Format followed in the subsequent analysis is not uniform. Different Landmark tenets and documents lend themselves more readily to differing approaches. Four of the tenets are analyzed topically; the first and last ones are structured according to authors.
George Elliott Jones
George Elliott Jones (1889-1966) wrote two articles which give in detail his objections to pulpit affiliation and unionism. One chapter from his booklet Twenty-Six Doctrinal Lessons from the New Testament is entitled "The Evils of Unionism."(1) This chapter apparently is a revised, abridged version of his earlier discussion in the booklet entitled Is There a Difference in the Churches?(2) Jones developed in these essays a number of related reasons for denying these practices.(3)
The Spirit of the Times.--Jones asserted that "unionism is the slogan of our day. Wherever we look we see things moving toward consolidation, and federation."(4) This movement is seen in the business, labor, political, educational, and religious worlds. "In some places," admitted Jones, "people who claim to be Baptists will exchange pulpits and hold union meetings with other denominations."(5) Jones stated, however, that "God's children are warned" against such practices.(6)
It Is Contrary to the Bible Doctrine of Separation.--Jones maintained that "from the beginning of the Bible to the end, the Word of God calls upon His people to be a separate people."(7) "The sons of God" of the antediluvian world who corrupted themselves by marrying "the daughters of men" (Gen. 6); Abraham's departure from his people (Gen. 12:1-3); the prohibition of the children of Israel from intermarrying with the nations about them (Neh. 13:23-27; Ezra 10:1-11); Solomon's troubles caused by marrying foreign wives; and Zerubbabel's refusal "to go into a union affair" with ones who wanted to help in rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 4:3) are cited as Old Testament examples of the biblical principle of separation.(8) Jones' chief example, however, of the folly of "one who has the truth, going into a union with one who holds to error, is that of Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahab."(9) Jehu's cutting question, "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?" (2 Chron. 19:2) had an effect on Jehoshaphat, but it was too late. Jehoshaphat instituted many reforms to make amends. Unfortunately,
the seeds were sown. His son had married the daughter of Ahab. After the death of Jehoshaphat his son and his evil wife undid all the good work of his father. This is a most solemn lesson. It shows us the far-reaching consequence of a compromising step. While in a union meeting with others, seeds would be planted in the minds of the younger generation that might lead them away from the truth.(10)
From the New Testament, Jones also cited Jesus (Luke 12:51-52), Paul (Rom. 16:17, 18; 2 Cor. 6:14-17; Gal. 1:9, 5:12), John (2 John 10), and the Apocalypse (18:4) to substantiate his position on the biblical doctrine of separation.(11) In conclusion, he charged: "While the Word of God calls upon His people to come out from among them and be separate, the spirit of union calls upon them to break their separation and come in among them."(12)
It Exalts the Wisdom of Men above the Wisdom of God.--Jones held that, since biblical and unionist teachings are contrary to one another, the acceptance of the spirit of unionism is exaltation of "the wisdom of men above the precepts of the Bible and the wisdom of God."(13) It attempts fellowship when God's Word says there can be no fellowship between believers and unbelievers.(14)
It Is Hypocrisy.-- Pretension of agreement and harmony in the absence of such is hypocrisy.(15) Jones also contended that such is the case when Baptist ministers join a "Ministerial Alliance" or "Ministerial Association." Jones himself "steered clear of such an organization and looked upon it as an unholy alliance."(16) If Baptist preachers "do not believe that preachers of all denominations should be recognized as being equally Scriptural with Baptists, then they are being hypocritical when they so pretend by joining their alliances."(17)
It Calls for a Compromise of the Truth.--Jones contended that unionism "calls upon God's faithful children to surrender certain Bible principles for the sake of a man-made union."(18) This compromise of truth, moreover, encourages "men to set aside certain Bible truths in order to make an alliance with those who do not believe or like such truths."(19) The setting aside of Bible principles is in direct disobedience to God's commandments. "By what process of reasoning," he asked, "can we conclude that it would be profitable to keep silent on some things that Christ told us to teach?"(20) Usually the doctrines expected to be set aside are "great doctrinal principles," namely, "Scriptural baptism, and church membership."(21) This in effect minimizes these principles; "God's Word teaches," however, "that ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine."(22)
It Leaves the False Impression that One Church Is as Good as Another.--Perhaps this is the reason given most of the time in defense of the denial of pulpit affiliation.(23) Pulpit affiliation, Jones asserted, puts "the other churches on the same level with Baptist churches and . . . [gives] the world the idea that there is no difference in the churches."(24) He reasoned that, if unionism is an acceptable practice, then one must "assume that they [i.e., different churches] are all of divine origin, or that none are [sic] of divine origin."(25)
It Leads to Modernism.--Jones reasoned further that "the same logic that would have us give up one Bible truth for the sake of harmony with others would have us give up two, three, four, five, and finally all Bible truths for the sake of harmony with the enemies of the truth."(26) To corroborate this assertion, he quoted Galatians 5:9: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."(27)
It Is Preparing the Way for the Antichrist.--Loose practices of unionism and pulpit affiliation, however, apparently are the fulfilment of prophecy, by "preparing the way for the world to finally worship the beast, or Antichrist."(28) To substantiate this claim, Jones quoted Revelation 13:8: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast) [sic] whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(29)
Frank Lascelles DuPont
In 1922, Frank Lascelles DuPont made some statements which show another aspect of the seriousness of pulpit affiliation as a threat to the major tenets of Landmarkism. He warned:
It will be a sad . . . day . . . when Baptist churches surrender their claim to be the only lineal and true descendants of the church founded by Jesus Christ himself, during His [sic] personal ministry on earth! When, if ever, they surrender this claim . . . , they will have surrendered their right to the custodianship of each and every tenet of New Testament faith and practice committed to them by our Divine Lord, and will merit the Judas-infamy of having betrayed him not "with," but "FOR a kiss!"
.. ... ... ... ...
And mark you: When . . . Baptist churches through their love of popularity and liberalistic practices lose their identity as the only New Testament churches on this earth, with them will go every distinctive Bible doctrine, faith and practice, to preserve which, millions of our forefathers and mothers have laid down their lives from the days of John the Baptist to the present time.(30)
DuPont issued this warning "in view of the gradually increasing Liberalism among Baptists."(31) Among the liberal practices he mentioned "Union Meetings," "Church Federation Movements," "Alien Immersions," "Pedo-baptist Sprinklings," and "Open Communion." DuPont was persuaded that something was needed to be done "to stem the tide of our people who are drifting away from their Bible moorings."(32)
Jesse Emaziah Cobb
Jesse Emaziah Cobb (1890-1969) in 1955 wrote two articles entitled "False Unionism and How to Meet It."(33) In these articles he discussed several aspects of unionism, including some rather far-reaching implications.
Cobb warned about a present-day threat of unionism: "The true churches of the Lord Jesus Christ are being fearfully imposed upon today by a spirit of false unionism."(34) He interpreted this false unionism as a fulfilment of Paul's warning about "the wiles of the devil" (Eph. 6:11). "Wiles" is a translation of methodias, which implies "tricks" or "schemes." Satan, Cobb maintained, is using these today:
Satan has adapted methods today whereby he can accomplish his purpose largely by getting the membership of the churches allied with worldly groups, or organizations, clubs, ministerial alliances, or associations, and in divers ways and manners so as to cause the church to give up her pilgrim character, and go along with the world. And many well meaning church members are caught by just such traps . . . .(35)
Cobb asserted that the Christian should not "go along with any group, club, or organization, socially otherwise if we would, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, jeopardize any sacred principle of divine truth."(36) Such a policy will be unpopular with the world, but Christians are to be servants of Christ and not pleasers of men (Gal. 6:10). Loss of evangelistic fervor by churches, he stated, is due to "the fact that the churches are fraternizing entirely too much with the world."(37) Some churches, indeed, have ceased to be "true churches"; "God has taken away from some local bodies the candlestick."(38)
Cobb specified at least three areas in which churches had become lax in their practices: (1) the observance of "so-called Christian holidays not anywhere in all God's word authorized" (namely, Christmas and Easter); (2) "Social Card games" (not only in church meetings but also among individuals); (3) "Clubs" (service clubs and singing conventions).(39)
He concluded his two-part series by discussing "Bible Unity." The secondary title of the articles, "Christ Conditioned His Blessings Not Upon Unity but Upon Unity in Right Principles," characterizes Cobb's thesis. "The only way to meet and combat the false unionism of our times," he said, "is to set up the standard of Biblical unity, live by and defend it against all false unionism."(40) Ephesians 4:4-6 provides "the real Biblical standard of unity."(41) "With every one who will subscribe in toto to this standard we can safely unite and in such a union there will be perfect unity."(42) Christians are to seek real unity and not just union, for "it is perfectly possible to have union and yet have no unity."(43) Cobb intended agreement concerning Landmark teachings to be present, also. Among other doctrines, he stated:
This means we will be in agreement upon all the doctrines of the church, as to origin, perpetuity, mission, and all her relationships. . . . There will be unity as to the teaching of baptism; to put it comprehensibly, there will be agreement in every Biblical doctrine and principle. . . . There must be unity in the doctrine of the origin, mission, and destiny of the church . . . . Unity involves every doctrine taught in the Word of God. We intend here, of course, the fundamental teachings of the Scriptures.(44)
Doss Nathan Jackson
D. N. Jackson, in 1966, wrote an essay giving his interpretation of the doctrinal statement of the North American Baptist Association. His views are especially important because of his role in the history of Associational Baptists and because he was the author of that doctrinal statement.(45)
In his comments on the meaning of article twenty he wrote:
1. This declaration affirms that Scriptural churches should not form an alliance with churches (denominations) founded by men. The separation, which is from unscriptural institutions unto God, is not from a contact with them, but from complicity with and conformity to them and their unscriptural practices. (Read Amos 3:3)(46)
This interpretation seems to be somewhat milder than Cobb's position because Jackson interpreted the doctrinal statement to prohibit "complicity with and conformity to them and their unscriptural practices." Too, Jackson's interpretation of pulpit affiliation seems less severe than some of the interpretations discussed above:
2. The declaration also rejects as being unscriptural:
............... ....
(3) Pulpit affiliation, i.e., opening the church's pulpit to ministers of other denominations, thus recognizing them as regularly ordained ministers of Christ. This does not deny their salvation (John 3:16), neither does it deny spiritual fellowship for them (I John 5:1), but only organic fellowship per se.(47)
Importance of Valid Baptism
Most of the Associational Baptist literature dealing with baptism begins with the same premise: that the commission, including the command to baptize, has been placed into the official ministry of the church, For example, George Albert Garner surmised that
from a study of the great commission (administrative authority) directed to our Lord's church, it may be clearly understood that the church has three duties to perform: (1) To make disciples, win people to Christ (2) To baptize those who are believers, and (3) To teach them thereafter to "observe all things" commanded of our Lord, Matt. 28:18-20.(48)
Similarly, D. N. Jackson, author of the North American Baptist Association Doctrinal Statement, interpreted article sixteen in terms of "soul winning," "baptizing," and "instructing":
1. The Commission was given by Christ to His church (Matt. 28:19, 20). It involves the elements of soul winning, baptizing of the new converts, instructing them to do whatever the Lord commands, and the promise of His presence throughout the ages.(49)
Mode of Baptism
Associational Baptists unanimously have emphasized that immersion is the only mode of valid baptism. Ezra Chamblee Gillentine, for example, asserted that "Scriptural Baptism" requires, among other things, "A Scriptural Place."
A Scriptural place [he maintained] is a place with a sufficient amount of water for a complete immersion, John 3:29; Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:9; Acts 8:38, 39; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12. There are no "modes" of baptism--there is only one way to baptize and that is by immersion. Immersion is THE mode--the ONLY mode, or form in which baptism can be administered.(50)
Garner's two-fold approach, "Meaning of 'baptize'" and "[Meaning] In Example, Form, and Practice," is illustrative of the typical Associational Baptist (i.e., Landmark) argument for immersion as the proper mode of baptism. The argument is based upon the definitions appearing in Greek lexicons. Baptizo "when used with reference to a person meant 'to dip, immerse, or plunge only.'" Different words were used for "sprinkle."(51) Garner quoted Graves to substantiate this meaning of the Greek word baptizo.(52) "In Example, Form, and Practice," Garner stated, "New Testament baptism was by immersion. The examples and necessary inference of the plain Scriptures teach nothing short of this."(53) In the gospels and Acts, the expressions "in the river of Jordan," "much water," "went down into the water and came up . . . out of the water," "they went down into the water," and "they were come up out of the water" (Mark 1:5-10; John 3:23-24; Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-10; Acts 9:38-99) are indicative of baptism by immersion.(54) In the epistles, moreover, other expressions yield the same inference.
Baptism is called a planting and a burial and a figure of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord [Garner asserted]. Anything that is short of a planting and covering, a burial and sealing from physical view, is not a true picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, and is therefore not baptism like our Lord, His disciples, His Apostles, and His church had and practiced. [Rom. 6:4-5, 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:29; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:18, 21].(55)
Like early and later Landmarkers before them, Associational Baptists often have cited numerous quotations from pedobaptists to corroborate the position that immersion was indeed the baptismal practice utilized in New Testament times.(56)
Garner conceded that two kinds of baptism are mentioned in the New Testament, "Holy Ghost baptism," Acts 1:5, and "water baptism." He insisted, however, that "water baptism" was what "our Lord instructed His church to administer to the end of the world."(57) "Holy Ghost baptism" occurred only one time. Indeed, "it came upon the church as a body, on Pentecost, Acts 2:1-4. Never, thereafter, was any church or any individual baptized with the Holy Ghost."(58) Garner insisted, moreover, that 1 Corinthians 12:13 does not teach that "one is baptized by the Holy Ghost into the church."(59) He translated and explained this verse as follows:
"For by (Grk. en meaning 'in') one Spirit are we all baptized (immersed) into (eis, 'with reference to') one body, (church body)." The idea is that all of the members of the Corinth church were in the Spirit, immersed with reference to their duties in the one body, the church at Corinth. The immersion was water immersion, not Holy Spirit immersion.(60)
Garner also maintained that the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 was in water.
If there still remained [i.e., in Paul's later life when Ephesians was written] the baptism of the Holy Spirit, there would be TWO BAPTISMS, but the Bible clearly declares that there is only ONE BAPTISM. It is to be administered in water. (61)
Proper Administrator of Baptism
The crucial point in the early and later Landmark tenet on baptism lay in the insistence that valid baptism requires a proper, authorized administrator. Associational Baptists have consistently advocated the same position. As noted in chapter five, they have taken an official stand more than once against "alien immersion."
Jackson, in explaining the North American Baptist Association Doctrinal Statement, article twenty, defined "alien baptism, . . . [as being] baptism administered without Scriptural church authority."(62) He thereupon referred to his preceding explanation of article twelve.
Baptism is backed by divine authority [he said in explanation of article 12], as shown in the great commission; and as the authority to baptize was given by the Lord to His church, only the churches (denominations) that extend back to that day can claim the authority today. Individual Christians as such do not possess the authority, as the apostle Paul declares: "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (1 Cor. 1:7). Baptists enjoy lineal descent from apostolic times, a claim no other Christian group can make and authenticate.(63)
In making this stipulation, Jackson also alluded to the Associational Baptist and Landmark position on "Succession." This stand also precludes immersion itself if it is performed without proper authority.
Jackson did not insist that valid baptism must be authorized by North American Baptist Association churches--or even Associational Baptist churches. He admitted that
we realize there are [Missionary Baptist churches . . . in other Baptist groups . . . . A Scriptural Baptist church may not wear the title of 'Missionary Baptist,' but it is missionary in spirit and practice.(64)
E. C. Gillentine, in an earlier book, made direct reference to alien immersion. In a simple, homespun manner, he explained that
alien immersion is immersion administered by any church, or group of people other than the true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptist churches are true churches of Jesus Christ, therefore, any immersion administered by any other so-called church or religious group of people is alien immersion or alien baptism and should not be accepted by Baptist churches as Scriptural baptism. To put it in simple words: Baptists do not let out washing, neither do they take in washing. Baptists allow no other group to do their baptizing for them, neither do they do baptizing for any other group. But, instead, Baptists do their own baptizing and accept the baptism of no others.(65)
Cobb and Gillentine, moreover, insisted that only ordained Baptist ministers can administer the ordinance. Gillentine reasoned:
4. A Scriptural Administrator. A Scriptural administrator is one who is legally authorized by a church of Jesus Christ to administer, on her behalf, the ordinance for her. Since the commission was given to a Baptist church, and she alone has the authority to authorize anyone to officiate for her, legally and Scripturally, no one except an ordained minister of a Baptist church can administer the ordinance for her, Acts 1:22.(66)
Cobb interpreted the North American Baptist Association "Articles of Faith" to make such a stipulation:
(d) A scriptural administrator. This we believe to be, as our Articles of Faith declare, one who has come under the imposition of the hands of the presbytery, that is, one who has been scripturally ordained by the authority of a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not agree with the view of some that the church may authorize any member to administer the act of baptism.(67)
D. N. Jackson, however, apparently did not hold such an exclusivistic view, for he said that "the authority to baptize was given . . . to the church" and not to "individual Christians."(68) Probably he would have added some statement similar to those of Gillentine and Cobb if he had held the same view. Similarly, Garner, in emphasizing that the "matter of authority" lies in "the church body," did not specify that only ordained ministers can scripturally administer the ordinance.(69)
Bogard, however, stated unequivocally:
A gospel church may exist with or without officers [Acts 14:23] . . . . Elders or pastors are not necessary to the existence of the church. A church is a gospel church with them or without them.(70)
Garner discussed two passages of scripture which appear to imply that the commission was given to individuals. Although Peter was an
ordained apostle, [he] would not administer baptism to THE HOUSEHOLD OF Cornelius until he had consulted the brethren of the Joppa church, "Can anyone forbid water that these should be baptized?" That is, he asked if anyone objected to his baptizing these new converts. There would have been no virtue in his having asked the question, if the brethren from the Joppa church had not had a right to have objected. He only administered the act of baptism to these converts after allowed authority by the Joppa church, Acts 10:47-48 11:12.(71)
Moreover, Philip's baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) was
by the direct command of the angel of the Lord that spoke to him, before the Bible was completed, and by the further call of the Holy Spirit, Acts 8:26, 29. This is an exception, not the rule, of New Testament Baptism.(72)
References were made in chapter five to several official resolutions accusing and condemning the American Baptist Association for accepting churches which allegedly accepted alien baptism. This was strongly denied.(73) Apparently the charges were based partially upon the question of local church authority; i.e., can a church send, as a messenger, anyone it may desire? D. N. Jackson, in his article "Underlying Causes of the Separation," contained in the booklet entitled The Lakeland Review, accused the leaders of the American Baptist Association ("this . . . [sic] ONE-CHURCH control system") of "winking at alien baptism."(74) He discussed in particular three "Examples of Alienism." (1) The alleged heretical practice of Forty-Second Street Baptist Church of Lubbock, Texas. On March 29, 1950, First Central Baptist Church of Lubbock "declared nonfellowship for the church."(75) Forty-Second Street Church was represented by messengers at the 1950 American Baptist Association sessions at Lakeland, Florida. (2) Jackson also accused "the ringleader [Ben M. Bogard?] of the American Baptist Association" of being doctrinally loose:
Another example of a drift toward alienism is the stern opposition by the ringleader of the American Baptist Association, to a resolution offered at the A.B.A. meeting in St. Louis (1948) against giving associational fellowship to churches which knowingly receive alien baptism. He publicly opposed the resolution and demanded that his vote against it be recorded in the Minutes. Thus he took an open stand in favor of fellowshipping churches which teach and practice ALIEN BAPTISM. What next?(76)
(3) The third example related to L. D. Foreman, president of the American Baptist Association and also of the Missionary Baptist Institute of Little Rock, Arkansas (owned by Antioch Baptist Church).(77) Another article in the Lakeland Review gave the substance of this accusation.(78) Kenneth K. Marshall of El Dorado Springs, Missouri, called into serious question the position of L. D. Foreman. Marshall had "wired" Foreman for an opinion about the proper way of organizing a church. Foreman's reply follows:(79)
ANTIOCH BAPTIST CHURCH
Little Rock, Ark.
Jan. 29, 1950
Pastor Kenneth K. Marshall,
Creal Springs, Illinois
Dear Brother Marshall:
Evidently those who withdrew from the "Norrissite" Church on the grounds that they objected to open communion and alien immersion are sound in the faith. Those who went into the said church with scriptural baptism will do for charter members and also those who were baptized by the "Norrissite" Church, providing that the church has not gone so far in error that the "candlestick" has been removed. Rev. 2:5
A CHURCH MAY PRACTICE OPEN COMMUNION AND ALIEN IMMERSION AND STILL BE A BAPTIST CHURCH. IT WOULD BE PRACTICING ERROR, OF COURSE, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CEASED TO BE A CHURCH. CERTAINLY, THE PEOPLE BAPTIZED BY SUCH A CHURCH THEN WOULD HAVE SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM, EVEN THOUGH THE CHURCH WAS IN ERROR IN ACCEPTING MEMBERS WHO HAD NEVER BEEN SCRIPTURALLY BAPTIZED. IF THE GREATER NUMBER OF THE ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP WERE OF THE UNBAPTIZED, THEN I WOULD SAY THAT THE "CANDLESTICK" (church) HAD BEEN REMOVED. [sic; the upper case letters apparently are used by Marshall for emphasis].
You cannot be too careful in organizing this church, however; and I would try to ascertain if every member who is in the organization was scripturally baptized.
It would be better for the charter members to have letters of dismission from the church where they now hold membership--letters of dismission for the express purpose of organizing a new church. This keeps down ill feeling, etc., however, it is not necessary that they have the letters.
You, of course, organize this group as you would any other Baptist church. Here is hoping for you a great success. Does this mean that you will not get to be with us in the Seminary next year? I hope not.
Sincerely yours,
L. D. FOREMAN
Design of Baptism
Associational Baptist literature concerned with the design of baptism follows the patterns found in early and later Landmarkism. Gillentine listed and discussed in detail the design of baptism under ten points:
l. Baptism is Declarative. It declares the new birth. In Matt. 28:20, we read: "Go ye . . . and teach (make disciples)," and then after the disciples are made, "baptizing them," etc. When one comes to the church asking for baptism he declares that he has been born again, for in John 3:3-5 we learn that one is unfit for the kingdom of heaven until he has been born again. . . . [See also Acts 2:41; 8:37, 38; Mark 16:15, 16; Matt. 3:5-9; Acts 8:12; 9:17, 18; 10:44-48; John 14:17; Acts 16:14, 15; 16:30-34].
2. Baptism Repudiates Unitarianism. It is administered in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," Matt. 28:20. Every person receiving Scriptural baptism declares that he believes in a divine Trinity, . . . "I am a Trinitarian, and not a Unitarian."
3. Baptism Declares the Fatherhood of God in Christ. There is no such thing as the Fatherhood of God out of Christ, but in Christ all have one Father, God, Rom. 8:16.
4. Baptism Declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ. . . . Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11.
5. Baptism Declares the Administration of the Holy Spirit. The twelve disciples at Ephesus had not received, neither had they heard that the Holy Spirit had been given when they were first immersed by someone who did not know the real purpose and motive of baptism. When they heard the truth they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus--thus recognizing the administration of the Holy Spirit, Acts 19:1-5. . . .
6. Baptism Declares the Death of Christ. To be baptized with reference to a doctrine means to accept that doctrine, Rom. 6:4, 5.
7. Baptism Declares the Resurrection of Christ. . . . Rom. 6:5 . . . .
8. Baptism Declares the Believer's Faith in the Second Coming of Christ. . . . Matt. 28:20. As the believer comes up out of the water of baptism he declares, "I believe the Lord is coming again and my body will be raised from the grave as it is now being raised from this water."
9. Baptism Declares a Good Conscience Toward God, 1 Peter 3:21. . . .
10. Baptism is a Declarative Act, Fulfilling all Righteousness. . . . Matt. 3:15, . . . Rom. 4:25.(80)
Cobb's summary of the "scriptural design" of baptism is similar to Gillentine's discussion. He emphasized, however, "a twofold look" in baptism:
Baptism has a twofold look--a backward look and a forward look. It looks back to death, and it looks forward to life in that it pictures the resurrection unto life. We do not bury people till they die, even so when one is dead to, or freed from sin it is appropriate and fitting that he be baptized to signify his death, and in his rising from the watery grave he signifies his faith in his own resurrection and pictures the resurrection of the Lord from the dead.(81)
Like early Landmarkers, moreover, Associational Baptists have maintained that "Baptism is not a saving ordinance. It should never be administered to any except to those who are already saved."(82) Bogard interpreted the phrase, "for the remission of sins," in Acts 2:38 "in its [i.e., "for"] secondary sense, which means 'with reference to'--"be baptized with reference to the remission of sins.'"(83)
Necessity of Baptism
Although Associational Baptists unanimously have agreed that baptism is not necessary for salvation, they have also insisted that it is required for church membership. Cobb called baptism a "ritualistic or ceremonial" prerequisite.(84) He admitted that "there have been heated polemical combats concerning the question, 'What is the door to the church?'"(85) Cobb claimed, however, that "in this treatise we are not regarding any one thing as a door, or as the door, to the church, but there are certain ceremonial or ritualistic requirements to church membership."(86) He subsequently characterized baptism as
a ritualistic or ceremonial act by which one is received into the membership of a church. It is an essential qualification since there can be no membership in a church without being baptized. Baptism is specifically commanded in the great commission . . . . (87)
D. N. Jackson unequivocally denied that baptism is the "door into a church":
The rite of water baptism, as a mode, is a condition of [church] membership. It is a primary condition, as membership cannot be Scripturally obtained without it. Note that it is a condition and not the door into a church. The "door" is the voice of the church by which members may be received and by which they may be dismissed. Any act that is made the door of admission must of necessity be made the door of dismission. Baptism, therefore, cannot meet this requirement, as it would be impossible to "unbaptize" a person! In New Testament cases baptism always preceded one's initial church membership (Acts 2:41; 10:47). But baptism is a primary condition of church membership only as it presupposes the subject's regeneration and profession of faith in Christ.(88)
Most Associational Baptist writers have been either ambiguous or non-committal on the matter of "the door," but have emphasized the necessity of baptism as a prerequisite for church membership.
Requisite Elements of Valid Baptism
Most of the Associational Baptist literature has maintained that several elements are necessary for each act of baptism to be "scriptural" or valid. Precise wording and number of elements varies from writer to writer, but these have tended to gravitate toward four or five areas: (1) proper candidate (a believer); (2) proper mode (immersion); (3) proper purpose or design (symbolic or 'declarative'--not soteriological or sacramental); and (4) proper authority (New Testament [i.e., Baptist] church). Some (e.g., Cobb) have added: (5) proper administrator (an ordained minister).(89)
A Visible Institution
Associational Baptist discussions on the church almost unanimously have agreed with the Landmark views of Graves, Ford, and Hall in interpreting the New Testament church as a visible institution only. Albert Garner maintained that "a New Testament Church is a local, visible, assembly of God's people who are saved and scripturally baptized [,] associating together in some definite locality for the purpose of carrying out their Lord's Commission."(90) Similarly, Gillentine stated:
"A church of Jesus Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated in faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, and privileges, invested in them by His Word."--Baptist Confession of Faith.(91)
These statements are representative of most Associational Baptist definitions of church.(92)
As in early Landmarkism, emphasis has been given to two areas: the time when Christ "set up" the church and the definition of ecclesia. Gillentine made two broad assertions about the origin of the church: (1) "the church [was] instituted by Christ" and (2) "the church [was] instituted before Pentecost."(93) Most Associational Baptist writers have agreed with Gillentine's two assertions. Differences have arisen, however, when attempts have been made to establish the precise point in Jesus' ministry when He established the church. Gillentine developed an argument based upon the agreement between his generally accepted definition of the church and statements in the gospels.(94) His four point argument is as follows:
"1. The church of Jesus Christ was instituted by Jesus Christ during His personal ministry on earth."(95) Certain of John the Baptist's disciples were the first members of the church (Matt. 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; Acts 1:5, 22). These disciples "were called out [i.e., an ecclesia]--separated from the world, by Jesus Christ, and compacted into a church."(96) Peter, Andrew, James, and John were the first members (Matt. 4:18-22). "Others were called until [,] when He led them up into the mountain and prayed all night, He had a large multitude of disciples."(97) Gillentine analyzed Luke 6:12-17 in support of this assertion. He found six pertinent facts in the passage. (a) Jesus went into a mountain (v. 12).
[b] He called His disciples unto Him, verse 13. He did not here make disciples--but called those who were already His disciples. The word "church" means a called out assembly . . . .(98)
Gillentine also quoted definitions from the English Baptist Confessions of 1611 and 1646 to illustrate that the Luke 6 passage indeed describes the calling-out of the church.(99) (c) Christ chose twelve of "the disciples whom He had called."(100)
[d] The twelve thus chosen were ordained as apostles, Mark 3:14 . . . . The twelve did not constitute the church, but were chosen out of the membership of the church, which had been called out by the Lord, and they were ordained as apostles. They were the first official members set in the church, I Cor. 12:28 . . . . He could not have set them in the church if there had been no church, but since He had a church, He could set officials in it.(101)
(e) Christ then came down from the mountain with the disciples--including the twelve apostles (v. 17).
[f] There were present a company of His disciples and a great multitude of people, verse 17. Hence, we see from this that Jesus had a church before going up into the mountain [see also Matt. 13:31 and I Cor. 15:6].(102)
Echoing Graves and Hall, Gillentine thereupon stated that
the church--the local congregation--is the unit in the militant kingdom of Jesus Christ. The kingdom embraces all the churches. Each church is an independent organization of and within itself [Luke 11:20; 17:20].(103)
This church--as every church since then--was composed of baptized
believers.(104)
2. Gillentine reasoned also that "Jesus and His followers were . . . associated while He was on earth in person" (John 14:9), thus fulfilling "the second statement in the definition."(105)
3. Relative to the statement "observing the ordinances of Christ," Gillentine reasoned that "the two ordinances of the church . . . were observed by Jesus and His disciples while they were associated together during . . . [His] personal ministry . . . ."(106)
4. The fourth step in this definition [Gillentine continued] is that the church is "governed by His laws, and privileges, invested in them by His Word." While Jesus was with His church He governed it Himself. He is the Head of the church, Eph. 1:22 . . . .(107)
Other pertinent passages he cited are Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18; Matthew 17:5; 28:19, 20; Luke 9:35.(108)
In corroboration of his assertion that "the church [was] instituted before Pentecost," Gillentine alluded to two other positions:
1. Some say it was established in the days of Abraham.
. . . . . . . . .
3. Still others say it was established the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus.(109)
Gillentine dismissed these alternatives by maintaining that the former "was to [sic] early" and "Pentecost is [sic] too late."(110) He also gave fifteen negative reasons for denying a Pentecost date for the establishment of the church.(111) The last one describes what did happen on Pentecost: "15. The only new thing that came on Pentecost different to what the church already had was the power to speak with new tongues."(112) Gillentine thereupon gave fifteen reasons for believing that the church was established before Pentecost:
1. A body had been called out.
2. Apostles had been set in the body.
3. The church had been commissioned to administer the ordinances.
4. The church had observed both ordinances--baptism and the Lord's supper.
5. Jesus said, The kingdom had been shut up. It could not have been shut up if it did not exist.
6. The kingdom had suffered violence. It could not have suffered if it had not existed.
7. Jesus called it a little flock--He must have had a flock, or He would not have referred to it as a flock.
8. The keys of the kingdom had been turned over and authority was already in their hands before Pentecost.
9. Officers had been set in the church--you could not set something into a thing that did not exist--hence it must have existed.
10. They had a rule of discipline, Matt. 18:15-17.
11. They had a church roll, Acts 1:15.
12. They had an ordained ministry.
13. They had the same gospel and the same baptism before Pentecost that they had after Pentecost.
14. They had the promise of Jesus to be with them unto the end, Matt. 28:20.
15. They had His promise that He was coming back again, John 14:1-4.(113)
D. N. Jackson's approach was very similar to Gillentine's, although he placed more stress on the early-Judean, pre-Galilean, ministry of Jesus (e.g., John 1:1--4:41). "John 4:43," he said, "marks the time of the opening of Christ's regular ministry in Galilee, harmonizing with Matt. 4:12 and Mark 1:14"(114) At least three of Jackson's items from his ten point outline add to Gillentine's presentation:
(2) The charter members of the first church were John, Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael (John 1:35-47). They were called by Christ and they followed Him not long after His baptism and temptation, somewhere in the rural area not far from Jerusalem.
(3) The call of the first disciples occurred before the imprisonment of John the Baptist (John 3:24). He did not open His ministry in Galilee until after John's imprisonment (Matt. 4:12-18; Mark 1:14). The call by the seashore of Galilee was His second . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(10) The company that followed Jesus from the baptism of John the Baptist is said to be the church, which attended to business by electing the successor to Judas Iscariot, and continued in prayer during the interval of ten days between the ascension of Christ and the dawn of Pentecost (Acts 1:14, 21-26; 2:41, 47). The company assembled at Jerusalem consisted of "about a hundred and twenty," to which the three thousand were added on the first day of Pentecost. The company of a hundred and twenty is called the church, Acts 2:47. . . . "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," or were being saved. This small company of a hundred and twenty, called the church, had "companied with us," says Peter, "beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day he (Christ) [sic] was taken up from us."(115)
Jackson, therefore, did not emphasize the calling-out to the mountain (Luke 6:12-17). Associational Baptist writers have been divided over the significance of the mountain experience. Subsequently, certain presuppositions about Old Testament prophecies relating to the kingdom will be discussed, giving partial explanation for the emphasis on the Luke 6 passage. Suffice it to say here, however, that Burgess did "not want to be dogmatic, but he" also rejected "the mountain theory."(116)
Most Associational Baptist literature advocating a visible church only, like early and later Landmarkism, has built its case around the basic pagan and New Testament meaning and usage of ecclesia.(117) Several of the writers, however, have stressed that "the church" is also used in the New Testament in a generic or "institutional" sense.(118)
Garner, moreover, added to his position by arguing that "the New Testament Church . . . always had a definite locality. . . ."(119) He also explained that New Testament churches were "named according to localities":
1. The church at Jerusalem, Acts 8:1-3.
2. Disciples at Damascus constituted a church, in which Paul was baptized, Acts 9:19.
3. The church at Antioch was a very active mission church, Acts 11:26; 13:1-4.
4. The Apostolic missionaries ordained elders in every church, Acts 14:23.
5. The "churches," a plurality, increased in number, Acts 16:5.
6. There were "churches" in Macedonia, definite local assemblies in a definite country, II Cor. 8:1.
7. There were seven churches (not one universal invisible one) in Asia, Rev. 1:4, 20.
8. The church of God at Corinth, I Cor. 1:2.(120)
Garner consequently maintained that the mention of a "plurality of local assemblies . . . did not constitute a big universal invisible church" (Rom. 16:4, 16; 1 Cor. 14:33; 16:1, 19; Rev. 1:4).(121)
Each of the New Testament Churches, with a plurality in the above mentioned localities [he continued], functioned as an independent, sovereign church, administering the laws of Christ according to its own choosing. Some chose to fellowship with other churches in doing mission work, some did not, but each was a visible, local, body, and did visible local work for the Lord, Phil. 4:15; II Cor. 8:1-6, 18-24; II Cor. 9:2; I Cor. 16:1-4.(122)
Denial of Invisible or Universal Church
Logically, the ecclesiological tenets of Associational Baptists which are being set forth here demand a correlative denial of the existence of an invisible and/or universal church. Garner has set forth a five-fold denial:
l. A New Testament Church is not a local congregation that functions in worship and service as a religio-flapper-organization that flirts and consorts in union worship and work with just "anything" that calls itself a church. . . . A New Testament church is not made up, composed of all of the saved.
2. A New Testament Church is not identical with the Family of God. Every family has children in it. And every family is at least as old as the birth of the first child into the family. . . . But the Church of God was not in existence until the personal ministry of Christ . . . . Some of the family of God has [sic] been in heaven since at least the days of Enoch, but no member of the Lord's church has been in heaven more than 2,000 years, I Cor. 12:28; Mt. 16:18.
3. A New Testament Church is not an invisible, universal, intangible, mystical fellowship of spirits of saved men. One might as well talk of a universal, invisible school or school board as to talk of a universal, invisible church.
4. A New Testament Church is not just any branch of denominational Christianity. Nominal Christianity does not constitute "the big church" as it is sometimes termed . . . . The idea that one automatically becomes a member of a . . . universal, invisible, spiritual church the instant he is saved is an erroneous idea. . . . Men believed and were born into the family of God, became children of God for nearly 4,000 years before there was a church on the earth. Besides one has to be added to the church, after he believes, receives Christ, Acts 2:41; 9:27; 10:47, 48; Rom. 14:1.
. . . . . . . . . . .
[5.] A New Testament church is not universal, but local. For a universal church could not "assemble together," or "Worship together." One with offence toward his brother could not tell it to a "universal, invisible church," Matt 18:17.
The evil idea of a universal, invisible church was instigated b the Roman Catholic Church and has been copied and siphoned along by protestants.(123)
In February, 1940, D. N. Jackson challenged W. O. Carver, professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, to debate the universal church theory. Carver declined the offer, but they carried on an extensive amount of correspondence on the matter. From February to July Jackson published in his paper, the American Baptist, this series of letters. Here are found some of the clearest statements in American Baptist literature in support of the denial of the invisible or universal church.(124)
The basic presupposition of "the universal church theory," Jackson maintained, is that "all the saved constitute the church and they enter it by the so-called process of salvation; . . . they are 'born into the church.'"(125) Jackson charged, however, that such a position is "identical with that of the Campbellites who teach that salvation is in the church and the church only."(126) He asked for "ONE verse of Scripture to give support to this position."(127) He believed that, if "all the saved constitute . . . the universal church, [then] visible or local churches are mere human conveniences in which people gain membership by methods imposed by them peculiar to their own tenets."(128) This church-branch theory "is the most popular theory advocated today by the Pedobaptist world and some who claim to be Baptists."(129) Jackson admitted that "the more conservative Baptists in the ranks of the liberalists hold that the universal church is composed of all the saved but that only local Baptist Churches are divinely commissioned to execute the will of the one universal church with Christ as head."(130) He stated, however, that "both of the above theories are painfully at variance with the Word of God . . . ."(131) "The New Testament," he continued, "knows but one sort of church, and that is local and visible."(132) He cited Acts 9:31; 15:41; 16:5; 19:37; Romans 16:4; 16:16; 1 Corinthians 7:17; 11:16; and Revelation 1:4 "to show [that] the general idea of the church in the New Testament times [was] . . . local and visible."(133) Indeed, "'catholic' or 'universal' is not a New Testament word, neither is it a Septuagint word, and is not applied to ecclesia [sic]."(134) Moreover, Jackson charged,
You cannot point out one verse of Scripture where any one ever became a member of the church without baptism, but you can freely prove where people were saved without baptism, that is, baptism was not a condition of salvation. This alone is sufficient to show that one is not born into the church. If you say that baptism is necessary to enter the "organic" church but not the universal "spirit church body," I kindly ask that you name the Scripture that makes any such distinction in the church of Christ. IT IS NOT TO BE FOUND. The distinction is not conveyed in either the meaning of the original word ekklesia, or the teachings of the Lord and His inspired writers.(135)
In attacking the invisible church position, Jackson asked: (l) "WHEN and by whom" was it "founded"? (2) "Were the disciples of John the Baptist 'born into the church' before Christ came preaching and founded the church?"(136)
Jackson also answered the objections he had encountered with reference to the expression "the church" and "the body of Christ." He claimed, however, that the singular construction (i.e., "the church") "is at no time used to embrace all the redeemed in their scattered places upon the earth."(137) He maintained that "church" in Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 3:10, 21, "is used in the institutional or abstract sense."(138) Jackson, in explanation, quoted B. H. Carroll's illustration of the abstract use of a word, in this case "jury":
"If an English statesman, referring to the right of each individual citizen to be tried by his peers, should say: 'On this rock England will build her jury and all the power of tyrants shall not prevail against it,' he uses the term jury in an abstract sense, i.e., [sic] in the sense of an institution. But when this institution finds concrete expression or becomes operative, it is always a particular jury of twelve men, and never an aggregation of all juries into one big jury."(139)
Jackson believed that this "is a fair illustration of the use of the term church, . . . not . . . a universal invisible or universal visible, . . . but as an institution . . . . "(140) He insisted, moreover, that "the references . . . in Ephesians and Colossians employ the term church in . . . [this] institutional . . . sense, . . . including Eph. 4:4: 'There is one body.'"(141) The expression "flock" in Acts 20:28, he continued, establishes the fact that "the church of God" here "evidently is used in the abstract sense, for this flock, bringing it down to the congregation at Ephesus, is a particular assembly, which Christ purchased with His own blood."(142) Jackson used Ephesians 5:23, 24, to bolster his argument, stating that
if [this passage] . . . means a universal church, including all the redeemed, then the expression, "The husband" would mean a universal husband, and "the wife" a universal wife. There are many husbands and wives, yet "the husband" and "the wife." So there are many churches of the Lord (local congregations), still "the church," not that all local congregations comprise one universal church. . . . [This passage does not] mean that . . . all wives comprise one huge wife, or all husbands comprise one huge husband, or all churches comprise one huge church.(143)
Moreover, Jackson explained the expression "church of the firstborn" in Hebrews 12:23 by denying that the expression was synonymous or identical with "general assembly." Such position, he claimed, "is both theologically wrong and grammatically incorrect."(144) He quoted Joseph Henry Thayer as an authority to assert that "general assembly" (paneguris), being without any connecting conjunction, is used in apposition with "an innumerable company of angels."
The "church of the firstborn" [he continued] is not the "general assembly." The church here is named among the many blessings belonging to the Gospel Dispensation in Contrast with what the people had under the law. And contrary to the opinions of many, this church is on earth now, not in heaven.
. . . . An assembly (church) with a membership whose names are written in heaven enjoys greater blessings than the assembly of Israelites whose names were enrolled in a literal book or record on earth, while even then a redeemed Israelite had his enrollment in heaven.(145)
Although this was Jackson's interpretation of Hebrews 12:23, he also contended that
even if this [should] . . . refer to the church as the "general assembly," it can not mean the church now in its scattered form on the face of the earth, for the term church means an assembly, and certainly all the redeemed in heaven and earth in this age are not assembled anywhere. But, if the "general assembly" means the church, it evidently and logically refers to the time when all the redeemed will be gathered with Christ in the future age.
But . . . [these are] not one and the same thing . . . ; neither does it refer to an assembly . . . at some future time, as it clearly describes a company of angels now formed and ever present with those who are "heirs of salvation."(146)
Jackson also cited the Pauline concept of "the one body" to bolster his argument:
Paul says in 1 Cor. 12:26: "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it." There's the one body idea, yet we know that it can not be universal, the "spiritual church body," for the reason the millions of members of such a body would not and could not suffer when one member was afflicted. . . . This shows that the one body is used in the local sense, as in 1 Cor. 3:7, 16. To the Corinthian church Paul said: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God." [sic] We know he refers to the local church at Corinth, for in 1:2 he says: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth." Is this universal? Were the members "born into" it?(147)
Possible allegations about "one Head" having "too many bodies" did not bother Jackson:
If this seems to make one Head have too many bodies, please read 1 Cor. 11:3 which says that "the head of every man is Christ." Also the redeemed man's body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 6:19, 20). How many temples does the Spirit have?(148)
In the April 10, 1919, issue of the Baptist Progress, official paper of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, appeared an anonymous article entitled "Questions and Answers." The article was signed "Jumbo." It is devoted to discussion of the relation between the Pauline expressions "in Christ" and "in the body of Christ." The author denied that the expressions are synonymous. Since (1) this is a crucial subject which apparently few Associational Baptists or other Landmarkers have touched upon and (2) the article is not readily accessible to the readers of the present study, the full text, with a few ellipses, in given here:
l. As Christ is the head of the body, which is the Church, does it necessarily follow if a person is in Christ that he is in the body, or church also?
Answer: The word church in the New Testament is from the Greek word "ekklesia" and means a visible congregation of baptized believers called out from among those of the world and associated together in the fellowship of the gospel. Such congregations are some times [sic] called the body of Christ, the house of God, the temple, the sheepfold, the flock, etc. One gets into the church by fellowship based upon the relation of an experience of grace and baptism. But he gets into Christ by faith. [Italics mine.] So one may be in the body of Christ which is His church, organically, but not be in Christ at all. It is nowhere stated in the scriptures that one believes (eis) into the body or church of Christ, but in many places in the Bible we are said to believe (eis) into Christ. Christ is head of His body, the church, in the same sense that President Wilson is head of this government. So one can be in this government without being in President Wilson. Hypocrits [sic] and even devils get into the church, or body of Christ, but no such characters are in Christ. See Matt. 13:41-42; Matt. 13:47-49; John 6:70. Bad people do sometimes get into the church but they do not get into Christ in their lost and undone state or condition. 2 Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:3-4; Eph. 2:8-12.
2. If he is not in the body which is the church, can he be in Christ--the head of the body--the church?
Answer: He certainly can be in Christ the head, and never be in the body. To be in the church is one thing and to be in Christ is quite another. One may live and die a member of Christ's body, the church, and go to hell, but if he is in Christ, whether he is in the church or out of it, he will go to heaven when he dies. The Bible doctrine is, blood before water, Christ before the church.
3. Are not all who are in Christ Christians?
Answer: They certainly are.
4. Are not all Christians in that body of which Christ is head?
Answer: No, indeed not. There are some Christians or children of God, . . . who are not, and never will be members of Christ's body on earth. Why, He has children even in Babylon, and to be sure Babylon is not the body of Christ. See Rev 18:4.
5. Does not that which causes one to be a christian [sic] make him a member of that body?
Answer: Indeed not. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:26. But it takes more than faith to get into Christ's body, the church.
6. If the body and church are synonymous terms how can one be in Christ without being in His body, which is His church?
Answer: You seem to have the wrong conception of "body" and "head" with reference to Christ and his church. Christ is head of His body, the church, in the sense that He is its law-giver, its supreme head and authority in all matters pertaining to the church work in the world. And just as the government of the United States is one thing and President Wilson another. So is the church one thing and Christ another.
7. In Matt. 16:18 does Christ refer to the body when He says "Upon this rock I will build my church"? Did Paul have reference to the same thing in Col. 1: 16-24?
Answer: Yes, Christ in Matt. 16:18 and Paul in Col. 1:16-24 are talking about the same thing, the church, or body of Christ. But you will notice Christ did not say "upon this rock I will build myself, but my church." Christ Himself built the church, His body, but people were in Christ, and saved thousands of years before His church or body existed. See the difference?
JUMBO(149)
Church and Kingdom
Analyses presented in earlier chapters have shown disparities among early and later Landmarkers concerning the relationship of the church and kingdom. Pendleton, Graves, and Dayton disagreed, as well as Ford and Hall. The same phenomenon occurs in Associational Baptist literature on the subject. As L. L. Clover has explained:
The Church Kingdom question is a controverted one. Many theologians find it difficult to believe they are one and the same. However, the author finds no other reasonable explanation of the Kingdom that both John and Jesus preached. Therefore, he believes the present day kingdom of Christ is His Churches. It is acknowledged that there is but one great universal Kingdom and that God is the king. But, on the other hand there are several phases of that one kingdom. The family of God, that is all of the saved, constitutes one phase. The Jewish Theocracy constituted one phase. The millennium and the heaven age will constitute two phases. The church constitutes one phase. The Scripture coupled with reason, will substantiate this theory.(150)
Probably Clover's view represents the position of many present day Associational? Baptists. Almost all of the literature emphasizes that the church, if not exactly identical to the kingdom, is the executive of the kingdom.(151) The church is the agent which conducts the work which is to be done. Old Testament kingdom passages are used to prove the pre-Pentecost founding of the church, as well as its perpetuity.
Literature on this subject covers the whole period under study, 1900-1950.(152) The approach taken by P. C. Scott, editor of the Baptist Progress, is typical of this position. In a 1919 article, he argued:
The Bible tells of the purpose of God to establish His church, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." Dan. 2:44. That Jesus was the God of Heaven is seen by looking to Isaiah 9:6 and Matthew 1:23. We are also told where the church was to be built. "His foundation is in the holy mountain." Psa. 87:1. And again, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." Isaiah 2:2.
The one who was to prepare the material of this house was foretold. . . . Isaiah 40:3. John the Baptist was the fulfillment of this prophecy. . . . Matthew 3:2-3. . . .
The church was built on a mountain in Galilee. Mark 3:13-14. . . . See also Luke 6:12-13. Paul tells us that this was the church "and God hath set some in the church; first apostles," etc. 1 Cor. 12:28.(153)
The position set forth here is essentially that of Graves.(154)
Herman B. Pender, one of the early leaders in the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, General Association of Baptist Churches, and American Baptist Association, wrote a number of articles in the 1910s and 1920s on this subject.(155) His views were essentially those of Scott. One article in particular, "Kingdom Questions," sets forth his position and gives further insight into the issue:
First. When according to the New Testament did "the kingdom of God--of heaven--of God's dear Son" begin on earth? Answer: It was during the personal ministry of John the Baptist and of Christ the King. . . . Matt. 3:4; 2:27. . . . Luke 16:16 . . . Matt. 11:12.
Second. Do men get into the kingdom by spiritual birth? I answer no. . . . Matt. 7:21 . . . John 3:5 . . . 1 Cor. 3:15. . . . It is confusion and gross heresy that the NEW BIRTH lands one into the Kingdom automatically; as the various units of organized heresy believe and teach.
Third. How then may men get into the Kingdom? Simply by childlike obedience. . . . Mk. 10:15 . . . Eph. 2:8 . . . Gal. 3:26.
Fourth. If the family is the sphere of salvation and the Kingdom is the organic sphere of service. [sic] See Heb. 12:18. [sic] What is the first duty of a newborn child? Answer: Baptism. Proof: . . . Matt. 28:19-20.
Fifth. To whom was this commission given and to whom were the keys of the Kingdom delivered? Answer: The Church of the King, who said to her: . . . Matt. 16:19. See also Matt. 18:19-20, wherein he makes three with himself a quorum.
Sixth, [sic] To whom was the Kingdom given? Answer: The church, under the title of "little flock." Proof: . . . Luke 12:32 . . . Luke 22:29-30.
Seventh: [sic] If the church was given the Kingdom and the keys of it, how can any of those who reject and even persecute the true church claim to be in Christ's kingdom? Our Lord said of the Scribes and Pharisees: "Ye neither go in yourselves nor suffer ye (consent for) them that are entering to go in." Pedo-baptists [sic] have been known to "raise cane" to prevent the baptism of their children.
Eighth. If men are not (and cannot be) born into the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ, " [sic] but must ENTER it by the consent and act of the Custodian of the keys, which is the church, should we not regard her as the only known organic unit of the present Kingdom of Christ on earth, which is both spiritual in character and visible in form? [Sic; no answer is given, but apparently the affirmative is expected as in the "Ninth."].
Ninth. Can any one get out of the Kingdom? If so, how? Answer: Yes. They go out of the church as did Judas. . . . John 2:19.
The Son of Man shall send forth His angels and gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend . . . ." (That is impossible to the so-called universal, invisible church-kingdom).
Tenth. What about the Father's Kingdom? Answer: That, the present Kingdom of Christ is instructed to pray for Matt. 6:10 and is yet to come. . . . Matt. 8:11-12 . . . Matt. 11:42. [1 Cor. 15:24-25].
Eleventh. Of whom does the family of God consist? Answer: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and all believers of all nations, kindred and tongues; past, present and future; in heaven and on earth . . . . Eph. 3:14-15.
Twelfth. Will any of that great family ever be Lost? No, not one. . . .(156)
J. W. Bussell, one of Pender's contemporaries, openly disagreed with him on the subject.(157) Bussell agreed that Isaiah 2:2 was prophetic of the founding of the church by Jesus on the mountain.(158) He denied, however, "that Dan. 2:44 points to the origin of the Kingdom of Christ."(159) He believed that
the functions of the two institutions are not the same. In the first place the kingdom is a world wide power, bounded only by the habitat of man, or other subjects to be governed, and is strictly a Spiritual institution, and consists of the reign of Christ in the hearts of His people to the extent that they are made believers in Christ.(160)
Although "the kingdom is hid in antiquity," Bussell continued, "the origin of the church comes well in the range of history (. . . Mk. 3:13; Lk. 6:13)."(161) He conceded, however, that "the churches are the executive bodies of the kingdom, just like the Holy Spirit is the Exectuive [sic] Officer of the Trinity."(162)
D. N. Jackson believed that the church was established before Jesus called his disciples to the mountain.(163) Jackson consequently did not stress the relationship between the church and the kingdom. He did, however, apparently hold a position similar to the Graves-Pender approach. In a twenty-seven point "Compendium" of "pointed facts proving the existence of the church before Pentecost," he included eight which concerned the kingdom.(164) Three are especially germane to understanding his position:
(19) Christ had a kingdom while He was on earth (John 18:36). The church was co-existent with the kingdom. The first church was Christ's kingdom established on earth.
(20) The elements of the kingdom were in existence then. (a) There must be a king. Christ declared He was King (John 18:37). (b) There must be subjects. His disciples were His subjects. (c) There must be laws. Christ's commands were His laws. (d) There must be a territory. The world is the territory (Mark 16:16; Acts 1:8). During Christ's ministry the world of operation was limited.
(21) The kingdom was preached from John the Baptist's day, and men pressed into it (Luke 16:16). How can people press into something that does not exist?(165)
Marks or Signs of True Churches
Associational Baptist literature is definitely in agreement with early and later Landmarkism concerning the question of "Marks or Signs of True Churches." D. N. Jackson stated the basic presupposition of this Landmark tenet when he claimed:
The church of our Lord's day on earth was in all essential elements Baptist. The characteristics that distinguish a Baptist church are peculiarly set forth in the Bible as having belonged to the New Testament church.(166)
William Jennings Burgess included nine items in a "Doctrinal Comparison" in corroboration of a similar claim.(167) He also placed in his book a similar list of eight "Baptist Distinctives."(168) Similarly, F. L. DuPont stated that "our position is, that the church organized by Jesus Christ was, in doctrine and practice, and in all of the essential elements of its constitution, a Missionary Baptist Church."(169) He listed eight of "the principal characteristics of doctrine and practice [of] . . . a Missionary Baptist Church."(170) Through an elaborate system of syllogisms, DuPont endeavored to show also that John the Baptist and Jesus were "Missionary Baptist preacher[s]" and that "the first church at Jerusalem was a Missionary Baptist Church."(171) Gillentine took an approach very similar to DuPont's but without the syllogisms.(172) He also listed eight "characteristic features held by Baptists."(173)
One of the most popular pamphlets on this subject was written by J. T. Moore, Why I Am a Baptist: Seven Bible Principles Held by Baptists Only. These principles are:
l. A Regenerated Membership.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. None But a Regenerated Person Should Be Baptized
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Jesus Christ during His Personal Ministry Founded His Church.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. The Perpetuity of the Church.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. The Church and Its Ordinances Belong to the Saved Only.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. John the Baptist's Baptism Is Christian Baptism.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Christ and the Apostles Could Join None but a Baptist Church on John's Baptism.(174)
D. N. Jackson discussed two major considerations in identifying the true church: "l. The church identified as Baptist in organization"; "2. The church identified as Baptist by doctrine."(175) He also maintained that only Baptists can claim to meet the necessary requirements of "the right founder--Jesus Christ," "the right country--Palestine," and "the right time--during the earthly ministry of Christ."(176) Moreover, Jackson's booklet Ten Reasons Why I Am a Baptist is devoted to the same approach.
On April 11, 1940, Albert L. Meador, at the time corresponding secretary of missions of the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, wrote in his weekly column a few statements which sum up the points which have been set forth above. In a simple, unassuming way, Meador confessed:
I am a Baptist because I believe that John was a Baptist; the Bible said he was. He was sent to make ready a people, prepared for the Lord. When the Lord came, He went to John the Baptist and was baptized in the river Jordan. Jesus then took the material that John prepared, and put them into an organized body, and it pleased him to call it his church.
I am a Baptist Missionary Associational Baptist [sic] because I believe our principles are in line with the teachings of Christ, the head of his church.
I am a Missionary Baptist because I believe John and Christ were Missionary Baptists. I believe our one God is a Baptist and the Bible is a Baptist book.(177)
Summary and Conclusion
Associational Baptist literature, as well as official association documents, therefore, has shown essential agreement with the various issues of early and later Landmarkism on the tenet of "Church and Government." Where differences have arisen, they were also present in the earlier periods.
"Perpetuity"
Associational Baptist literature on the subject of Baptist succession is in almost virtual agreement with the approaches taken by early and later Landmarkism. Instead of using the term "succession," however, most Associational Baptist writers have preferred the expression "perpetuity."
From D. N. Jackson's explanation of the two terms, one may infer why they have preferred this term:
Perpetuity of the church is a doctrine 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 on earth, and that the church shall continue in existence until He shall come again. Church succession is another term denoting perpetuity, implying that churches have succeeded in all ages the one founded by Christ in person. This is a succession of churches, not of the apostles, as taught by the Romish doctrine of "apostolical succession." Roman Catholics hold that their bishops are the successors to the apostles.(178)
Jackson explained also, however, that perpetuity
does not mean that we must link church to church by name across the centuries anymore than we must name each of our ancestors to believe that we descended from Adam. But, to emphasize, it does mean that Scriptural Churches today have lineal descent from the original church, being essentially connected one with another from the first church (Matt. 16:18; 7:24-27; I Cor. 3:11; Isa. 28:16; Eph. 3:21).(179)
From the expressions "lineal descent" and "essentially connected," however, one may logically infer that Jackson actually believed in a "chain-link" theory of succession.(180) Moreover, almost all Associational Baptist literature on the subject of perpetuity may be characterized as advocating this theory.
Christ's Veracity
Most of the literature begins with Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18. Bogard stated: "To establish our doctrine and practice by the New Testament is of chief importance."(181) He believed, accordingly, that
the New Testament makes some declarations concerning the history of churches. When our Lord established his church he declared he would build it up, edify it, enlarge it, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18.) [sic].(182)
Bogard also maintained that when Jesus gave the commission to His church, He promised "it perpetuity to the end of the world. (Matt. 28:19-20.) [sic]."(183) Bogard also looked to Paul for further support: "Unto him be the glory in the church, by Christ Jesus, through all ages" (Eph. 3:21). He reasoned:
It therefore follows that the church should live in all ages, for there could not be glory in a dead church. Neither should the church apostatize, for there could be no glory in an apostate church.(184)
Bogard then concluded:
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.(185)
E. C. Gillentine used Hebrews 12:28 and John 14:16-17, as well as the passages cited by Bogard, to corroborate his belief that "the sacred Scriptures distinctly and abundantly teach the perpetuity of New Testament churches . . . ."(186)
D. N. Jackson used some of these passages, as well as others, to present a seven point discussion of "The Testimony of the Scriptures."(187) These points are: "l. The assurance of Christ the Founder" (Matt. 16:18); "2. The immutability of the church's foundation": "(1) It is the immovable Rock of Ages . . . Christ himself,'" and "(2) It is a sure foundation" (Isa. 28:16; I Cor. 3:11; Matt. 7:24-27); "3. The pre-eminence of the Head of the church over all enemies and powers" (Eph. 1:21-23; Mk. 12:10); "4. The preservation of the church by the Head" (Eph. 5:23); "5. The purpose of God to obtain glory in the church throughout all ages" (Eph. 3:21; John 14:19); "6. Christ's tender, loving care over His church" (Eph. 5:29; 1 Thess. 2:7; Eph. 5:27; John 10:11; Luke 12:32); and "7. The guarantee in the Great Commission" (Matt. 28:20).
This definite promise of the Master's unceasing presence with His church, "even unto the end of the world" (age) [Jackson concluded], is as sure as any promise found in the word of God. Might as well to doubt His promise of salvation, or His promise to return the second time, as to doubt His promise to be with His church throughout this age. This being true, the church must exist throughout this age.(188)
Using an elaborate system of syllogisms, F. L. DuPont used most of the above arguments, as well as certain of Jesus' parables, to give further New Testament proof of the doctrine of perpetuity. These include: the Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31-32), Leaven (Matt. 13:33), Wheat and the Tares (Matt. 13:24-30), Net (Matt. 13:47-50), Tower (Luke 13:28-30), and the King Going to War (Luke 14:31-32).(189) DuPont also believed that Daniel 2:44 was prophetic of church perpetuity: "and it [the kingdom] shall stand forever."(190) Willis A. Jarrel agreed, stating that "every promise of preservation and perpetuity, made to the kingdom, is a promise to the churches of which it is composed and vice versa."(191)
The seriousness with which Landmarkers and Associational Baptists looked upon perpetuity may be seen in Bogard's following statements:
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 can be proved false, what confidence could we place in him as our Savior?"(192)
Proof of Church Succession
Like Graves, Ford, and Hall, Associational Baptists have not believed that church perpetuity or succession demands that the name "Baptist" be traced throughout the centuries. The existence of twentieth-century churches which have the "marks" of New Testament churches is proof of perpetuity.(193) Jackson argued:
Why should such a demand be made in the face of all the array of facts that show that the first church was in all essential elements Baptist? For instance, a house built of brick does not require a sign across its facade reading--THIS IS A BRICK HOUSE. Having brick material in it, anyone could see what kind it is. So Christ, the builder of the church, took Baptist material prepared by John the Baptist and built His church. This makes the first church easy to identify.(194)
Jarrel, moreover, claimed that "the burden of proof is on opponents of Baptist Church Perpetuity."(195)
Bogard endeavored to show "that Baptist churches are in every essential the same as the churches which we claim as Baptist churches, that existed through the centuries of darkness."(196) He believed that the ancient churches, Waldenses, "Wickliffites [sic]," Hussites, and "Anna-Baptists [sic]" must have been Baptists because their doctrines and practices were out of harmony with Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians.(197) In short, "if such people were not Baptists we have no Baptists now [either]."(198)
Historical Proof of Succession
The final point in the presentation of the church succession tenet is logically the citation of specific churches, sects, and movements in history which tend to corroborate the thesis. Like that of early and later Landmarkism, Associational Baptist literature is replete with quotations from non-Baptists whose testimonies purportedly substantiate the successionist claims. Four authors quoted most frequently include the following: (1) The Lutheran historian John Lawrence Mosheim:
"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed, in almost all countries in Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland and Germany many persons who adhered tenaciously to the following doctrine, which the Waldenses, Wickliffites and Hussites had maintained, some in a more disguised, and others in a more open and public manner . . . ."(199)
(2) The Dutch Reformed Church historians Ypeij and J. J. Dermont:
"We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anna-Baptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who long in the history of the church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the Apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages . . . ."(200)
(3) The Roman Catholic Cardinal Hosius:
"Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during these past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers."(201)
(4) Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples Church:
"The Baptist denomination in all ages and in all countries has been, as a body, the constant asserters of the rights of man and the liberty of conscience. They have often been persecuted by Pedobaptists; but they never politically persecuted, though they have had it in their power."(202)
Other theologians who have been quoted include: Sir Isaac Newton, T. R. Burnett, W. C. King,(203) John C. Ridpath, Theodore Beza, Oliver Cromwell, Henry D'Anvers,(204) Ulrich Zwingli.(205) Baptist historians who have been used as chief sources for Associational Baptist writers have included the standard successionist historians, particularly G. H. Orchard, D. B. Ray, John T. Christian, and John Davis.(206) W. A. Jarrel, for example, quoted a number of eminent Baptist writers--theologians as well as historians--to argue "that Church Perpetuity is a Baptist position."(207)
W. A. Jarrel, L. L. Clover, and W. J. Burgess apparently have published the most detailed accounts of the various movements which Associational Baptists have included in the "lineal descent" of Baptists. Jarrel's book Baptist Church Perpetuity is the earliest and most detailed work on this subject by an Associational Baptist (1894). He wrote it before he became a member of this movement, but he had been a Landmarker all along. Jarrel included the following groups and movements in his succession: Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses, Paterines, Petrobrussians and Henricians, Arnoldists, Waldenses, and Anabaptists.(208) Clover's work The Church apparently is the most extensive and intensive work on this subject by an Associational Baptist in recent years (1962). He included the following sects and movements in his succession: Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Bogomiles, Cathari, Albigenses, Petrobrussians--Henricians, Waldenses, and Anabaptists.(209) Burgess devoted one complete section of his book Baptist Faith and Martyrs' Fires to "Origin of Other Groups Who Held Baptist Principles."(210) Although the book is primarily an anthology of excerpts from other authors, it includes a wealth of information from the successionist viewpoint. The phrase "Other Groups Who Held Baptist Principles" should not be pressed too closely to imply that Burgess did not claim these groups as Baptists. The list also includes several Baptist groups. He was probably taking a cautious position, lest one or more of the groups might later be discovered to be heretical and not "Baptist" at all. Burgess' list includes:
ALBIGENSES--ANABAPTISTS--DONATISTS--DUTCH BAPTISTS--ENGLISH BAPTISTS--English Baptists (Hiscox)--John Bunyan a Baptist--English Baptist [sic] Descended From the German Baptists--GERMAN BAPTISTS--THE HENRICIANS--MENNONITES--MONTANISTS--NOVATIANS--The Churches Called "Novatian Churches" Did Not Originate with Novatian--Origin of the Novatians--PAULICIANS--PETROBRUSIANS [sic]--SEPARATE BAPTISTS (AMERICA)--Another Account of the Origin of Separate Baptists--WELSH BAPTISTS--WALDENSES--Were the Waldenses Pedobaptists?--Three Confessions of Faith--Another Testimony to the Virtue of the Waldenses--Persecutions of the Waldenses--Cathcart's Account of the Waldenses--Remarks of Mr. Jones--Later Waldenses were Heretical--ORCHARD'S LINE OF SUCCESSION--HISTORIAN BENEDICT SUMMARIZES--ST. PATRICK HELD THE LEADING DOCTRINES OF THE BAPTISTS--IN THE VALLEYS OF THE PIEDMONT.(211)
D. N. Jackson delineated three "lines of descent of Baptists across the centuries."(212) His first example of Baptist descent was "the Bohemian Line." Bohemia was called Illyricum and Dalmatia in New Testament times (Rom. 15:19; II Tim. 4:10). "It lay across the Adriatic Sea from Italy and Northwest of Greece."(213) Paul preached there in the first century. "Primitive Christianity survived in [the] . . . area [especially in the famous Hercynian forest], the inhabitants of which fleeing there to escape the yoke of Rome."(214) Surviving until the Reformation, these Baptist people, Jackson continued, wrote Erasmus a letter of commendation. Jackson asserted that
every word of those people's letter to Erasmus showed that they were Baptists, as it set forth these facts: (1) They owned no other authority in ecclesiastical matters than the Scriptures. (2) They rejected the Pope and all forms of Catholic worship. (3) Practiced believer's baptism and rejected alien baptism. (4) Along with other Romish practices, they refused the auricular confession, prayers for dead saints, and the deified wafer. . . . They were among the forerunners of the Reformation. Were they in existence today as a group, missionary Baptists could give them the hand of fellowship.(215)
The second line Jackson presented was "the Welsh Line." "The Baptists of America [he continued] are able to boast of a line connecting then with the Welsh Baptists."(216) The Baptist minister John Myles came over from Wales in 1663 and organized Rehoboth church in Massachusetts. In 1701 the Pennepek Baptist Church came over as a body and settled in Pennsylvania.
From those churches [Jackson stated] other churches and ministers of like faith have come in America. These all, therefore, have direct connection with the Baptists of Wales, where Baptists have lived, at times in the mountainous retreats, since the year A.D. 63.(217)
Using John Davis' and David Benedict's histories as his primary sources, Jackson maintained that a Welshman, Pudens, and his wife, Claudia, were converted to Christianity by the Apostle Paul while he was a prisoner at Rome. Upon returning to Wales, they "planted the gospel in their native land."(218) After citing several other incidents in Welsh church history, Jackson concluded:
Connecting the early Baptists of Wales with those of modern times, Benedict goes on to say:
"The Welsh Baptists contend that Baptist principles were maintained in the recesses of their mountainous principality all along through the dark reign of popery" . . . .
Thus Baptists of America are connected with the Apostle Paul at Rome and the first church in Palestine of the first century through the Bohemian and Welsh lines.(219)
Jackson's final example of lineal descent was "the Anabaptist Line." This line was the most detailed in his discussion.
The Anabaptists [Jackson explained] were dubbed with this name because they rejected the baptism of others. They were charged with baptizing people again (from ana, again) who came over to them from other faiths, but they said the ones who came to them on their baptism had not in reality been baptized. The people who held to this doctrine, along with other Baptist views, were called Anabaptists as early as the second century, but the movement made prominent under this name was distinguished for its work in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They were among the forebears of Baptists of today.(220)
Jackson then gave a ninefold process by which the present day Baptists have descended from the first century through these Anabaptist groups. He warned, however, "Bear in mind the names here given which Baptists have borne through the centuries were imposed upon them by their enemies, as our Baptist lineage from the first century is more distinctly traced by the earmarks of doctrine and practice than by names."(221) Jackson's summary follows:
STEP NUMBER ONE. The Scriptures support the declaration that the Christians of the first century were Baptists. . . .
STEP NUMBER TWO. Baptists were called Montanists in the second century. . . .
STEP NUMBER THREE. In the third and fourth centuries Baptists were dubbed Novatians, from Novatian who rose up against the corruptions of the church at Rome. Fusing with the Montanists, they extended throughout the Roman Empire. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
STEP NUMBER FOUR. In the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, Baptists were called Donatists, the name originating in A.D. 311, and taken from a prominent leader, Donatus of North Africa, who both denounced Catholicism and defended the purity of the faith.
. . . . . . . . .
STEP NUMBER FIVE. The name Paulicians was applied to Baptists in the seventh, eighth and ninth centuries, because they earnestly contended for the teachings of the Apostle Paul.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STEP NUMBER SIX. From the tenth to the middle of the thirteenth century Baptists were called Albigenses, deriving this name from the small city of Albi, in Southern France. . . . Some historians hold them to be the descendants of the Paulicians who came from Armenia and settled in France and Italy. . . .
STEP NUMBER SEVEN. The appellation Waldenses was also applied to Baptists from the twelfth century to the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Apostolic in origin, they were found in the second century in the Piedmont Valley of Northern Italy. From "Valdenses," meaning valley dwellers, they were called Waldenses. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STEP NUMBER EIGHT. While Baptists were called Anabaptists as far back as the second century, for the reason they re-immersed all who came over to them from any irregular or alien group, it was the sixteenth century when their cause was made prominent under the name. . . . The genuine Anabaptists were the same people as the Waldenses.
STEP NUMBER NINE. In parts of Europe the Anabaptists were called Mennonites, a name derived from Menno Simon who was converted to the Baptist faith from the Catholics in 1531. Turning from the Catholic priesthood, he drew a great following of Baptists after him, whom his enemies called Mennonites. These Baptists were the predecessors of the English Baptists.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other names by which Baptists have been known across the centuries are: Cathari, Bogomils, Paterines, Petrobrussians, Henricians, Arnoldists, Berengarians, and Catabaptists.(222)
W. J. Burgess followed a similar approach in a "Baptist Succession Back to Christ."(223) This was copied from a book by Roy Mason. The quotation included fourteen "links" from Dyer, Tennessee; through Wales, the Alps, Italy, Asia Minor, France, Italy, and Africa; to the Apostle John.
Like earlier successionists, Associational Baptist writers have interpreted much of the religious persecution throughout the centuries as proof of church succession. Burgess' book, for example, is entitled Baptist Faith and Martyrs' Fires, indicative of the underlying thesis.(224)
Associational Baptist writers have admitted that many of the groups set forth as proof of church perpetuity had practices and beliefs which present day Baptists would consider irregular. Bogard's response to this problem was as follows:
There were some irregularities among these ancient people. But there are irregularities among Baptists today. Some of them practiced sprinkling. Yes, and some bearing the name of Baptists [sic] today practice sprinkling. This is common in England. . . .
The fact is everything that opposed the dominant state churches was called Anna-Baptists, Waldenses, etc. Thus many were included under these names who were anything but Baptists. But there were true Baptists in great numbers among them, and the extracts which are given in this [present] chapter from their leaders, and from their, enemies, show they were Baptists in every essential.(225)
From the present study, one may see easily that the Landmark tenet on church perpetuity has been a major belief in Associational Baptist ecclesiology. It is major because it is believed to be rooted in and demanded by the Bible.(226)
Not a Test of Fellowship
As was observed above in chapter five, Associational Baptists apparently have never officially made non-intercommunion a test of fellowship. Most Associational Baptist literature, consequently, has been as ambiguous as the doctrinal statements at this point. L. D. Foreman, for example, edited Credenda, a treatise of thirteen "Basic Beliefs of Missionary Baptists." The article "Restricted Communion," by J. W. Kesner, Sr., takes a strong non-intercommunion stand.(227) Foreman explained that "we do not hold that a member of any Baptist Church must endorse every angle or shade of meaning presented by the writers [in Credenda] one hundred per cent."(228) He then discussed "restricted communion" in particular:
For example, all true Baptists believe in restricted Communion--this is a fundamental belief, yet, each member has liberty to interpret the word "restriction," as to whether the Lord's Supper is restricted to a local Baptist Church, or if, on the other hand, any member of a Baptist Church may partake of the supper when visiting a sister church. Thus, in fundamentals, unity--in non-essentials, liberty.(229)
D. N. Jackson conceded that
the Bible says absolutely nothing in particular, whether the Lord's Supper should be taken by the members of one Congregation alone, or whether members of one congregation may eat with another congregation. We find it more effective in the sight of outsiders for the members of a church to partake of the Supper alone, but we doubt this system can be sustained by the Scriptures. Personally, we have never thrown up bars where Biblical restrictions are not explicit.(230)
Jackson then explained about the earlier dispute on the question between Graves and Pendleton. He concluded: "In either case, true Baptists are opposed to so-called 'open communion,' that is, taking the Lord's Supper with persons of a different denomination."(231)
W. J. Burgess believed in the Landmark tenet on non-intercommunion, but he also admitted that his position was
not a matter of training. . . . In fact, I have only recently come to this conclusion. In pastoring churches more than forty years I have only pastored two that restricted the Supper to their own membership.
I realize that there is a widespread practice of inter-Baptist church communion. I have, however, through the years seen the pendulum swing towards the practice of local church observance.(232)
Burgess explained, however, that
the fact . . . more Baptist churches are practicing local church observance now, does not mean that until late years only have any done so. I believe that only in modern times, comparably, did they begin the practice of inviting members of sisters [sic] churches to the table with them, and the farther back we go towards the Apostolic age the more we find Baptists keeping the table to each local church.(233)
Although other Associational Baptist writers such as Bogard, Clover, Garner, and Cobb have expressed themselves as favoring and practicing non-intercommunion, two of the most detailed discussions have been written by J. W. Kesner, Sr., ("Restricted Communion") and W. J. Burgess (The Lord's Table).(234) The following analysis, therefore, is based primarily upon their presentations.
"Restricted" Versus "Open" Communion
Kesner asserted that
Baptists stand out in opposition to the entire religious world, in offering the Lord's Supper only to those who have been born again, baptized, and in fellowship in the true church Jesus established. The prerequisites to the Lord's Supper are: regeneration, burial with Christ in baptism, and fellowship in the one body.(235)
Kesner maintained that open communion, however, is sinful, sentimental, and a perversion of the truth.
The Lord [he continued] left the Supper in the church and gave strict instructions who should eat of it. . . . The authority is found in his church only, and nowhere else. . . . All are invited to the Lord's table who have complied with his orders. A sincere study of the Scriptures will convince any one that restricted communion is scriptural. It can be taken only by the authority of the local church.(236)
Kesner clearly interpreted "restricted communion" as non-intercommunion. His major argument was that it is a church ordinance. Most Associational Baptist writers have stressed this aspect also.(237)
J. E. Cobb emphasized, moreover, that
the Lord's Supper . . . is definitely a church ordinance. It is not a denominational ordinance; neither is it an ordinance to be observed by Christians separate and apart from any church relationship. It is a church ordinance and can be observed only by a church in church capacity [italics mine].(238)
Cobb may have meant "in church capacity" as a technical term for strict, local church communion.(239) Consequently, such an interpretation would imply that associational doctrinal statements which use this terminology were restricting the Lord's Supper to local church observance only.(240) E. C. Gillentine, moreover, used the expression in a context which may be interpreted to imply strict, local church observance:
The supper must be observed by the church and in church capacity, I Cor. 11:18. This does not necessarily mean the church house, but the membership [italics mine]. Of course, at the church house is a convenient place.(241)
The expression, however, probably is used in contradistinction to an individual, non-official observance, as sometimes practiced by Roman Catholics.(242) Gillentine defined "restricted communion" in terms of non-open communion:
Open communion is a communion in which all churches, or rather all faiths, are invited to eat together. Restricted communion is a communion in which Baptists alone partake of the Lord's Supper without inviting any others. . . . They do [not] invite those of other faiths to commune with them.(243)
D. N. Jackson's explanation of the North American Baptist Association Doctrinal Statement, however, uses the same expression but does not specify non-intercommunion.(244) Jackson, of course, did not believe that non-intercommunion could be sustained scripturally.(245) Bogard used the same terminology in explanation of restricted communion.(246) His reference to a Methodist bishop, however, indicates that he was not thinking about non-intercommunion but "non-open communion."(247) Even if the inference about Cobb's interpretation is correct, one must conclude that he was not following generally agreed upon usage.
Burgess believed that strict, local church observance of the Supper would solve the problem of controversy surrounding close communion. He promised that "if every Baptist church withheld the emblems of the Lord's Supper from every one except her own members it would answer the 'open communionists' in their tirade against Baptists for their restricted Supper as nothing else would do."(248)
Proof for Non-Intercommunion
Kesner developed a ten point argument for restricted communion. These points are: (l) "Restricted to one place--in the church"; (2) "Restricted to the regenerate"; (3) "Restricted to those Scripturally baptized"; (4) "Restricted to an orderly walk"; (5) "Restricted to a united church in fellowship--one faith"; (6) "Restricted to Church Discipline"; (7) "Restricted Communion Restricts Unclean Lives"; (8) "Restricted to the Right Purpose"; (9) "Restricted to the Right Motive"; and (10) "Restricted to Self Examination."(249) At least five of these restrictions are germane here.
The restriction "to one place--in the church" is perhaps the most relevant. Kesner argued that
the authority for restricted communion rests entirely on the fact that it is a church ordinance. If a church ordinance, it cannot be given to brethren of like faith and order, not members of the local church. There is no denominational ordinance, of divine appointment, because an organization as a body, including all the churches of a province or a nation, was unknown in the first centuries.(250)
To extend "the privileges of a local church . . . beyond its limits" brings "peril to its very existence."(251) If everyone could understand that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance to be observed alone by the membership of each church, much misunderstanding would be resolved and avoided, Kesner continued. He also argued from the standpoint of the absolute independency of each church:
Each church being absolutely independent, it must absolutely control its own acts; and can be responsible to no authority save Jesus Christ. To allow members of other communities to share in the privileges of the local church would endanger its own independency and responsibility.(252)
Kesner then quoted J. R. Graves in support of his thesis:
"Should a church so far forget its trust as to fall into the general practice of inviting, as an act of courtesy (which implies a discourtesy in refusing to do it), the members of all sister churches present to vote in the reception or exclusion of members, discipline, and even choice of pastors, as one prominent Baptist author advised, how soon the independency of the churches would be subverted! Usage would soon crystalize into precedent and custom into law."(253)
Kesner utilized three citations from 1 Corinthians 11 in corroboration of his argument (vv. 23-24; 2; 18). The last two passages are particularly relevant: the Corinthians are to "keep the ordinances" and they are rebuked for allowing "divisions" among themselves when they came "together in the church." Kesner concluded:
To each local church is committed the sole administration and guardianship of the ordinances. There is no such thing in the Bible as free and open communion.(254)
W. J. Burgess agreed with Kesner's approach. He stated:
There is neither precept nor example in the New Testament for interchurch communion. We have repeatedly emphasized that the Lord's Supper is a CHURCH ordinance. It was given to a church, the church at Jerusalem. There was not another church in existence for several years. It is, then, a church ordinance.(255)
He emphasized, moreover: "The ordinance was not given to saved generically, . . . to the family of God, as such."(256) Whenever the Supper is observed, "the local church must be assembled together in 'one place.'"(257) Burgess also used 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23 to assert that "the YOU here [in both passages] means the CHURCH at Corinth"--"Not . . . to the ministry or any other group."(258) He also said that Paul gave similar instructions "to the CHURCH AT Thessalonica."(259) Burgess, moreover, argued that, When Jesus instituted the Supper, he did not invite all Christians, not even all baptized believers:
There were only a very few present when the Lord established His Supper. Jesus' mother was not present. There must have been many others in Jerusalem who were baptized believers at that time, but they were not there.(260)
Finally, Burgess argued from the standpoint of other functions restricted to the membership of each church:
We do not permit members of a sister church to vote in our conferences. Each is a unit in itself, separate and apart from every other church. It is responsible for its own deeds, and not another.(261)
The second major point in Kesner's argument, from the standpoint of non-intercommunion, is the restriction "to Church Discipline." He stated that "discipline is the basic argument for restricted, local church communion."(262) Since "the church, where the communicant's membership is, [alone] has the right to discipline that person, . . . no [the] church has the right to invite [him] . . . to partake of the Lord's Supper."(263) This principle even applies to "brethren of like faith and order."(264) Careful study of the biblical teachings on church discipline shows "that church members are to have clean, orderly lives, and if not, they are to be disciplined before the Supper is eaten."(265) Kesner cited 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 for scriptural proof that each church is commanded to "judge them that are within [the membership]."(266)
A person may be a member of some other congregation, living an unclean life [he continued]. If he is present at a place where the Lord's Supper is to be eaten and all professed Christians are invited, he has a perfect right, so far as the local invitation is concerned, to eat with them. They may know he isn't a worthy subject to eat with, but they can't do anything about it. Open communion keeps no one out who claims to be saved regardless.(267)
Discussion of the church's disciplinary powers and responsibilities logically pertains directly to the restrictions concerning "an orderly walk" and "unclean lives." Burgess agreed with Kesner here:
The Scriptures are plain as to disciplinary powers being given the local church. Paul admonishes us not to eat with persons who are disorderly. The injunction is plain. And remember that the church is entrusted with this ordinance and is responsible for its violation so far as it is possible for it to guard it.
Every one knows that many churches have members who are very worldly, and even immoral, and nothing is done about it. For many, church discipline is a "lost art."(268)
Kesner continued: "The disorderly member is to be withdrawn from by the church and, hence, away from the table."(269) He reasoned further: "As it is the duty of the church to discipline its members before they can eat the Lord's Supper, it remains their duty to refuse to invite those they have no discipline over."(270) Burgess argued similarly:
It is a fact that the Scriptures themselves warn us against eating with the immoral. But how are we to know when we invite those whom we do not know, when they come from churches on their own recommendation from other churches? [1 Cor. 5:11-12].(271)
Kesner, moreover, used the gross immorality of the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5) as proof that restricted, local church communion "restricts clean lives":
This could not be plainer. Since discipline must be executed by the local body on its own membership, then it must be restricted communion in the strictest sense.(272)
The argument that the Lord's Supper must be "Restricted to a united church in fellowship--one faith" is the last of the most relevant arguments presented by Kesner. Kesner's approach here primarily relates to open communion. His main contention is that
where there is a difference in faith and practice there can be no true fellowship ["communion" normally is translated "fellowship"]. Divisions and chisms [sic] exist. Paul warned the church at Corinth against these things, and commanded them not to eat the Supper.(273)
The passage in question is 1 Corinthians 11:16-20. Kesner emphasized Paul's statement "THIS IS NOT TO EAT THE LORD'S SUPPER."(274) He apparently favored the "Revised Version [which] reads, 'When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper.'"(275) Other scriptures which he used, in sequence, are: Titus 3:9-10; Acts 15:24; Philippians 3:17-18; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; Hebrews 13:9-10; and Psalm 133.(276)
Burgess' approach is more explicit. He wrote that "we are warned not to observe the Lord's Supper when there are divisions and heresies in the church."(277) He quoted John T. Christian's explanation of 1 Corinthians 10:16-21:
"The reasoning is conclusive. By participating at the Lord's table together we declare ourselves to be partners, and members of the same organization, or church, and mutually responsible for the right administration of the Supper. Only the members of the one body, the church, can join in the participation, since no others can be partners in this matter."(278)
Burgess explained: "There is to be ONE loaf, representing ONE body, not elements from many bodies, or many churches."(279) He stated that J. R. Graves was correct in arguing "that inasmuch as the church partaking of the Lord's Supper is one body, there should be one loaf or one piece, whatever its shape, originally, and to be divided just before eating."(280) Burgess also quoted several other scholars, including pedo-baptists, to show that eating the one loaf or one bread is a profession of being in the same body.(281)
Jesus [Burgess continued] designed the Lord's Supper in all of its details. There was to be one loaf of bread to symbolize the one body, the local church, that was to celebrate the Supper. This loaf was composed of many grain elements that had been brought together in the process of baking. The members of the church are symbolized by the grain-elements [sic], all of the same kind, as the flour is that of kindred grain and moulded together in the loaf. The local church membership should be alike in faith and practice. They should be bound together in Christian love and fellowship.(282)
Burgess explained the symbolic relationship between the church members as the body of Christ in terms of the human body:
The church is the mystical body of Christ [sic!] (Ephesians 5:30-32). Our human body is composed of members. When one member suffers all suffer with it. The whole body is affected. Church members should love each other so much, and be bound so closely together, that, when one member has a misfortune, all the other members are grieved; and, when one member enjoys good, all the members rejoice with it. We have already shown that the church is ONE body and as such takes the Lord's Supper. Jesus therefore specified ONE loaf before it is broken and distributed to those who eat.(283)
Judging from the context and his other arguments, clearly Burgess did not interpret "the mystical body of Christ" in universal, invisible terms.(284)
In conclusion, it should be observed how Burgess and Jackson responded to the "open communionists'" use of Paul's admonition, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat" (1 Cor. 11:28). Advocates of open communion often have argued from this command that the individual, not the church, is to determine for himself whether or not he should participate in communion services. Burgess answered:
The Bible does not emphatically say that we should examine ourselves. But whom did Paul say this to? Now, note well! It was to a New Testament church, all were members of that same church, the church at Corinth. They were not only members of the same church, they were all believers, and all baptized believers. So Paul is not saying this to the world, not even to so-called Christendom.(285)
"Church Sovereignty in Missions"
as Seen by A. J. Kirkland
The title of Kirkland's essay shows clearly the Landmark presuppositions behind his approach to missions. "Church Sovereignty," of course, had been the chief issue in the controversies which led to the formation of the various state and national associations.(289) Kirkland's approach in the "Introduction"(290) corroborates this appraisal of the title by basing the whole essay on the Landmark tenet on "Church and Government." He first developed "The Meaning and Origin of 'Church.'"(291) Kirkland gave the traditional Associational Baptist argument about ekklesia and Christ's mountaintop "'Inaugural Address' . . . to His Kingdom [Mk. 3:13-19; Lk. 6:12-49: Matt. 5:7]."(292) He quoted Bogard, "my teacher and one whom I consider to be the greatest authority on earth as touching this question."(293) The lengthy quotation contains essentially the Associational Baptist arguments which have been analyzed previously.(294) One statement, however, is especially germane: "'If Jesus did not give the great commission to the called out company, to whom did He give it?'"(295)
Kirkland then asserted that "The Great Commission Was Given Exclusively To The Church."(296) He gave the following definition of the Great Commission: "Explicitly, the Great Commission means that the church is to go into all the world, make disciples by preaching the gospel, baptizing the disciples made, and finally, to teach them all things commanded of Jesus [Matt. 28:18-20]."(297) Be reasoned, further:
The fact that Jesus gave His law, ordinances and the commission to the church, specifically commanded that it carry it out, thus holding it responsible to Him for doing so, excludes every other authority in perpetuating the same. He gave these commands to the church and to no other. In Matt. 16:13-20 we observe that the "keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" were given to it. It was thus given the power or authority to loose and bind in earth and heaven. . . . Missionary Baptists contend that this language is addressed to all the company of disciples and, therefore, follows that this power, like the Great Commission and ordinances, was given to the church. Thus, it is seen that the New Testament church is the only institution on earth which has the right to speak for heaven.(298)
Kirkland also cited Matthew 18:15-19 to prove that "the power of discipline was given to the church, and [that] the action of the church was decreed . . . as final."(299) Next he cited Matthew 25:14-30, 1 Corinthians 11:2, and Romans 14:10-11 as further proof "that Jesus will hold the church responsible to Him . . . ."(300)
Finally, Kirkland discussed "The Meaning and Sphere of Church Sovereignty."(301) He admitted that God is the only "absolute Sovereign," but he also explained that words can be used "accomodatively."(302)
Now the church of our Lord Jesus is sovereign in the sphere of her commission under Christ [Kirkland continued]. She is sovereign in binding and loosing for heaven. Matthew 16:18, 19. She is sovereign in matters of discipline. Matt. 18:15-19. She is sovereign in every work of the Great Commission. Matt. 28:18-20; Lk. 24:56-58; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 1:8.(303)
He called this concept a "law of church sovereignty . . . in the positive sense."(304) In Matthew 20:25-27, Kirkland further asserted, "Christ placed such restrictive law around it as to emphasize it from the negative point of view."(305) "Any church, therefore [he concluded], which has an arrangement wherein it may have a ruler or one with dominion over it, whether that one be inside or outside the church, flagrantly disregards and repudiates this law of Christ."(306) Kirkland then summarized the "Introduction" as follows:
The nature of the Great Commission, the fact that Christ is head over all things to the church, Eph. 1:22, the fact that God's glory is to be in the church by Christ Jesus in every age, the fact that the church is responsible to Christ, and also, the fact that the church is to keep the ordinances as they were delivered unto it, evidence the emphatic truth that the church is an executive body to carry out the will of Christ, and that it is only sovereign in that sphere under Christ. Christ is the Law Giver, the New Testament is the law, and the church is the executive body to carry it out.(307)
Kirkland then argued: "I. Church Sovereignty Must Be Preserved In Missions."(308) His first point was that "Church Co-Operation Must Conform to This Principle"; i.e., that Church sovereignty must be preserved.(309) Kirkland believed: "That churches must and should co-operate in carrying out the great commission, all must agree."(310) He thereupon gave several New Testament examples which show that "under the leadership of the Holy Spirit . . . churches did cooperate" ("the church at Antioch, Acts 11:27-30, the churches of Macedonia, II Cor. 8:1-24, the church at Corinth, I Cor. 16:2-4, . . . II Cor. 8:7").(311) These examples relate to benevolent work. Churches also cooperated "in supplying Paul's needs on the mission field" (2 Cor. 11:8, 1 Cor. 16:17).(312) Kirkland especially emphasized these last two passages. He made the following observations about them:
(1). The churches co-operated in paying Paul's wages or salary . . . . The term churches, plural, forces us to the . . . conclusion that there were several churches helping in this work. [2] We also see that the Church at Corinth did not supply enough on one occasion . . . and the brethren from Achaia came to his rescue . . . . There is no doubt that the churches cooperated.(313)
Kirkland warned, however, that "in view of the law of church sovereignty . . . and in view of the restrictions that Jesus set against the system of overlordship in His church, a church cannot be scriptural and enter into any plan of co-operation wherein her sovereignty or authority is in any way surrendered or diminished."(314) He quoted J. M. Pendleton in substantiation of this warning.(315)
Kirkland next asserted that an "Association Must Preserve Church Sovereignty and Equality."(316) He reasoned:
Since Missionary Baptists believe in the above stated doctrines of church sovereignty and authority, it follows that an association of churches can do nothing more than a group of sovereign, independent churches working together upon the basis of equality. For, if every church is sovereign, then, each one is equal to every other one.(317)
Kirkland gave two lengthy quotations from Pendleton to substantiate his belief "that a church can in no sense transfer or delegate its power or authority."(318) "The moment it did so [he reasoned], it would cease to be a sovereign or independent body."(319) Kirkland also gave long quotations from Ben M. Bogard,(320) J. E. Cobb,(321) J. N. Hall,(322) and John H. Milburn,(323) as further corroboration that churches can neither delegate this authority or responsibility nor "combine," although they may "associate."(324) Kirkland then quoted the American Baptist Association Articles of Agreement (article three, sections one and two; and article five) to show that the American Baptist Association indeed was practicing already the principles of mission work which he was advocating.(325) He asserted also that the constitutions of the Arkansas and Texas state associations had similar statements. Foreman, however, added editorial comment: "(In the latter part of 1949 session, the principles of the Constitution of the Texas Association were greatly changed.--Ed.)"(326) Kirkland also stated that "the Year Book of the 1942 Session of the American Baptist Association, held in Seminole, Oklahoma, records that the messengers voted in that session that their election of missionaries constituted an endorsement only."(327) He then gave a lengthy summary of his argument about associations and church equality:
Thus, in summing up the position of Associational Missionary Baptists on the subject of Associations and their nature, it may be said with absolute certainty that they believe that churches may work together in associational capacity as integral or individual units, but in no sense do churches become members or component parts of the whole, and thus amalgamating into a general body or organization with resident power to do the work of the churches: but, on the contrary, messenger bodies are servant to the churches, counselling together and making such recommendations to the churches as they deem wise; that, furthermore, messenger bodies can go no further than to carry out such instructions as are given to it [sic] by the churches and offer such counsel and advise [sic] as may be thought needful; and, that no act, decision, counsel or commitment of a messenger body is binding upon the churches or any church, unless and until the churches themselves accept it and make it their own.(328)
Kirkland warned, however, about "the Misuse of Terms and the Tendency Toward Centralization."(329) He cited two different ways that terms were being misused: (1) Churches were being spoken of "as members of an association."(330) He preferred "to say that churches are identified with associations."(331) He took this attitude because
unconsciously, many Missionary Baptists are accepting the thought that churches are members of super bodies which are called Associations . . . This creates the idea that the messenger body is a sort of super ecclesia, composed of smaller ecclesias, and that such a body takes precedence over the churches.(332)
(2) Kirkland warned that it was also a "misuse of terms to say that the churches met in annual session when referring to the meeting of the messengers."(333) He probably was accusing the other faction when he concluded:
Thus, people are becoming misled, and such practice is becoming so prevalent that many brethren are becoming suspicious that it is done with design by certain brethren who desire to destroy pure associationalism and establish a super body for centralized control. We had best heed the warnings of our Baptist fathers along this line and demand that such unscriptural practices be stopped.(334)
Kirkland's second major point was: "II. New Testament Missions Did Preserve Church Sovereignty."(335) Citing Acts 13:1-4, 11:27-30, and Galatians 2:10, he stated that "The Holy Spirit Revealed and Honored Church Sovereignty."(336) Similarly, "Volunteer Workers Honored Church Sovereignty."(337) Passages cited here include: 1 Timothy 4:14, Acts 8:5-25, and 2 Corinthians 8:17-24. Next Kirkland showed how "Individual Churches sent Out Missionaries."(338) Examples of these missionaries are: (1) Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3), (2) Peter and John (Acts 8:14), (3) Barnabas (Acts 11:19-22), (4) Judas and Silas (Acts 15:23-27, 32-34), (5) Silas and Paul (Acts 13:40), and (6) "Timothy and an un-named brother." (2 Cor. 8:18-19, 23). He warned, however, about the last passage: "There is no doubt that associations are scriptural and that messengers are scriptural; but . . . we [need not] . . . resort to . . . farfetched ideas to prove it . . . ."(339) Finally, Kirkland argued that "The Apostles Recognized and Honored Church Sovereignty."(340) He gave five examples:
A. Peter recognized and honored church sovereignty in the election of Matthias . . . , Acts 1:15-26. It was Peter here who gave instructions for the church to determine the matter of choosing an apostle.
B. The apostles recognized and honored church authority in selecting a committee to distribute to the needy, Acts 6:1-6. . . . "The whole multitude" did the choosing.
C. Peter recognized the right of the church to call him in question and submitted to investigation, Acts 11:1-18. . . .
D. The sovereignty of the church is seen in that the messengers of Antioch Church to the Jerusalem Counsel [sic] were received first by the church at Jerusalem and then by the apostles and elders . . . , Acts 15:1-27, note especially verses 4 and 22.
E. Though Paul would speak with authority when revealing the word of God, yet, when it was a matter of church volition, he commanded them to speak, 1 Cor. 16:1-3. . . . (341)
Kirkland's last point included: "III. Some [Further] Warnings and Admonitions."(342) He first warned that "The Universal Church Idea [Was Becoming] Prevalent and Dangerous."(343) He reasoned:
If the church is universal in its scope, and if all the saved are in the church, then, we are forced to one of two conclusions: viz, either there is nobody saved outside the Baptist church, or Baptists are the most heretical people on earth. Universal churchism is the devil's paramount doctrine for breaking down the true church. . . .
. . . If and when Baptists lose their basic doctrine of the local church and its sovereignty, they will lose all.(344)
This is definitely a Landmark position, apparently used in opposition to Convention Baptists and other Missionary Baptists. Then Kirkland apparently directed his warning to the other Associational Baptist faction: "The Tendency of Denominational Programs Are Dangerous."(345)
There is ever a lurking danger in what we call the denominational or associational program [he explained]. The flesh is the same in every age. . . . Designing men seek to get and keep control. . . . They will make their program, plans, purposes and institutions the test of` fellowship among the churches. They will put denominational loyalty above loyalty to Christ, to the Word or to the church.
There is a mighty trend in this direction today, and it is gaining momentum. Laws are proposed for associational control of the work and the churches that would have been considered rank heresy a few years ago, yet, these laws are proposed and sponsored by respected and honored leaders. They are the laws that bridle free speech and, if passed and executed, would excommunicate every church that dared to dissent from the denominational program and bosses.(346)
Kirkland concluded his essay with the ultimatum "We Must Oppose Error to Preserve Church Sovereignty."(347) His statement was almost prophetic when he warned:
Enemies within are always more dangerous and deadly than enemies from without. Satan's strategy has always been to divide and destroy. . . . If this generation preserves truth, it must fight today, and then, the battle will not be finally won, for, it is incessant and age long. If the next generation preserves it, it will be because God's men fight on.(348)
Baptist Associations and Missions Systems
as Seen by D. N. Jackson
D. N. Jackson structured his discussion of "Baptist Church Associations" into three topics. He began with: "I. What Is an Association?"(349) In developing this topic, he gave four negative answers: "It is not 'the church,'" "the denomination," "a convention," or "the bride." He explained that "an association . . . is composed of churches as units, while a church consists of individual members who have covenanted together to form an independent body."(350) "By 'denomination' [he explained], is meant a group of churches united by the common ties of faith and worship."(351) Apparently, Jackson would not have called the North American Baptist Association, American Baptist Association, or Southern Baptist Convention "denominations." He would have used the term "Baptist" or "Missionary Baptist" to refer to the denomination.
A convention is a body of delegates or individuals, therefore not an association of churches [Jackson continued]. An association as such does not meet, although it is spoken of as meeting, but in an accomodative sense. It is a travesty on the historic Baptist faith and practice for a convention to be called "the denomination." The "denomination" was in existence many centuries before the organization of the first Baptist convention.(352)
Jackson set forth his denial of equating associations with "the bride" by observing that "there may be churches embracing members of the bride who are not in any associational group."(353) He made one positive assertion about the general meaning of an association: "An association is the mutual relationship of two or more churches."(354)
This relationship [he continued] is formed by churches themselves who effect an associated work through messengers, letters or contributions. An association is formed the moment two or more churches mutually agree to co-operate. This may be done anytime, as the age of an association does not determine its Scriptural right to exist, whether formed in the first century or in modern times. This fact does not hold true of a "denomination" as such, as a church denomination must have lineal connection with the New Testament churches, if it is to boast of Scriptural origin.(355)
Jackson cited Acts 15 as an example of an association: "The Antioch church did not bodily go to Jerusalem, but was authoritatively represented by certain brethren.(356) He set forth three items which his "idea of an association maintains":
(1) That an association as such is not organized and therefore does not meet. The messengers meeting by authority of the churches may organize that "all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). An organization of messengers does not constitute a superior organization of churches for the churches do not lose their authority by giving their messengers authority to transact business common to all of them, any more than a church loses her authority when she authorizes a building committee or any other committee to do work for her. . . .
(2) The churches composing an association, being units of the association, must of necessity have equal rights and privileges. Individuals are the units of a convention.
(3) The churches being equal units, they must have the right to an equal number of messengers at a general meeting. This fact itself excludes two things: First, a numerical representation; secondly, a money basis. . . .(357)
Jackson then asked: "Is an association of churches Scriptural?"(358) He answered: "An association is Scriptural if it is indeed a 'joint-cooperation and fellowship of the churches composing it,' allowing each church an equal voice in all matters of common interest."(359) His immediately subsequent discussion echoed that of Kirkland. In developing his answer, Jackson cited 2 Corinthians 8, Romans 15:26, and Acts 1:26.(360) Finally, he stated: "The conclusion is positive: we have an example in the New Testament of business being jointly administered by churches in association."(361)
Jackson's next major topic was: "II. Powers of an Association."(362) He denied any "legislative" but argued for "advisory" and "executive" powers. "Messengers, in an associational capacity [he emphasized], often find it advisable to send back to the churches certain recommendations for work to be done."(363) He believed that "instead of legislating or making laws, the churches have been entrusted with the responsibility of executing or administering the will of Christ, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit."(364) Concerning article six of the North American Baptist Association "Statement of Principles of Cooperation," he maintained that "this limits the work of the messengers to the will of the churches, in whom divine authority rests to administer the affairs of our Lord . . . ."(365) Then he cited Matthew 28:18-20, John 16:7, 20:22, Luke 12:32, and 19:13 as scriptural proof for his assertion about church authority.(366)
In developing the next major topic ("III. The Purpose of Associations"), Jackson set forth four negative and one positive assertions.(367) An association is not: "to promote political ideologies," "to conquer the world," "to promulgate a social gospel," or "to create a superior organization." The purpose of an association is, however, "to provide associated media for a world-wide promulgation of the gospel."(368) Jackson believed that such a purpose "complies not only with the Great Commission but is also congruous with reason."(369) He cited Deuteronomy 32:30 and Matthew 18:19-20 for scriptural evidence of "the effectiveness of associated work" and the promise of "the presence and blessing of Christ."(370)
Jackson structured his discussion of "Mission Systems" into four topics. These were the four major "plans adopted by different Baptist affiliations in an effort to put into effect the Great Commission . . . ."(371) He began with: "I. Direct Gospel Missions."(372) Advocates of this method, he explained,
reject all organization in mission endeavors and hold that all moneys designated for missions must be sent directly to the missionaries . . . . They further hold that all church enterprises of a general nature,such as schools and orphanages, must be owned and controlled by individual churches without regard for joint or cooperative ownership and control.(373)
Jackson had three comments to make about this method:
l. There is no Scripture specifying that money cannot be sent to a missionary by the donor himself, but in most instances we have observed that after all a common treasurer is used. . . . We have failed to see any justification for a common treasurer in a foreign country and at the same time condemnation for the same type of a servant in the homeland.
2. This system is loosely knitted together so that any particular group of its advocates cannot be considered permanent and representative of all groups of this school of thought.
3. Perhaps its greatest failing lies in its ineffectiveness. On the other hand, its admirable feature lies in its stout resistance to Modernism.(374)
Under the rubric "II. The Independent System," Jackson included "Independent," "Fundamentalist," and "Bible" Baptists.(375) He stated that
a majority of the "independents" maintain some sort of inter-church relation through fellowship meetings. And some of them maintain missionary committees whose duty it is to supervise their mission work.(376)
Although Jackson spoke favorably of "their zeal for their causes" and general sound doctrines, he stated that
they are, however, weak on some fundamental Baptist teachings. In some areas they have been known to receive members into their churches on their alien baptism and to practice open communion.(377)
He maintained also that "a 'preacher rule' over the churches is exercised by the pastors . . . ."(378)
Jackson devoted most of his discussion to number "III. The Convention System."(379) He explained that "the people who are identified with this system are known as 'Convention' Baptists, thus called for the reason the term 'convention' is applied to their national and most of their state organizations."(380) He gave a brief history of "the convention system," including the beginning in 1792 at Kettering, England, the Triennial Convention (Philadelphia, 1814), Southern Baptist Convention (1845), and Northern Baptist Convention (1907).(381) Jackson noted, however, that
in 1707 the Philadelphia Baptist Association was organized. This means that this association was one hundred and seven years older than the first general convention in America.(382)
He directed the rest of the immediate discussion to the Southern Baptist Convention. Jackson structured the discussion around seven major topics or assertions about this convention:
l. It has a money basis of representation [art. 3].
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Notice (1) while the churches name the messengers, they must be churches "contributing" to the Convention work. A church might contribute to the winning of a thousand or more souls, but unless it is done through the Convention channels, that church cannot be represented at the Southern Baptist Convention. (2) All messengers above one and up to ten are elected on the specific basis of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS. The first messenger is elected on a money basis also, but the difference is, the exact amount is not named in his case.
2. Unequal church power.
The Southern Baptist Convention gives power to the wealthy churches. . . . The inequality is not Scriptural.
3. The material before the spiritual.
The Southern Baptist Convention, in its messenger representation, respects the material in preference to the spiritual. . . .
4. The convention over the churches.
The Southern Baptist Convention is a corporation of individuals, not an association of churches. . . . [Jackson then quoted from the State Charter of the S.B.C.]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Convention corporation was created for the purpose: (1) to elicit, or draw out, the energies of the BAPTIST DENOMINATION. (2) To combine, or put together the energies of the BAPTIST DENOMINATION. (3) To direct, or CONTROL the energies of the BAPTIST DENOMINATION. Here we see that a human institution is incorporated with legal authority to say to the divine institution, the churches of Christ, I propose to draw out, combine and CONTROL your energies. This makes a human institution a dictator over the divine, for if it controls the energies of the churches it of necessity controls the churches themselves. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . [Matt. 20:25-27] positively forbids the creation and practice of human lordship over God's heritage.
5. Founded without church authority.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Here Jackson included a long quotation from the Preamble to the S.B.C. Constitution.]
The Southern Baptist Convention was organized by messengers from: (1) "missionary societies"; (2) "churches"; and (3) "other religious bodies of the Baptist denomination . . . ." This puts the authority of [such groups] . . . on par with that of the churches. Therefore the Convention is backed by society authority, a thing wholly unknown in New Testament practice.
[Jackson, in corroboration of his assertions, then quoted: J. B. Gambrell, David Benedict, D. B. Ray, J. N. Hall, J. R. Graves, W. A. Jarrel, and Francis Wayland.]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Made a test of fellowship.
The Southern Baptist Convention has made the "Cooperative Program" a test of fellowship among their brethren. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regardless of the importance of loyalty to a common cause, Baptists should not make anything a test of fellowship among them that is not found in the Scriptures . . . . Christian service that is acceptable to God arises out of a voluntary spirit and not under coercion.
7. Tendency toward compromise.
While the Southern Baptist Convention leaders will discredit a brother for not supporting the Cooperative Program, there seems to be among them a growing laxness in regards to their placing emphasis upon historic Baptist teachings. [Jackson named in particular the tenets on: (1) church perpetuity, (2) alien baptism and "open" communion, (3) "union meetings," and (4) church independence.](383)
In developing the final major topic "IV. The Association System,"(384) Jackson first presented a list of eight statements about the North American Baptist Association:
l. It is an association of churches, not a convention of individuals. Its annual messengers meeting is subject to the churches.
2. Its Missionary Committee is composed of twenty-five workers selected at the annul meeting and one chosen by each church in the fellowship. Thus the Missionary Committee has direct church authority . . . .
3. The principle of church and ministerial equality is taught and practiced. Hence the small churches . . . have a voice equal to that of the large churches.
4. A missionary to be chosen, must show evidence that he has been called of God (Acts 13:2).
5. He must have back of him a church or churches (Acts 13:1-4; 15:40; II Cor: 8:16-19; 11:8).
6. The missionaries are chosen by all the churches through their messengers, as no church is allowed to dictate to others what their responsibility shall be. Herein is involved the principle of church equality . . . . [Acts 15:39-40].
7. The North American Baptist Association maintains four departments of work, as follows:
(1) MISSIONS . . . .
(2) CHRISTIAN EDUCATION . . . .
(3) PUBLICATIONS . . . .
(4) RESEARCH AND PUBLIC RELATIONS. . . .
8. The churches in line with the North American Baptist Association, on the national, district and state levels, maintain Youth Encampments, Brotherhoods, and Women's Missionary Auxiliaries.(385)
Jackson then showed that a number of Baptist associations were in existence in various parts of the world "long before the Convention system was originated."(386) He admitted, however, that "by naming these associations we do not intimate that they are all now in line with the North American Baptist Association, neither . . . that none of them ever afterwards worked in line with the Convention system."(387) Relative to Baptists in foreign countries, he noted "two significant facts": (1) "In the early centuries of the Christian era, churches were independent of each other, and were not joined together by any confederacy which destroyed their autonomy"; and (2) "We learn of the existence of a Baptist association in Wales as early as the year 600."(388)
Jackson then concluded his analysis of "Mission Systems" as follows:
Conclusively, therefore, in light of both the Scriptures and history, we declare that the true plan of doing mission work both at home and in foreign lands is founded on the churches of the Lord. They may do their work as individual churches, or like the churches in associations as after the order of the North American Baptist Association. In doing so, they will maintain equal rights and privileges and reject all efforts of dictatorship by either individuals or churches. One-church dictatorship is as contrary to the Scriptures as one-man dictatorship. Any church that goes alone in any phase of our Lord's work should not make her aloofness a test of fellowship. In the event of cooperation in an association, all the churches in the association should have equal rights, through their respective messengers, in the selection of missionaries. Thus the messengers act by authority given them by the churches that voluntarily enter into an association and mutual agreement.(389)
Conclusion
Herman B. Pender apparently hit at the very heart of the missions controversy when he claimed that both "so-called 'Gospel Mission' churches at one extreme and the Super-Conventionists at the other . . . meet and constructively deny that the Kingdom of our Lord is composed of church units."(390) Thus, many early Associational Baptists practiced the associational type of missions because of their beliefs in church and kingdom. In the same article Pender stated:
Individual Christian cooperation is a church duty, but collective Christian or church cooperation is a kingdom obligation. The individual is a unit of the church. The church is the unit of the Kingdom. The experience of spiritual birth admits into the family and prepares one to be received into the church, and by her act in receiving him he "enters" the kingdom.(391)
In the next chapter further conclusions will be drawn from this observation and an hypothesis set forth to explain the "split" which took place in the American Baptist Association.
1. G. E. Jones, "The Evils of Unionism," [cited hereafter as "Evils"] Twenty-Six Doctrinal Lessons from the New Testament (Little Rock, Ark.: Baptist Publications Committee, n.d.) pp. 96-98.
2. Ibid., "Is There a Difference in the Churches? [cited hereafter as Difference?] (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, n.d.), pp. 30-37.
3. The headings which follow are taken directly from "Evils."
4. Jones, "Evils," p. 96.
5. Jones, Difference? p. 30.
6. Jones, "Evils," p. 96.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., Jones, Difference? p. 33.
9. Jones, Difference? p. 33.
10. Ibid., p. 34.
11. E. C. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine (3rd edition Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1950), pp. 8-9, used many of these same scriptures to criticize unionism and pulpit affiliation. He also included: Hos 7:11; Col. 2:21-22; Heb. 13:10. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine in a Nutshell (n.p., n.d.), p. 126, stated. "You will find no where in God's word [sic] where the churches of Christ or that peculiar sect, ever held a union or co-operative meeting with other sects, but they raised and carried on a relentless war, not on other sects as individuals but on their doctrines. Was this right? It surely was for Jesus condemned the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadusees [sic] and also warned the first church to beware of the doctrines of the same . . . . See Matt. 16:11-12. And so it is today, the Missionary Baptist churches, commonly known as (Landmark churches), [sic] which are the churches of Christ, are refusing to hold union meetings with other sects, and too, we are trying to expose every false doctrine and practice that is sticking its head up, even among Convention Baptist churches."
12. Jones, "Evils," p. 97; Difference? pp. 36-37.
13. Jones, "Evils," p. 97.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Jones, Difference? p. 35.
17. Ibid.
18. Jones, "Evils," p. 97.
19. Ibid., pp. 97-98.
20. Ibid.; Jones, Difference? p. 31.
21. Jones, "Evils," p. 98; Difference? pp. 31-32.
22. Jones, "Evils," p. 98.
23. Ibid., Jones, Difference? p. 30. See also: D. C. Dove, "Baptists Not Protestants," BP, July 30, 1931, p. 7; and J. L. Ward, "A New Testament Church," ibid., June 11, 1931, p. 3., for similar arguments.
24. Jones, Difference? p. 30.
25. Jones, "Evils," p. 98.
26. Ibid.
27. Jones, Difference? pp. 32-33.
28. Jones, "Evils," p. 98.
29. Ibid.
30. F. L. DuPont, "DuPont's Dashes," BP, April 27, 1922, p. 2.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid. For an example of a typical tract of the 1940s condemning the Federal Council of Churches, see J. W. Kesner, "The Eye Opener" [sic] (Fort Smith, Ark.: Central Missionary Baptist Church, n.d.). The sub-title indicates the major thrust of the tract: The Federal Council of Churches: An Unpatriotic, Modernistic, Infidelistic, Satan Energized Organization Seeking to Destroy. See Foreman and Payne, II, 398-400, 405-406, for Bogard's views.
33. J. E. Cobb, "False Unionism and How to Meet It," The Advancer, I (November, 1955), 3-4; ibid., (December, 1955), 3-4.
34. Ibid., (November, 1955), p. 3.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid. See "The Scope of Co-Operation," BP, February 13, 1914, pp. 14-15, for a similar admonition by an earlier author.
37. Cobb, (November, 1955), p. 3.
38. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
39. Ibid., p. 4; ibid., (December, 1955), p. 3. He noted that, according to Hebrews 2:12, singing praise should be in the church: "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."
40. Ibid., (December, 1955), p. 3.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., pp. 3-4. In an earlier pamphlet, What's the Difference? A Treatise on Some Vital Differences between Modern Convention Baptists and Regular Missionary Baptists [cited hereafter as Vital Differences] (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, n.d.), p. 28, he accused certain churches cooperating with the SBC of practicing pulpit affiliation.
45. D. N. Jackson, "The Doctrinal Statement Explained" [cited hereafter as "Doctrinal Statement"], 1966-67 Directory and Handbook, eds. D. N. Jackson and Leon Gaylor (Jacksonville, Tex.: Baptist News Service Committee, [1966]), pp. 23-34.
46. Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," p. 30.
47. Ibid. The BMAT statement also recognized Christian fellowship with "anyone who has been born again" (above, p. 180 [i.e., Chapter V, reference #21]).
48. Albert Garner, Defense of the Faith: Or Christian Doctrine [cited hereafter as Defense of the Faith (Henderson, Tex.: Albert Garner, 1956), p. 102. See also Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 75; W. J. Burgess, Baptist Faith and Martyrs' Fires [cited hereafter as Baptist Faith] (Little Rock, Ark.: Baptist Publications Committee, 1964), p. 60; D. N. Jackson, Ten Reasons Why I Am a Baptist [cited hereafter as Ten Reasons] (2d. ed.; Memphis, Tenn., and Little Rock, Ark.: American Baptist Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 18; Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 7; W. A. Jarrel, Baptist Church Perpetuity [cited hereafter as BCP] (Dallas: W. A. Jarrel, 1894), pp. 4-5; and Jarrel, "The Church, The Only Christ Designed Gospel Preaching and Gospel Mission Body," BP, Feb. 16, 1922, pp. 11-12.
49. Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," p. 28. (Italics mine). See below, "Necessity of Baptism," for other information relative to "Importance of Valid Baptism."
50. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 78. See also J. E. Cobb, Brief Studies in Christian Doctrines [cited hereafter as Brief Studies] (Little Rock, Ark.: Baptist Publications Committee [1957]), pp. 249, 250; J. E. Cobb, A New Manual for Baptist Churches [cited hereafter as Manual] (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1941), p. 38; Leo A. Causey, "Specific Doctrines," Credenda: (Being a Treatise of Thirteen Bible Doctrines) Fundamental or Basic Beliefs of Missionary Baptists, ed. by L. D. Foreman [cited hereafter as Credenda] (Little Rock, Ark.: Seminary Press, 1950), p. 175; Albert Garner, The Church Covenant (Lakeland, Fla.: Albert Garner, 1957), p. 10; and Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 104.
51. Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 104-105. See also Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 61-63; L[eander] L[ouis] Clover, The Church: Her Origin, Purpose, Doctrine, and History (Minden, La.: Louisiana Baptist Press, 1962). pp. 116-18; Causey, pp. 173-74; Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 7-8; Cobb, Manual p. 40; D. N. Jackson, Studies in Baptist Church Doctrines and History [cited hereafter as Studies] (Little Rock Ark.: Baptist Publications Committee, n.d.), pp. 14-42; and Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," p. 26.
52. Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 104.
53. Ibid., p. 105; Causey, Credenda, p. 175.
54. Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 105; see also Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 7-8.
55. Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 105-106. See also Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 63-68, 70-71; Cobb, Manual, pp. 40-42; Cobb, Brief Studies, p. 250; and Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 8.
56. Clover, pp. 114-15; Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 68-74.
57. Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 102.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid., p. 103.
61. Ibid.
62. Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," p. 30.
63. Ibid., p. 26. See also Jackson, Ten Reasons, p. 23; Causey, p. 174; Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 9-10; Clover, p. 114; Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 60, 98; Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 77-78; and Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 107-109, for similar reasoning.
64. Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," p. 31.
65. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 81-82. See also R. N. Davis, "What Is Alien Baptism?" BP, December 25, 1941, p. 6; and H. B. Pender, "Query Department," ibid., December 18, 1913, p. 5; for further analyses of this practice.
66. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 78.
67. Cobb, Brief Studies, pp. 249-50.
68. Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," p. 76.
69. Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 107-109.
70. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 19.
71. Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 108.
72. Ibid., p. 109.
73. See above, pp. 190, 194, 197, 199 [i.e., chapter V, reference #50, #65, #76, #81].
74. D. N. Jackson, "Underlying Causes of the Separation," The Lakeland Review, p. 25.
75. Ibid.
76. Ibid., p. 26. The only statement in the minutes which might be what Jackson was alluding to was a proposed amendment to article nine of the constitution. Since the amendment was tabled (ABA, "Minutes," 1948, p. 15), the wording of the proposal is not included in the minutes.
77. Jackson, "Underlying Causes of the Separation," p. 26.
78. Kenneth K. Marshall, "The Difference--As I See It," Lakeland Review, pp. 10-13.
79. Ibid., p. 11; Foreman's letter as it appears in Marshall's article is quoted in full so that the complete context may be seen. Apparently, Foreman was not advocating as loose a policy as Marshall claimed. The fact that Marshall was from Missouri when he wrote this article may explain the two Missouri resolutions accusing the ABA leadership of condoning alien immersion.
80. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 78-81. See also Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 106-107, where similar aspects of baptism as "a testimony are listed. Cobb, Manual, pp. 43-45, cited four characteristics of "the design of baptism."
81. Cobb, Brief Studies, p. 250.
82. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 8; see also Cobb, Brief Studies, p. 250; and Causey, pp. 174-76.
83. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 8. See L. A. Stidham, "Baptized into Christ," BP, September 11, 1941, p. 4, for an interesting discussion of this controversial expression.
84. Cobb, Manual, pp. 36, 39; Brief Studies, pp. 248-49.
85. Cobb, Manual, p. 36. See E. C. Bramblitt, "Water in John Three and Five," BP, February 17, 1921, p. 10; and D. T. Murdock, "Exegesis of John 3:5," ibid., March 17, 1921, p. 3; for two different approaches to the problem.
86. Cobb, Manual, p. 36.
87. Ibid., p. 39 (Italics mine). His statement in Brief Studies, p. 249, is not so strong.
88. Jackson, Studies, pp. 28-29. F. L. DuPont, "The 'Kingdoms' of the Bible," BP, November 6, 1919, p. 20, took a similar approach: "Baptism is not THE door, nor even 'A' door. If, as some argue, baptism is THE door into the church or kingdom, then those who join by letter, etc., must get in through the 'window,' or climb down the 'chimney.' Baptism and the Lord's Supper are CHURCH ordinances and NOT 'Kingdom' ordinances."
89. Cobb, Brief Studies, pp. 249-50; Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 107-10; Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," pp. 26, 30-31; Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 77-78; and Causey, pp. 173-76.
90. Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 84. See P. L. Ripley, "The Local Church," BP, Jan. 15,1914, p. 2, who was offended by the redundant expression "the Local Church."
91. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 25. Gillentine did not specify which "Baptist Confession of Faith" he was quoting.
92. For examples, see: Burgess, Baptist Faith, p. 3; Cobb, Brief Studies, p. 236; Manual, p. 13; Jackson, Studies, pp. 5-7; and Jarrel, BCP, pp. 4-5.
93. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 25, 29.
94. This type of reasoning is what Wamble has called proof by "definition" (above, chapter two).
95. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 25.
96. Ibid.
97. Ibid., pp. 25-26.
98. Ibid., p. 26.
99. Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. Ibid., p. 27.
102. Ibid.
103. Ibid.
104. Ibid., p. 28. Gillentine's whole approach was very similar to that of F. L. DuPont, The Origin and Perpetuity of the Church of Jesus Christ [cited hereafter as Origin and Perpetuity] (Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas: Baptist Sunday School Committee, n.d.).
105. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 27.
106. Ibid.
107. Ibid.
108. Ibid., pp. 28-29.
109. Ibid., p. 29.
110. Ibid., p. 30.
111. Ibid.
112. Ibid.
113. Ibid., pp. 30-31. See also Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 4-15; and Foreman and Payne, II, 118-25, for similar lists.
114. Jackson, Studies, p. 35.
115. Ibid., pp. 34-35.
116. Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 12-15. See also Walter Griffin, The Church: What It Is and Its Work (Mulberry, Fla.: The Florida Baptist Bible School, n.d.), pp. 8-11 [cited hereafter as The Church].
117. For example, Jackson, Studies, pp. 3-4.
118. Jones, Difference? p. 10; Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 86, Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 14-15. Jarrel, BCP, p. 5, preferred the word "synecdoche." See below, pp. 294-301 [i.e., reference #124 et al.], for detailed analysis of Jackson's arguments on this subject.
119. Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 88.
120. Ibid., pp. 88-89.
121. Ibid., p. 89.
122. Ibid.
123. Ibid., pp. 78-79. See also G. E. Jones, Difference? pp. 9-12.
124. D. N. Jackson, "Baptist Identity Challenged by Convention" [cited hereafter as "Baptist Identity"], American Baptist, LXV (February 14, 1940), 1, 8; "Dr. Carver Replies to Editor Jackson" [cited hereafter as "Carver's First Reply"], ibid., (February 28, 1940), 1, 6; "Editor D. N. Jackson Makes Reply to Dr. W. O. Carver on Church" [cited hereafter as "Jackson's First Reply"], ibid. (March 20, 1940), 1, 8; "Dr. Carver Replies to Jackson" [cited hereafter as "Carver's Second Reply"], ibid. (April 10, 1940), 2; "Jackson Replies to Dr. Carver on Early Baptist Confessions" [cited hereafter as "Jackson's Second Reply"], ibid. (April 24, 1940), l, 2; "Dr. W. O. Carver Defends Position in Reply to Editor D. N. Jackson" [cited hereafter as "Carver's Third Reply"], ibid. (May 29, 1940), 3; "Jackson Exposes Whole Paragraph of Church Pronouncement of Convention" [cited hereafter as "Jackson Exposes"], ibid. (June 20, 1940), l, 8; "Flashing Flames," , ibid. (July 15, 1940), 5; "Dr. Jackson in Defense of Age Old Doctrine" [cited hereafter as "Defense"), ibid. (July 31, 1940), 1, 5. See above, chapter five, pp. 203-204 [i.e., reference #97 and #98], for official ABA reaction in 1940 and 1941 to this discussion and for other pertinent background.
125. Jackson, "Defense," p. 1.
126. Jackson, "Jackson's First Reply," p. 1.
127. Ibid.
128. Jackson, "Defense," p. 1.
129. Ibid.
130. Ibid. Pendleton probably would have fit into this category. One would question, however, whether or not Jackson would have called him a "liberalist."
131. Jackson, "Defense," p. 1.
132. Ibid.
133. Ibid.
134. Jackson, "Jackson's First Reply," p. 8.
135. Ibid.
136. Ibid., p. 1.
137. Jackson, "Defense," p. 1.
138. Jackson, "Jackson's First Reply," p. 1.
139. Ibid., quoting B. H. Carroll.
140. Ibid.
141. Ibid., p. 8. Jackson quoted B. H. Carroll in support of his view. Carroll said: "Each particular assembly is an habitation of God, through the Spirit. The Spirit occupies each several building."
142. Jackson, "Jackson's First Reply," p. 8.
143. Jackson, "Baptist Identity," p. 8.
144. Ibid.
145. Ibid.
146. Jackson, "Defense," p. 5.
147. Jackson, "Jackson's First Reply," p. 8.
148. Jackson, "Baptist Identity," p. 8.
149. Jumbo [sic]. "Questions and Answers," BP, April 10, 1919, p. 9.
150. Clover, p. 28. See also Frank L. DuPont, "The 'Kingdoms' of the Bible," pp. 3-4; and "Correction," BP, November 13, 1919, p. 6; for a similar approach. He identified six kingdoms.
151. For example, see: J. H. Summers, "The Differences between Baptist Churches and All Other Churches," BP, May 1, 1919, p. 2.
152. For examples, see: Charlie L. Carroll [an untitled letter], ibid., April 3, 1919, pp. 15-16; P. C. Scott, "Is One Church As Good As Another?" ibid., September 4, 1919, p. 1; H. F. Aulick, "Sunday School Lesson: The Universality of the Kingdom--Sunday, Sept. 7th, 1919," ibid., September 4, 1919, p. 5: Morris A. Roberts, "The Secretary's Page: Kingdom Dots," ibid., September 18, 1919, pp. 4-5; L. S. Ballard, "A Protest," ibid., October 16, 1919, p. 14; W. H. Day, "Some Church Questions," ibid., June 23, 1921, pp. 4-5; W. R. Durnell, "Among the Pastors: Sermon by Eld. W. R. Durnell," ibid., November 2, 1922, p. 11; Mrs. U. W. Jarrell, "The Kingdom of God," ibid., March 12, 1931, p. 13; S. A. Geer, "The Kingdom of Heaven," ibid., April 16, 1931, p. 10; W. Clyde Smith, 'The Baptist Church Set Up By Christ," ibid., September 5, 1940, p. 5; R. R. Stracener, "The Church and Her Doctrine," ibid., February 5, 1942, pp. 3, 6; and Stracener, "The Church and Her Doctrine," ibid., April 9, 1942, pp. 5-6.
153. Scott, "Is One Church as Good as Another?" p. 1.
154. See also Clover, pp. 29-31; Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 25-29; and Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 81-82, as well as the articles above, n. 152.
155. For examples, see: H. B. Pender, "Query Department: A Criticism," BP, January 15, 1914, p. 6; "Kingdom-Church Cooperation," ibid., November 18, 1920, pp. 1-2; "Has Our King Two Spiritual Bodies?" ibid., December 2, 1920, p. 3; "Kingdom Questions," ibid., March 17, 1921, pp. 1-2; "The Gospel of the Kingdom Assaulted," ibid., October 5, 1922, p. 3.
156. Pender, "Kingdom Questions," pp. 1-2.
157. J. W. Bussell, "Is the 'Church' and 'Kingdom' Identical?" BP, April 30, 1914, pp. 1-2; "Is the 'Church' and 'Kingdom' Identical?" ibid., May 7, 1914, pp. 3-5; ibid., May 14, 1914, pp. 2-3; "Pender's 'Kingdom Questions,'" ibid., March 13, 1919, pp. 4-5; "Location of the First Church of Christ," ibid., August 7, 1919, p. 12.
158. Bussell, "Location of the First Church of Christ," p. 12.
159. Bussell, "Pender's 'Kingdom Questions,'" p. 4.
160. Ibid.
161. Ibid., p. 5.
162. Ibid., For a later article advocating Bussell's position, see: Ira Copeland,"The Church and the Kingdom," BP, April 9, 1942, pp. 7-8. Copeland, pp. 7-8, said that "the church is very visible . . . but the kingdom is very invisible"; "what the body is to the spirit, the church is to the kingdom."
Bob Burleson, another of Pender's contemporaries, disagreed with him also. Burleson,"The Kingdom of Heaven, Or the Final World Empire," BP, December 10,1914, p. 6, believed that Daniel 2:44 was prophetic of the millennial reign of Christ, the "final kingdom."
163. See above, pp. 290-91 [i.e., reference #114].
164. Jackson, Studies, pp. 36-38.
165. Ibid., p. 37.
166. Ibid.
167. Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 46-49.
168. Ibid., pp. 147-48.
169. DuPont, Origin and Perpetuity, p. 64.
170. Ibid., pp. 64-65.
171. Ibid., pp. 65-71.
172. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 34-38.
173. Ibid., pp. 34-35.
174. J. T. Moore, Why I Am a Baptist: Seven Bible Principles Held by Baptists Only (7th ed.; Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1952), pp. 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16, 18. See also, G. E. Jones, Difference? pp. 13-17.
175. Jackson, Studies, pp. 38-44.
176. Ibid., pp. 44-46.
177. Meador, "Department of Missions," BP, April 11, 1940, p. 2.
178. Jackson, Studies, p. 49. See also: "Doctrinal Statement," p. 28; DuPont, Origin and Perpetuity, pp. 72-98; and Jarrel, BCP, pp. 1-3.
179. Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," pp. 28-29. Jarrel, BCP, p. 1, quoted in agreement S. H. Ford's statement that "Succession among Baptists is not a linked chain of churches or ministers, uninterrupted and traceable at this distant day . . . ."
180. See below, pp. 326-27 [i.e., reference #222], where certain of these "links" are cited.
181. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 30.
182. Ibid. Jarrel, BCP, chapter two, pp. 4-37, developed his thesis that "Church Perpetuity [is] a Fundamental Truth of the Bible." This was where he set forth his beliefs about a strict local, visible church against a universal, invisible one, and about the kingdom. He developed, ibid, pp. 14-32, a twelve-point biblical argument for perpetuity.
183. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 32.
184. Ibid., p. 33.
185. Ibid.
186. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 30-40.
187. Jackson, Studies, pp. 49-52.
188. Ibid., p. 52.
189. DuPont, Origin and Perpetuity, pp. 73-88.
190. Ibid., pp. 72-73.
191. Jarrel, BCP, p. 14.
192. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 33.
193. See above, pp. 309-12 [i.e., reference #s 166-170], "Marks or Signs of True Churches," for a description of these identifying signs. Jarrel, BCP, pp. 65-68, argued that a perpetuity of "Baptist principles" necessarily requires "the same Perpetuity of Baptist churches."
194. Jackson, Studies, p. 39.
195. Jarrel, BCP, p. 49.
196. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 34.
197. Ibid., pp. 34-45.
198. Ibid., p. 37.
199. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 42, quoting Mosheim. See also, DuPont, Origin and Perpetuity, pp. 95-96; and Jackson, Studies, p. 60.
200. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 64, quoting Ypeij and Dermont. See also, Jackson, Studies, p. 61; DuPont, Origin and Perpetuity; J. T. Moore, pp. 13-14; Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 42.
201. Jackson, Studies, p. 60, quoting Hosius. See also, Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 57.
202. Jackson, Studies, p. 61, quoting Campbell. See also Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 65.
203. Jackson, Studies, pp. 60-61.
204. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 65-66.
205. DuPont, Origin and Perpetuity, p. 97.
206. Orchard, A Concise History of Baptists; D. B. Ray, Baptist Succession (Rosemead, California: The King's Press, 1949); John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists (2 vols.; Nashville: Broadman Press, 1922); and J[ohn] Davis, History of the Welsh Baptists (Pittsburgh: D. M. Hogan, 1835). See W. M. Patterson, Baptist Successionism, pp. 9-20, for a list and analysis of these historians.
207. Jarrel, BCP, pp. 38-41.
208. Ibid., pp. 69-233.
209. Clover, pp. 171-350.
210. Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 267-375.
211. Burgess, [p. v]; i.e., quoted from the table of contents.
212. Jackson, Studies, p. 52.
213. Ibid.
214. Ibid., p. 53.
215. Ibid.
216. Ibid.
217. Ibid., p. 54.
218. Ibid.
219. Ibid., p. 55. See also Jarrel, BCP, pp. 360-71.
220. Jackson, Studies, pp. 55-56. See also Jarrel, BCP, pp. 234-316.
221. Jackson, Studies, p. 56.
222. Ibid., pp. 56-60. See also Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 62-63, for a ten "link" process.
223. Burgess, Baptist Faith, pp. 45-46.
224. See especially, "Book V--Persecutions in All Centuries," pp. 409-90, and "Book VI--Persecutions in All Countries," pp. 493-569. For the same reasoning in other authors, see also Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 49-58; J. T. Moore, pp. 12-13; Frank L. DuPont, Origin and Perpetuity, pp. 88-95; and G. E. Jones, Difference? pp. 35-38.
225. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 40-41. See also Jarrel, BCP, chapter four, "Church Perpetuity Admits of Variations and Irregularities in Baptist Faith and Practice," pp. 42-48.
226. For other articles on perpetuity, see: J. M. Newburn, "Who are the Baptists?" ibid., March 5, 1914, p. 4; E. C. Bramblitt, "Catholicism the Oldest (?) Church," ibid., September 9, 1915, pp. 8-9; George Beavers, "Seventh Reason Why I Am a Baptist," ibid., July 17, 1919, p. 2; and ibid., July 24, 1919, pp. 4-5; Morris A Roberts, "The Roger Williams' Church," ibid., July 24, 1919, p. 4; D. C. Dove, "Baptists and Protestants," ibid., July 23, 1931, p. 6; and W. O. Patterson, "A Few Dots on Baptists, " ibid., September 10, 1931, p. 3.
227. J. W. Kesner, Sr., "Restricted Communion," Credenda, pp. 123-39.
228. Foreman, Credenda, [p. 6].
229. Ibid.
230. D. N. Jackson, "Questions Answered," American Baptist, 83 (August, 1958), 6. In an earlier tract, The Lord's Supper: A Sermon Preached at the Race Street Baptist Church, Searcy, Ark., February 3, 1935 [cited hereafter as Lord's Supper] (Texarkana, Tex.-Ark.: D. N. Jackson, n.d.) and in "Doctrinal Statement," pp. 26, 30, Jackson was vague and ambiguous at this point.
231. Jackson, "Questions Answered," p. 6.
232. W. J. Burgess, The Lord's Table [cited hereafter as Lord's Table] (Little Rock, Ark.: The Baptist Publications Committee, 1957), p. 45. This book subsequently was incorporated, almost verbatim, into Baptist Faith and Martyrs' Fires.
233. Ibid.
234. Foreman and Payne, I, 110; Clover, p. 120; Garner, Defense of the Faith, p. 113; and Cobb, Manual, pp. 121-22.
235. Kesner, "Restricted Communion," p. 124.
236. Ibid.
237. For other examples, see: Burgess, Lord's Table, pp. 11, 16-20; Jackson, Lord's Supper, pp. 15-16; Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 111, 113; Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp.11-13; Clover, p. 120; E. A. Puthuff, "The Ordinances in the Great Commission," BP, January 14, 1915, pp. 14-15; George Beavers "Seven Reasons Why I Am a Baptist--Biblically and Historically," ibid. June 19, 1919, pp. 10-11; and J. O. Hearne, "J. O. Hearne Delivers Clearcut Statement," ibid., September 24, 1931, p. 2. Some of these articles, however, emphasize that the Lord's Supper is set in the kingdom.
H. F. Aulick, "Lord's Supper," BP, July 17, 1919, p. 7, in emphasizing non-intercommunion, said that participants at the Supper must "have membership together." Clarence Crites, "Scriptural or Restricted Communion," ibid., September 7, 1922, p. 14 (copied from "Baptist Flag") argued that both ordinances were committed by Christ to "local organizations"--local churches.
238. Cobb, Manual, p. 121. See Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 17, for a reference specifically forbidding observance of the Supper at associational meetings.
239. The term "communion" is used in the present discussion, although many Associational Baptist writers have not preferred to use the word. They have believed that such usage places too much emphasis on the social aspects of "communing" with one another rather than on an expression of "our relation to the body and blood of Christ." See Jackson, Lord's Supper, p. 9; and Burgess, Lord's Table, pp. 13-14, for discussion relative thereto.
240. See above, chapter five, pp. 215-20 [i.e., reference #128 ff.].
241. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 84.
242. See also J. L. Robinson, "The Lord's Supper," BP, July 15, 1915, p. 12, who interpreted "United Baptized Believers in Church Capacity" as follows: "When ye [sic] come together in the church--When therefore, ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper (if divided)."
243. Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, p. 83.
244. Jackson, "Doctrinal Statement," pp. 26-27.
245. See above, p. 330 [i.e., reference #230].
246. Foreman and Payne, II, 435.
247. See Kesner, "Restricted Communion," pp. 138-39; Jackson, Lord's Supper, p. 21; and Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 6, for the full text of Bishop F. G. Hibbard's statement. The source of the reference apparently was Pendleton's church manual.
248. Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 45.
249. Kesner, "Restricted Communion," pp. 124-35. See also Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 115-16 (twelve restrictions); Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 84-85 (ten restrictions); Crites, "Communion," p. 14 (ten restrictions); Griffin, The Church, pp. 29-32 (eight restrictions), for similar lists.
250. Kesner, "Restricted Communion," p. 125.
251. Ibid.
252. Ibid., p. 126.
253. Ibid., pp. 126-27; quoting J. R. Graves.
254. Ibid., p. 127.
255. Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 45. Burgess, ibid., p. 47, added: "Let us always remember that the Lord s Supper is not just a Christian Memorial but it is a CHURCH ordinance and given to separate and independent churches."
256. Ibid., p. 16.
257. Ibid., p. 17.
258. Ibid., p. 18.
259. Ibid. See also S. S. Bussell, "Notes on Close Communion," BP, July 9, 1914, p. 9.
260. Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 51.
261. Ibid., p. 46.
262. Kesner, "Restricted Communion," p. 132.
263. Ibid.
264. Ibid.
265. Ibid., p. 133.
266. Ibid.
267. Ibid.
268. Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 46 [italics mine]. See also Cobb, Manual, p. 122.
269. Kesner, "Restricted Communion," p. 129.
270. Ibid.
271. Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 47.
272. Kesner, "Restricted Communion," p. 134.
273. Ibid., p. 130.
274. Ibid.
275. Ibid.
276. Ibid., pp. 131-32. See also Garner, Defense of the Faith, pp. 113-15.
277. Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 48.
278. Ibid.
279. Ibid., p. 49.
280. Ibid.; paraphrasing Graves.
281. Ibid., pp. 49-50.
282. Ibid., p. 53.
283. Ibid., pp. 53-54. See also Cobb, Manual, p. 122.
284. The author was surprised here to find Burgess using the expression, one of the few times he has found it in Associational Baptist literature.
285. Burgess, Lord's Table, p. 55. See also Jackson, Lord's Supper, pp. 30-31; and Crites, "Communion," p. 14. Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, p. 13, argued that "self-examination . . . is only one of many prerequisites" to observance of the Supper.
286. Above, pp. 220-56 [i.e., chapter V, "VI. Missions"].
287. A. J. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty in Missions," Credenda, [cited hereafter as "Church Sovereignty"], pp. 94-113.
288. Jackson, Studies, lessons five and six, pp. 62-73.
289. See above, chapters four and five.
290. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," pp. 94-100.
291. Ibid., pp. 94-97.
292. Ibid., pp. 95-96.
293. Ibid., p. 96.
294. Above, pp. 285-93 [i.e., reference #90ff.]. See also Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 21-25.
295. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," p. 96, quoting Bogard.
296. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," pp. 97-99. See also J[ohn] H. Milburn, Missions and Missions Methods (Chicago, Ill.: Regan Printing House, 1909), pp. 323-50; and Cobb, Difference? pp. 3-7.
297. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," pp. 97-98.
298. Ibid., pp. 98-99. See also Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 88-90; and Griffin, The Church, pp. 11-14.
299. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," p. 99.
300. Ibid.
301. Ibid., pp. 99-100.
302. Ibid., p. 99.
303. Ibid., p. 100.
304. Ibid.
305. Ibid.
306. Ibid.
307. Ibid. See also Milburn, Missions, p. 146.
308. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," p. 100. See also Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 90-93; and Griffin, The Church, pp. 16-18.
309. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," pp. 101-102.
310. Ibid., p. 101.
311. Ibid.
312. Ibid.
313. Ibid. See also Milburn, Missions, pp. 147-65.
314. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," p. 101.
315. Ibid., p. 102.
316. Ibid., pp. 102-106.
317. Ibid., p. 102.
318. Ibid.
319. Ibid.
320. Ibid., pp. 102-104, quoting Baptist Way-Book.
321. Ibid., p. 104, quoting Manual.
322. Ibid., quoting Barer and Hall.
323. Ibid., p. 105, quoting J. H. Milburn, Missions. This is one of the most detailed studies in support of Direct Gospel Missions and in criticism of Conventionism.
324. This terminology is apparently in opposition to the word "combine" in the constitution and charter of the Southern Baptist Convention. See below, pp. 361-362 [i.e., reference #383], for further discussion.
325. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," p. 105.
326. Foreman, Credenda, p. 105.
327. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," p. 105.
328. Ibid., p. 106. See also Cobb, Difference? pp. 10-13, 24-26; Bogard, Associations are Scriptural (n.p., n.d.); and Foreman and Payne, II, 380.
329. Kirkland, "Church Sovereignty," pp. 106-107.
330. Ibid., p. 106.
331. Ibid. [Italics mine.]
332. Ibid.
333. Ibid.
334. Ibid., p. 107.
335. Ibid., pp. 107-11.
336. Ibid., pp. 107-108.
337. Ibid., pp. 108-109.
338. Ibid., pp. 109-10.
339. Ibid., p. 110.
340. Ibid., p. 111.
341. Ibid.
342. Ibid., pp. 111-13.
343. Ibid., p. 111.
344. Ibid., p. 112.
345. Ibid., pp. 112-13.
346. Ibid.
347. Ibid., p. 113.
348. Ibid. For another article from the period and a book which gives the ABA approach to missions, see A. T. Powers, "Bible Missions," Credenda, pp. 114-22.
349. Jackson, Studies, pp. 63-67. See also Cobb, Manual, pp. 196-205.
350. Jackson, Studies, p. 63.
351. Ibid. See also D. N. Jackson, Are We Missionary Baptist? Laurel, Miss.: American Baptist Publishing Company, n.d.), pp. 1-2.
352. Jackson, Studies, p. 64.
353. Ibid.
354. Ibid.
355. Ibid., pp. 64-65.
356. Ibid., p. 65.
357. Ibid.
358. Ibid.
359. Ibid., 65-66.
360. Ibid., pp. 66-67.
361. Ibid., p. 67. See also Griffin, The Church, pp. 19-23.
362. Jackson, Studies, pp. 67-69.
363. Ibid., pp. 67-68.
364. Ibid., p. 68.
365. Ibid.
366. Ibid., pp. 68-69.
367. Ibid., pp. 69-72.
368. Ibid., p. 72.
369. Ibid.
370. Ibid.
371. Ibid., p. 75.
372. Ibid., pp. 75-76. See R. Y. Blalock, Missionary Baptists Classified: Their Practice and Teaching ([Antioch, California: R. Y. Blalock, 1945?]), for the same fourfold structure; but Blalock favored the "Direct Missions" approach.
373. Jackson, Studies, p. 75. See also Milburn, Missions, pp. 97-103.
374. Jackson, Studies, pp. 75-76. See also Cobb, Manual, pp. 202-203; and Griffin, The Church, p. 18.
375. Jackson, Studies, p. 76.
376. Ibid.
377. Ibid.
378. Ibid.
379. Ibid., pp. 76-76. See Foreman and Payne, I, 403-18; II, 114-93, 304-18; for Bogard's statements about the Convention system.
380. Jackson, Studies, p. 76.
381. Ibid., pp. 77-78.
382. Ibid., p. 77.
383. Ibid., pp. 78-86. For similar arguments and criticisms, see: Milburn, Missions, pp. 75-76, 111-21, 167-287; Cobb, Manual, p. 202; Difference? pp. 7-9; Griffin, The Church, pp. 18, 23-25; W. M. Webb, Convention Methods Exposed ([Little Rock, Ark.: Arkansas Baptist?] 1910); Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 47-48; Jackson, Are we Missionary Baptists? pp. 3-21; C. A. Darst, Origin, Work, and Doctrines of Association Baptists and Convention Baptists (St. Louis, Mo.: Bethany Baptist Church, 1952); J. A. Scarboro, The Bible The Baptists and the Board System; D. N. Jackson, B. M. Bogard, et al., Conventionism Refuted (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1927); and Cobb, The Baptist Situation Today ([Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: American Baptist Association, 1935?]).
384. Jackson, Studies, pp. 86-90.
385. Ibid., pp. 86-87. See also Milburn, Missions, p. 77; and Gillentine, Baptist Doctrine, pp. 93-94.
386. Jackson, Studies, p. 88. See also Bogard, Baptist Way-Book, pp. 42-45. For a list of dissimilarities and similarities between conventions and associations, see Milburn, Missions, pp. 103-11.
387. Jackson, Studies, p. 88.
388. Ibid., p. 89.
389. Ibid., p. 90.
390. Pender, "Kingdom-Church Cooperation," p. 1.
391. Ibid., p. 2.
Go to Abstract and Acknowledgements.
Go to Chapter I: Introduction".
Go to Chapter II: "Early Landmarkism: Graves, Pendleton, Dayton."
Go to Chapter III: "Later Landmarkism: Ford and Hall."
Go to Chapter IV: "Historical Survey of the Rise of the Associational Baptist Movement".
Go to Chapter V: "Landmark Tenets Reflected in Official Associational Baptist Documents."