Here we have the first of two times during His earthly ministry that Christ drove the moneychangers and those that sold animals from the Temple. We see in the context that this was a premeditated action by our Saviour. He took the time to prepare a scourge, or whip, of small cords. And it was with that scourge that Jesus cleansed the temple of those who defiled it. Those that were selling in the temple were merchandising the things of God. The temple was set apart for the worship of God. The sacrifices made there during the passover were done in obedience to the command of God. These merchants were taking that which was holy and profaning it for their personal profit.

There are certain things which belong to God. You and I do not have the right to take that which is God’s and use it for ourselves. Nor do we have the right to use that which is God’s for our personal profit. I fear many today use the ministry of God for just that. Things that are sacred and set apart are to remain sacred and set apart for God.

Yes, it was wrong for these merchants to use holy things for their personal gain, but I believe there is a greater problem with what was taking place in the temple. We find in Exodus the law concerning the passover sacrifice:

And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. (Exodus 12:1-6)

The children of Israel had very specific instructions concerning the lamb they were to use for the Passover. They were commanded to take the lamb on the tenth day and keep it until the fourteenth day, when it would then be killed. This lamb was to be without blemish. I believe this four day period was used to watch and examine the lamb, to ensure that it was perfect in every way. This sacrifice was a picture and type of the Lamb of God, slain for the sins of the world, and thus it was necessary that the Passover lamb be without blemish. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (1Peter 1:18-20)

Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover. And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped. And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. (Exodus 12:21-28)

Let us fast forward to the events in John chapter two. The children of Israel are coming to Jerusalem to observe the Passover. They still had an obligation to observe the laws of Passover as they were given in Exodus. They were obligated to ensure that the lamb they would bring  was the very best, and without blemish. Some may have traveled a great distance to reach the city. How much easier it would be to purchase the lamb once they reached the city. How much more convenient it would be to simply wait until they went to the temple, and there take a lamb. I believe the real issue was the casualness with which the Jews approached the sacrifice. There was no preparation to make sure that the lamb was the very best, without blemish or spot. They would purchase an animal with only a cursory observation, or perhaps based on the word of the seller. They had no way of knowing if the animal truly was without blemish. They were simply going through the motions, with no concern for purity in their offering. It had become just another ritual, just another thing to be done. The Passover was no longer a thing of importance to them. The casualness with which the Jews approached this sacred feast, I believe, was the reason that Christ drove them from the temple with a whip.

Mankind has always taken liberties with that which belongs to the Lord. The direct commands of God are ignored, or not taken seriously. That which is holy and set apart is made profane by the casual way it is regarded.  The doctrine given to us by God is watered down and changed until it no longer resembles the clear teaching of Scripture.

The Bible teaches us that salvation is by repentance toward God, and faith in Christ. Man attempts to approach God on his own merit, by his own works. God says baptism is for believers, and is by immersion. Man sprinkles infants. The Lord’s table is for the fellowship of the local church. Man extends that fellowship to those beyond the discipline of the church with his open table. God gave us the great commission, and the New Testament model of church planting as the method to reach the world. Man uses methods that promote vain glory for himself, and does everything but follow the model God put in Scripture. The husband and father is to be the head of his home, and is responsible for the leading of his family. Instead, every Tom, Dick, and Harry is allowed to usurp that authority at the expense of the family unit. God says the woman is to be a keeper at home. Man justifies his disobedience by protesting that they are needed as teachers and secretaries in the church. God says “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Man responds with, “But I have liberty in Christ to live as I please.” And on and on and on it goes.

We have an obligation to purity. We do not get to pick and choose which commands we obey, and which ones we ignore. It is our duty to discover what God put in His Word for us, and to obey it. J.R. Graves said the following, “The highest duty Christ enjoins upon each individual is to search the Scriptures for himself, and obey its teachings.” We are to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” But, like the Jews, we think God will overlook our casual sacrifice. It does not have to be our best, it does not have to be without blemish. It is so much more convenient to pick up the lamb when we go to the temple.

Luke Mace

First, we must decipher the meaning of this phrase. What is a bride? By definition, a bride is a female who is soon to be married or recently married. Looking in Scripture, we see this word appears fourteen times. Perhaps the most passionate passage and the first one to which I call your attention to is found in Isaiah 62:4-5:Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.  For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. In verse four, we see God returning to His people. He gives them a new name, “Hephzi-bah”. This word simply means: My delight is in her. He also tells them that their land shall be named, “Beulah”. In verse five, He says that He will rejoice over His people just as a bridegroom does. This precious bride of Christ is the one in whom the Lord delights.

John speaks of this Bridegroom in John 3:29: He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. In verse twenty-eight, he tells the Jews that he is not Christ, but the one who was prophesied to come before Christ. It was not John’s church, but Christ’s church. He tells them that he is friend of the “Bridegroom”. John’s joy was fulfilled by telling the Jews of the coming Messiah; to be able to watch and hear Christ speak of His love for sinners; to be a part of Christ setting up His church. It is this church that is part of God’s chosen people. Because the Jewish nation rejected their Messiah, Christ turned to the Gentiles and set up His kingdom on earth. He promised to turn again to His chosen people of Israel, but there is a portion of the Gentile nation that is part of His chosen. I would like to show the correlation between the bride of Christ and the Gentile church, God’s chosen people.

Of course this bride is not a universal church (see ‘Jesus’ “my church”: local, or universal?’ in an earlier posts of this blog). His bride is the local, visible, New Testament church. It does not consist of all saved people. There is a common misconception that all saved people, at the time of their regeneration, enter into this bride. These same individuals  will also say that those people are the church so that they can say that the bride of Christ is the church for which He gave Himself (Ephesians 5:25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;). Christ did give Himself for the church that it might be holy, and He might present it to Himself as holy and pure; however, the bride of Christ is not one gigantic, universal church comprised of all those who claim Christ as their Saviour. The bride of Christ is each individual, autonomous church that consists of regenerated christians, baptized into that one body.  When you receive the Lord Jesus as Saviour of your life, you become a child of God. John 1:12: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Being saved makes us a child of God. I John 3 explains who the children of God are. Becoming a child of God does not make you part of the bride. To be in His bride is exclusively for those who are in His church. It is those who are commissioned to carry out His command to reach the world. It is those who are privileged to partake of the bread and the cup in remembrance of their Saviour. That privilege is not given to any one individual and not even to those organizations claiming to be the church of Christ. It is not one universal church consisting of all individual churches. There are many pious individuals with good intentions who are members of a false church; and if not a true church, than I venture to say not a church at all. So there are regenerated persons who want to follow Christ and live a godly life, but are not part of His bride. Matthew 26:29: But I say unto you, that I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. Christ told His disciples He would be leaving them. This was HIS church! This was not just the disciples; it was a called out body of believers that had assembled with Christ in their midst. He tells them of that glorious day when they would be reunited and married to their Bridegroom. This is the marriage supper of the Lamb found in Revelation chapter 19. This proceeds the thousand year reign of Christ and His armies. Just as there was a betrothal period in Bible times where the bride and groom were separated until the wedding day, the bride, Christ’s church, has been separated from the precious Bridegroom until the wedding day; the day that the church will feast with Him. Then we find in Revelation 21:9-10: And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. Here we see John’s vision of the new Jerusalem, the holy city that God calls the bride. Revelation 21:2: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. This is after the church has been raptured, after the marriage supper, and after the thousand year reign. The holy city is coming down from heaven to reside in the new earth. The city is not the bride, but the church that makes up the city. Just as all the students of a school would sometimes be called “the school”, so all the true churches of Christ, his bride, make up the new city.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Jesus refers to Himself as the Bridegroom in Matthew 9:15: And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. He was with His disciples at the time, but the time was approaching where He would be taken from them. We saw in John 3 that John was sent as a forerunner of Christ; to tell the Jews of His coming to teach purity in His church. Ephesians 5:27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  He came to bring sinners to His kingdom and teach purity in His church and He promised to come again to meet His bride! His church is to be preparing herself as a bride does in preparation of her wedding. His glorious church, His pure bride, is to be chaste. II Corinthians 11:2: For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.  That is the Bridegroom, the Lord Jesus Christ. The church is expected to be a chaste virgin. Just as in the physical sense, a young lady is expected to come to the marriage altar as a pure virgin, Christ’s church is to prepare themselves for His coming by keeping themselves pure and being faithful to their one “Husband”, to whom they have been espoused. Romans 7:4: Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. That is, we are to become a member of Christ’s church. We are to become part of this bride of Christ. Beware, lest we skip over the last phrase: that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Once we are part of that bride, we are to strive for purity. Christ always commands His church to be holy; He expects holiness from it, and He speaks to His church as if it is holy.        

So yes, this bride of Christ is very literal, and not symbolic. We have a commandment to be separated from the world. We are to become a part of the body of Christ, his church. This gives us the privilege to be called “The Bride of Christ”. Now do you see why it is so important for his church to be so pure and holy, without spot and blemish? Christ wants a pure bride presented to Him.  Psalm 149:4 tells us that the Lord taketh pleasure in His people. Just as we saw in Isaiah 62, the Lord delights in His people. The New Testament church is part of His people. I Peter 2:9, in reference to the Gentiles, calls them a chosen generation, a holy nation, and a peculiar people. His bride will one day spend their eternity in a land called, Beulah. This very word Beulah is defined in one word: married. Hallelujah!! The bride of Christ will one day spend their eternity with their beloved Bridegroom, our Lord Jesus Christ! What a wonderful thought.

Joel Noyes, Truth Baptist Church

There is nothing wrong with singing hymns in our churches.  We are commanded in Ephesians 5:19 to speak to ourselves in psalms AND hymns.  We find Christ and the disciples singing a hymn after the last supper. (Matt. 26:30, Mark 14:26)  One of the issues that separated Baptists and Protestants in the 17^th and 18^th centuries was the argument over whether it was acceptable to sing hymns in churches.  Many believed that only the singing and reciting of Psalms was the correct practice, and that the use of hymns written by men was worldly and unacceptable for churches.  Baptists were among the first to take the stance of introducing new hymns to their congregations for the purpose of teaching doctrine, particularly those doctrines of baptism and the Lord’s table.  How ironic that some of the early uses of hymns in Baptist churches were to teach our defining doctrines, yet today we will allow just about any doctrine to be taught in hymns as long as we feel the music isn’t worldly! We would not allow the Catholic priest across town to speak from the pulpit of our church, but week after week we allow Catholic doctrine to be taught through our ecumenical songbooks that we use in Baptist churches.  One of the statements John R. Rice made about the compiling of Soul Stirring Songs & Hymns was that its purpose was to unite singers of many faiths.  Well, are we Baptist or aren’t we? If hymns are a tool used to teach doctrine, we ought to make sure that the hymns we are singing are Baptistic in doctrine. 

There is no way in an article of this length that we could discuss the history or doctrine of every single hymn.  I would like to make some observations of a few hymns as examples of the doctrine that hymns can teach. 

One of the most surprising and frustrating hymn stories I have seen is that of Faith of Our Fathers.  I have always heard this song upheld as a great hymn that describes in song the stand our forefathers have taken and the persecution they have undergone for their faith.  Allow me to enlighten you to the history of this “great” hymn.  The words were written by Frederick Faber, who in his younger years, was at best a Protestant.   He later became a follower of John Henry Newman who was a hero of the Catholic church at that time.  Frederick converted to Roman Catholicism and became a staunch supporter of that faith as well as a strong adversary of any who would oppose his faith.  He wrote Faith of Our Fathers to commemorate the great persecution that Catholics had suffered at the hand of those who opposed them, including Baptists!  What we uphold as one of our “great hymns of the faith” to show the persecution our forefathers withstood is actually a hymn that tells the exact opposite!

One of the songs best known for uplifting the power of the blood of Christ is another that is misinterpreted.  The Cleansing Wave seems to resound with the doctrine of the cleansing power of Christ’s blood, and is a song that Baptist congregations love to sing.  The hymn was written by a woman named Phoebe Palmer, who coincidentally was a very close friend of Fanny Crosby.  Phoebe Palmer was raised in a Methodist church and later became an evangelist and writer. She promoted the “doctrine” of Christian perfection and is considered to be one of the founders of the Holiness movement.  The words of her hymns have a whole new meaning when viewed in this light.  Consider the third verse of The Cleansing Wave: “I rise to walk in heav’n's own light above the world and sin.” Yes, we are commanded to live pure, but I find nowhere in Scripture where I am told I can live above sin in the sense that the Holiness movement teaches!  Why would we knowingly teach this doctrine to our congregations through song?

Other songs that have been upheld as strong “Baptist” hymns are ones such as Onward Christian Soldiers and Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus.  Both of these, and others like them, are Catholic hymns.  Onward Christian Soldiers was a hymn written for Catholic children to sing as they were marching to Sunday School.  You will find that many of the “soldier” or “battle” songs we sing have their roots in reformed theology, yet we use them as songs to rouse our congregations and to stir us to action.  If the song that we are singing is doctrinally correct, there is no need for us to stir ourselves up; the doctrine of the song would naturally bring a change in heart.  This is where true Baptists and the reformed theology crowd will differ.  Reformed theology has always advanced its cause by force at the end of a sword, while Christ’s church has advanced His cause through the truth of God’s Word.  The same holds true in the hymns written by men of either group.

I Peter 5:8 warns us to “be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”  For years, our adversary has been using our hymns to subtly infiltrate good churches with false teaching.  Let us be vigilant and watchful that we are allowing only “sound doctrine” in every area of our churches.

 Weston Noyes

Old Paths Baptist Church

Truth Baptist Church is in agreement with this author.

Jesus personally used the word “church” or “ecclesia” twenty-three times in the New Testament. Twenty of these uses occur in the book of Revelation, and, in every instance, are clearly referring to a local, visible assembly, whether singular or plural.

We also find that Christ used the word “church” twice in Matthew chapter eighteen. If an offending brother has refused to hear of his fault, and he will not repent after being approached by two or three witnesses, we are commanded to bring the matter before the church. Church discipline cannot be acted upon in a universal church.  The use of the word in this passage demands that we interpret this as referring to a local, visible assembly.

We have now examined twenty-two mentions of the church by Christ, and are left with one use occurring in Matthew 16:18. It should be clear by now that every other time Jesus spoke of a church, He was referring to a local, visible assembly. Why would we approach this passage differently? Is it safe to assume that Christ gave the word a new meaning in this passage? By definition, an “ecclesia” (assembly) must be local and visible. You cannot have a universal, non-assembling assembly. It would not be consistent to mean something entirely different in this passage when Christ stated He would build “my church.” The confusion about this passage results from the distorted teaching of the universal church.

 There are passages in Scripture where the word “church” is used in a generic way. However, we should remember that using a noun in a generic way does not change the definition of said noun. When Jesus said He would build “my church,” He is either referring to a particular church, or He is using it generically. Either way, He is referring to a local assembly. I believe that when Christ said He would build, “my church,” He was speaking in the generic sense. In other words, Christ is the Founder and Head of each local, New Testament church. We must confine ourselves to the rules of grammar, and not invent a new use that defies those rules.

One metaphor used in Scripture to reference the church is “the body.” And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Col 1:18) Speaking to the church in Corinth, Paul states, Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. (1Co 12:27) A body, by definition, must be visible and local. A body is an organism and occupies space. A body has members. These members function in unison, working together to do what is required of them. When Christ is called the Head of the church, we are to understand that what He is to one New Testament church, He is to all New Testament churches. Each and every Scriptural church has Christ as its head. This metaphor gives us a beautiful picture of the church, the members functioning in unity, with Christ as the Head. This unity would not be possible were the body universal.

Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Eph 3:21)

Luke Mace

In order for baptism to be Scriptural, it must be conducted under the proper authority, with the proper subject and method, having the proper purpose, and by a proper administrator. The only institution with Scriptural authority to baptize is the New Testament church. I believe that the Great Commission was given to the church that Jesus built while still on this earth. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus stated, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” He followed that statement by the command, “Go ye therefore.” In this passage of Scripture, Christ is transferring His Divine authority to the church to carry out His commission here on earth. The New Testament church is the only institution with authority to baptize converts. John the Baptist came with authority given by God for the baptism of repentance. (Matt. 21:23-32; Mk 1:1-4) Our Lord submitted Himself to this authority in order to fulfill all righteousness. Christ transferred this authority to the church that He began. The church delegates this authority to those it ordains to the ministry. Scriptural baptism is pleasing to the Lord, for it recognizes the authority of the church.

The proper subject for baptism is one who has been born again. We find no example in Scripture where one was baptized, who did not first repent from sin and trust Christ by faith. (Acts 2:41; 8:12, 35-39; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 16:14-15, 30-34)

The method of baptism should not need much discussion. The mode always mentioned in the Bible is that of immersion in deep water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost. This pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of our Saviour. Baptism also pictures the death of the old man, and the believer being raised to walk in newness of life as a new creature. (Matt. 3:16; John 3:22-23; Acts 8:38; Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:21)

I believe the Scriptural purpose of baptism to be two-fold. It is a public testimony of a believer’s profession of faith, as it demonstrates one’s commitment to Christ. Baptism also identifies one with the church body into which they are being baptized. Baptism is church membership, in that it is the door into the church. (Acts 2:41; 1 Cor. 12:12-13)

The only qualified administrator of baptism is one who has authority delegated to him by a local assembly. All examples of Scriptural baptism in the New Testament were conducted under Divine authority or church authority. The authority to baptize comes from the sending church, as they ordain and send a pastor/evangelist. Only a properly ordained pastor/evangelist can be authorized by a church to administer baptism. The Apostle Paul in the book of Acts is one example, as he is sent with authority from the local church. (Matt. 3:1-17; 21:23-27; 28:18-20; Jn. 4:1-2; Acts 1:21-22)

From these points, we can make the following statements: Any baptism not administered under the authority of a New Testament church is not baptism. Any baptism not by an authorized administer is not baptism. Any baptism not by immersion is not baptism. Any baptism that does not follow salvation is not baptism. Any baptism conducted for any purpose other than a public testimony and church membership is not baptism.

“Where there is no scriptural baptism, there are no scriptural churches of Christ, no scriptural ordinations, no scriptural ministers, no scriptural ordinances.” (J.R. Graves)

“Baptists have ever held, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism; and when they baptize those who have received the infant rite, or have been immersed without the authority of Jesus Christ, they do not regard it as rebaptism, as they regard such performances as invalid—no baptism at all.” (D.B. Ray)

“Christian baptism is not the celebration of a religious rite by modes indifferent; but a specific act to be administered by a specific body, to persons of specific qualifications, for the profession of specific truths. When one of these properties is wanting, the transaction is “null and void,” since, unless the ordinances are observed as Christ commanded, they are not kept, but perverted, and bring upon the parties, not the commendation but condemnation of the Master.” (J.R. Graves)

Is your baptism Scriptural?

As I have studied the Scriptures in this matter, God has shown me that my own baptism is not valid. I was baptized in a Baptist church which began from a church split. A group of people left one church and started another. While the intent may have been good, I believe this violates the the New Testament pattern for starting churches. The only authority to plant a New Testament church is another New Testament church. A church ordains a man and sends him with the authorization to baptize converts. It is from these converts that a church is to be constituted. If a church has no authority, it cannot administer the ordinance of baptism. I will be baptized under the authority of Truth Baptist Church.

Luke Mace

Kaltag, Ak

Truth Baptist Church is in agreement with this author.

The following sketch was written at the editor’s request by one of the ablest Baptist ministers in this country. His account of the opinions of all landmarkers is entirely reliable:

The origin of the term old-landmarkism was as follows: about the year 1850, Rev. J. D. Graves, editor of the Tennessee Baptist, published at Nashville, Tenn., began to advocate the position that Baptists cannot consistently recognize Pedobaptist preachers of the gospel. For several years he found but few to sympathize with this view. Among the few was Rev. J M. Pendleton, then of Bowling Green, Ky., who in 1854 was requested by Mr. Graves to write an essay on this question, “Ought Baptists to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers?” The essay was published in four consecutive numbers of the aforesaid paper, and afterwards in the form of a tract. The title given to it by Mr. Graves was “An Old Landmark Reset.” The title was consider appropriate, because there had been a time when ministerial recognition and exchange of pulpits between Baptists and Pedobaptist were unknown. This was an old landmark, but in the course of years it had fallen. When it was raised again it was called “an old land mark reset.” Hence the term “old-landmarkism,” and later years, by way of abridgment “landmarkism.”

That doctrine of landmarkism is not a novelty, as some suppose, is evident, because William Kiffin, of London, one of the noblest of English Baptists, advocated it in 1640, and with those who agreed with him formed a church, of which he was pastor till his death, in 1701, a very long pastorate. These facts are taken from Cramp’s “Baptist History,” and he refers to Ivimey’s “Life of Kiffin.”

Benedict, in his, “Fifty Years among the Baptists,” in referring to the early part of this century, says, “At that time the exchange of pulpits between the advocates and the opponents of infant baptism was a thing of very rare occurrence, except in a few of the more distinguished churches in the Northern States. Indeed, the doctrine of non-intercourse, so far as ministerial services were concerned, almost universally prevailed between Baptists and Pedobaptists.” pp. 94, 95.

Truly the old landmark once stood, and having fallen, it was deemed proper to rest it.

The doctrine of landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as “a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,” etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization. Hence the non-recognition of Pedobaptist ministers, who are not interfered with, but simply let alone.

At the time the “Old Landmarkism Reset” was written the topic of non-ministerial intercourse was the chief subject of discussion. Inseparable, however, from the landmark view of this matter, is a denial the Pedobaptist societies are Scriptural churches, the Pedobaptist ordinations are valid, and that immersions administered by Pedobaptist ministers can be consistently accepted by any Baptist church. All these things are denied, and the intelligent reader will see why.

It may be difficult to absorb the purpose of the paper with a quick read over. Please take the time to read the following carefully. Most of what is written are from articles that have been published and circulated for over 100 years. These works are attributed to J. R. Graves, and J. M. Pendleton. I am not trying to be unkind towards anyone; I was what I considered a “Fundamental Baptist” for over 25 years. It has only been during the last 10 years through an intense study of the Word of God and our Baptist heritage that I have come to realize that my position was completely wrong and I had the responsibility to come out from the Fundamentalist movement, take a stand, and proclaim the truth boldly (II Corinthians 6:14-18, Revelation 2:18-24, Jude 3, Ezekiel 3:17-21).

It is my earnest belief that this subject must be addressed and revisited again, for this has been repeated throughout the ages of Christ’s church. The apostolic churches were persecuted because they were separated from the error of the false institutions, or else they embraced the false teachings that were being introduced into the church and thereby became corrupt (Revelation 2:12-24). This corruption has continued in every century as error attempts to adhere to truth to obtain creditability.

According to Matthew 16:18, Christ while on earth “set up a kingdom” and “built a church,” unlike any institution that had ever been or ever will be seen on earth. Question: Where is that church?

Christ only “set up” one kingdom and built but one house, which He designed to be called, in all after ages, “the House of God,” the “Church of the living God,” and to be “the Pillar and the Ground of the Truth.” Question: Which house is it?

Christ did not found His kingdom in parts and in deadly antagonism to each other and all in open rebellion to His own authority, laws and government as set forth in the Bible (Luke 11:17-18). Questions: Can a kingdom divided against itself stand? Do sheep bite?

Things equal to or like the same thing are equal to or like each other. If different and conflicting religious institutions claiming to be churches are each evangelical and Scriptural, they must be like each other in doctrine and organization. Protestants are fundamentally opposed doctrinally to each other and all are against the Baptists. Questions: Are they the same? Which is correct (Hint: Read your Bible!)

Two truths or a thousand truths will never antagonize one another more than two or a thousand parallel lines can cross each other. Direct inference; that which is scriptural will always be in agreement with that which is spiritual. True churches can not antagonize one another but must be essentially one in fundamental doctrines and principles having “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.” Questions: Where are you to find the Scriptural church? Why would you embrace that which embraces error in opposition to the Word of God?

Christianity is defined as being a system of divinely revealed truths and principles to be held and proclaimed in their entirety and therefore admitting no increase or diminution, can neither be conceded nor modified. Therefore, between Christianity – the gospel of Christ – and system of religion that are not Christianity, between the gospel and “a gospel which is another gospel,” there can be no compromise or affiliation.

By withholding any doctrines of Christianity in our preaching, we can no more preach the gospel of Christ than we can spell the English language without the consonants; and to agree to withhold any part of the gospel, for any length of time, to affect a compromise with those who do not hold it, is manifest treason.

Compromise is based upon mutual concessions. When affected between truth and error (Fundamentalist Movement), truth must always suffer, since error has nothing of truth to surrender. Unscriptural systems of religion and churches are counterfeits of Christianity and counterfeit churches. To associate with the teachers of these systems is to recognize them as the accredited ministers of God’s truth; we encourage them in their work and thus “bid them Godspeed” and make ourselves accessories to and partakers of their sins. This is thus performed by relationships, readings and promoting as great men of the faith.

To establish clearly the fact in the minds of all that Baptist churches are the churches of Christ, and that they alone hold, and have alone ever held, and preserved the doctrine of the gospel in all ages since the ascension of Christ.
The Tennessee Baptists met in conference at the Cotton Grove Baptist Church in June 24, 1851. A series of five questions were presented at that time. These queries were unanimously answered in the negative and Baptists in general indorsed the decision that resulted in the non-recognition of non-Baptist congregations (I have posted these questions in an earlier post, but we as Baptists must start to think and honestly consider these questions and ones like them).

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

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

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

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

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

How do Baptists (BINO’s) answer these questions today?

1. They uphold as great preachers of yesterday Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians and the likes while the Baptists fall on the wayside. Most Baptists know more about Protestants then they do about our Baptist forefathers.

2. They fill their pulpits with those that have compromised and sold out the doctrines of the faith that our forefathers shed their blood for.

3. They accept alien baptisms willingly into their assemblies, for numbers are more important than purity.

4. They conduct an open undisciplined Lord’s Table and call it “close” while maintaining no control.

5. They lose their membership (that they really never had) to more loving “evangelical assemblies” in droves; and it is no wonder because they have promoted these counterfeit churches as true churches with “minor differences.”

By the way, BINO is “Baptist in name only” – their doctrine and their practices do not support their name.     

An honest and an earnest desire to know the truth should gain ascendancy of the heart; for then there will be a willingness to adopt the conclusions to which the truth leads. “Buy the truth and sell it not,” is the language of reason as well as revelation. There is no advantage in error. So far from it, it is mischievous, hurtful, and pernicious. A false principle in science operates injuriously until its unsoundness is detected. An error committed in laying the foundation of a government diffuses its influence throughout the superstructure reared on that foundation. Error can never be harmless, and even should it be apparently so, it is owing to the counteracting presence and operation of truth. There is no truth as important as that which God has revealed in his word. All other truth yields to the superior value of truth divine. The injunction—”Buy the truth and sell it not”—is eminently wise. The truth is a jewel of such transcendent worth that it ought to be bought at any price and sold at no price. Let him who secures this jewel retain it. Let him not consider its alienation from him a possible thing. Let life be surrendered rather.

In the Universalist Baptist view of the paradox of spiritual and physical, i.e. the Church and the True Church, Spirit Baptism and Water Baptism, I have a question. What would be the Paradox for the Lord’s supper? According to the Universalist Baptist view, I can see the Lord’s table being exercised in the local assembly but what would be the spiritual invisible counterpart? If the Universalist Baptists are not careful, they will be completely Protestant in their spiritual beliefs with a Baptist name. The Universal Baptists are already two thirds of the way there. If one would study Calvin, Luther and the Catholic views of the Lord’s supper, they would have examples of a spiritual counterpart to an invisible Lord’s supper.

Another thing for the Universalist Baptist to consider is this. There are two ordinances given to the church, Baptism and the Lord’s supper. Because of the belief of a “Spirit baptism” that places all into the body of Christ, then the Lord’s table as the second ordinance must be open to all the saved and Spiritually baptized regardless of denomination or church membership. If is not open to all, then please be consistent and tell me why based on the Universalist Baptist views. What right would the Universalist Baptist have to refuse any saved person from the Lord’s supper based upon their belief system? According to their understanding, are they not all Spiritually baptized into the body of Christ? You must, according to your logic sit down and partake with professed “saved” Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. for they are all Spirit baptized into the invisible body of Christ. If they have had Spirit baptism as the first ordinance, why can’t they partake of the second ordinance being the Lord’s supper?

Protestantism has infiltrated our Baptist churches. These articles are only meant to be a help and to challenge the Universalist Baptist thinking to take a sobering look at their doctrinal views.

There are three options as pertaining to the Lord’s table (or supper):

Restricted (closed) communion, close communion, or open communion. Closed communion is only for the membership of a particular church and each participating member is known to be in good standing.

Close communion is for all that are saved and baptized and are of like faith.

However, I must state that those who practice “close” communion actually practice open communion because communion is during a public service. I doubt that a pastor of a Baptist church that practices close communion will stand up and say, “Will all the non Baptist people leave while we Baptist of like faith receive the Lord’s supper.

Open communion is for all, regardless of church affiliation.

Depending on the view that one may have concerning the church, the appreciation and understanding of the Lord’s table will differ. Those who believe in the invisible church and that it’s beginning was in the book of Acts, will practice open/close communion. Those who believe that the church is only local and visible, and that the church was started and established during the ministry of Jesus Christ, will hold the view of restricted (closed) communion, which is only to be administered to its own membership who are in good standing.

The more one studies the subject of open and restricted (closed) communion, the more one finds that there are different views in regard to the subject of water baptism. Those who hold the view of open or close communion will most likely be very lax in their understanding and acceptance of water baptism from other churches which are not of like faith or practice.

We know that there are two ordinances given to the church. The first is baptism; the second is the Lord’s table, also commonly called communion. If one is open with the Lord’s table, allowing any person to partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine, they will also accept the water baptism (immersion) from other denominations, for if both are ordinances, and if you allow one for all, then you must allow the other under the same principles of acceptance as well. I have also found that many who believe in the invisible church concept practice the acceptance of water baptisms from other non Baptist churches is arbitrary. Scriptural protocol is not used, but their opinion is the determining factor. However, those who believe that the church was started and established during the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ believe that the Baptism of John which was administered to our Lord, as well as to his apostles, is the same baptism that we have today and therefore hold to the more conservative view of perpetuity and authority of water baptism. This is one reason why we study our Baptist history and heritage. Again, I must mention that baptism is a church ordinance and whichever view the reader holds as to when the church was started, this will determine their understanding of the Lord’s table and its importance.

There are several reasons why the scriptures teach restricted (closed) communion. One reason is because of the God-given responsibility of church discipline. Church discipline is the duty of a scriptural Baptist church body to enact and enforce the commandments and laws of Christ. This would involve the charge given to the church that the ordinances are to be kept as they were delivered.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

While there is much to say on the subject, I believe that the justification of closed communion can be demonstrated with just one example of protocol in regard to the Lord’s table. In the verse below, a command is given by the Apostle Paul that we are not to sit and eat with a brother that is a fornicator, covetous, idolater, railer, drunkard, or extortioner.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? (13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

As an example, if there is a man in the congregation of the church of which I am a member, and he is a fornicator or guilty of one of the offenses listed above, I as a church member, along with the entire church body, am commanded not to eat with him. (Eating is referring to the Lord’s table, also called communion.) Under the discipline of that local church body, that man is not to be allowed to sit at the Lord’s table and is denied access because we are commanded to cast out the leaven.

1Corinthians 5:5-8 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (6) Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? (7) Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: (8) Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Consider this question: If we are to have open or close communion and one comes into our assembly and sits at the Lord’s table for communion, how are we to know if he is not guilty of one of the above listed offences? Shall we deny access to one and allow another who is guilty of committing the same scriptural infraction? Each member is to be in good standing. Church discipline is to keep the ordinances as they were delivered.

If an individual comes into our assembly as a visitor from another church that is even of like faith and practice, and partakes of the Lord’s table, and is under church discipline, we have no way of knowing. It is not the responsibility of my church to reach into the affairs of another church and investigate so he can partake. Some may not be aware, but this is the purpose of a “transfer of letter “for church membership from another scriptural Baptist church. This is to establish that the prospective church member desiring to unite with another scriptural Baptist church is not under church discipline. If he were, he would not be allowed to join until he first makes amends with the church that has him under discipline. It then stands to reason that if this person would not be allowed to join our church without such guidelines concerning a transfer letter, why should they be denied membership into our congregation but allowed to sit at the Lord’s table with us? Remember, both are local church ordinances. Being in good standing is vitally important and needs to be maintained. This is a requirement to partake of the Lord’s table. The Lord’s table is a local church ordinance, and should be restricted, or shall we say closed to “ALL” except those of its own members who are in good standing.

As one would study the scriptures, they will find that baptism administered within a scriptural local Baptist church or received from another scriptural Baptist church must be with the understanding that the essential doctrines are the same. This is why a baptism from a non-Baptist institution, i.e. Assembly of God, Bible Churches and others alike should not be allowed. The reason being, your baptism is only as good as your doctrine. This would cause a schism (division) in the body. Some may say that some these churches are Baptistic! You can be Baptistic and not be a Baptist.

Baptism and the Lord’s table are the safeguards of the local Baptist church. The ordinances are to be administered correctly with the understanding that scriptural Baptist baptism will keep out false doctrine and as a perpetual ordinance, the Lord’s table will help to maintain a membership that continues to walk in the newness of life as being dead to sin and alive unto God in all manner of conversation.

Pastor Mac G Woody

Truth Baptist Church is in agreement with this author.

This led the Episcopal clergy of Virginia to stir up social and legal persecutions against him. He was thrust into jail in Culpeper for preaching without the authority of law; abuse was heaped upon him on his way to prison; within its walls an attempt was made to blow him up with gunpowder, and on its failure an effort was put forth to suffocate him by burning brimstone at the door and window of his jail. It was also planned to poison him. His persecutions permanently injured his health; two accidents completed the work begun by State church tyranny, and Mr. Ireland entered upon his rest May 5, 1806.

[From The Baptist Encyclopedia, William Cathcart, editor, 1881; rpt. 1988, p. 585.]

Mr. Stearns received an impression, as he thought from God, that there was a great work for him to do outside of New England, and he obeyed what was undoubtedly a divine call, and started in 1754 for his expected field of labor. He had no definite section to which he directed his steps, but expecting divine guidance, he was constantly looking out for providential openings. He stopped for a time at Opeckon Creek, Va., where there was a church under the pastoral care of Rev. S. Heton. Mr. Stearns rested for a short time at Cacapon, near Winchester, but anticipating greater success in his ministry than he enjoyed in that place, he removed, with his relatives, to Sandy Creek, N. C. There, as soon as he arrived, he constituted a Baptist church of sixteen persons, “Shubal Stearns and wife, Peter Stearns and wife, Ebenezer Stearns and wife, Shubal Stearns, Jr., and wife, Daniel Marshall and wife, Joseph Breed and wife, Enos Stimpson and wife, and Jonathan Polk and wife” being its constituent members. Shubal Stearns was elected pastor of the infant church. These devoted servants of God immediately built a meeting-house for public worship. Daniel Marshall and Joseph Breed were appointed to assist the pastor in his ministerial duties.

In the region around Sandy Creek the people knew nothing of the Christian religion except what they had learned from Episcopal clergymen, who in that section, at that time, were unconverted men, and their irreligious darkness was dense. The new heart to them was an unknown mystery, and paltry and commonly unpractised duties, instead of the Saviour’s sufferings, were the only known means of salvation. The instructions of Mr. Stearns and the godly lives of the church members were an astonishing revelation to their neighbors. Soon some of them were called by the Spirit into the liberty of the gospel, and their experience filled their acquaintances with even greater wonder. A mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit fell upon the truth proclaimed by the pastor and the licensed preachers of Sandy Creek church, and as a result throngs of converts surrounded the gospel banner, and mission communities were organized far and near. The parent body in a few years had 606 members, and in seventeen years from its origin it had branches southward as far as Georgia, east ward to the sea and the Chesapeake Bay, and northward to the waters of the Potomac. It had become the mother, grandmother, and great-grand mother of forty-two churches, from which 125 ministers were sent out as licentiates or ordained clergymen. And in after-years the power that God gave Shubal Stearns and his Sandy Creek church in its early years swept over Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina with resistless force, and brought immense throngs to Christ, and established multitudes of Baptist churches. There are to-day probably thousands of churches that arose from the efforts of Shubal Stearns and the church of Sandy Creek.

Mr. Stearns traveled extensively in his own region, preaching Jesus, organizing churches, and giving counsel to the new communities which were formed. And his labors in every department of his work were remarkably blessed. Through him, in 1758, three years after the Sandy Creek church was formed, the Sandy Creek Association was organized. For twelve years all the Separate Baptist churches in Virginia and the Carolinas were members of this body. All who were able traveled from its remote extremities to attend its annual meetings, which were conducted with great harmony, and afforded such edification as induced them to undertake with cheerfulness long and laborious journeys. By means of these meetings the gospel was carried into many new places where the fame of the Baptists had previously spread. As great multitudes attended from distant places, chiefly through curiosity, many of them were charmed with the piety and zeal of this extraordinary people, and petitioned the Association to send preachers into their neighborhoods. In these Associational meetings Shubal Stearns exerted an immense influence. Other men among the Separate Baptists were conspicuous for their ability and usefulness, but in the entire body in the several States Mr. Stearns wielded a founders authority. Elder James Head, in speaking of the first meeting, says, “The great power of God was among us, the preaching every day seemed to be attended with God’s blessing. We carried on our Association with sweet decorum and fellowship to the end. Then we took leave of one another with many solemn charges from our reverend old father, Shubal Stearns, to stand fast until the end.” This Association conducted its annual meetings without a moderator for several years after it was formed, which shows the extraordinary modesty of Mr. Stearns; its harmony, when we remember that its members and ministers were nearly all new converts without experience, proclaims the great power possessed by Mr. Stearns in its deliberations.

The founder of Sandy Creek church was of small stature, had a very expressive and penetrating-eye, and a voice singularly harmonious; his enemies, it is said, were sometimes captivated by his musical voice. Many things are related of the enchanting sound of his voice, and the glance of his eyes, which had a meaning in every movement. “He managed his voice in such a way as to make soft impressions upon the heart and bring tears from the eyes, and anon to shake the very nerves and throw the physical system into tumults and perturbations. All the Separate Baptists copied after him in tones of voice and actions of body” “When the fame of the preaching of Mr. Stearns reached the Yadkin, where I lived,” says Mr. Tidance Lane, “I had a curiosity to go and hear him. Upon my arrival I saw a venerable old man sitting under a peach-tree with a book in his hand and the people gathering about him. He fixed his eyes upon me immediately, which made me feel in such a manner as I never had felt before. I turned to quit the place, but could not proceed far; I walked about, sometimes catching his eyes as I walked. My uneasiness increased and became intolerable. I went up to him thinking that a salutation and shaking hands would relieve me, but it happened otherwise. I began to think that he had an evil eye, and ought to be shunned, but shunning him I could no more effect than a bird can shun the rattlesnake when it fixes its eyes upon it. When he began to preach my perturbations increased, so that nature could no longer support them, and I sank to the ground.” Mr. Lane afterwards became a very useful Baptist minister.

It is related on the best authority that “Elnathan Davis had heard that one John Steward was to be baptized by Mr. Stearns on a particular day, and, as Steward was a large man and Stearns of small stature, he concluded that there would be some diversion, if not drowning. Therefore he gathered about eight or ten of his companions in wickedness and went to the spot. When Mr. Stearns began to preach Elnathan drew near to hear him, while his companions kept at a distance. He was no sooner among the crowd than he perceived that some of the people began to tremble as if in a fit of the ague. He felt and examined, to see if it was not a pretense. Meanwhile one man leaned on his shoulder, weeping bitterly. Elnathan, perceiving that he had wet his new white coat, pushed him off, and ran to his companions, who were sitting on a log away from the congregation, to one of whom, in answer to his inquiry, he said, There is a trembling and crying spirit among them, but whether it be the Spirit of God or the devil, I do not know. If it be the devil, the devil go with them, for I will never more venture myself among them! He stood awhile in that resolution, but the enchantment of Mr. Stearns’s voice drew him to the crowd once more. He had not been long there before the trembling seized him also. He attempted to withdraw, but his strength failing, and his understanding being confounded, he, with many others, sank to the ground. When he came to himself he found nothing in him but dread and anxiety, bordering on horror. He continued in this situation some days, and then found relief by faith in Christ.” Mr. Davis afterwards became a successful minister of Jesus. We mention these two well-known cases as illustrations of the extraordinary power attending the preaching of Shubal Stearns.

That he had a remarkable voice and eye is unquestionable; but he was eloquent, wise, humble, pathetic, full of faith, and wholly consecrated to God, and few men ever enjoyed more of the Spirit’s presence in the closet and in preaching the gospel. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest ministers that ever presented Jesus to perishing multitudes, and one of the most successful soul-winners that ever unfurled the banner of Calvary. Had he been a Romish priest, with as flattering a record of service to the church of the popes, long since he would have been canonized, and declared the “patron saint of North Carolina, and fervent supplications would have ascended to the most blessed of American intercessors from devout Catholics, and stately churches would have been dedicated to the holy and blessed St. Shubal Stearns, the apostle of North Carolina and the adjacent States.

Mr. Stearns died Nov. 20, 1771, and his remains were interred near the Sandy Creek church.

William Cathcart
The Baptist Encyclopedia Vol II. [pp. 1098-1100]