|
Return to Table of Contents Return to Landmark Baptist Church Homepage
Landmarkism Under Fire
A Study of Landmark Baptist
by Elder J.C. Settlemoir Chapter 13 - Landmarkism and Landmarkers Misrepresented I believe the Advocates of EMDA, and others, have not only misrepresented Landmarkism but I believe they have also misrepresented the old Landmarkers and J.R. Graves in particular.[439] Some of these misrepresentations to which I refer were published in BBB and in Bro Cockrell’s book SCO and need to be corrected. SCO 2nd edition was just recently reissued,[440] but without any corrections on these misrepresentations. First, let me deal with the case in which one EMDA advocate changed
what This changed version of Bro. Pugh made many changes (I estimate about two hundred) in this
document without giving the reader any idea of what he had altered, deleted,
changed or addedBand he
did all of these! One of the most significant changes Bro Pugh made in this
document was in “Six Important Doctrines” number 4, which was Because I had read this standing editorial of Graves before,
I recognized instantly that in doctrine number 4, But in order to write the Editor of BBB and Bro Pugh to protest
this change in item number 4, in particular, I needed a copy of the original so
as to verify the exact changes introduced. I emailed Bro. Pugh and asked him
for an original copy.[445]
He never replied to this request. I did not write Elder Cockrell, editor of
BBB, because he was extremely ill at that time, and I would not disturb him
during his illness. Thus, I made the trip to the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary Library, in When I wrote Bro Pugh the second time[446]
about his changing Graves’ words, he responded telling me that he believed If this was the case, Bro Pugh was responsible to give references
to prove his proposition! In fact, if this was the case and he had such quotes,
that would have made the reversal of 1. He changed 2. He admits he knew 3. Without these references (which he has never supplied) he
produced a false version of While I have not read the nearly 40,000 pages of The Tennessee
Baptist–The Baptist–The Baptist Reflector,[450]
I am familiar with most of Graves published books and I have never seen a line
which teaches EMDA in any one of his books and none of these men have produced
one quote from J.R. Graves, from any source, to support the idea that he ever
held to EMDA. Where is the evidence In this article Bro Pugh made Graves speak as if he believed EMDA,
a theory which These are not new ideas,[451] but are consistent with Biblical, Baptist doctrines that we believe are taught in the Word of God and have historically been embraced by sound Baptists.[452] But these ideas (in the item discussed) are new ideas! These
ideas were not the ideas of The Baptist! These ideas were not the ideas
of J.R. Graves! These ideas were not the ideas of Landmark Baptists! Nor were these
the ideas of Baptists historically! And because these ideas are so novel EMDA
advocates could not find an old Landmarker who said what they wanted him to say
they took This is a plain example of making Graves’ written words say
something Graves never meant and which his words could never mean and so in
order to make Graves say what Bro Pugh wanted him to say he had to add to them,
and by so doing he falsified
All
can see Graves’ article has been significantly and materially altered by adding
two things which “been organized by an ordained man or men having authority from a pre-existing These are some of the hobby horses of EMDA and they never fail to trot them out, even if they have to alter the facts, as was done here. After
reviewing the original of The Baptist I wrote Bro Cockrell, the editor
of BBB, and Bro Pugh, expressing my protest against this perversion of The
article by Bro. Pugh said ‘Adapted and edited by Curtis Pugh.’ I suggest you
get the dictionary and look up the word ‘edited.’ The one on my desk says: ‘to
alter, adapt, or refine esp. to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit
a particular purpose.’ Hence I plan no apology nor do I intend to do what you
suggested[453] What
I suggested was that Bro Cockrell apologize to his readers for perverting the
words of Graves and to publish both articles side by side, as I have done, so BBB readers could see what had been done
to Isn’t it interesting that this “Adapting & Editing” never was used in BBB before, at least so far as memory serves me? Did anyone ever see any article in BBB besides this one by Bro Pugh which said: “Adapted & Edited”? It was obviously a new idea. It was an attempt to alter what someone wrote and to do it in such a way as to justify the change. I will not censor these men but state what they themselves admit they did. Of course, if J.R. Graves had changed his position from self
constitution to EMDA,[454]
this would have been the time and place for Bro Cockrell to bring forth the
evidence of such a change. If Graves had changed his position Bro Cockrell
could have replied to me as follows: “This ‘Adapting & Editing’ was
justified because Graves changed his position from self constitution which he
once believed to mother church authority and here is the reference to prove
it!” That would have made their case for changing Bro Cockrell thought it quite irresponsible for someone to say JohnR. Gilpin did not believe in a link chain of churches, or in one church organizing another church. He said: “First I would say that I personally knew John R. Gilpin, and I know this is a terrible misrepresentation of his views on ecclesiology.”[455] But why is it that changing the statement of John Gilpin is “a terrible misrepresentation” but to change the statement of J.R. Graves’ is acceptable? Can the mere word editing justify this disparity? If anyone else changes what a man said it is a “terrible misrepresentation.” But if they do it, is it right because they were editing or adapting! One can only assume that others have the same right to reverse a man’s word as they do. Bro Cockrell was well aware of this need to make sure you represent anyone you quote correctly. He said, concerning quotes in SCO: Also I have taken the liberty of putting quotes from Old English into Modern English. Great care was taken so as not to change the meaning intended by the original writer.[456] Why this great care in one instance so as not to change the meaning intended by the original writer but a total disregard in another? Why be so careful in modernizing “Old English into Modern English” so as not to change the meaning but on the other hand to argue you can completely reverse the meaning as long as you are editing? Was it not editing when he changed ME[457] to Modern English? Thou shall not bear false witness, is as much God’s Law today as it ever was and if I mistake not, it pertains even to editing and adapting–if you change the meaning! You cannot change the meaning of what a man says or writes and give it out as his word and not violate the Law of God, editing, adapting, or what-have-you, notwithstanding. To do so is to make the commandment of God of none effect, Mt 15:6. I
will let J.R. Graves make his own defense. When he was debating Jacob Ditzler
in All
can by this see that from the beginning to the end, Schleusner has been
perverted by Elder Ditzler, to teach what he never said, and contrary to what
he did say. I appeal to every scholar present, here are the books, and to every
scholar on the continent, [passes them over to scholars, and to Dr. Talbert].
Such a course with an author is as unwarranted, as I believe, it is
unprecedented in its grossness and flagrancy. If he has treated one lexicon
thus, before our eyes, what have we not a right to expect of the many from
which he has quoted here that we have not the opportunity to examine? I do
therefore, as I am amply justified in doing, challenge every authority he
quotes in this discussion, the full text of which he does not submit for
examination. I cannot take what my opponent avers an author says, nor his
translations, unless he submits the text of the author.[459] Now
in this case J.R. Graves has been perverted by these brethren to teach what he
never said, and contrary to what he did say! This is indeed “as unwarranted
.... As it is unprecedented in its grossness and flagrancy” because Bro Pugh added
words which changed the meaning and put a lie in To illustrate this kind of editing I have adapted and edited a quote from Bro Pugh’s book, Three Reasons For The Baptists: ‘Landmarkers’
or ‘Landmark Baptists:’ Baptists who maintain the historic Baptist (and we
believe, Biblical) position regarding the nature, origin and succession of true
churches and which teach three or more scripturally baptized members may
constitute themselves into a Church of Christ are often called and
sometimes call themselves ‘Landmarkers.’ — Adapted and Edited by JCS[461] Can Bro Pugh deny me the right to do this to him when he contends he can do it to J.R. Graves? Or is this a one way street? How did Bro Pugh like this editing? His silence states much! What
Pugh Made You must have ordained men to organize a
church–“Each true Bro
Pugh forced Is it right to put a lie in a man’s mouth? These brethren contend it is if you only say “Adapted & edited”! Powerful words! Pitiful argument! What Here
are ‘Wherever
there are three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church or
churches covenanted together to hold and teach, and are governed by the New
Testament,’ etc., ‘there is a church of Christ, even though there was not a
presbytery of ministers in a thousand miles of them to organize them into a church.
There is not the slightest need of a council of presbyters to organize a
Baptist church.’[463] Rice Changed Spurgeon This
handling of Some
think that Christ died, and yet, that some for whom He died and who trusted
Him will be lost. I never could understand that doctrine.[464] This
change by Rice was censored by Bro Bob Ross in The Baptist Examiner.[465]
Few men would defend this kind of thing. But according to Bre Cockrell and
Pugh, the only mistake Rice made was he failed to say “edited” or “adapted”!
Why would it be right for Pugh to change It is significant that Bro Cockrell made this charge against someone (he never told us who it was) who said Bro John Gilpin did not believe in EMDA. His words are: Any
person who alleges that either of these two men[466]
did not believe in a link chain of Baptist churches has knowingly and
deliberately misrepresented the views of these old brethren. To assert such
denotes a degree of prove-something-at-all-costs unexcelled in the history of
theological debate.[467] Suppose those who said such things about these men were only giving the words of these men after Adapting & editing! After all, one would think, other editors and writers have as much liberty as the editor and foreign missionary of BBB. Have Landmarkism and the old Landmarkers been misrepresented? Footnotes [439] Cf. Bob Ross, Robert Ashcraft; Tull; Patterson; Barnes. [440] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, 2nd edition, 2003. It was issued after Bro. Cockrell’s death.
[441]
Cf. J.R. Graves. Great
[442] Lam 3:36. [443] BBB. “Principles Policies & Practices Consistent with Biblical Baptist Doctrine”, Adapted & edited by Curtis Pugh” p. 101.
[444]
Some of the papers Graves edited from 1846 to near the end of his life
in 1893, are: The
[445] June 14, 2001. [446] July 15,2001.
[447]
“I believe that Bro. Graves came in his later life to the position which I hold
on the manner of church organization, but I have not with me the books
necessary to prove this.” I. e., in
[448] See Appendix I.
[449]
That is at the
[450]
Cf. Albert W. Wardin, Jr.
[451]
Referring to
[452] BBB. June 5, 2001, p. 112.
[453]
Bro Cockrell did later publish my letter to Bro Pugh concerning this matter, BBB.
August 5, 2001, p. 157, but the italicization was eliminated and thus the
readers of BBB still could not know
the changes made and how
[454]
As Bro Cockrell read the correspondence between Bro Pugh and myself, and as he
did not at any time make the claim that Graves had changed his position, from
self constitution to EMDA, raises the question, did these brethren know all
along
[455] Milburn Cockrell. Scriptural Church Organization, p. 71. 19 Op. cit. p. ii. 20 OE is 7th century to 1100 AD; ME from 11th to the 15th century. [456] Op. cit. p. ii. [457] OE is 7th century to 1100 AD; ME from 11th to the 15th century.
[458]
J.R. Graves. Great
[459] Op.cit., p. 350. [460] 1 Pet. 2:12. [461] My editing is italicized so the reader may see what I have done if he does not have the book, Three Witnesses For the Baptists, by Curtis Pugh, p 125. Three Witnesses is a good book. [462] The emphasized portion was added by Pugh.
[463]
J.R. Graves quoted in
[464] John R. Rice added the italicized words.–JCS.
[465]
The Baptist Examiner. April 13, 1957,
p. 3; Cf. Also TBE, Feb. 29,1957, p. 2. Column:
I Should Like to Know.
[466] John R. Gilpin and Roy Mason. Cf. Appendices II and III. [467] Milburn Cockrell. SCO, p. 71. |