Sunday, March 15, 2009

What is "Landmarkism"?

What is "Landmarkism?"

One might naively expect Wade Burleson to at least define from reputable Landmark sources --
(1) what he understands to constitute "Landmarkism," and to
(2) demonstrate from the International Mission Board's policy on baptism exactly how it is that the IMB policy is "Landmarkist."

However, no one evidently need expect to find this in Wade's book, according to one who has read it. It appears that if you do not know what really constitutes Landmarkism, you may be no nearer to understanding it after reading what Wade says.

Peter Lumpkins has observed:

The only source cited for Landmark views in Wade's new book Hardball Religion is guess who? A man named Bob Ross. Do you know him? Not one mention, not one essay, not one writer except Bob Ross. Bob Ross is there but no other authority on Landmark is mentioned.

Inasmuch as I deny that my book agrees with what I understand to be Wade Burleson's concept of "Landmarkism," and inasmuch as I deny that my book alleges that the policy of the IMB is "Landmarkist," it seems that Wade Burleson is "up the creek without a paddle," doesn't it?

My book, Old Landmarkism and the Baptists, makes the effort to objectively define from reputable Landmark sources what really constitutes Landmarkism, and it was written years before the IMB set forth its policy on baptism. There is no way whatsoever that Wade Burleson can utilize my book to ostensibly support his arbitrary allegation that the IMB policy is "Landmarkist."

I will be happy to defend the book any time, any place, in Public Debate with Wade Burleson or any one of his choosing, and I will deny any proposition which affirms that the policy of the IMB on baptism is "Landmarkist," based on either my book or any Landmark source of Landmark doctrine on baptism.

Of course, after having had some "exchanges" with Wade on this blog, I really don't expect him or any of his supporters to engage in a public discussion (debate format) on the matter. Despite the fact that Wade has been known to frequently upbraid others for not engaging on controversial issues, I simply cannot conceive of Wade's being willing to expose his arguments to rebuttal by one whom he has quoted in his book as being a good source on the subject of Landmarkism.

"The emperor has no clothes."

1 comment:

  1. Wrong about Wade?

    I just got back from supper and took a peek to see if Wade had anything interesting on his blog. I found this remark:

    "We enjoy the feedom of debate. We appreciate differing views. We aren't threatened."

    Do you suppose Wade would "enjoy the freedom of debate" on Landmarkism?

    His remark was made in announcing that he is having the author of "The Shack," a "non-Southern Baptist," at his church in April.

    Seems I recall that President Al Mohler at Southern Seminary, who hires Hyrid Calvinists like Wade, has put the "heresy" tag on William Young's book. I don't deliberately read fiction (although I see a lot of fiction on certain blogs and Hybrid Calvinist websites), so I don't know if Young is a "heretic" or what. I don't think Mohler is all that much of a "BI" man, for he preaches for the Hybrid Calvinist Pedobaptists and has them speak at the Seminary. One of Mohler's Pedo speakers, John Frame, believes that the elect get "regenerated" before they are born. We had an article about Frame on The Calvinist Flyswatter a few months ago. HERE

    At any rate, I just wanted to mention what Wade said about "debate," for it made me think he might debate on "Landmarkism" after all . . . since he enjoys the freedom of debate.

    It might be a good format for selling some of Wade's books, and that might have a bearing in favor of his debating, don' you think?