Is Landmarkism still alive?

[RayTX]

I have been a Baptist since I was 9 years old and always believed that if you were a Baptist visiting another Baptist church and they served the Lord's Supper, you would participate. Landmarkers (which was new to me in a different state) were quite adamant that you could ONLY receive the Lord's Supper in the local congregation of which you were a member.
Anyone ever heard of that??

[arunma]

Never heard of it. To be honest, I've never encountered a Landmarker either. The closest I've come was when I once met an Episcopal priest who said that his sister was a Landmarker.

[DeaconDean]

Never heard of it. To be honest, I've never encountered a Landmarker either. The closest I've come was when I once met an Episcopal priest who said that his sister was a Landmarker.

Yes we have brother. Use the search tool and enter Landmarker. I believe it wasn't long ago we had one member who claimed to be a Landmarker.

FYI: Landmarkers are a group of believers who claim that the Baptists can trace their roots back to the first church beginning shortly after the crucifixion.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

I live in the heart of Landmark country and believe me it is alive and well. They do not recognize the baptism of any but Landmark churches. It has gained a stronghold in the SBC recently and though many are fighting it it may take over in the near future. They are easy to recognize as they preach a lot on the local assembly being the church as opposed to a universal body. They tend to focus on the church.

[arunma]

Yes we have brother. Use the search tool and enter Landmarker. I believe it wasn't long ago we had one member who claimed to be a Landmarker.

Really? What was his name?

[mlqurgw]

Really? What was his name?I may be mistaken but I believe that Jim1927 once said he was Landmark.

[RichardT]

Really? What was his name?

If I'm not mistaken his name was "richardT"

[RichardT]

http://www.baptistpillar.com

[daveleau]

I have been a Baptist since I was 9 years old and always believed that if you were a Baptist visiting another Baptist church and they served the Lord's Supper, you would participate. Landmarkers (which was new to me in a different state) were quite adamant that you could ONLY receive the Lord's Supper in the local congregation of which you were a member.
Anyone ever heard of that??

I've never been to a church that practiced this, but I have heard of it in general terms recently.

I have been to churches that had strict communion rules (my aunt's Catholic church in New Orleans, a Catholic church in my home town in South Carolina, and a Lutheran church here) that would have disallowed me from taking communion, but I took it anyway, because I was barred by something other than Scriptural reasons. (two of them I did not know I was taking communion "incorrectly" despite being saved and baptised, but one of them I did know, and took it with a clean conscience due to Scripture's requirements being met.)

I do not think it is right to bar fellow brothers and sisters from communion, regardless of the reason. If someone has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, then they should not be barred.

God bless you,
Dave

[mlqurgw]

Closed communion has been historically a Baptist doctrine. It has only been in the last hundred years or so that open communion began to be practiced. I too hold to open communion but I do know some who practice closed.

[Phileoeklogos]

I live in the heart of Landmark country and believe me it is alive and well. They do not recognize the baptism of any but Landmark churches. It has gained a stronghold in the SBC recently and though many are fighting it it may take over in the near future. They are easy to recognize as they preach a lot on the local assembly being the church as opposed to a universal body. They tend to focus on the church.


That's the first I've heard of this, is that a local stronghold? because as far I can tell here in the Buckeye state, the only Landmarkers are Independents, I'd be surprised if they even had a toenail in the SBC here. Interesting............

[mlqurgw]

That's the first I've heard of this, is that a local stronghold? because as far I can tell here in the Buckeye state, the only Landmarkers are Independents, I'd be surprised if they even had a toenail in the SBC here. Interesting............Not being SBC I don't follow their dealings closely but it is my understanding that there was some controversy in the changing of the IMB on baptism due to Landmark influence. I have also read some blogs seeking to make the Landmark influence in the SBC a subject of common knowledge. When I said I live in the heart of Landmarkism it is because I live near Lexington, Ky. and attended Lexington Baptist College which at that time was the Landmark base of knowledge. Hershel York was the pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, unequivocally Landmark, and President of the college. He is now fairly high up in the administration of Southern Baptist Seminary.
I can't be sure of how much Landmarkism has infiltrated into the SBC but if you believe some of the alarms being given about them they have gotten a fairly strong foothold.

[IisJustMe]

Not being SBC I don't follow their dealings closely but it is my understanding that there was some controversy in the changing of the IMB on baptism due to Landmark influence.For one thing, its called "The Baptist Faith and Message," not the "IMB," whatever that is. Also, the BFM states:

"The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming."

Don't jump to conclusions. In the "Baptist Faith and Message," "members of the church" means the Body of Christ, not the local church. Although the church is defined as a local autonomous congregation of believers, the following is included as well:

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Your ruminations about the alleged influence of Landmark doctrine are not only lacking in common knowledge, but are patently untrue. The SBC is on a course set by Dr. Adrian Rogers, who rescued the church from the liberal influence of the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who are at odds with the SBC because it has returned to its "Bible literatlist" roots. You state you are not a member of a Southern Baptist Church. Perhaps, before you speak on our doctrine and pretending authority on it, you should actually become acquainted with it.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

Hershel York was the pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, unequivocally Landmark, and President of the college. He is now fairly high up in the administration of Southern Baptist Seminary.Again, you need to do some research. Hershel York doesn't even show up on a site search of http://www.sbc.net, much less on the staff, faculty or administration of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Perhaps you should stick to your own denomination when speaking "authoritatively."

[mlqurgw]

For one thing, its called "The Baptist Faith and Message," not the "IMB," whatever that is. Also, the BFM states:

"The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming."

Don't jump to conclusions. In the "Baptist Faith and Message," "members of the church" means the Body of Christ, not the local church. Although the church is defined as a local autonomous congregation of believers, the following is included as well:

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Your ruminations about the alleged influence of Landmark doctrine are not only lacking in common knowledge, but are patently untrue. The SBC is on a course set by Dr. Adrian Rogers, who rescued the church from the liberal influence of the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who are at odds with the SBC because it has returned to its "Bible literatlist" roots. You state you are not a member of a Southern Baptist Church. Perhaps, before you speak on our doctrine and pretending authority on it, you should actually become acquainted with it.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

Again, you need to do some research. Hershel York doesn't even show up on a site search of http://www.sbc.net, much less on the staff, faculty or administration of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Perhaps you should stick to your own denomination when speaking "authoritatively."First, I am not Landmark so calm down. Second, I know what the teachings of Landmarkism is firsthand as I have had to deal with them quite a bit. I know how to refute it so I don't need a lesson from you. Third, I know what the BFM is and wasn't referring to it. I was referring to the International Missions Board. (IMB) Fourth, it may be that he has left Southern Seminary in Louisville in the past year but I am fairly sure he was there a year ago. Last, I purposely worded my post the way I did so as not to be " authoritative." Just because I am not a Southern Baptist doesn't mean I don't know anything about them or what goes on among them.

[IisJustMe]

Last, I purposely worded my post the way I did so as not to be " authoritative." Just because I am not a Southern Baptist doesn't mean I don't know anything about them or what goes on among them.And your last statement here kind of works to deny you aren't an "authority" doesn't it?

Landmarkism was a policy that held some sway among some state conventions 30 or more years ago. No more. There are pockets of practice of this policy still to this day, but it is not the Baptist Faith and Message, and it really isn't the policy of the IMB (sorry I didn't pick up on that abbreviation yesterday -- must have been tired) though some have chosen to make an issue of it.

York never was a dean at SBTS. His personal blog on "blogger.com" lists himself as a professor at SBTS, but he doesn't show up on the faculty list, so while I'm not going to make any judgment of that discrepancy, I have to wonder about someone who would post something on a public blog that could be easily contradicted. Having taken some counseling courses from SBTS through the extension program, I believe I've seen York's name listed as a guest seminar leader on occasion, but that doesn't make him part of the faculty and he should know better than to claim such a thing. He was at Ashland, but now is pastor the Buck Run Baptist Church in Frankfort KY` which has an impressive web site but is a pretty small church. I've not found York to be a particularly influential person in the SBC, though he certainly attracts attention from his blog, which neither contains official SBC policy nor represents official SBC practices. His interpretation of what the BFM says, and particularly his contentions about IMB Fourth "policy changes" (which were merely restatements of practices already part of the BFM) are open to debate, and again are not representative of the typical SBC church.

And I wasn't the one getting excited. I don't get excited. I do take issue with those who look at the SBC from the outside and pretend to know what is going on inside. As usual, a wrong conclusion was reached here, whether you care to believe that or not. Landmarkism is not alive and well in the SBC, and it is not the policy of the SBC, either through the IMB or the BFM. Thanks for reading this, and God bless.

[mlqurgw]

And your last statement here kind of works to deny you aren't an "authority" doesn't it?

Landmarkism was a policy that held some sway among some state conventions 30 or more years ago. No more. There are pockets of practice of this policy still to this day, but it is not the Baptist Faith and Message, and it really isn't the policy of the IMB (sorry I didn't pick up on that abbreviation yesterday -- must have been tired) though some have chosen to make an issue of it.

York never was a dean at SBTS. His personal blog on "blogger.com" lists himself as a professor at SBTS, but he doesn't show up on the faculty list, so while I'm not going to make any judgment of that discrepancy, I have to wonder about someone who would post something on a public blog that could be easily contradicted. Having taken some counseling courses from SBTS through the extension program, I believe I've seen York's name listed as a guest seminar leader on occasion, but that doesn't make him part of the faculty and he should know better than to claim such a thing. He was at Ashland, but now is pastor the Buck Run Baptist Church in Frankfort KY` which has an impressive web site but is a pretty small church. I've not found York to be a particularly influential person in the SBC, though he certainly attracts attention from his blog, which neither contains official SBC policy nor represents official SBC practices. His interpretation of what the BFM says, and particularly his contentions about IMB Fourth "policy changes" (which were merely restatements of practices already part of the BFM) are open to debate, and again are not representative of the typical SBC church.

And I wasn't the one getting excited. I don't get excited. I do take issue with those who look at the SBC from the outside and pretend to know what is going on inside. As usual, a wrong conclusion was reached here, whether you care to believe that or not. Landmarkism is not alive and well in the SBC, and it is not the policy of the SBC, either through the IMB or the BFM. Thanks for reading this, and God bless.
I did a quick search of your posts and you do not seem to be consistent. You have spoken about Catholics but you aren't Catholic. You have spoken about the Emergent Church but I don't believe you are one of them. You have spoken about Presbyterians but you aren't one of them either. Yet you speak "authoritatively" about them. Before you take issue with me perhaps you should check yourself. I did get the impression from reading some who are SBC and by a little personal experience that Landmarkers were infiltrating the SBC. Though I did do a little Internet research on it I didn't do an exhaustive one as it really has nothing to do with me. I simply commented on what I had found and what I already knew. Most of my dealings with the SBC directly involve the Founders Conference. Still I am not totally ignorant of the issues that the SBC are dealing with.

Edit for additional comments: I am not interested in getting into a chest beating contest with you. If you say there is no Landmark influence I will take your word for it. Upon reflection my responses to you were a reaction to what seemed to be an attack. It was a matter of pride as you have done me no harm here. I do sometimes let my pride get in the way of good sense.

[IisJustMe]

I did a quick search of your posts and you do not seem to be consistent. You have spoken about Catholics but you aren't Catholic. You have spoken about the Emergent Church but I don't believe you are one of them. You have spoken about Presbyterians but you aren't one of them either.Up to this point, I have no problem acknowledging you are correct. Yet you speak "authoritatively" about them. Before you take issue with me perhaps you should check yourself. I always speak from a biblical perspective, never from the standpoint of setting myself up as an "authority" on a doctrine or a teaching, except as the Bible provides that doctrine and/or teaching. The only denomination I can address "authoritatively" is my own. I feel strongly I can also address the Bible from an authoritative perspective, as I am about to finish my Masters' thesis. However, when it comes to other denominations, I only compare what they state about their faith to what the Bible says. You will not find me trying to dissect the doctrine from the doctrine's viewpoint. I did get the impression from reading some who are SBC and by a little personal experience that Landmarkers were infiltrating the SBC. Though I did do a little Internet research on it I didn't do an exhaustive one as it really has nothing to do with me. I simply commented on what I had found and what I already knew. Nothing wrong with that, either -- unless you happen to be mistaken. And in this case, you were.That's not to say there is anything wrong with you as a person, and certainly not as a believer, because I see a well-matured and well-grounded faith in your posts. I merely (and if too forcefully, I apologize and seek your forgiveness) wanted to indicate that others reading your posts who did not know you were not a Southern Baptist might assume you were, and that the SBC had taken a wrong turn. Not everyone goes through the threads and reads each and every post, unfortunately, and having said that I guess I should put the onus on them for not being thorough. But I try to keep my position and my perspective based in clarity for that very reason. God bless and keep you, and I'm sorry for the chastisement, as it may have been ill-conceived.

[DeaconDean]

If I'm not mistaken his name was "richardT"

See I was going to be nice and NOT mention any names.

God Bless

Till all are one.