As I see it, Methodist and Presbyterian churches do not preach the Gospel without adding to it works for salvation.You must be sprinkled(or poured on or even immersed, if you can get them to do it) to be saved. The Methodists are the most honest about it. Their Discipline is pretty straight foward. The Presbyterians will deny it but it comes to be about the same thing as the Methodists according to their Confession.I was raised in the Episcopal church and they are 100% into water salvation.

I would ask you if you think “baptizing” babies to save them is in the Gospel. If not, why work with those that do as they preach another Gospel? If it is wrong, can you see the apostle Paul watching a baby “baptism” going on and not saying something against it? Do you think he would count those who do such as brethren as they tell the parents, and the child later on, that the child is a saved person? I don’t think so and if you are honest, neither can you.I think Landmarkers are Scriptural to not work with those who are preaching the deadly error of baptismal salvation.

Even if a person was immersed as a Methodist or a Presbyterian, why should a Baptist church accept it? It was done for the wrong reason and from an organization which preaches another Gospel.They don’t believe as Baptists do so I would say that their immersion is invalid.They have in the past either denounced immersion or treat the idea as something of little consequence. Read those works that Graves responded to in his time. His stance was no stronger than those he opposed. it seems strong because so many of today’s ministers are weak kneed and effeminate in comparison.

Thanks for the post & comment thread. I think it’s telling for some, that when history is on their side, at least the way they read it, it is paraded as worthy, wonderful, winsome. Yet, if ever the “other side” quotes it or happens to marshall evidential historic meaning, “let’s get back to the Bible” is the standard mantra.

I do not tire repeating–if for no other reason than the humor I find in it–that the first first dipper of water from our fore-fathers’ well was drawn here.

Have a great weekend, Tim & Debbie.

Tim,
Welcome, I repeatedly emphasized that I did not believe a “movement” is a foot.

I did not label anybody a Landmarker, I simply pointed out similarities. I am trying to understand the root of a thinking that requires the re-baptism of so many that in my opinion were properly immersed and should be accepted. I simply pointed out McBeth’s observations about the lasting influence of Landmark ideas.

After 15 years of ministry in 4 different churches from Illinois, NC, VA. and now finally here in St. Louis, I would have to concur with McBeth’s observation that: Landmark ideas are “deep into the bloodstream of Southern Baptists. ” The ecclessiology that I was taught growing up in a SB church as a kid was Landmark. I have encountered people in every church that held to strict ideas concering the orinances and ecclessiology.

The first church I joined out of the Army with my young family was one that held to a strict re-baptism of anybody that was not baptized in a SB church (IL). I thought it was an oddity until I saw the new policy.

There are two issues concerning SB that are historical facts but have become the skeletons in the closet that everybody wants to act as if they are not there
1. Landmarkism
2. Racism

In my opinion, neither are alive today as a system or a movement, but both are present realties in, who knows how many, SB churches.

TC

Great research – wrong connection!

Thanks for the info about re-baptizing arminians.

I am aware that there are Landmark Baptists. I do not feel that the current policy was made by those who are “Landmarkers” but the policy certainly is Landmark in nature. Would you agree?

TC

Actually there are plenty of Landmark Southern Baptists left within the Southern Baptist Convention. I started a website to try and bring some fellowship between a few of these men It is called the Landmark Southern Baptist e-mail list and is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/ I know of Landmark Southern Baptist pastors and churches in just about every state in the union. When Ben Bogard lead many Landmarkers to leave the SBC in 1905 to form the ABA, many refused to leave and stayed in the convention where their descendents remain today.

As far as Baptists rejecting the immersions preformed by groups that rejected eternal security, I would present this evidence:

“Found in the Minutes of 1824:
‘Should a person on profession of his faith, receive baptism by immersion at the hands of a minister who is of the same faith, but of another and Arminian denomination, on a change of sentiments and a desire to come into union with a regular Baptist church, be required to submit to the ordinance again? Answer in the affirmative.’” From “History of the Georgia Baptist Association”
compiled at the Request of that Body by Jesse Mercer, Washington, GA, 1838, pp. 136

This is referring to Free Will / General Baptists who were of the same faith (believer’s immersion), but held to full-blown arminianism (losing your salvation). These Baptists believed these type of baptisms should be rejected.

More later,

Ben