Old Landmarks

In his book, Old Landmarkism What Is It?, written in 1880, J. R. Graves sought to explain the appellation given to the strict view of the church he espoused, Landmarkism. He pointed out that J. M. Pendleton, in the tract "An Old Landmark Reset," had stated that the name came from Proverbs 22.28, and was intended as a term of opprobrium, not one of approbation.

Graves’s narrow ecclesiology does not have widespread appeal today. Yet, while we might not accept his definition of church, we still can appreciate his attempt to clarify the concept. Graves was involved in his day’s debate over the nature of Baptist life. He attempted to make sense of the changes of his day.

Baptists have been changing, or growing, since the birth of the movement in 17th century England. As alsays has been the case, some in Baptist life have viewed change with great fear; others have adopted overwhelmingly any and every change. Most wonder how to make sense of all that takes place in their time.

The key, as most recognize, is found in understanding historical Baptist principles. As Baptist life has grown and developed, certain truths have provided the foundation for the changes. If the principles are changed, then a new entity comes into existence, a kind of hybrid being. Again, some reject the new growth, others embrace it.

For those, such as I, who wish to preserve the name Baptist and the truths such name represents, some changes are unacceptable. We ask the question, "How far can one go in adopting new beliefs without moving past the boundaries that define Baptist life?"

In a current series of sermons, I have presented a broad view of Baptist history as a prelude to several sermons on Baptist biblical and theological distinctives. The first message on theology was entitled, "Bible Freedom or a Distinctive Authority." (Among other resources, I am using Stan Norman’s More Than Just a Name, and Walter Shurden’s The Baptist Identity.) Historically, what Baptists have believed has been firmly rooted in Scripture.

The second message had the title "Soul Competency or Soul Freedom." In this message in particular, I sought to show the tension that exists among Baptists today over how to understand this important tenet of our denominational life.

One writer, in an on-line article, defined his own view of this doctrine. For him, soul competency means that each individual should be able to interpret Scripture "according to the dictates of conscience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

The question raised in my mind by that assertion is whether conscience should inform our understanding of the Bible, or the Bible set the standard for our conscience. One must legitimately ask if this "conscience standard" is a traditional Baptist distinctive, or a new one.

From the earliest days of Baptist life, matters of conscience, whether about infant baptism or relations with the state, were first and foremost matters of Scripture. Early Baptists arrived at new understandings of church practices based on their studies of the Bible. So, the truth of Scripture informed the consciences of those early Baptists. Had they first had an informed conscience about state interference in religion, why would those early dissenters have needed a Bible?

So, we must raise the question of competence. Let’s say that a Muslim is converted to Christianity. How competent is this new believer to interpret Scripture, based on the dictates of his conscience? Scripture itself recognizes the limits of human competence, and freedom, by the way, to interpret the Bible "for oneself." While a person might make an individual decision to trust in Jesus, nevertheless, he immediately is placed into a vital corporate relationship within a body of believers. In that context, under the tutelage of pastors and teachers called by God, individual believers, under the authority of a local congregation, learn how to understand the Bible.

If a person becomes a part of a Baptist congregation, he will learn how Baptists understand the Bible, and how Baptists are distinguished from other groups. Thereafter, if he retains his Baptist character, that believer will exercise his competency, and limit his freedom, within the boundaries of Baptist life. To not do so is to become something other than a Baptist.

Where uninformed, untrained conscience is the arbiter biblical truth, one quickly ceases to be Baptist.