvation many different names were used and a multitude of divergent errors were taught by those assemblies believed to be in the succession of churches from Christ. 

[i] Critchfield, Ron, Introduction to Landmarkism, Copyright © 1995. THIS WORK IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF RON CRITCHFIELD. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE ELECTRONICALLY OR MECHANICALLY REPRODUCED BEYOND FAIR USE. Mr. Ron Critchfield, is neither a Baptist nor an ordained minister. He is a librarian at Warner Southern College in Lake Wales, Florida. Although many Landmark Baptist would not agree with all of the particulars within this essay, it is, in the main, an accurate, objective historical introduction to the subject of 19th century Landmarkism within the Southern Baptist Convention.

“Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth asserts that "No movement in the nineteenth century had a more profound impact in shaping Southern Baptist identity and intense denominational loyalty than the Landmark movement." (1) The task of this paper is to delineate the classic nineteenth century expression of Landmarkism in order to understand such assertions of Landmark influence as the one made by McBeth. The paper will begin with a general definition of Landmarkism. This will be followed by a brief introduction of the Landmark leaders known as the "Great Triumvirate," namely, James Robinson Graves, Amos Cooper Dayton and James Madison Pendleton. The paper will then focus upon the classic Landmark understanding of true biblical ecclesiology. The specific tenets of Landmark ecclesiology that will be discussed are: Baptist churches are the only true churches; church succession; only immersion in a Baptist church is valid baptism; only Baptist ministers are valid ministers; and adherence to strict autonomy of the local church.

LANDMARKISM

Landmarkism was a movement to preserve the historic and distinctive principles of the Baptist church. Its name was originally derived from Proverbs 22:28 ["Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set (KJV)."] and Job 24:2 ["Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks and feed thereof (KJV)."], which served as proof texts to the fact that the true nature of the Baptist church was being compromised. The name "Landmark" gained official use as the name of the movement following the 1854 publication of the work by J. M. Pendleton entitled, "An Old Landmark Re-set"

J. R. Graves defines the Landmark mission as one "which is to be the witness of Christ's truth against every system of error, and those who originate or advocate them, and above all, by no act to countenance, recognize, aid or abet those who teach error, or to confirm those who are in error." (2) In order to preserve the distinctiveness of the Baptist church, Landmarkers embraced an ecclesiastical system based on the major premise that Baptist churches are the only true churches in the world.

THE GREAT TRIUMVIRATE

The most influential exponent of nineteenth century Landmarkism and of the "Great Triumvirate" was James Robinson Graves (1820-1893). Graves was especially aware of the power of the written word and focused upon the print media as the primary means of spreading Landmark thought. His base of operation for the dissemination of his ideas was a Baptist weekly published at Nashville entitled, The Tennessee Baptist. As publisher and editor of this weekly paper, Graves achieved an extraordinary circulation of around twelve thousand subscriptions by the outbreak of the Civil War. In addition to The Tennessee Baptist, Graves furthered his influence through printed-word as a partner in the publishing firm of South-Western Baptist Publishing House. As a partner in South-Western Baptist Publishing House, Graves insured that the majority of materials published had an obvious Landmark bias. It was in his capacity as a publisher that Graves entered into close relationships with Amos Cooper Dayton and James Madison Pendleton.

Amos Cooper Dayton (1813-1865) became associated with Graves through his frequent contributions to The Tennessee Baptist. In 1855, Graves published Dayton's two-volume novel entitled, Theodosia Ernest, in The Tennessee Baptist. In 1856 and 1857, Graves published the first and second volumes, respectively, in book form. In the first volume of Theodosia Ernest, Dayton was concerned with the issue of valid baptism. And in the second volume, Dayton wrote a detailed account of Landmark ecclesiology.

Another classic Landmark tract published by Graves in 1854 was entitled, "An Old Landmark Re-set," written by James Madison Pendleton (1811-1891). The writing of this tract followed shortly after the meeting of Graves and Pendleton. This meeting occurred in February of 1852 when Pendleton called upon Graves to preach a revival at his church in Bowling Green, Kentucky. As a result of their meeting, Graves influenced Pendleton's thought on biblical ecclesiology.

However, Pendleton must not be viewed as a Landmarker in the same sense as Graves and Dayton. His work, "An Old Landmark Re-set," did provide a major impact for the Landmark movement. But Pendleton did not carry his Landmark thought as far as did Graves or Dayton. Pendleton did not agree with Dayton or Graves on the tenet of church succession. Nor did he exclude the idea of an "invisible" or "universal" church as did Graves. His major points of agreement with Graves and Dayton were the tenets that only Baptist ministers are valid ministers and the strict autonomy of the local church.

BAPTIST CHURCHES ARE THE ONLY TRUE CHURCHES

The Landmark tenet that Baptist churches are the only true churches is the foundation to the whole of classic Landmark thought. It is the a priori premise behind the logic of Landmarkism. Landmarkers begin with the belief that Baptist churches are the only true churches and set out to systematically prove this by way of the four other tenets mentioned above: church succession; only immersion in a Baptist church is valid baptism; only Baptist ministers are valid ministers; and adherence to strict autonomy of the local church.

CHURCH SUCCESSION

The Landmark tenet of church succession concerns the belief that Baptist churches have continued in existence since the time of Christ. The classic Landmark idea of church succession is expressed by two arguments. The first is an argument safeguarding the veracity of Christ, which also provides a logical paradigm to discern the true church. The second is an argument that historically "Baptist" groups have indeed existed even though these groups were not called by the name "Baptist."

The first argument is a syllogism based on an appeal to the authority of the Scripture. Graves focused upon the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18 as the ultimate validation of church succession: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (KJV)." The logic of this argument is as follows:

Major Premise: Christ established only one church

Minor Premise: Christ said that nothing would prevail against his church

Conclusion: Thus, the one true church that Christ established never ceased to exist and therefore exists today. Graves explains, in his book entitled, Old Landmarkism: What is it?, that to deny this logic is to deny the veracity of Christ:

We believe that his kingdom has stood unchanged, as firmly as we believe in the divinity of the Son of God, and, when we are forced to surrender the one faith, we can easily give up the other. If Christ has not kept his promise concerning his church to keep it, how can I trust him concerning my salvation? If he has not the power to save his church, he certainly has not the power to save me. For Christians to admit that Christ has not preserved his kingdom unbroken, unmoved, unchanged, and uncorrupted, is to surrender the whole ground to infidelity. I deny that a man is a believer in the Bible who denies this. (3)

Hugh Wamble summarizes the logic of this argument well: "The Landmark argument is quite simple: to deny the continuous existence of Christ's church (kingdom) is, implicitly, to deny Christ, and to trust Christ as a trustworthy savior is, implicitly, to believe in the continuous existence of His church." (4)

In the classic expression of Landmarkism, the major premise is understood in an exclusive manner to refer only to Baptist churches. Given the logic of this argument for church succession, one can see that the Landmarker need only to apply the marks of the New Testament church as a test to prove a true church. The marks, or mandates, of the New Testament church, according to Landmarkers, are baptism by immersion only, baptism is a symbolic act devoid of any sacramental aspect, membership of believers only, and local, democratic polity as opposed to hierarchical polity. Thus, Baptist churches alone hold true to the criteria of the New Testament church and all other religious societies are false.

The second argument is an attempt to provide proofs of the existence of Baptist groups throughout history. In his second volume of Theodosia Ernest, Dayton charts the historical representations of Baptist church succession from 250 CE, the year in which he believed corruption began, through the beginning of the nineteenth century. (5) Dayton held that these churches "were Baptists in fact, though known by other names." (6) James E. Tull explains that this argument is one with the emphasis "wholly upon the similarities between Baptists and the dissenting groups which the Landmarkers chose to use." (7) And in the attempt to find historically similar groups, Landmarkers paid no regard to the significant differences between the thought of some groups and Baptist thought. For example, two groups of considerable difference from Baptists that were included on Dayton's chart were the Donatists and Cathari. (8)

It must be noted that Landmark teaching of church succession is not a Baptist version of apostolic succession. This misconception persisted during Graves's lifetime and continues to this day. Graves states, in An Old Landmark: What is it?, that "We repudiate the doctrine of apostolic succession; we do not believe they ever had a successor, and, therefore, no one to-day is preaching under the apostolic commission any more than under that which Christ first gave to John the Baptist." (9) The true church for the Landmarker is, as explained above, only one which is faithful to the mandates of Christ and the New Testament. Thus, the tenet of church succession is ultimately an antithesis to apostolic succession. Where other groups appeal to an unbroken line of authority back to the apostles, Landmarkers appeal to the continued manifestation of the true scriptural church back to the time of Christ and prior to any form of corruption that entered into the church.

ONLY IMMERSION IN A BAPTIST CHURCH IS VALID BAPTISM

The belief that only immersion in a Baptist church is valid baptism is a direct corollary of the Landmark thought that Baptist churches are the only true churches. Included in this tenet is a vehement claim that the Greek word baptidzein, "to baptize," can have no other meaning than immersion. Much of Dayton's first volume of Theodosia Ernest focuses upon the meaning of this word. Dayton writes in a polemical nature against any who discern any meaning other than immersion as the true mode of baptism. An example of Dayton's polemic can be found in the words of Mr. Courtney, the Baptist apologist of the novel. Mr. Courtney argues the correct meaning of baptidzein against Dr. McNought: "The Lexicons of the language all agree in giving `to dip,' `to plunge,' as at least its primary and most common signification; and no one of them gives to sprinkle or to pour--and yet you say, no one can tell for certain that this word means to dip, and not to sprinkle or to pour." (10)

ONLY BAPTIST MINISTERS ARE VALID MINISTERS

It is the tenet that only Baptist ministers are valid ministers that initially sparked Baptist interest in Landmark thought. In his influential work, "An Old Landmark Re-set," Pendleton argues that "an original, but now fallen, landmark of Baptists was a refusal to recognize non-Baptist ministers by exchanging pulpits with them or accepting their sacramental (ordinantial) acts." (11) Given the main Landmark tenet that Baptist churches are the only true churches, it is only logical that the true church must not recognize leaders of other groups. And given this, it also logically follows that only Baptist ministers are valid ministers. This tenet serves Landmarkers as a way of safeguarding their true churches from becoming corrupt like all other societies.

Included in this tenet is the internal stress on the valid ordination of a Baptist minister. The minister must take his position seriously and prove himself able as a Baptist minister. James E. Tull explains that "The Landmark emphasis upon the valid ordination of the ministry created the misleading impression that the Landmarkers were advocates of apostolic succession." (12) As noted above, Landmarkers repudiate the doctrine of apostolic succession. The Landmark view of clergy insists upon an anticlerical view in which ministers follow the New Testament precepts and thus do not comprise the government of the church. For the Landmarker, the only government of the church is the democratic government of the local church.

ADHERENCE TO STRICT AUTONOMY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH

The Landmark tenet of strict autonomy of the local church is held in the highest regard as indicative of a true scriptural church. James E. Tull explains that:

As conclusive evidence that the church has a local expression only, Graves found that the word ecclesia in New Testament Greek, the word which "the Holy Spirit selected," had "but one possible literal meaning." It meant simply a local organization. This word, Graves stated, is used in the New Testament one hundred ten times. In one hundred of these, it undoubtedly refers to local, organized churches. In the remaining ten instances of its use, it is used figuratively, "...where a part is put for the whole, the singular for the plural, one for all." (13)

Dayton expresses this tenet by an appeal to the way the New Testament speaks of various churches. In his second volume of Theodosia Ernest, Dayton explains that we do not read that the Church of Jerusalem incorporated other churches to become the Church of Judea. Rather, the Church of Jerusalem "was surrounded by `the churches which were in Judea,' each of them as independent, each of them as much a Church, as it was itself." (14) Thus, since each New Testament church stood as an independent, local organization, the only true expression of a church is found in those who follow this New Testament example.

Pendleton agrees with Graves and Dayton that the New Testament mandate was for strict autonomy of the local church and its internal, democratic government. However, Graves carries this tenet to the extreme in that he equates the whole of local Baptist churches with the "visible" church. By this Graves emphatically denies any existence of an "invisible," or "universal" church. Pendleton disagrees with this extremity in the thought of Graves. Keith E. Eitel explains that the "universal church existed in Pendleton's system because non-Baptists could indeed be regenerate believers." (15) Pendleton, while holding the view of valid Baptist ecclesiology, could not bring himself to the extreme exclusiveness to which Graves adhered. (Editor’s note: This is not to say Pendleton would agree with the Protestant view of the “universal church” existing today in the world of all the redeemed to do kingdom work. For Pendleton his “universal church” was made up of all the aggregate of the redeemed when assembled future. See Pendleton and other Baptist References in this treatise 18, 21, and 71.)

The influence of classic nineteenth century Landmark thought can easily be understood by its logical expression delineated above. The major premise of Landmarkism, that only Baptist churches are true churches, and its supporting tenets form a cohesive, logical system of thought. In a pluralistic religious environment, such a system serves to reinforce belonging and to provide a wealth of meaning for those seeking to discern which religious group is a faithful expression of Christ's church. And at a time when a Baptist people were largely uncritical in their thinking, the classic expression of Landmarkism became an authentic, authoritative ideology.

After having examined the classic expression of Landmarkism, this study begs the questions of: To what extent do we find Landmark ideology in Baptist churches today? And, are the aspects of Landmarkism found today valid aspects of what it means to be Baptist? The Baptist must use her or his critical mind to evaluate this aspect of Baptist history in order to discern the cogency and/or fallacy within the Landmark legacy.

END NOTES

(1) H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), p. 316.

(2) Taken from H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), pp. 319-320.

(3) Ibid., p. 324.

(4) Hugh Wamble, "Landmarkism: Doctrinaire Ecclesiology Among Baptists," Church History 33, No. 4 (December 1964): p. 440.

(5) A.C. Dayton, Theodosia Ernest, Volume II; or, Ten Days' Travel in Search of the Church (Nashville: South-Western Baptist Publishing House, 1857), p. 476.

(6) Ibid., p. 461.

(7) James E. Tull, A History of Southern Baptist Landmarkism in the Light of Historical Baptist Ecclesiology (New York: Arno Press, 1980), p. 182.

(8) Both the Donatists and Cathari were groups opposed to the establishment of Roman Catholicism. However, both groups held very different ideas than Baptists. Donatists held that they were the only true church because their clergy maintained purity in the face of pre-Constantinian persecution. Thus, the Donatists kept the Episcopal hierarchy and overall structure of the Roman Catholic Church but maintained that they were the only valid administrators of the sacraments. And a major difference of the Cathari from Baptists was that the highest class of Cathari held a Gnostic idea of the soul being trapped in the prison of the human body. Strict asceticism was practiced in order to separate the soul from its imprisonment. Reproduction was discouraged because it only served to increase the bondage of souls. And the lower class of Cathari hoped to be reincarnated into the higher class so that they, too, could one day separate their souls from the imprisonment in the body.

(9) Taken from McBeth, Sourcebook, p. 324.

(10) A.C. Dayton, Theodosia Ernest or The Heroine of Faith (Nashville: South-Western Publishing House, 1856), p. 377.

(11) Wamble, p. 432.

(12) Tull, p. 198.

(13) Ibid., p. 155.

(14) Dayton, Theodosia Ernest, volume 2, p. 93.

(15) Keith E. Eitel, "James Madison Pendleton," in Baptist Theologians, edited by Timothy George and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), p. 198.

WORKS CONSULTED

Baker, Robert A. The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People, 1607-1972. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974.

Dayton, A.C. Theodosia Ernest or The Heroine of Faith. Nashville: South-Western Publishing House, 1856.

Dayton, A.C. Theodosia Ernest, Volume II; or, Ten Days' Travel in Search of the Church. Nashville: South-Western Baptist Publishing House, 1857.

Eitel, Keith E. "James Madison Pendleton" in Baptist Theologians, pp. 188-204. Edited by Timothy George and David S.Dockery. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990.

McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987.

McBeth,H. Leon. A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990.

Newman, Albert Henry. A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1915.

Smith, Harold S. "J.R. Graves" in Baptist Theologians, pp. 223-248. Edited by Timothy George and David S. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990.

Steely, John E. "The Landmark Movement in the Southern Baptist Convention." in What is the Church? Edited by Duke K. McCall. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958.

Tull, James E. A History of Southern Baptist Landmarkism in the Light of Historical Baptist Ecclesiology. New York: Arno Press, 1980.

Wamble, Hugh. "Landmarkism: Doctrinaire Ecclesiology Among Baptists," Church History 33, No. 4 (December 1964): pp. 429-447.”

[ii] Bryans, Phillip R., AN ANALYSIS OF THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF ASSOCIATIONAL BAPTISTS, 1900-1950, 1973. A dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy degree at Baylor University, Waco, Texas. Covers early Landmarkism thought. At http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8297/diss/index.htm 

[iii] Hamlin, Richard, in Baptized into One Body. The following list appears of related Scriptures to the discussion of spiritual baptism. Article currently read at www.beecreekbaptist.org under Articles.

“There are seven (7) passages in the New Testament which refer directly to the subject of spiritual baptism:

• Matthew 3:11  I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and [in] fire:

• Mark 1:8  I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

• Luke 3:16  John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and [in] fire:

• John 1:33  And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.

• Acts 1:5  For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

• Acts 11:16  And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

• 1Cor. 12:13  For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. (N.A.S., this verse only)”

[iv] Dagg, John L., Manual of Theology, Second Part, A Treatise on Church Order, 1858. Published by THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY. At http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol2/ch3.html. This was the first Southern Baptist published theology. John A. Broadus in his Memoir of James P. Boyce, 1893, said,

 “Dr. Dagg was a man of great ability and loveable character. His works are worthy of thorough study, especially his small volume, “A Manual of Theology.” (Amer. Bap. Pub. Soc.), which is remarkable for clear statement of the profoundest truths, and for devotional sweetness. The writer of the Memoir…found this manual a delight, and has felt through life the pleasing impulse it gave to theological inquiry and reflection.”   

In CHAPTER III THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL Dr. Dagg writes:

“In some of the passages the extension of the term to the whole body of believers, is perfectly apparent. In others, though it is not so apparent that the entire body is intended, yet this signification perfectly harmonizes with the use of the term, the context, and scope of the passage.”

“So death separates the saints below from the saints above; but they are one--one company, one church; and the heavenly Jerusalem is the place of their joyful meeting in one glorious and happy assembly. This is the church in which there will be glory to God by Jesus Christ, throughout all ages, world without end. ³¹

“…The text last considered shows clearly the propriety of applying the term ecclesia to the entire body of the saints. Though they do not meet in one assembly on earth, they belong to the assembly above, and are on their way to join it. They have been called out of the world, with the heavenly calling which is the summons to meet in the assembly. In obedience to this summons, they quit the world, count themselves no more of it, and are on their march to the city of which they claim to be citizens, and to the company with which they are to be eternally united. As the church at Corinth were an ecclesia, considered as bound to assemble in one place, though not actually assembled; so believers in Christ, considered as bound for heaven and on their way thither, are one ecclesia with the saints who have already arrived at the place of final meeting.”

“…Some have thought that the extended sense of the word is metaphorical; like body, flock, fold, house, temple, applied to the same subject. They suppose it to mean the whole body of Christ's disciples, not literally assembled, but bearing a relation to each other, similar to that which the members of a local church bear to each other. But, on the general principle of interpretation, the literal meaning is to be preferred whenever the subject admits it. The other terms cannot be taken literally; but a literal assembly of Christ's disciples is not only possible, but is expected by all of them, and is in part the hope of their calling.”

“…The Church Universal is in progress of construction, and will be completed at the end of the world, after which it will endure for ever… The words of the Saviour, "On this rock will I build my church," prove that the building was not then completed. …The work is still in progress; and innumerable multitudes are yet to be gathered, who are to complete the glorious structure. On the last day, when all the redeemed shall have been brought in, Jesus will present them to the Father: "Behold, I and the children which God hath given me." ⁷⁵ This will be the church completed in number, sanctified and glorified, a glorious church, without spot, wrinkle, or any such thing. The church will remain throughout eternity: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end." ⁷⁶ …Some difficulty exists in determining the date at which the church of Christ may be properly said to have commenced. …So Christ said, "on this rock will I build my church," as if the work was still future; and yet the edifice is said to be built on the foundation of the prophets, as well as of the apostles. ⁷⁹ The Scriptures represent a gathering of all things under Christ, both in heaven and on earth, ⁸⁰ at the time of his exaltation in human nature to supreme dominion. The Old Testament saints who had been saved by the efficacy of his blood before it was shed, and who had desired to understand what the Holy Ghost signified when it testified to their prophets concerning the sufferings of Christ, and the glory which should follow, were waiting in heaven for the unfolding of this mystery. Moses and Elias evinced their interest in this theme, when, during their brief interview with the Saviour on the mount of transfiguration, they discoursed of the decease which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. ⁸¹ The angels had desired to look into this mystery, but the fulness of time for its disclosure did not arrive until the man Christ Jesus entered the heavenly court, and was crowned with glory and honor. Then the angels gathered around and worshipped the Son. Then the saints drew near, and adored him as their Lord and Saviour. The proclamation was made throughout the courts of glory, and every inhabitant of heaven rendered willing homage to the Mediator. The Holy Spirit brought the proclamation down to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, that it might go thence through all the earth. They who gladly received it, were received into his royal favor, made citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, and members of the great ecclesia.”

“…In the words of Christ before cited, the church is represented as a building. The beginning of an edifice may be dated back to the first movement in preparing the materials. In this view the church was begun, when Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham first exercised faith. But in another view, the building was commenced when the materials were brought together in their proper relation to Jesus Christ. To the Old Testament saints, until gathered under Christ with the saints of the present dispensation, Paul attributes a sort of incompleteness, which may be not unaptly compared to the condition of building materials not yet put together: "These all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." ⁸² (Emphasis mine)

31. Eph. iii. 21 76. Eph. iii. 21.  79. Eph. ii. 20. 80. Eph. i. 10. 81. Luke ix. 31. 82. Heb. xi. 39, 40.

[v] Johnson, William B., A CHURCH OF CHRIST With her OFFICERS, LAWS, DUTIES, & FORM OF GOVERNMENT. At http://www.founders.org/library/church.html Sermon delivered, Lord’s Day, September 22, 1844 at Gilead Meeting House, Union Dist. South Carolina. Dr. Johnson was the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention. James M. Morton, Jr. in an article in Baptist History and Heritage “No single individual had more to do with determining the nature of the Southern Baptist Convention than W. B. Johnson.” He preached:

“This term is, in the original Greek, "ecclesia," and denotes an assembly or congregation. It was used in the Grecian Democracies, to designate an assembly of the citizens called out by the proper authority. Though the term is sometimes employed to signify an assembly of people unrighteously gathered together, as in Acts 19:32, - "The assembly (ecclesia) was confused, and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together." The leading import of this term is an assembly, or congregation. In this sense, the New Testament Writers use it as applying to the people of God. One of its uses in this respect will be seen in the following passages: "Upon this rock, I will build my church, ecclesia, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, ecclesia, which is his Body, the fullness of him; that filleth all in all." "Christ loved the church, ecclesia, and gave himself for it." "He is head over all things to the church," ecclesia. From these passages it is evident, that this term means the assembly, the congregation, the whole Body of redeemed souls, who, called out of darkness into light by Christ, as their Head, will constitute the general Assembly and church of the first born, whose names are written in Heaven. That this is not the sense, in which the term is to be received in our text, will satisfactorily appear from the fact, that the whole Body of the saints, the general church, cannot be assembled on earth for the management of its affairs. Some of its members are now "the spirits of just men made perfect." Others are in a course of preparation for being added to them, and millions more are yet to undergo the same blessed preparation, that they may attain to a fitness for the same society.

A second use of this term will be seen in the following Scriptures: "There was a great persecution against the church, ecclesia, which was at Jerusalem." Of this "church, Paul made havoc." After the conversion of this Persecutor, "the churches, ecclesae, had rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee and Samaria." "There were in the church, ecclesia, that was at Antioch, certain Prophets and Teachers." And when the Judaizing teachers, pretending authority from the church at Jerusalem, went down to the church at Antioch, and taught that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, some of these teachers were out to Jerusalem to enquire if such authority had been given. On their arrival, "they were received of the church, ecclesia, and the Apostles and Elders." We read also of the churches, ecclesae, at Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Colosse, Philippi, Achaia, Galatia, and Asia Minor. What were these churches, but different assemblies or congregations of the general assembly and church of the first born, whose names are written in Heaven, associated together for local convenience in different places, to worship God, to promote their own edification, maintain discipline, and exhibit the grace and power of their great Head?”

[vi] Boyce, J.P. Dr., Local, Visible Ekklesia, 1857. This was an unpublished work referred to as a “great work” by Dr. John A. Broadus. Of this work Dr. R. E. Pound says,

“Several years, ago, in the mid- 1970s, I purchased J. A. Broadus’ Biography of James P. Boyce. In it, I found out about Dr. Boyce’s work on ekklesia. Dr. Broadus referred to it as an unpublished work… I had the set of The Christian Review in my personal library. After I sold these, I kept my notes on the important items in each volume. A few months ago, I ordered this work from The Historical Archives of The Southern Baptist Convention. When this work came back to me, I noted it briefly, and then put it aside. I knew it was a very good and important work which, to my knowledge, had never been published as a separate work. In the process of time, while gathering materials for a proposed www site on Christology, I noted some remarks from Dr. Boyce’s Abstract of Theology in which he touches on the Church in the atonement, and sets forth his views of the two fold usage of the term church. Basically, he understood the term in the same way that Dr. J. M. Pendleton did, no invisible church….This discovery started me thinking about this old work on ekklesia. As I reread it, I noted that it was almost on the same plan and level of Boyce’s great work on Theology. Therefore, by the inward evidence, I concluded that this was the great work Dr. Broadus mentioned, and called an unpublished work on Ekklesia. I had tried to locate it in its handwritten form…Dr. Boyce maintained almost word for word the concepts of John Spilsbury and the first generation of Particular Baptists. He says ekklesia refers either to the particular church or churches or the general church. He does not use the term general church, but universal church. He does not know about any invisible church. The general church is made up of the sum total of members of the visible gospel churches. To be a member of the universal church or general church, one must first become a member of the gospel church. I am amused by the way the northern, liberal editors of The Christian Review differed from his concepts. They made footnotes and don't want their readers to believe they hold to the views of the writer. Of course not, they were invisible churchites. One important point I noted was this, Dr. Boyce held the same views on conversion that John Spilsbury and the others held, that is, when one is converted, it is more than having faith in Christ Jesus, it is into the true and visible order of Christ Jesus. The Christian Review editors denied this concept of conversion. The work is very well organized, scholarly, with many Greek and Hebrew words. His conclusions are, all the figurative usages for the ekklesia support the visible church concept only. I hope you enjoy this great work from the past. Dr. Boyce truly was a giant in his thoughts and knowledge as well as in his spirituality.” At http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/boyce2.htm

Dr. Boyce writes,

“In these two examples, which are the only ones that occur in the Gospels, we have illustrations of the two, and the only two meanings which the word has throughout the New Testament, when used in its sacred sense. In every place where the word occurs, it means either particular Local congregation of professed Christians, or the whole body of the professed disciples of Christ—that is, the aggregate not of the churches, but of the membership of all the local churches. Men are added to the "church universal" by becoming members of the "local churches."* No man car be a member of the church universal, who is not a member of a regular, local gospel church—a church built upon the model of those established by Christ and His apostles , according to the specific terms of his commission to his apostles, Matthew xxviii:19,20. The church universal is not an organized body, or a body so constituted as to form and exercise the functions of one ecclesiastical government. This suggests an important rule by which we may generally ascertain whether the word "church"—ekklesia—as it occurs in the New Testament, refers to a single congregation of Christians, or to the general congregation, "the church universal." When the church is spoken of us discharging the functions that belong properly to an organized body—as of assembling together, exercising discipline, appointing officers, sending forth messengers, it is, in such cases; always a a particular local congregation that is meant. This twofold application, in the Scriptures, of the word ekklesia, accords very nearly with a similar application of the word family, as commonly used by us. This word, like the word "church," is properly used in only two senses, that is, of a single family, and of the whole race of man. And so, too, when we speak of the "human family," or of family in its general sense, we do not think of it as an organized body, or as a body made up of separate individual families united into one, but as a class or order of beings, made up of individuals belonging to the several single families.

Such we are to presume to be the meanings of the word in the New Testament . Any other application would have been entirely arbitrary, and can be admitted only when it has been shown that the other applications are in any case altogether impossible.”

[vii] Robertson, A.T. Dr., Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Matt 16:18

I will build my church oikodomeesoo  mou  teen  ekkleesian . It is the figure of a building and he uses the word ekkleesian which occurs in the New Testament usually of a local organization, but sometimes in a more general sense. What is the sense here in which Jesus uses it? The word originally meant "assembly" (Acts 19:39), but it came to be applied to an "unassembled assembly" as in Acts 8:3 for the Christians persecuted by Saul from house to house. "And the name for the new Israel, ekkleesia, in His mouth is not an anachronism. It is an old familiar name for the congregation of Israel found in Deuteronomy (Deut. 18:26; 23:2 ) and Psalms (Psa. 22:36 ), both books well known to Jesus" (Bruce). It is interesting to observe that in Ps 89 most of the important words employed by Jesus on this occasion occur in the Septuagint text.

So oikodomeesoo  in Ps 89:5(4); ekkleesia in Ps 89:6(5); katischuoo in Ps 89:22(21); Christos in Ps 89:39(38); Ps 89:52(51); hadees in Ps 89:49(48) ek cheiros  hadou. If one is puzzled over the use of "building" with the word ekkleesia it will be helpful to turn to 1 Peter 2:5. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is here speaking, writing to the Christians in the five Roman provinces in Asia (1 Peter 1:1), says: "You are built a spiritual house" oikodomeisthe oikos  pneumatikos. It is difficult to resist the impression that Peter recalls the words of Jesus to him on this memorable occasion. Further on (1 Peter 2:9), he speaks of them as "an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation," showing beyond controversy that Peter's use of building a spiritual house is GENERAL, not local. This is undoubtedly the picture in the mind of Christ here in Matt 16:18. It is a great spiritual house, Christ's ISRAEL, not the Jewish nation, which he describes. What is the rock upon which Christ will build his vast temple? Not on Peter alone or mainly or primarily. Peter by his confession was furnished with the illustration for the rock on which His church will rest. It is the same kind of faith that Peter has just confessed. The perpetuity of this church general is guaranteed. (Emphasis mine)

[viii] Synecdoche - A figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole or the whole for the part - by use of definite article "the" with "church" a truth is expressed that applies to all "churches" - It does not imply just one great big large church in use. Example: The flag is a great emblem of American patriotism. This does not imply all flags are a part of one great big flag. The figure of speech expresses a truth about the flag that applies to all flags. All flags are thus a symbol of American patriotism.

[ix] James M. Pendleton, Church Manual, 1867, originally published by the American Baptist Publication Society, p. 5-6, he states:

“The term Church occurs in the New Testament more than a hundred times.  The word thus translated means congregation or assembly; but it does not indicate the purpose for which the congregation or assembly meets.  Hence it is used, Acts 19:32,39,41, and rendered assembly.  In every other place in the New Testament it is translated church.  In its application to the followers of Christ, it refers either to a particular congregation of saints, or to the redeemed in the aggregate.  It is employed in the latter sense in Ephesians 1:22, 3:21, 5:25,27.   “To him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages world without end”.  “Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it.... that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”  In these passages, and a few more like them, it would be absurd to define the term church as meaning a particular congregation of Christians, meeting in one place for the worship of God.” (Emphasis mine)

[x] Bogard, Ben M., 52 Doctrinal Lessons, undated, in Chapter titled “The Doctrine of Church Organization.”  Published by Bogard Press, Texarkana TX, pp. 26-27.

”Is the word “church” ever used in the sense of all the redeemed?  Answer:  Hebrews 12:23.  In this passage the inspired writer conceives of all the redeemed as an “assembly” – the called out into a special company.  This assembly has no real existence, since an assembly means a congregation, and there can be no congregation or assembly unless the people come together.  So “the general assembly and church of the firstborn” has never had a meeting and hence is only a mental concept of what will be when we shall all be gathered together in heaven.  The only church that has an actual existence at this time is the local congregation.  We sometimes speak of “the lion,” meaning all lions, “the horse” meaning all horses, “the eagle,” meaning all eagles.  So we speak of “the church,” meaning all churches or congregations of Christ.””

[xi] Pendleton, James M. and George W. Clark, The New Testament with Brief Notes, 1884, published by The Judson Press, Philadelphia, p. 625.  (Commentary on the Gospels was by George Clark, on the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation by James Pendleton.) On Hebrews 12:23 he said:

The general assembly and church: probably the people of God on earth contemplated in the aggregate.  Of the first-born: denoting the high distinction of saints, even as the first-born under the Jewish Economy were distinguished.  Written in heaven: These spiritual first-born are enrolled in heaven; for their citizenship is there.  To God the judge of all: as your friend.  The spirits of just men made perfect: the disembodied spirits of the saints.

[xii] Pendleton, James M., Christian Doctrines, c. 1878 published by American Baptist Publication Society, 1701 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 217-218.

“I wish to make prominent the fact that Jesus claims the right to exercise kingly authority over his churches.  Such right is implied in the first use of the term “church” in the New Testament: “Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) It will be observed that Christ says, “My church.”  It was to be his property, belonging to him in a sense that justified him in claiming it as his own.  This is true of the term “church” in the two prominent acceptations in which it is used by Christ and the apostles.  It is employed to denote the aggregate body of the redeemed, the “glorious church” which Christ is to present to himself, “not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing,” as we are taught in Eph. 5:27.  In almost numberless cases in the New Testament the word church is used to describe a local congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, united in the belief of what he has said, and covenanting to do what he has commanded.” (Emphasis mine)

[xiii]  Ben M. Bogard, Pillars of Orthodoxy, or Defenders of the Faith, 1900, published by Baptist Book Concern, Louisville KY, p. 251. In defense of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith:

“So that while the confession says, “The Catholic or universal church – the elect that ever have been, are, or shall be only with respect to the eternal work of the Spirit and truth of grace – may be called universal, these elect are commanded to walk in particular societies or churches, visibly manifesting their call by walking together in their professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel.”  Thus it is.  Catholic church is all the elect; the elect are called to particular churches in subjection to the ordinances, and the only universality is “the internal work of the Spirit” whose operation is as the viewless wind.” (Emphasis mine)

[xiv] Ephesians 5:22-32

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. NAS (emphasis mine)

[xv] Hebrews 12:22-24

22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. NAS (emphasis mine)

[xvi] Hamlin, Richard, in personal Internet discussions concerning baptism and authority, 2003.

The Landmark position concerning the rejection of alien or non-Baptist immersion was born in a day when it could well be argued that Baptists alone were proclaiming the truth of the gospel and practicing baptism by immersion of believers only.  Even though their arguments repeatedly referenced the idea that baptism must be by “proper authority” (i.e. a scriptural church), this argument was presented in a context where only Baptists could be identified as scriptural churches on the basis of the preaching of the true gospel and administration of baptism for the proper purpose.  These two issues also constituted the primary means by which the historical argument (i.e. successionism) could be substantiated. 

In the intervening years, many other groups have appeared on the scene who are proclaiming the truth of the gospel and baptizing by immersion those who have made a profession of faith in Christ.  The original arguments used to reject non-Baptist immersions do not apply in this modern context.  Nevertheless, the effort to declare all non-Baptist immersions as invalid continues in a rigid form of Baptist traditionalism.

The original Landmark argument, short of Grave's position on the kingdom of Christ as composed of all local churches, is essentially valid.  If a church teaches baptismal regeneration (and all churches practicing infant baptism believe this), then such a church has perverted the truth of the gospel and is not a "gospel (evangelical) church."  My summation of the original Landmark argument is that if they are wrong on the gospel, they cannot be right on the symbol of the gospel, which is baptism. 

But the Landmark arguments did not stop there.  As the movement grew, it also intensified.  Originally, the Landmark positions held that only a scriptural church could authorize a scriptural baptism, therefore a baptism performed by a minister from a non-scriptural church was invalid because it lacked that authority.  The emphasis on this argument, as demonstrated earlier, was on the truth of the gospel.  As time went on, the emphasis shifted to the aspect of "proper authority" based on the theory of church succession.  I believe I can prove that the theory of church succession was born out of the attempt to counter the "restorationist" movements of Mormonism and Campbellism.  In time, this "proper authority" based on succession became the driving force behind the tradition of rejecting non-Baptist immersion! s.  In his book, “Old Landmarkism, What is it?” (p. 128) Graves spoke of a book to be called, “The Seven Churches of Revelation, in course of preparation by the writer,” which would present the chronological history of Baptist Churches, and supposedly prove the validity of his succession theories.  The book was never published.  Most modern Landmarkers follow the lead of Graves, in denying that there is a succession of Baptist churches while at the same time using the absence of succession to deny the validity of non-Baptist immersions.

[xvii]  Personal Comment: It is understood that these generalities of history at times do not always portray the mean consensus of the majority Baptist practice or even the outliers of the minority very different from the more common practice. History is often written and interpreted with bias to one’s view. For example, it would be easy for one to discover evidence in years to come about Baptist from the view of some Baptist in Tennessee who handled snakes in the worship services.  While outliers well away from the mean of Baptist practice, still they are Baptist by name. It would be told that Baptist worshiped as a cult. For the most part those holding faith like unto today’s Baptist were ‘dissenters’ against beliefs and practices of established State religion. Often to write, keep records, or publicly espouse their views meant certain punishment or death. This changed little until the seventeenth century in America. Without doubt as enemies of the State information about these dissenters was never portrayed in the best light and was often sensationalized to justify extreme punishment or death. Truth about Jesus church does not depend on majority or minority view, large or small size, wealthy or poor status, or new or old heritage. While not always having to be the case, churches who held Biblical truth in the inspired historical accounts of the Bible were the outliers very different from those around themselves religiously who also claimed Christ. Therefore other historical records of varied practices away from those documented does neither negate nor affirm the possibility of these mentioned embracing the faith and practice Jesus designed for His churches.

[xviii] Robinson, David, “WHY WE ARE CALLED LANDMARK BAPTISTS”, Christian Education Bulletin, October, 2000, Bogard Press, Texarkana, Texas  75503-2928

The Situation in the Mid 1800s

The first half of the 1800s was a time of rapid almost uncontrolled growth, both in population of unsettled areas of the nation and in church expansion.  There were few roads; communication was almost nonexistent, and many on the frontiers of Kentucky and Tennessee, were for practical purposes, isolated and alone.

The missionary societies of the East Cost were beginning to promote the sending of missionaries, both to witness to the Indian tribes and to establish new congregations in the frontier towns that were emerging in the territories.

The isolation of the frontier gave rise to a compromise of doctrinal position by many Baptists and by other groups as well.  Some groups readily adapted to any new doctrine that came along, and some, like most Baptists, reluctantly went along with compromise.  Different congregations often shared the same building and often the same preacher.  In a land hungry for the Word, not much attention was paid to the denomination of the speaker.

Congregations were also cut off from those in the East so that there was no transfer of heritage other than that brought by the people themselves.  When difficult questions arose, there was no way to obtain the counsel of wiser brethren.

By the mid 1850s, all of these forces caused many churches to become indistinguishable.  It was a common practice to have a Methodist preach one Sunday, a Presbyterian the next and a Baptist after that.  Any group that called itself a church was recognized as such, and members were even exchanged often without regard to whether or not they agreed with a particular doctrinal position.

J. R. Graves and Others

James Robinson Graves was born on April 20, 1820, in Chester, Vermont.  When he was fifteen years old, he was baptized in the Baptist church in Springfield, Vermont.  His mother was a Congregationalist though all her children were Baptists.  Graves was driven to learn.  By giving eight hours a day to study, he completed a college course in four years and also learned four foreign languages at the same time.  This remarkable man would have a profound influence on Baptist thought.

Graves became convinced of the supremacy of the local church as the institution of the kingdom of God.  During his early years, missionary societies were on the rise.  One of the first inklings we see of Graves’ emerging stand was when a missionary society attempted to extend its work to the poor and freed slaves of the South.  Graves objected to this stating that the society was attempting to displace the obligations of the churches that were already in the South.

Other leaders of the last half of the nineteenth century included J. N. Hall, J. M. Pendleton and Ben M. Bogard.  All of these men were strong advocates of the local church position.  They believed and taught that all associations and conventions were properly the servants of the churches.

Ben M. Bogard was famous for his, “Come in and hang up your hat” illustration.  He often stated that an association was a gathering of like-minded people.  You joined when you came in and fellowshipped with the group and you left when you left.  He believed, and rightly so, that a local church should never surrender any sovereignty or independence to any ecclesiastical body.

The Cotton Grove Resolutions

In 1846, Graves took charge of the paper The Tennessee Baptist.  He soon began to editorialize against the propriety of alien immersion and the common practice of having those who baptized infants to fill Baptist pulpits.  His editorials stirred such controversy that a meeting was called at Cotton Grove Baptist Church outside of Jackson, Tennessee, on June 24, 1851.  In this meeting, these matters were discussed and a series of resolutions were adopted.  These caught the attention of Baptists throughout the South and formed the basis for the Landmark movement.

At the Cotton Grove meeting, J. R. Graves offered the following questions:

1. Can Baptists with their principles on the Scriptures, consistently recognize those societies not organized according to the Jerusalem church, but possessing different government, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinances, doctrines and practices as churches of Christ?

2. Ought they to be called gospel churches or churches in a religious sense?

3. Can we consistently recognize the ministers of such irregular and unscriptural bodies as gospel ministers?

4. Is it not virtually recognizing them as official ministers to invite them into our pulpits or by any other act that would or could be construed as such recognition?

5. Can we consistently address as brethren those professing Christianity who not only have not the doctrine of Christ and walk not according to his commandments but are arrayed in direct and bitter opposition to them?

Each of these questions was unanimously answered in the negative, and the Baptists of Tennessee endorsed the decision

[xix] Carroll, J.M., The Trail of Blood, 1931. Prominent Southern Baptist leader and teacher on the history of the Lord’s churches, at http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm

“These Christians, during these dark days of many centuries, were called by many different names, all give to them by their enemies. These names were sometimes given because of some especially prominent and heroic leader and sometimes from other causes; and sometimes, yea, many times, the same people, holding the same views, were called by different names in different localities. But amid all the many changes of names, there was one special name or rather designation, which clung to at least some of these Christians, throughout all the “Dark Ages,” that designation being “AnaBaptist.” This compound word applied as a designation of some certain Christians was first found in history during the third century; and a suggestive fact soon after the origin of the use of the name Catholic. Thus the name “Ana-Baptist” is the oldest denominational name in history."

[xx] Christian, John T. D.D., DID THEY DIP? An Examination into the Act of Baptism as Practiced by the English and American Baptists Before the Year 1641, Louisville, Kentucky: Baptist Book Concern, 1896, http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/dip00.htm

John Taylor Christian was born in 1854. He was a pastor in Kentucky for many years, and for the last part of his life he was professor of Christian History at the Baptist Bible Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana. This was in refutation of articles and books by Henry M. Dexter and William H. Whitsitt, which claimed that the Baptists of England did not practice believer's baptism by immersion until 1641. Dexter made the claim in his 1881 book The True Story of John Smyth. Whitsitt took the same position in a series of articles which appeared in the 1880s and in his 1896 book A Question in Baptist History: Whether the Anabaptists in England Practiced Immersion before the Year 1641? Whitsitt was a professor at Southern Baptist Seminary, and his book caused quite a stir. John Christian's lengthy examination of this theory was devastating, and he proved beyond a doubt that the British and American Baptists practiced immersion or dipping prior to 1641. In the "Introduction" to John Christian's Did They Dip, T. T. Eaton gives the following testimony to the diligence of caution of John Christian's scholarship:

"J. Christian has shown a remarkable talent for gathering and arraying authorities. For more than twenty years he has been studying the history of immersion and has spared no time nor expense to supply himself with original documents. I do not suppose there is a Baptist in the land who has anything like such an array of original documents on this subject as has Dr. Christian. In many cases he has the original editions, while in others he has official copies made at the British museum and elsewhere. He has examined more than forty books which Dr. Dexter does not mention in his bibliography of the subject, and which, it is reasonable to believe, Dr. Dexter never saw. Dr. Christian is also singularly accurate in his use of authorities. I have read this book through and have not detected a single inaccuracy. Many of the quotations I have personally verified and have found them correct, and though I have not verified them all, yet I have no doubt of the absolute correctness of every one. He courts investigation, however, and he will gladly welcome the detection of any mistake in the book" (T.T. Eaton, "Introduction," Did They Dip by John Christian, 1896).

[xxi] Bryans, Phillip R., AN ANALYSIS OF THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF ASSOCIATIONAL BAPTISTS, 1900-1950, 1973. A dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy degree at Baylor University, Waco, Tx. At http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8297/diss/index.htm 

Dissertation on Landmarkism showed how in the world of J.R. Graves Baptist stood on the gospel.

“When viewing the relationship between salvation and baptism, Graves held that only two basic beliefs--mutually exclusive ones--are possible: "(1) Baptism effects remission of sins and salvation, and (2) baptism is an expression of obedience following salvation and symbolizes death, burial, and resurrection." Graves advocated the second position: "There is but one religious organization on earth that administers immersion, to the professedly regenerated alone as a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ." Graves maintained that all others held the first position, which he called "baptismal regeneration" or "baptismal salvation": ". . . the professed Christian world is divided into two grand divisions vis: Catholics, Protestants, Campbellites, and Mormons on the one side and Baptists alone on the other." At http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8297/diss/dis-ch21.htm#N_72_

[xxii] Galatians 1:6-11

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. NIV

[xxiii] George, Timothy, Southern Baptist Ghosts, First Things 93 (May 1999): 17-24. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9905/articles/george.html

“Alexander Campbell was born in Ireland, educated in Scotland, and emigrated to Pennsylvania with his father, Thomas Campbell, where both were immersed as believers and affiliated with the Baptist denomination in 1812. The Campbells were Scotch–Irish Presbyterians by background, but after Alexander’s wife, Dorothy, gave birth to their first child, they rejected infant baptism. Campbell was a popular speaker at Baptist gatherings and disseminated his ideas through a widely circulated paper he edited called the Christian Baptist.

The Campbell movement (the word "Campbellite" was a nickname coined in 1832) began as an effort to counteract the disunity of Christendom. Campbell’s reforming movement was part of the larger restorationist impulse in American Protestantism. Campbell wanted to bring visible unity among all Christians and hence "restore" the true church by returning to the New Testament, which, he believed, contained a precise blueprint for church order and belief. Building on the earlier restorationist call of Barton W. Stone, Campbell led many erstwhile Baptists to leave their congregations and affiliate with his newly formed Churches of Christ.”

[xxiv] Jenni, Parker and Chad Groening, New Film Reveals Evidence Against Mormons' Historical Account, AgapePress, December 3, 2003

“Since its founding in the 1820s by Joseph Smith, the Mormon Church, now known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), has claimed that its primary sacred text, the Book of Mormon, is a historical account of a group of Israelites who emigrated to the New World in about 600 B.C. The church claims that modern American Indians are descended from some of these ancient Israelite progenitors (Laman and Lemuel). LDS members claim that the prophet Mormon, who they believe originally compiled the history that became the Book of Mormon, also had Hebrew roots, supposedly being descended from an ancient Israelite named Nephi.According to LDS lore, Mormon's son Moroni hid metal plates engraved with his father's record of the "Nephites" and the "Lamanites" in the side of a hill, where Joseph Smith found them with the divine assistance of the angel Moroni and translated them into English.”

“…The Mormon Foundation Crumbles

The Book of Mormon has been held up by the LDS as an accurate early history of the Native Americans and of their faith, despite the fact that no artifacts, remnants of cities, linguistic clues, or other scientific proofs have been found to support these propositions. The greater scientific community concurs that American Indians are of Siberian, not Semitic descent, but most LDS members still believe in the historicity of their sacred text, and the church's own Brigham Young University continues to do archeological research in this area.

Kramer hopes to bring the truth to the fore. "What we're trying to communicate with the people here in Utah and elsewhere is to give them an understanding that really, all the anthropologists and archaeologists -- they are all in agreement, outside of Mormonism, outside of BYU -- that the principle ancestors of Native Americans are Asian, and not Hebrew," he says. The film also reveals that there is no archeological evidence of the existence of the people described in the Book of Mormon, or any trace of the Hebrew language among modern Indians. … But DNA vs. the Book of Mormon sheds light on the lack of foundation for Mormon beliefs, and rebuts the LDS claim that the Book of Mormon is a historical document.

Kramer feels the film's revelations have tremendous potential for impact because "this DNA evidence shows that something they've been taught all their lives, from generation to generation, simply isn't true," he says.”

[xxv] Kohler, John in Fall 2000 Mountaineer Baptist Quarterly Meadow Bridge, WV shared a collection of Baptist writings on the meaning of church perpetuity or succession.  At www.web.mountain.net/mfbc/fall2000.shtml

“In order to give the reader a better understanding of the doctrine of New Testament church perpetuity/succession, the following statements from various Baptist writers are offered for due consideration:

“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 . . .No doctrine of the Bible is more clearly revealed than is the doctrine of Church Perpetuity. As easily can one deny the atonement. Convince me there is no church to-day that has continued from the time of Christ, and you convince me the Bible is false." (W. A. Jarrel, Baptist Church Perpetuity, pp. 3,22)

"Succession among Baptists is not a linked chain of churches or ministers, uninterrupted and traceable at this distant day . . . The true and defensible doctrine is, that baptized believers have existed in every age since John baptized in Jordan, and have met as a baptized congregation in covenant and fellowship where an opportunity permitted." (S. H. Ford, quoted by W. A. Jarrel in Baptist Church Perpetuity, p. 1)

"I have no question in my mind that there has been a historical succession of Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time . . .The footsteps of the Baptists of the ages can more easily be traced by blood than by baptism. It is a lineage of suffering rather than a succession of bishops; a martyrdom of principle, rather than a dogmatic decree of councils; a golden chord of love, rather than an iron chain of succession, which, while attempting to rattle its links back to the apostles, has been of more service in chaining some Protesting Baptists to the stake than in proclaiming the truth of the New Testament. It is, nevertheless, a right royal succession, that in every age the Baptists have been advocates of liberty for all, and have held that the gospel of the Son of God makes every man a free man in Christ Jesus." (John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7,22-23)

"Church perpetuity means that from the time of the origin of the Lord’s churches until now there has never been an instant when His churches were not in existence . . .Historical documentation verifies the presence of New Testament churches in every century since Jesus started His first one during His personal ministry on earth. However, even if that evidence were lacking, the promises of Jesus would be enough to assure the believer of church perpetuity . . .Jesus emphatically promised His church that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). Satan has given it his best shot, but he will not be able to stamp out the Lord’s churches. If a time has existed that there was no church anywhere on the earth, then Satan would have prevailed. But, because of Jesus’ promise, that time has never been and never shall be in this age . . .One of the last things Jesus told His church before He went back to Heaven was that He would be with it until the end of the world (Matt. 28:20). That promise could not be true if His churches ever ceased to exist, even if for a short period of time. He has been with His churches every moment of every day because His churches have continually existed." (Darrel Owens, The Church in the New Testament, pp. 35-36)

"In every age since Jesus established His church, true churches have existed and have enjoyed the presence of the Savior. Many times these churches have been persecuted, hounded and hunted for the purpose of destruction. Yet, God has always been faithful to preserve His church and keep His promise. These churches through the ages have been known by many names such as Christians, Anabaptists, Waldenses, Albigenses, Paulicians, Donatists and many others, but their identifying marks have been to hold to the doctrines of the Word of God . . .In our lifetime, some Baptist groups have changed their view on the perpetuity of the church by stating that the Baptists came into being as a part of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. The historians of this movement have discounted church historians of earlier ages as being incompetent. Let us be careful to read and preserve the records of the ages rather than blindly accept the teachings of modern historians." (Mike Yoho, The Church in the New Testament, pp. 36,38)

"Perpetuity of the church is a doctrine which is cherished by Missionary Baptists. By perpetuity is meant that there has never been a day since Christ founded His church when there was no scriptural church upon earth. The church shall continue in existence until He shall come again. Church ‘succession’ is another term which denotes perpetuity, implying that churches have succeeded in all ages the one founded by Christ. Baptists believe in a succession of churches---not of the apostles, as taught by the Roman doctrine of ‘apostolic succession.’" (D. N. Jackson, Baptist Doctrines and History, p. 53)

"If it can be shown that Baptist churches have existed in all ages since Christ, it will confirm our faith in the Lord’s words. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that no church institution in existence has come down uncorrupted through the centuries, it will be enough to make infidels of us all; for if the Lord’s promise has failed, if His word be proved false, what confidence could we place in Him as our Saviour? The Lord’s promise has been kept. There has never been a day since He ascended in the presence of His church, that a church just like the one which saw Him ascend could not be found on the earth. History abundantly establishes this position." (Ben M. Bogard, The Baptist Way-Book, p. 21)

"The people called Baptists trace their lineage not through pontifical robes and crowns, not through high ecclesiastical offices clothed with unholy power, but through the suffering, sword, fire and dungeon, on the one hand, and through a deathless loyalty to the fundamental truths of the New Testament, on the other hand. These people called Baptists were not writing their own record of their sacrifices and deeds, but they lived such daring faith in the eternal word of God and in the Son of God that their enemies had to record their fidelity to the faith. It is therefore an established fact, even witnessed to by those who hated the Baptists, that they have had a continuous existence . . . . . . that church that Jesus founded, that church that Jesus established, that church that Jesus put into existence, that church to which Jesus imparted His Spirit, that church in which Jesus set up ordinances--that church must live until He comes. And in the hidden mountain passages, and in the valleys, and in the caves, and in the secret meeting places of the earth, it has always continued, even when it had to hide out for long periods of time." (Robert L. Powell, My Church, pp. 3,11)

"The promise of Christ in Matthew 16:18 confirms that the church will continue from the time He first built it until He returns. This promise is believed by faith like all the promises of God. If one requires proof from church history that the church has had a continual existence from the time of Christ, he is walking by sight and not by faith. Christ promised that the church would have a continual existence and that promise is sufficient for the child of faith. The true believer does not need a chain link succession proven by church history to believe that it is true. His faith in the Holy Scriptures is sufficient for him. Did Christ promise that the New Testament church would have a continual existence until He returned? If Christ promised it, then it is a fact!" (Bobby J. Poe, The Perpetuity and Continuity of The New Testament Church, p. 2)

" . . . Jesus promised perpetuity to His church: it would not be swallowed up in death. This does not mean that no church will ever go out of existence, but that His institution would remain and always be found in churches. Many of the New Testament churches have ceased to exist, but there has never been a time when true churches ceased to exist . . . And until Christ returns there will be churches making and baptizing and teaching disciples." (Claude Duval Cole, The New Testament Church, p. 9)

"The declaration of Scripture, the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ and the witness of history are that New Testament believers and churches have existed in every age from the Apostolic era to the present time. The evidence is thus Scriptural, historical and unquestionable, even from those opposed to this truth! . . . . . . from the time the Lord Jesus Christ established His New Testament church during His earthly ministry, until the present time, there have always existed believers and churches--apart from both Romanism and Protestantism--that have held to the essentials of New Testament truth . . .The attitude of some toward New Testament church perpetuity has caused this truth to be disdained and held in contempt. Sadly, some have been filled with pride and have manifested an arrogant or exclusivist spirit toward those who are either ignorant of or prejudiced against this truth. Such a spirit is contrary to the New Testament. That New Testament believers and churches have had a perpetual existence has been and is due solely to the free and sovereign grace of a faithful and loving God! Such faithfulness should not lead to pride but rather to a humble and thankful spirit. Those who remain prejudiced against such truth because of tradition or ignorance should humble themselves to personally investigate the teaching of Scripture and the witness of history. God is never honored by pride, ignorance or prejudice." (W. R. Downing, New Testament Church, pp. 126,127-128,136-137)

"To be born well is to enter life with advantages. Baptists are justly proud of their parentage---the New Testament. They have an ancient Scriptural origin. Certain characters in history are named as founders of various denominations---the Disciples of Christ began with Alexander Campbell, the Methodists with John Wesley, though Wesley never left the ‘Church of England,’ the Presbyterians with John Calvin and John Knox, the Lutherans with Martin Luther, and the Church of England with Henry VIII and Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer in the reign of Edward VI. Not so with the Baptists. There is no personality this side of Jesus Christ who is a satisfactory explanation of their origin. The New Testament Churches were independent, self-governing, democratic bodies like the Baptist Churches of today. We originated, not at the Reformation, nor in the Dark Ages, nor in any century after the Apostles, but our Marching Orders are the Commission, and the first Baptist Church was the Church at Jerusalem. Our principles are as old as Christianity, and we acknowledge no founder but Christ." (George W. McDaniel, The People Called Baptists, pp. 7-8)

"Baptists have with one voice denied connection with the Roman apostasy and have claimed their origin as a Church from Jesus Christ and the Apostles." (D. B. Ray, Baptist Succession, p. 10)

"The question of Baptist Perpetuity, Succession, or Continuity has been one which has caused sharp division among Baptist scholars and historians. Some, such as Thomas Crosby, G. H. Orchard, J. M. Cramp, William Cathcart, John T. Christian, D. B. Ray, W. A. Jarrell, S. H. Ford, J. R. Graves, P. E. Burroughs, George W. McDaniel, W. D. Nowlin, J. H. Grime, J. B. Moody, H. Boyce Taylor, Roy Mason, J. M. Carroll, B. H. Carroll, William Williams, and others have held that there have been various groups in different periods of Christian history, from the time of Christ and the Apostles, who have maintained and propagated the simple faith and practices of the New Testament, and that there has never been a day since the establishment of the first New Testament Church during the personal ministry of Jesus Christ but that there have been genuine New Testament Churches in the world. This is based on the promise of Christ that ‘the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.’ . . . the truest succession should always be based on an identity with and a conformity to the doctrines of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles as revealed in the New Testament, and the simple faith and practices of the New Testament should be maintained and propagated. No amount of rattling of historical chains, worshipping of tradition, or loud and long claims to apostolicity can take the place of a real indentity with and conformity to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament . . . It is only as Baptists remain faithful to Jesus Christ and His Word that they can honestly claim apostolicity . .We have now noted that from the times of the Montanists (150 A.D.) down to the Reformation and the modern Baptist Movement there were various groups, known under different names and located in different countries, who held to the simple doctrines and practices of Apostolic Churches and the New Testament. The Author believes it to be conclusive that they may rightly be termed as the spiritual progenitors of the people called Baptists, and that there is intimate relation between each group mentioned, sufficient enough to warrant the conclusion that there has never been a time since the establishment of the first New Testament Church by our Lord Jesus Christ, during His personal ministry on this earth, but that there have been genuine New Testament Churches in the world. If one will search long enough he will be able to find groups in every century who held to the two essentials which give being to a New Testament Church---Scriptural Salvation and Scriptural Baptism. Baptists unhesitatingly claim spiritual kinship with such groups." (Wendell Holmes Rone, The Baptist Faith and Roman Catholicism, pp. 29-30,31,53)

"Our contention is that Baptists have been used to fulfill the words of Christ, and that Baptist Churches are not only identical in faith and policy with the Churches instituted by Christ, but are the legitimate successors of the Churches organized by Christ and the Apostles." (J. W. Porter, The World’s Debt to Baptists, pp. 140-141)

"The New Testament church was organized by Jesus Christ during His personal ministry on earth out of the material prepared by John the Baptist (Matt. 16:18). Since the days of Christ, the world has never been without a true church. We teach that the principles and practices of the New Testament continued even during the Dark Ages because the gates of Hell never prevailed against the church (Matt. 16:18)." (Milburn Cockrell, Who Are We?, p. 4)

"Successionist historians have used a number of scripture references to demonstrate the validity of their position . . .Matthew 16:18---Successionists believe if there had been any period in history when there were not churches believing in and adhering to the true principles of God’s Word the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church would be nullified and the Lord’s Word be unreliable . . .Matthew 28:19,20---The argument from the Great Commission is similar. If true New Testament churches ever ceased to exist in medieval times, the promise of Christ to be with the church always would have been broken . . .Ephesians 3:21---If the true churches of the Lord have ever failed, the inspired benediction of Paul, ascribing glory to Christ in the church throughout all ages would be meaningless." (J. W. Griffith, A Manual of Church History, Vol. II, p. 33)

"Baptists do not claim perpetuity upon the basis of a successive and unbroken chain of Baptisms. The opponents of Baptist perpetuity often seek to invalidate Baptist claims by saying that it would be necessary for them to establish beyond doubt that there has been at no time a break in the chain of baptisms, before assuming the right of perpetuity. This arises out of a misconception of the Baptist position, and what properly constitutes perpetuity . . .Baptists do not claim perpetuity upon the basis of a chain of churches succeeding each other in the sense that kings and popes succeed each other." (Roy Mason, The Church That Jesus Built, p. 9)

"I think you have the right idea of the thing that I try to express in my book---the continuous existence of churches, rather than the linked-chain theory . . . I do not believe that it is necessary to have a linked succession of baptisms in order to have valid baptism." (Roy Mason, Letter to Bob L. Ross, September 1, 1964)

"Perhaps it would be well at this point . . . to state clearly once again just what we mean by Baptist church perpetuity. No knowledgeable historian holds to the theory of so-called ‘link-chain’ succession, so frequently attached to us by those who denounce Baptist perpetuity. It is not necessary that a church prove church by church its succession back to Christ and the apostles to claim its validity to church perpetuity. Even if such exists the records in most cases have long since been destroyed or lost. What we do believe, and claim that history demonstrates, is that there have been churches in every age since the Jerusalem church that have held the same distinctive doctrines and practices that identified that one and that their persecutors were the real heretics." (I. K. Cross, The Battle For Baptist History, pp. 52-53)

"The sum and substance of the Baptist claim to continuity from primitive times until the present, is simply this -- that in all the intervening ages there have been persons, more or less numerous and conspicuous, existing as formally organized churches, or as scattered individuals, assembling from time to time, as their enemies allowed them opportunity, for the worship of God and for mutual edification -- persons who, if now living, would be universally recognized as Baptists." (T. G. Jones, The Baptists: A Vindication, p. 56)

"Nor have I, or any other Landmarker known to me, ever advocated the succession of any church or churches; but my position is that Christ, in the very ‘days of John the Baptist,’ did establish a visible kingdom on earth, and that this kingdom has never yet been ‘broken in pieces,’ nor given to another class of subjects---has never for a day ‘been moved,’ nor ceased from the earth, and never will until Christ returns personally to reign over it." (J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism: What Is It?, p. 79)

"All Baptist historians trace perpetuity by doctrine and nothing else. All that has been proven by history is that there have always been churches who held the two essential doctrines, salvation by grace, and the immersion of believers. I have never read even one historian who tried to trace or even advocated a successive and unbroken chain of baptisms, or a successive and unbroken chain of churches organized by the ‘proper authority.’ This pedigree doctrine is simply not ‘Old Landmark’ doctrine." (Douglas A. Moore, Old Landmarkism vs. The Pedigree Pushers, p. 25)

"The author holds that Matt. 16:18 guarantees the perpetuity of local churches. He believes, as already indicated, that ‘church’ in this passage refers to the church as an institution, expressing itself in local bodies." (T. P. Simmons, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, p. 365)

Hatred of church perpetuity by some ‘Baptists’ is an incongruous thing. If these were really Baptists they would rejoice in the evidence that the Lord Jesus spoke truthfully in Matt. 16:18; 28:20, and that Jude 3 is justified. These texts declare that Jesus’ churches will not be overcome, but will continue to the end of the age, and that ‘The Faith’ which was once for all delivered unto the saints is likewise to be around in every age, so that it will not need to be reintroduced by some latter day prophet . . .This writer is thoroughly convinced that history does indeed record the existence of churches through the last nineteen hundred years and more, which were in a direct succession from the Jerusalem church, and that if all the facts were known, the chain of church succession would be anchored at one end by the Jerusalem church, and at the other by the sound Baptist churches of this day. Yet, far from taking a carnal pride in this fact, we must recognize that all praise and glory for this goes to the Lord God Almighty Who alone is responsible for the preservation of His people. ‘Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen,’ Eph. 3:21." (Davis W. Huckabee, Studies On Church Truth, Vol. II, pp. 561-562,685)

"Baptists are a unique people standing alone among the millions who profess to be a part of the Christian community. The claim of Baptists that they go back to the first church at Jerusalem can be substantiated by both sacred and profane history . . . During the years that followed the church passed through the fires of the very worst persecution, a ‘bush burning but not consumed.’ Through all of this God preserved the church and kept her intact obediently carrying out the commission assigned to her . . .From the time of our Lord until this present time there is no doubt that the continuous line to whom Jesus Christ promised eternal perpetuity is among the people called Baptists. We do not claim that all who bare the name can lay claim to this succession, but only those who measure up to the pattern laid down in the Word of God." (J. M. Holliday, Who Are The Baptists?, pp. 23,27)

"Churches like this first church have continued to exist from that day to the present time. Christ promised that they would not cease to exist (Matt. 16:18). Those today who claim that they and the churches of the Reformation have restored New Testament Christianity overlook the fact that the church Jesus built would not have to be restored for He promised it would not cease to exist. If the church did cease to exist for a period of time, then Christ’s promise failed, and we know that is not true or possible. Churches like the one Jesus built have existed in every age down to the present hour. Historians of various denominations admit that Baptists have existed through the ages since Christ." (M. L. Moser, Sr., Baptist Doctrine In One Year, p. 187)

"Baptists historically have believed in the perpetuity of true churches just as the Lord Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18 when he said, ‘ . . . I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ For this reason Baptists have never claimed to be Protestants. They have always and unanimously until the present generation denied any connection with the Roman Catholic Church, and have claimed to have originated with Jesus Christ and the apostles. They did not begin in the 1500s with the Protestant Reformation. Baptists go back to the New Testament period in history." (Laurence A. Justice, "Are Baptists Reformed?")

"If it be asked, When and where did Baptist history begin? Who were the first of their honored line? Without hesitation we reply, They commenced with John the Baptist, or Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. And the first of their faith were His disciples, constituting the primitive churches. And though, in the dim, uncertain light of subsequent ages of error and corruption, we cannot at all times follow their trail, or identify their presence with absolute certainty, yet we feel positively assured that they have always existed. Like a stream which pursues its way from the mountains to the sea, and never ceases, though its course at times be through mountain gorges, trackless deserts, and hidden caverns, we know it is somewhere, though we cannot trace it, but we recognize it when again it comes to light, with a grander sweep, a deeper current, and a stronger tide." (Edward T. Hiscox, Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, p. 494)

"Long before the rise of Luther and other Protestant leaders, Baptistic Christian assemblies were protesting the corruptions within the Roman Church and were suffering for it. Some of these New Testament churches had been formed by dissenters who had come out of Romanism. However, from apostolic times there had always been communities of Christians holding the teachings of the New Testament who had never had any connection with Rome. As we have seen previously, they simply called themselves ‘brethren’ while other names were fastened on them by their enemies. Those assemblies were the Waldenses, Paulicians, Albigenses, Anabaptists, and others. Those communities of Christians, though not called Baptists, held the distinguishing tenets of Baptists . . . Though it may not be technically correct to call these people Baptists, since the name had not been coined at that time, we should not be ashamed to be identified with them." (James A. Kirkland, The People Called Baptists, pp. 27-28)

"The Landmark view of Baptist history is based upon an assumption, not upon the evidence of historical research. Landmarkers assumed on the basis of doctrine that Baptist churches must have existed since New Testament times, no matter what the evidence may show. Instead of drawing conclusions from the historical data, they looked for historical evidence to support their a priori conclusions." (H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, p. 459) (Editor’s note: It is true that the doctrine of New Testament church perpetuity/succession is based upon the authoritative promises of God’s word. Even if the available historical data seemed to contradict this doctrine, it would still be believed by Landmark Baptists. This is because they rely upon the Holy Bible as their supreme and final authority in all things. In truth, there is much historical evidence to corroborate the doctrine of New Testament church perpetuity/succession, though the writings and records of men are not inspired, infallible, inerrant, or finally-authoritative.) Since Jesus started the New Testament church, there have always been New Testament churches. I am not talking about denominational succession. I do not believe in denominational succession. By succession I mean that one denomination started another denomination, and that one started another one, and that continued until you get to the church I pastor today.I cannot prove local church succession. It may be that every church was started by a church, that was started by a church, that was started by a church, that was started by a church, that was started by a church, that was started by a church, that was started by Jesus. I do not know, but that is not the issue. The issue is that there has never been a time, since Jesus established the church in Matthew chapter ten, that there was not a church that was descended from that first local church started by the Lord." (Jack Hyles, The Church, p. 11)

"Christ promised that the gates of Hell should not prevail against His church (Matt. 16:18) . . . If Christ’s institution ceased during any period after its establishment, then this instruction would be meaningless during that time.Christ gave His great commission to that church and closes that command with the promise, ‘I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.’ (Matt. 28:18-20). Literally this means every day until time closes." (L. D. Gibson, The New Testament Church, p. 26).

"There is a great deal of foolishness and error being exercised today in the teaching of the true biblical doctrine of church perpetuity. First, there is the clear denial of it either by statement or implication. This is promoted in two ways. There are those who claim that the Lord's church has ceased to exist, at least from time to time, and has been reestablished by some person with new revelation, or supernatural insight, such as Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, or some other person like him. This denial is also presented by the claim or assumption that His church fell into chaos and disarray, and was, of necessity, reformed by men. You hear such terms as The Great Reformation. The Reformation was not great. It was nothing but the sticking of band-aids on Catholicism, and all it does or can possibly produce is Reformed Catholicism. Secondly, there is the approach of Neo-Landmarkism, which seeks to prove the perpetuity of the Lord's church by a pedigree, preserved through human history. While history will surely give witness to the perpetuity of the Lord's church, the pedigree route tends to discredit it rather than to corroborate it. While there are good records, which point in the direction of church lineage, it is likely if not certain that no one today has a church-by-church, step-by-step pedigree. I have never seen one even set forth at this point in my ministry, though some mistakenly assume that is what they have. Even if such a record could be offered, and if it were accurate, it could not be proved. Thus, this approach to the teaching of perpetuity harms the cause rather than to help it." (Forrest Keener, "The Perpetuity of the Church")”

[xxvi] Author unknown, Rationale for the Formation of the Southern Baptist Convention, ?1984, http://gemini.tntech.edu/~jrj1082/paper.htm Author: Note the struggle of the Protestant verses Baptist view of ecclesiology even in colonial America. Baptist in the early 1800’s ultimately rejected this Protestant view. It has returned as an issue multiple times. 

There also existed discordant convictions among Baptists regarding how their denomination should be organized. These incongruous ecclesiologies were apparent long before the issue of slavery played a role among the Baptists. William W. Barnes¹ explains that "American Baptists from the colonial period have held to two distinct views of ecclesiology, that may be rather loosely and somewhat inaccurately expressed in the terms local church and general church ideas." Ordinarily, the "local church" theory was accentuated north of the city of Philadelphia, and the "general church" belief was emphasized south of Philadelphia. The southerners longed for a compact Baptist denomination made of state conventions, which would be made of associations, which would be comprised of churches. This convention would consist of not only both foreign and home missionary societies, but would deal with other elements, including education. The "local church" view ultimately won in 1826 and the General Convention decided on separate societies to handle missionary work. The decentralized structure would be the standard from this time on. But in the late 1830’s southerners would again unsuccessfully push for a more consolidated convention. The southerners’ centralized ecclesiology even appears in the Preamble and Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845:

Art. II. It shall be the design of this Convention to promote Foreign and Domestic Missions, and other important objects connected with the Redeemer’s kingdom, and to combine for this purpose, such portions of the Baptist denomination in the United States, as may desire a general organization for Christian benevolence, which shall fully respect the independence and equal rights of the Churches.

¹ Barnes, William Wright. The Southern Baptist Convention 1845-1953. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1954.

________. "Why the Southern Baptist Convention Was Formed." The Review and Expositor 41:1 (1944).

[xxvii] Ibid.

“Today, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. It includes fifteen million people from more than 38,000 churches coordinated into a national alliance. Southern Baptists can be found in all fifty states of the Union and 120 different countries worldwide. The denomination has a rich and varied history, unknown even to many of its own members. At first glance it seems that slavery had been the singular issue that caused the separation of the northern and southern Baptists and the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention. But upon looking closer, one will find that many factors including controversies over missionary activities, theological disputes, cultural differences among northern and southern Baptists, as well as the debate over slavery contributed to the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845.

…So it can be concluded that numerous factors, including slavery, played a role in the division of Baptists in 1845. The cultural differences between North and South helped polarize them throughout the early to mid 1800’s. The conflicting ideas about church operation, expansion, and organization also drove the Baptists of the North and South farther apart. The Home Mission discord succeeded in producing a feeling of neglect among southern Baptists and put their counterparts in the North on the defensive. Also, authoritative personalities, like W.B. Johnson, were ready to charge ahead with a new convention. Finally, both sides seemingly felt an invasion upon their liberties and reacted in, what they considered to be the best manner in which to defend these freedoms. Southern Baptists wanted the freedom was to own slaves, and northern Baptists demanded the liberty to object to that practice. Yes, an abundance of motivation for separation, other than slavery alone, existed in the minds of both northern and southern Baptists when the Southern Baptist Convention was formed. In fact, an assertion that the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention commenced decades before the meeting on May 8, 1845, would not be wholly unfounded considering these many issues that evolved during the expanse of the Baptist history in North America.”

[xxviii] Ashcraft, Robert, “Factors Leading to the Organization of the State Association of Arkansas”, 1994, published by the History and Archives Committee of the Arkansas State Association of Missionary Baptist Churches. Material edited from Pioneer Faith by Robert Ashcraft, Ashcraft Publications, 1994 and section V, Arkansas Baptists State Convention, pp. 522-531. At  http://www.abaptist.org/abah&a/articles.html. The article includes both views of the bitter Arkansas Baptist divorce. The author endorses neither view holding that the purity of the gospel is the only valid reason for such division. The bitterness of this divorce is still seen today. E. Glen Hinson was Professor of Church History at the SBTS, Louisville. The History Committee of the ABSC commissioned his work. J. B Searcy was an early leader of the Convention from South-Central Arkansas. J.S. Rogers was a Southern Baptist, secretary of the Baptist Tri-State Convention and member of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message Committee. Robert Ashcraft is a Missionary Baptist historian gives dialog comments.

“As further evidence of general dissatisfaction with the State Convention, the 1856 session decided to "drop all enterprises except the Denominational College and newspaper..."4 Their decision was to allow the local associations to establish new churches and help the existing churches. This should clearly show the churches favored doing mission work through their local associations.
      E. Glenn Hinson5 stated the work of the Convention "may have threatened the associations." The truth of the matter is the churches and local associations were not willing to commit this work to a State Convention until after about 1920.
      From the outset of the State Convention, the resistance toward centralization of authority reflected the concerns of Landmarkism. As Hinson explained,6 the early Constitution of the State Convention provided "for an Executive Committee composed of a president, a recording secretary, two vice presidents, a corresponding secretary, a treasurer, and ten or more 'managers'. They were expected to 'transact all business during the recess of the Convention and disburse funds,' 'fill all vacancies of its own body,' and submit an annual report."
      At the 1859 meeting, which met at Little Rock, just prior to the Civil War, only six churches and four associations were represented. The initial lack of cooperation with the State Convention is sometimes attributed to the devastating effect of the Civil War. The effect of the Civil War on local churches and associations cannot be denied.7 However, the fact that only six churches and seven associations [out of a total of 22 or 23] were present at the 1859 meeting indicates a lack of enthusiasm for the program of the State Convention, even before the Civil War.
      After the Civil War, a preliminary meeting was held in 1867. J. S. Rogers reported: "The attendance was small. You would expect that under the circumstances. Most churches had met only occasionally during the war and associations met very irregularly, if at all. Travel was still very difficult. All progress of every kind had been sent into eclipse during the war."8
      Hinson characterized the period after the Civil War, "Only a few churches and associations rallied to the initial meeting to reorganize in 1867. Through the next thirteen years the Convention wrestled with numerous tensions carried over from the War and from its own prewar days....In its brief history up to the war this organization had experienced considerable ambivalence and strife as to its major purpose."9
      By contrast 20 churches were represented in the Saline Association in 1868.
      In noting the damage done by the Civil War and the subsequent return to normalcy, Rogers quoted a summary made by J. B. Searcy. Searcy wrote, "Then as the State Convention took up mission work more vigorously in 1867, it was confronted by non-progressive groups in scores and scores of our Baptist churches. These groups were severely critical of Boards and other agencies and produced a strong under current of opposition that was vexing to the last degree. This element did not get out of the churches and would not 'get in' to help the missionary program."10
      We should note what constituted being nonprogressive, and that this sentiment was evidenced in "scores and scores of our Baptist churches." The lack of real support for the State Convention, and this admission by an official representative as early as 1867, should indicate that the opposition to the "boards" and other denominational machinery was in place well before Drs. W. A. Clark, Ben. M. Bogard, and others led in their opposition which resulted in the formation of a new State Association in 1902.”

“…The report by J. B. Searcy commented on the actions of a special committee on Constitutional Amendments: "This Amendment to the Constitution put membership in the Convention on 'the money basis'...The 'money basis' was never enforced, although it was in the Constitution, and was soon repealed.
      Under those Constitutional Amendments, Article II was changed to read, "The Baptist State Convention shall be composed of delegates or messengers from Baptist Churches and Associations on presentation of proper credentials or vouchers of their appointment, and the payment to the Treasurer of the Convention for constitutional purposes, the sum of $2 or more for each delegate or messenger."18
      However, Article III went further, "That any Baptist not delegated shall be entitled to a vote on the payment of $2.50 into the treasury." Thus, the "money representation" was officially adopted by the State Convention.
      The State Convention met at Russellville in 1880 and James P. Eagle was elected as president. He held this position for 21 of the next 24 sessions, including the 1901 meeting at Paragould. The report stated, "He made a great leader...He had wonderful power to encourage and inspire the brotherhood in the laying of foundations and launching institutions in those uphill days."
      Hinson wrote concerning James P. Eagle, who was Governor of Arkansas from 1888 to 1893, "His immense leadership gifts led to his election as President of the ABSC 21 times (1880-1904) and president of the SBC thrice (1901-1904).19 The general consensus is that Gov. Eagle, possibly more than any other man, was responsible for the success of the Convention forces and the defeat of the Landmark forces. Bro. Leroy Polk remembers Dr. Ben. M. Bogard making that statement.20
      Under the caption, "Some Forward Steps at this Convention," we may note the following:
      1. The Constitution was amended to give the Convention a larger official staff and an Executive Board of 20 or more members.
      2. All associations were invited and urged to become auxiliary to and cooperate with the Convention in mission work and otherwise.
      4. Provision was made for a permanent Baptist paper in the state, the "Arkansas Baptist Evangel."
      6. The report for State Missions was rather meager but the Convention is to have a Superintendent of Missions in most of the years hereafter--tragic loss when it did not!
      The Convention met in Jonesboro in 1888. In the report of the meeting, we note the following: "There was some discord in this meeting. It was the first open note of opposition to a paid Corresponding Secretary of State Missions. The opposition was mainly by new brethren in the Convention and was not strong. There had been minor notes of discord here and there since about 1880 but "none to speak of."21
      In the report of the 1892 Convention at Ft. Smith, the following comment was made:
      "There was 'under-cover' opposition to having a Secretary of Missions and this opposition will increase somewhat until the division comes at Paragould in 1901. It is not strong now. However, no Secretary was employed for the next year. There is no explanation of these 'no secretary years' in the Convention's work except 'opposition'."22
      These comments are interesting, especially if one surveys the list of churches present, and notes that most of the churches that eventually sided with the State Association of Missionary Baptist Churches were not representing at these meetings.
      The 1895 meeting of the Convention was at Monticello with 134 messengers representing 57 churches and 23 associations. Dr. Rogers commented, "The Minutes show that the Convention was very unsettled as to plans of work. It advises against a paid Secretary...No figures on state contributions to Home and Foreign Missions are given. Arkansas was evidently doing comparatively little for these great causes. The antimission element had most of the wheels locked except that they would roll backwards. How the alarm bell did need to ring!"23
      It was also during this period that the controversy over Dr. W. H. Whitsett was being played out. Whitsett attended the 1889 Convention in Little Rock.24 In reporting on the 1896 Convention meeting at Hot Springs, Dr. Rogers wrote, "Again and again resolutions have been passed asking that Dr. Whitsett, President of the Southern Baptist Seminary, be let out for teaching and publishing doctrine on baptism contrary to sound Baptist views and to true history."25
      It would almost sound as though Dr. Rogers agreed with the resolutions. But it should be noted that the "Whitsett Controversy" and the issues were corollary to, and actually emphasized the Landmark position on church authority, and also church perpetuity. These statements correctly focus when juxtaposed with the comments of E. Glenn Hinson, who championed the view that Whitsett was expousing.
      In commenting on the 1900 Convention at Hope, Dr. Rogers wrote:"There was opposition to the State Mission program and some harsh criticism of men and methods was expressed, and more was under cover. The rising encircling clouds are black as night! The storm will break at Paragould in 1901!...Dr. W. A. Clark was editor of the "Arkansas Baptist," (sic.) had wanted to be Secretary and was severely criticizing the program and the workers including Dr. Barton. Tragedy ahead! Disaster around the corner! However, blessed days afterward!"26

A Necessary Division

      To be quite candid, the Landmarkers and most of the local associations were never comfortable with the State Convention, which was determined to follow denominational patterns, and seek centralization in missions. After the resolution was presented in 1854, most of the churches and associations that eventually lined up with the General Association or Landmark movement only gave token support to the State Convention. As for that matter, until the machinery became fully organized about 1920, and the resulting indebtedness was overcome during the 1930's and early 1940's, the program of the State Convention received only limited support from local associations and churches in the state officially identified with the Convention system.”

“…E. Glenn Hinson sought to give proper perspective: "The rapid evolution of Baptists ended in a severe trauma as this era ended. Many Baptists of modest means, poorly educated, and of rural background and outlook were ill-prepared to understand and to accept the changes necessarily taking place as Baptists expanded and institutionalized their efforts28. ...In an effort to find Baptist identity over against the "reform" of Alexander Campbell, moreover, they readily fell under the spell of J. R. Graves and his Baptist high churchism. Although not strongly anti-organizational at the outset, the Landmark movement veered more and more in that direction as its leaders sought to answer critics.29 The net result was a rending of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention and its associations and churches to form a competing Baptist denomination."
      In reading statements such as these, we can well understand the sentiment of leaders within the SBC to develop the institutions and SBC Corporation, and why even some SBC leaders are fearful of such a move.
      Later in the same chapter, Hinson summarized the reluctance, and sometimes opposition to the Convention program: "One hindrance was the everpresent resistance to organized effort beyond the congregational or associational level. Prior to the split of 1901, this resistance made itself felt time and again in reluctance to support, either financially or practically, the various offices needed to pull together the missionary or evangelistic work of the state... Such opposition was often registered openly. In 1881, for instance, the Superintendent of Missions, B. W. Harmon, reported 'a feeling that the churches were imposed upon when called to contribute for any general work'. Harmon went on to explain that 'they thought they should give only to their own Associations.' He recommended a change of name on the grounds that 'some regard it as indicating undue authority over ministers and churches'."30
      Hinson continued, "The sensitive issue of jurisdiction in mission work was never resolved during this period, but it was defused somewhat by avoiding certain titles and by strong efforts of the State Mission Board to pursue its work in cooperation with the churches and associations.
      "The fear which underlay all of this was that control over mission work might be exercised from above... State Convention leaders tried to assuage anxieties by making careful cooperative arrangements, but they never succeeded fully, for the fears grew strong enough to lead to the division of the Convention. Some doubtless underestimated the strength of resistance to the burgeoning business model on which they operated.
      "By 1899 anxieties over the development of organizations to promote missions work throughout the state had reached a fever pitch."
      "At this point Arkansas Baptists could not have perceived what was happening to them in a subtle way. The business or corporation model which was becoming so much a dominating factor in American society and culture was subtly imposing itself on the churches and the way they carried on their work... The business model... was creating a radically different model by which the churches carried on their work and, in doing so, was generating an explosive situation for Arkansas Baptists."
      Hinson concluded by stating, "The people and churches were overwhelmingly rural still. A majority of the churches still operated on a quarter or half-time schedule, for, as late as 1916, three-fourths of all Southern Baptist churches were still quarter time."31

"Forks of the Road"

      In introducing the period of division, Dr. J. S. Rogers titled the chapter "Arkansas Baptists at the Forks of the Road." He reiterated that since the early eighties the State Convention "changed its plans, programs and policies again and again. For example at times it authorized the Board to elect a paid State Mission Secretary but about half the time it did not up to 1900...This was all because of opposition on the part of some brethren to such policies...These opposition brethren objected to the Board helping weak churches pay their pastors...By 1900 and 1901 this opposition objected to Boards and Conventions and cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention a well as to State Secretaries, etc. The opposition brethren even insisted that the terms 'Association' and 'Committee' are Scriptural and orthodox but that the terms 'Convention' and 'Board' were unscriptural and malignantly heretical!.. All that was the big issue at the Paragould Convention in 1901. It was a grave hour. Arkansas Baptists were at the forks of the road!
      J. S. Rogers editorialized, "The Paragould Convention in 1901 demonstrated the truth that Baptists with their eternal emphasis on freedom are very vulnerable in the fact that unwise leaders with ambition for power and leadership, if they can't control the Convention, can overemphasize some minor matters and split off a minority they can control.32 Disturbing and distressing as the fight at Paragould was, the Convention there settled a lot of matters and the year 1901 began a New Era with the rank and file of Arkansas Baptists in cohesion, cooperation, contributions and conquests."33
      E. Glenn Hinson outlined the report of the Executive Board which presented a "Statement of Baptist Principles" that stressed "the time-honored and fundamental doctrine of the absolute autonomy of the churches" as "one point that must ever be jealously guarded." The report continued, "there is no antagonism between this doctrine and that other sublime and almost equally important doctrine, the cooperation of the churches."
      Then Hinson reported, "Impressive as it sounded, however, the report of the State Board did not meet the approval of a majority at the Convention. Opponents of the plan for coordinating the work through a Corresponding Secretary assembled sufficient votes to send it back to the Executive Committee for revision. Resubmitted, it argued continuity with twenty or more years of history in maintaining the office and that the plan had produced good results."
      Hinson then added, "Although this amended report passed, largely because of the personal influence of James P. Eagle, the issues of a paid 'Corresponding Secretary' or 'State Missionary' and of the connection between Arkansas Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention smoldered still. Ben M. Bogard,34 a newcomer to Arkansas, led the attack on the system."35
      J. S. Rogers stated the report on State Missions was given at 1:30 PM on Saturday, and was discussed until midnight. Discussion began anew Monday morning and continued into the afternoon "when a majority voted to receive it."
      It should be noted this majority was razor-thin, and was after the new rule of representation which was weighted in favor of the larger citry churches was implemented.
      Rogers continued by stating, "The report on publications was a divisive issue. The report recommended that the Convention withdraw its approval and recommendation of the 'Arkansas Baptist' because, the resolution said, the editor had promised at the previous Convention at Hope not to attack the plans and employees of the Convention and had not kept the promise. This report and recommendation were adopted by a majority vote. Dr. W. A. Clark was editor of the 'Arkansas Baptist.' That vote was the straw that broke the camel's back. It meant division."36
      The language of the report stated specifically,
      "Resolution: Whereas, at the last session of this Convention we recommended the 'Arkansas Baptist' as our State paper, and whereas the same was procured by a solemn and deliberate promise on the part of Dr. Clark that the said paper would neither in editorial nor in correspondence permit any attack upon the plans or employees of the Board until this session of the Convention, and whereas said promise has been wholly unkept and violated and the same has been further conducted as an organ of his personal views and those agreeing with him, and in an antagonism to the plan of the said Convention. Therefore, Be it resolved that the said recommendation of the 'Arkansas Baptist' be withdrawn."
      Rogers commented: "This resolution was adopted. There had been decided antagonism by the 'Arkansas Baptist' to the progressive policy of the Executive Board and the conduct of the Mission work, but this vote on publications was 'the feather that broke the camel's back'. From this time forth it was manifest that an open rupture would follow. The next ten years of our history will show the full development of this rupture and what came of it."37
      Hinson also called attention to another situation which led to the split, "In 1900 the Committee on Publications issued a severe reprimand for Clark's failure to support the Convention and its programs. Clark agreed to stop his attacks, but then reneged on his promise. The result was a still more explicit reprimand in 1901 which, more than any other factor, triggered the split, with Clark as one of the key Landmark leaders."38

The General Association

      Hinson also reported (p. 176) on the organization of the General Association: "The pro-Board group led by James P. Eagle won a victory of sorts at Paragould in 1901, but they did not have long to savor it. As they had threatened at this convention, the disaffected anti-Secretary faction gathered in Little Rock on April 10-11, 1902, to form the 'General Association of Arkansas Baptists'."
      In his own words Hinson admitted, "This new organization attracted strong support among the district associations of the state, where the issue had been churning for a long time. Almost half of them voted to cooperate with the General Association in mission work. About a fourth voted to continue cooperation with the State Convention. The remaining fourth, chiefly the larger associations, voted to remain neutral as a result of sharply divided opinion within their own ranks."39”

5 E. Glenn Hinson, A History of Baptists in Arkansas, 1979. Dr. Hinson was a Professor of Church History at the SBTS, Louisville. His work was com-missioned by the History Committee of the ABSC.
6 E. Glenn Hinson, p. 34.
7 The Pine Bluff Association did not meet in 1863-64 and the Saline Association did not meet from 1863 through 1867.
8 J. S. Rogers, p. 504. , History of Arkansas Baptists, Rogers had access to, and freely used the material collected by J. B. Searcy, an early leader in South-central Arkansas.
9 E. Glenn Hinson, p. 81-82. By contrast twenty churches were represented in the Saline Association in 1868.
10 J. S. Rogers, p. 507.
18 J. S. Rogers, pp. 548-549.
19 E. Glenn Hinson, pp. 67-68.
20 Bro. Leroy Polk remembers Dr. Ben. M. Bogard making the statement. Also see the article written by Dr. W. A. Clark, first printed in the April 14 and July 28, 1920 editions of the Baptist and Commoner.
21 J. S. Rogers, p. 565-566.
22 J. S. Rogers, pp. 569-570.
23 J. S. Rogers, p. 571.
24 J. S. Rogers, p. 566.
25 J. S. Rogers, p. 572.
26 J. S. Rogers, pp. 574-575.

28 E. Glenn Henson, p. 112. In reading statements such as these, we can well understand the sentiment of leaders within the SBC to develop the institutions and SBC Corporation, and why even some SBC leaders are fearful of such a move.
29 It was not the Landmarkers who "veered" but rather the SBC and ABSC programs that developed the institutionalized concept, resulting in removing the work from the churches and centralizing it in committees and boards that created the opposition.
30 E. Glen Hinson, pp. 126-129.
31 E. Glenn Hinson, pp. 128-129.
32 This remark was referring primarily to Ben M. Bogard, who became pastor at Searcy, AR in 1899. Although Ben M. Bogard became spokesman for the Landmark cause, opposition to the convention system was expressed, as the record will indicate, from its beginning.
33 J. S. Rogers, pp. 578-579.
34 This is the first specific mention of Ben M. Bogard by either Hinson or Rogers.
35 E. Glenn Henson, pp. 174-175.
36 J. S. Rogers, p. 580.
37 J. S. Rogers, p. 584.
38 E. Glenn Hinson, pp. 175-176.
39 E. Glenn Hinson, p. 176.

[xxix] It is the opinion of this author the authority of kingdom work in this dispensation only resides in the Holy Spirit. God has never relinquished His authority over all creation in any area as seen in Romans 13:1ff “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” He is only Sovereign. However His Word says earthly government exists as an authority from Him in our lives. The principle of authority in Scripture infers limits of responsibility in various areas of life as designed by God. Rebellion is proceeding outside the limits of God’s design, which brings judgment at some point with terrible consequences. The government responsible for doing kingdom work in following Jesus commands is found in the particular local congregations of immersed believers. These congregations can organize God supplied resources to do kingdom work in following leadership of the Holy Spirit. For example in Acts 13 the Scripture says,

“1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 And while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down…” NASB (Emphasis mine)

Work together by members of the differing particular churches in levels of increased organization in stewardship of varied resources are Scriptural as long as under authority of the Holy Spirit in respect for the autonomy of the local churches. This understanding was part of the in the Preamble and Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845:

Art. II. It shall be the design of this Convention to promote Foreign and Domestic Missions, and other important objects connected with the Redeemer’s kingdom, and to combine for this purpose, such portions of the Baptist denomination in the United States, as may desire a general organization for Christian benevolence, which shall fully respect the independence and equal rights of the Churches. (Emphasis mine)

It is recognized some responsibilities of kingdom work such as baptism, Lord’s Supper, discipline, etc. are delegated solely to particular assemblies of immersed believers in gospel work and not to collections of churches or individual believers. Every effort should be made to do such kingdom work through these assemblies or churches as they picture to the world in type the true one general assembly to come of all believers future.

The organizations of associations, conventions, unions, fellowships, ministries, etc. consisting of members of differing particular churches must function to assist and not circumvent the work assigned by Jesus to the particular local churches. These as any part of God’s kingdom must abide under the Holy Spirit to please God and not men. Such organizations must determine levels of benevolent support to the work of the churches as the Holy Spirit directs. The early disciples as members of differing particular churches recognized this Holy Spirit authority in their work together as seen in Acts 15 in their letter to the brethren in other churches,

“22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas —  Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. 24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell. "  NASB (Emphasis mine)

When brethren fail to follow the Holy Spirit division occurs. It is contemptible that brethren, who contend for the same gospel and proper symbol of that gospel in baptism, politically divide over levels of organization, resources, ability, power, cooperation, control, assistance and descriptive verbiage of their work together under the Holy Spirit. This author spent fourteen years in the American Baptist Association, two years in the Baptist Missionary Association, and now nearly fourteen years in the Southern Baptist Convention. The bitterness of the divorce of our fathers is still alive and evident in the children to the detriment of God’s work. While most try to accept baptisms, exchange letters of membership, and recognize ordinations, tensions continue that ruin witness to the world. In proper focus there is unity together in the purity of the gospel. When one reads the New Testament he finds the gospel was the important unifying factor of those early churches. 

[xxx] Bogard, Ben M., A Testimony, DOCTOR S. H. FORD’S STATEMENT BEFORE THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, 1905.

In the tentative meeting of the American Baptist Association, in the spring of 1905, I was appointed to go to Kansas City to meet the Southern Baptist Convention which met in May of that year, to try to get the Convention to change its Constitution so as to admit churches on an equality, and thus avoid the necessity of organizing the American Baptist Association, then known as the General Association.

I presented the Memorial to the Convention and they refused to change their Constitution. Dr. Ford took part in the discussion of our Memorial. He said in substance:

"I have been associating with these good brethren who bring this Memorial to us. I believe they are right and I wish the Convention would change its Constitution so as to satisfy them for we should not be divided. But if they organize I shall not go with them for I have spent a life time in the Convention, and I am now eighty-five years old, too old to make a change."

Dr. Ford wrote some strong articles and spoke some fervent words in favor of what the American Baptist Association stands for, but he said he was "too old" to make ant,’ change. He had attended the session of the Arkansas State Baptist Association the previous year and took active part with us and encouraged us. He was severely criticized by leading Convention men for doing that, but he said he thought we were right, and he would not apologize for encouraging us in our work.

Dr. Ford was one of the greatest men who has lived among us. Blessings on his memory. This good book is only a sample of his great writings.

Sincerely,

Ben M. Bogard

[xxxi] This rule was changed to messengers determined by church size in 1931.

[xxxii] Carroll, B.H., Ecclesia, the Church, no date, at http://www.reformedreader.org/ekk.htm

“And is it not an historical fact that, since Protestant Pedobaptists invented this idea of a now-existing, invisible, universal, spiritual church, to offset the equally erroneous Romanist idea of a present visible, universal church, reverence and honor for God's New Testament particular church have been ground to fine powder between them as between the upper and nether millstones?”

Previous Section        Next Section   Table of Contents    Homepage

© 2002-2010 Heaven Past Present Future Ministries.

Operated by William Henry Publishing, LLC PO Box 2651, Batesville, AR 72503-2651 williamhenry@heavenpastpresentfuture.com    Email Response Form      Permissions