jeffwhitledge.com
It has been a hundred and fifty years since Baptist ministers J. R. Graves and J. M. Pendleton first promoted the teaching that has come to be known as “Old Landmarkism.” The name “Landmark” has been adopted by thousands of churches, especially among the Missionary Baptists.
Landmarkers, as a sub-denomination among the Baptists, have always been a controversial group. The claims of Landmarkism are extraordinary and harsh. Nevertheless, it has been an extremely successful teaching as measured by the goals of its founders. J. R. Graves’s original purpose was to purify the Baptists of the influence of the Pedobaptists (infant-baptizers, such as Episcopals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.) who were often invited to speak in Baptists’ pulpits. He believed that the Baptists were cooperating too much with groups that, in his opinion, were not scriptural churches and that a bold line of demarcation needed to be drawn between the true churches and the false. We must admit that this program was wildly successful. Today, there is no trace of cooperation between the Baptists and the Pedobaptists. This is true not only among those who claim the name Landmarker, but it is true of almost all Baptists everywhere, even those who passionately reject Landmarkism per se. While technological and cultural shifts have made the sharing of pulpits less necessary and less convenient than in the past, this fact alone does not account for the barricade that has been erected between the hearts of Baptists and those who do not exclusively practice believer’s immersion. Among the Missionary Baptists especially, those churches that do not have the name Baptist are unfailingly and derisively refered to as “so-called churches.” There is never any confusion in even the layman’s mind that would conflate “churches” with “so-called churches” in the most casual conversation.
This conviction of Baptist superiority, which pervades the Missonary Baptist churches of the southern United States, began when J. R. Graves asked his friend J. M. Pendleton to write a tract that addressed the issue of infant-baptizers speaking from the pulpits of Baptist churches. This tract, which Graves printed and named “An Old Landmark Reset” (thus giving a name to the movement), was a fiery condemnation of those who would suffer Pedobaptists to have any opportunity to speak within a Baptist church. The tract was reprinted many times and was the source of enormous discussion. When the dust finally settled, the Baptists had rid themselves of all the influences of the “so-called churches” that had communed with them before; and with their influences gone, they were protected from their errors.
In this essay, I will attempt to examine this amazing little tract and the teaching that it promotes. I hope that, if we examine it under the light of scripture, we can discover the truth about God’s churches and, with that truth, glorify Him.
In his introduction to the 1856 reprinting of Pendleton’s tract, J. B. Moody writes:
I would define Landmarkism in these words: Always speak and act consistently with what you profess to believe the scriptures to teach.
Unfortunately, this definition does not get us any closer to our goal. If we adhere to this definition, we would find Landmarkers among every Christian denomination. Protestants have always held to the reformed principle of sola scriptura—the Bible alone—and Baptists who deny them this are batting at a straw man whose defeat would count for nothing. Consistency with what you profess is admirable for the Christian, but it does not tell us what the Landmark Baptists believe the scriptures to teach.
The central thesis of “An Old Landmark Reset” is that Baptist churches should not share pulpits with those churches that do not share Baptist beliefs and practices regarding baptism. Most of the tract attempts to demonstrate that because those churches do not have valid baptism, they are not churches at all. And because they are not churches, their ministers do not have authority to preach and should, therefore, be excluded from Baptists pulpits.
The argument in the tract may be captured in the following syllogism:
| Premise 1: Pedobaptists are not properly baptized. |
| Premise 2: A church does not exist where there are no properly baptized members. |
| Premise 3: Only a church provides the authority to preach. |
| Conclusion: Pedobaptists have no authority to preach. |
Let us consider each of the premises in turn.
Baptists have always taught that three things are required for proper baptism:
1. The proper method: immersion.
Baptists hold that the word baptism can only mean dipping and that total immersion is the only form of true baptism in the Bible and in the early church. Thus it is the only acceptable method.
The opposite view is that other methods such as sprinkling or pouring are acceptable—both linguistically and historically.
2. The proper candidate: believers.
Baptists believe that a person must profess their faith in Jesus Christ before he or she may be baptized.
The opposite view is that the children of believers may also be baptized and that it should be done as early as possible, including the baptism of infants. Those who hold this view are called Pedobaptists.
3. The proper administrator: a true church.
Baptists believe that a baptism is not valid if it is not administered by a true church of Jesus Christ, which is itself composed of properly baptized believers.
The contention with regard to this point is over which churches have the authority to baptize i.e., which entities called “churches” are in fact true churches.
Pendleton does not defend the Baptist tradition regarding Baptism, because he assumes he is writing to an audience of Baptists. However, he claims the opposite in one early statement. Pendleton quotes extensively from a Pedobaptist by the name of Dr. Griffin, and he states the reason for this in the third paragraph:
To present the subject as impressively as possible, and especially to propitiate Pedobaptists to a calm examination of it...
In spite of the claim that he is trying to encourage Pedobaptists to calmly examine the subject, the entire tract is written with the assumption of a Baptist audience. Later he writes:
The object of the writer is not so much to convince Pedobaptists that they are in error, as to fasten on Baptists the conviction that they ought not to countenance that error.
The entire article is premised on the truth of the Baptist opinion regarding baptism. If the Baptists can be shown to be wrong or if, indeed, it can be shown that doubt exists, then the entire argument crumbles. But since this point is never argued, only assumed, it is difficult to dispute from the article text; and being a Baptist myself, I have little desire to dispute it.
Nevertheless, the doctrine must be addressed for several reasons. First, I believe that Pendleton, like most Baptists, misrepresents the majority of scholarly opinion among the Pedobaptists. He finds the issue so plain and settled that he has no patience for their position. Secondly, the argument that Pendleton presents against infant baptism is an argument from pragmatism (emphasizing doctrine’s results rather than the truth of the Word of God), and such an argument is easily refuted. Thirdly, I think Pendleton presents an air of certainty that the Biblical and historical data do not warrant. Since he desires to exclude many churches from the fellowship of Christians, the tract’s acceptance depends on this air of certainty.
Not being a Pedobaptist myself, it is awkward and unfortunate that I must defend their opinion. Yet most Baptists do not understand the theology of the Pedobaptists, and I am convinced that we must first understand an opinion before we can argue against it. Pendleton makes crucial errors in his assessment of Pedobaptist doctrine that weaken his argument. Let us begin with the following statement:
They introduce unconscious infants into their churches falsely so called—thus practically superceding the necessity of personal repentance, faith and regeneration in order to membership.
If we were to study the Reformed theological system, we would see that they do not neglect the importance of faith and regeneration. (Some do believe that regeneration accompanies baptism, but this variation is aberrant. In this essay, we will only consider the mainline Reformation theology.)
Reformed theology understands God to deal with people in terms of covenants. An example of this is God’s covenant with Israel, God’s “chosen people.” The children of Abraham were in a special covenant relationship with God. A person in the Old Testament received this status either by virtue of birth or by becoming a citizen of Israel. Here is the important thing to notice: the people in this covenant were not necessarily those who were saved. There were many people saved in the Old Testament who were never part of God’s covenant with Israel, and there were many Israelites—who received blessings and cursing according to the Levitical law—who were not saved.
So if being a member by birth of God’s chosen people could not save a person, what could? The answer is the grace of God through faith. People in the Old Testament, whether Israelites or not, were only saved by grace through faith just like in the New Testament. The Abrahamic covenant was given by birth or conversion, and circumcision was the sign of the covenant given to eight-day-old male children or to adult males who voluntarily entered the covenant.
So what does this have to do with the church? Reformed theology holds that the church is in a new covenant with God that is similar to the one God had with Israel. They believe that a person enters the church either by birth or by conversion. They do not believe that being born into a church guarantees salvation—only that it admits membership. This is an important distinction. A child who is born into a church must still have faith in God for salvation, and they must still repent of their sins.
Now consider another of Pendleton’s statements:
If it were the object of Pedobaptists to thwart the purposes and the plan of Jesus Christ in reference to the organic structure of his churches, I cannot conceive how they could do so more effectually than by making infant membership the predominant element of their organizations.
Now that is quite an assertion. Pendleton claims that the presence of children in a church will somehow destroy that church. If the membership of children will destroy God’s covenant organization, then why did God choose exactly that system for Israel? And does excluding children advance the kingdom of God? Consider this:
They...administer what they call baptism to infants who give no proof of discipleship, and who are naturally incapable of going through the process of discipleship.
Why does Pendleton state that children are “incapable of going through the process of discipleship”? Is not that exactly what children do? Are not we, as adults, called to train children? And would not the training of children be often more effective than waiting for them to become adults? If children are incapable of discipleship, why do we open our Sunday school classes to every child who walks in, regardless of his or her profession of faith? Why waste time on classes for children who are incapable?
And if I may break with tradition and bring the scriptures into this discussion, consider the words of Jesus:
But Jesus, knowing the thoughts of their hearts, took a little child and had him stand next to Him. He told them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in My name welcomes Me....” (Luke 9:47-48a)
And:
Some people were even bringing infants to Him so He might touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, invited them: “Let the little children come to Me, and don’t stop them, because the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I assure you: Whoever does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.“ (Luke 18:15-17)
Whatever your understanding of these verses, the words of Jesus are a far cry from the words of Pendleton.
The Pedobaptists have a theological system that allows infants membership into the covenant of God, without denying the biblical necessity of personal belief in Jesus Christ for salvation. For a Baptist, this system is difficult to believe. Before we can accept the legitimacy of this position (I am not arguing for its acceptance, only a recognition of its legitimacy), we must have scriptural evidence other than the analogy of the nation of Israel. Is there such evidence? Yes, there is.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Christian husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14)
The children of unsanctified parents are “unclean,” but the children of one believing parent are “holy.” In what sense are they holy? The Reformed say, “They are members of the covenant of God.” The Baptists say...what?
I think that the legitimacy of the Reformed position from scripture cannot be denied.
Yet, instead of addressing the Pedobaptists’ doctrine the way the Pedobaptists understand it, Pendleton chooses to build a ridiculous straw man in which churches “falsely so-called” are baptizing infants to expand their membership numbers and denying the necessity of repentance and faith. He even notes the difference between the true Pedobaptist doctrine and his caricature of it when he says this:
May the day soon come when the Pedobaptist societies shall universally refuse to practice it [believers’ immersion]. Then the parties in the baptismal controversy will stand in their proper places.
This is a revealing statement. He wishes the Pedobaptists believed the wrong things he accuses them of believing. He would rather the Pedobaptists dive deeper into error than to come to the truth, because it would make his arguments easier. We will see more about this attitude later.
Before we move on, I would like to address one more point on this issue of allowing infants membership into a church. The idea that church membership can exist separately from salvation seems odd at first to Baptists. But I think that under reflection it is very natural. We baptize according to a person’s “profession of faith,” not his or her actual faith, because we do not always know the heart of another. Any Baptist will readily admit that the membership rolls of our churches could very well contain the names of those who are not saved. Those people vote in our business meetings (even breaking ties), they fellowship with us, they take the Lord’s Supper with us, and yet they are not saved. So even among Baptists, church membership exists as a separate status from salvation, though we do try to avoid, whenever possible, the inclusion of unsaved members.
Now let us consider the second premise, that a church does not exist where there are no properly baptized members. To support this assertion, Pendleton draws heavily from a prominent Pedobaptist minister by the name Dr. Griffin.
It is seen from the foregoing that Dr. Griffin fully admits that “where there is no baptism there are no visible churches.” This is the belief of Baptists. Indeed the declaration may be considered a scriptural axiom.
An axiom is a statement that will be accepted without proof for the sake of an argument. This statement that “where there is no baptism there are no visible churches” does, indeed, qualify as an axiom. There is absolutely no scriptural proof given. This fact is simply assumed. In fact, to support this statement Pendleton quotes a Pedobaptist preacher, someone that he claims has no authority to preach. Why is Pendleton, writing in a tract to Baptists, quoting a Pedobaptist (who he says has no authority) rather than scripture? I am not sure.
Perhaps it is because there are no scriptures to quote. Baptism is certainly commanded by Jesus, and it is something that we as Christians must do to be obedient. But at issue is what form that Baptism must take to be scriptural. Pendleton says:
It is the universal belief of Baptists that the action of sprinkling or pouring, so far from being baptism, does not bear the remotest resemblance to it.
Once again, where are the scriptures? The Baptists claim that the word baptizo could only mean dipping. The Pedobaptists claim many examples that show the opposite. But where in scripture is this settled?
We say that in the days of Paul the correct practice was universally followed so that a clear expression of this doctrine was unnecessary at the time. Perhaps. But the errors of the Roman Catholics were also not common at the time, and yet we have many verses that specifically address those errors (“call no man your father upon the earth,” “‘blessed is your mother’...‘rather blessed are those who do my Father’s will’”, etc.). The Holy Spirit was and is perfectly capable of knowing and addressing the errors that the church will face. So where are the scriptures that spell out the great Baptist Trilogy of Baptism: immersion of believers by a church that immerses believers?
I am not saying that the Baptists are wrong in their practice. I am a Baptist myself. I am saying that Pendleton would exclude the great majority of Christians on a doctrinal point that is not clearly taught in scripture.
The church at Corinth was full of errors—against the very clear commands of God—yet Paul never questioned their legitimacy as churches. So what of doctrines built by piling inference upon inference? Will that turn a church into a “so-called church”?
If people are not Christians then they do not form churches. But Christianity is based on belief in Jesus, which confession the Pedobaptists make very clearly. And incidentally, Pendleton knows that they are true Christians:
It will be said that there are good pious men among Pedobaptists. This is cheerfully conceded, but it proves nothing as to the evangelical nature of those organizations.
And:
The writer does not say there are not pious, devoted men in the Pedobaptist ministry, but he denies that they have scriptural authority to preach.
Pendleton admits that they are Christians, but he would deny their churches authority on the basis of non-scriptural dogmatism. I do not believe it should be so. If the Holy Spirit had demanded felicity on this doctrine of believer’s immersion as a qualification for church-hood, then I believe He would have been much clearer on this point in His Word. Pendleton says:
These differences are by no means non-essential; but a recognition of Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers is a virtual proclamation of their non-essentiality.
On what basis does he say, “These differences are by no means non-essential”? On the basis of his own opinion? Where in the scripture does it say that if the essential elements of baptism are not observed, then a group claiming to be a church is no church? The Baptist tradition has always been to base our doctrine on scripture, not on opinions; and it is a fine tradition indeed.
And speaking of the Baptist tradition, Pendleton claims in an appendix to a later edition of this tract that the Baptists have never fellowshipped with the Pedobaptists as though they were churches of God. Yet this claim is untrue. The Baptists who drew up the Second London Confession of Faith in 1689, one of the most successful Baptist doctrinal statements of all time, based it on the Westminster Confession of Faith for the express purpose of declaring their fellowship with the Presbyterians who agreed on all points but those regarding baptism.1
Now we must consider the third premise in our syllogism.
Pendleton asks:
Is there any scriptural authority to preach which does not come through a church of Christ?
And:
If Jesus Christ intended that his ministers should be the servants of the church—and have the sanction of the church in their work—who can be a minister of Christ, according to the gospel, without belonging to the church?
On this point, Pendleton is on firmer ground. The scripture does indeed speak of churches appointing ministers from those who have proven their maturity. Only those who have proven themselves may lead a church. And it is the church’s prerogative to deny the pulpit to anyone they wish, especially if they teach doctrines contrary to what that church teaches.
But Pendleton’s goals are somewhat larger than this. He claims that Pedobaptists ministers, who have been ordained by their own churches, have no authority to preach. The main goal of the tract is to prevent them from preaching in Baptist churches, but he claims that they do not even have the authority to preach in their own churches. Pendleton concedes that these are Christians, but he denies that their churches are real churches, and he denies that their ministers have any authority to preach.
But it is God who calls preachers, not the churches. The churches must use their wisdom to identify those men that God has called, but it is God who provides the desire and the ability and the call. And there are many in the Pedobaptists churches who have proven that call time and time again. There are many who lead people to Christ, present the true and unchanging gospel, lead their people in personal sanctification, and do the work of Jesus Christ. But Pendleton says they have no authority to speak, that they should just be seated and keep their mouths shut and ignore the work of God.
Whose work is accomplished by silencing these Christian men? Is it the work of God or Satan? I am grateful that this tract has rightfully been ignored by the Pedobaptists and they have continued the work of God.
Now let us consider some of Pendleton’s other arguments.
Pendleton refers to the writing of Robert Hall as “an ingenious web of magnificent sophistry.” It might be, but I am afraid that Pendleton’s writing is sophistry that is not quite so ingenious. Consider this gem where he wonders what Paul would have to say if he confronted the Pedobaptists:
Paul would have protested against such a caricature of the Christian system. He would have said to such ministers, “Will ye not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” The great apostle would have done nothing that could have been construed into a connivance at error. And why should Baptists now.
Pulling from a debater’s bag of tricks, he is now arguing what Paul would have done! Here is the way this argument works logically: We believe X. Therefore, Paul must have believed X. Therefore, since Paul believed X, you must also believe it. Suppose a Campbellite were to say, “Paul would never have allowed instrumental music in his churches.” How convincing would that be! What nonsense! We have no record of Paul doing any such thing, so this argument is useless.
But suppose for a moment that Paul had acted in exactly the way Pendleton describes. Suppose he did encounter this heresy and boldly confronted it with all of his skill. That would all be well and good, but it would prove nothing. Paul was not infallible; only his writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was infallible. It is problematic enough to base principles off the Acts of the Apostles without the direct commands of God. Now Pendleton wishes us to base our principles off the speculated, hypothetical acts of the apostles. Very nice.
But the worst part of the tract, by far, is the animosity that is palpable throughout. He acknowledges the Pedobaptists as children of God, yet he has such contempt for them:
Many a man no doubt has become a Pedobaptist because Baptists have so acted as to make the impression that there is no great difference between them and their opponents. Also, that there are some Baptists whose disposition to compromise with adversaries leads them to act as if they were not only ashamed of their distinctive principles, but wished every body else to be. I am heartily ashamed of such Baptists.
He calls the Pedobaptists “opponents” and “adversaries.” These are men whose piety he has already conceded. Should he not claim Satan as his adversary and leave the children of God alone? Jesus prayed for His disciples and continued:
“I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in Me through their message. May they all be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You. May they be one in Us, so the world may believe You sent Me.” (John 18:20-21)
Jesus is praying for all Christians including the ones Pendleton called “opponents” and “adversaries.” It is clear throughout the tract that he held a genuine and intense grudge against the Pedobaptists.
The appendix gives a lengthy description of all the horrors that the Baptists have faced at the hands of the Pedobaptists. No doubt those evils were horrible. They were caused because the Pedobaptists held the political power. They denied the orthodoxy of the Baptists, and they believed in their own responsibility to execute the judgment of God upon religious dissenters. The horrors were indeed many and extreme, and those lessons must be learned so that they are not repeated.
But Pendleton would hold a grudge forever against them. One wonders when reading the appendix what Pendleton would have done had he held the political power. In fact, his main point is that the Pedobaptists have no authority, indeed no right, to speak. One wonders how far would he have gone to enforce that. It looks to me like the Episcopals, whose crimes Pendleton so earnestly lists, were being strong Landmarkers when they were killing our Baptist ancestors.
But God has called us to forgive. We are not to hold grudges forever. And if the Baptists cannot forgive our fellow Christians for the errors of the past, then we are not following Christ who said “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
I have now attempted to establish the position that Baptists ought not to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers. Whether I have accomplished my object, I leave for others to say.
He did not accomplish his objective. If he had argued that churches should not endorse ministers whose doctrines they disagree with, then that argument might have been successful. But his target was too far, and his arrows could not reach.
His goal was to forbid other Christians from proclaiming the gospel despite the clear command of Jesus:
John responded, “Master we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him because he does not follow us.”
“Don’t stop him,” Jesus told him, “because whoever is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:49-50)
“Don’t stop him”—these are the words of Jesus. Yet that is exactly the goal of the Landmarkers. They perpetually refer to “so-called churches” with contempt and derision—churches for whose members Christ died, churches with ministries that God is blessing, churches with pastors who have been called and gifted by the Holy Spirit.
Consider this: if, by chance, the Spirit is working in the churches of the Pedobaptists, and the Baptists refer to this (as many have) as the work of Satan—what danger awaits! Jesus warned of an unpardonable sin to those who would ascribe the work of God to Satan. I am afraid that many Baptists have trodden unknowingly along the edge of the bottomless pit; let us pray that we do not misstep!
This sin—this evil—is the legacy of Landmarkism.
And so many Missionary Baptist churches go so far as to include “Landmark” as part of their very name. We keep adding descriptors onto our names as though we were some kind of cult rather than the true body of Christ. “Missionary” is bad enough. It is designed to distinguish us from the anti-missionary (Hardshell) churches. That battle was won over a hundred years ago, yet the name remains. Landmark is worse, because it means “we believe we are the only true churches in the world.” It perpetuates a siege mentality. It perpetuates arrogance. It perpetuates all the things that a cult is built on. Why don’t we choose a name that emphasises our love instead of our arrogance, for that is how Jesus said his disciples would be known.
It is time now for us to focus on the work of Jesus Christ and to put our arrogance away. We do not have to actively work with other denominations or even allow their ministers access to our pulpits, but we must put aside the derision of fellow Christians that we practice every time we refer to “so-called churches.” Let us continue to practice our Baptist ordinances with conviction and without apology, but let us never be caught lifting ourselves above our fellow Christians, or judge those outside our local congregation, especially on matters where the scriptures are not crystal clear.
1 William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Judson Press, Revised Edition 1969), 236.
Agree/disagree with this? Send me an email and share your opinion!