Thread: Baptist churches not true churches?

Scott Clark wrote this on his blog:

"We would discipline someone if they left OURC and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect.

I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments. Arguably the best reading of WCF 25 is that that when it says that it is a “great sin” to “contemn” baptism to take it as a reference to the newly organized particular and slightly older regular baptist movements. The first London confession was in ‘44.

Here's the link {Clark's quote found in 4th to last comment}:

How the CRC Looked to Machen in 1936 Heidelblog

Aside from the Protestant Reformed, does anyone here know if any Reformed/Presbyterian churches have held/hold to this position? This question is important for some pastoral/eldership situations I am presently involved in, so some feedback here would be appreciated.

Oh my. Machens Warrior Children indeed. And it is Scott Clark and Mark Dever in the ring ready to duke it out

My PCA in the Metro NY Presby does not hold to this position at all. I know because of somebody thinking of leaving for a Grudemite Church. And we even have Baptists as members who take communion Of course I realize the PCA is not considered truly Reformed in some camps.

So you look at Colossians 2 and say baptism is circumcision, a sign of the covenant people. And the next guy looks at Romans 6 and says it is a sign of death and resurrection and union with Christ. I have NEVER NOT ONCE heard a paedo reference Romans 6- not once!!!! And I never in all my former years as a craedo NOT ONE SINGLE TIME heard reference to Colossians 2. Never. Both sides have some work to do.

Excommunication over this? I assume that is what the word discipline entails? May God have mercy on Clark and Dever and all the rest who seem to be doing great harm with this subject.

Originally Posted by mvdm

Aside from the Protestant Reformed, does anyone here know if any Reformed/Presbyterian churches have held/hold to this position? This question is important for some pastoral/eldership situations I am presently involved in, so some feedback here would be appreciated.

Mark,

The Canadian Reformed churches have often been said to hold to "Our church is the only true church." While there were some who definitely held that position, I think we've moved almost entirely away from that.

But even in the high days of this way of thinking, as far as I know no one was ever placed under discipline for attending a Baptist church. In fact, when I was a youngster and my Dad was in the RCMP, we were stationed in the Yukon and NWT, where there are no Reformed churches. Our Canadian Reformed church (where we retained our membership) encouraged us to attend a Baptist church. This was in the late 1970s.

But I do know that in the history of the Reformed churches, the approach that Scott mentions has been found. See here.

Scott Clark's comments may be tanamount to closing the door after the horse has left the barn. If a member of his denomination flies the coup, discipline will be nothing more than an administrative exercise. Seems as though, with some, the spirit of the Reformation is akin to the spirit of partisanship. I'm not too worried by the esteemed doctor's comments as they are from a distinct minority position.

Before I majored in Biblical Studies/Theology, my academic career began as a psych major. Sounds like someone who is now an esteemed professor in a Reformed school must have started out in a baptistic church and has undergone what the shrinks call "reaction formation."

The logic of RSC's position would mean that none of us on the PB who hail from Baptist/ic churches are part of a valid church. If we are not part of a valid church we cannot qualify to be members of the PB which requires church membership. Oops! Administrators, you better get your pruning knives out now! There are some of us bad seeds even among the ranks of the mods!!! "Grab the women and chill'ins." "We have a security breach in Sector 2. We have a security breach in Sector 2." "The Baptists are coming . . . the Baptists are coming!!!"

Scott's logic is sound, based on his premises. There are others on the PB who disagree in principle with allowing the LBCF to qualify people for membership in this board for much the same reason. If one interprets the absence of baptism for infants as a grave sin, then how can one fellowship with those who not only practice such but teach it?

If I were to put on my moderator hat (not a good idea now that I have weighed in on this subject), it would be to urge the mods to keep an eye on this thread so that it does not spin out of control into name calling and the like. Differences over baptism are among the most contentious issues we face on the PB.

I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church.

(emphasis added)

If proper administration of the sacraments is a sign of a true church, and Baptists are not properly administering the sacraments, then it follows that they aren't a true church. Dr. Clark's reasoning is solid there, even if we don't like it.

But I think it's impossible to establish that a church is false if it doesn't properly administer the sacraments. There are many other commands that are given to the NT church and I don't see why this particular one is an identifier of a true church whereas others are not.

In some interviews that I listened to from some members of the founders ministries they said that Presbyterian chruches were 'irregular' churches.

Originally Posted by christianyouth

[If proper administration of the sacraments is a sign of a true church, and Baptists are not properly administering the sacraments, then it follows that they aren't a true church. Dr. Clark's reasoning is solid there, even if we don't like it.

If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?

Originally Posted by Mayflower

If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?

Without getting too involved -- The above statement would not follow, for the same reason that Roman Catholic baptisms were historically accepted by the Reformed churches. How much more the baptism of those who preach the true gospel!

We have Baptists attending our OPC because he, the pastor, was thrown out of his church because he was preaching reformed theology. We gladly accept him in our church and my pastor would never think of disciplining him on his credo beliefs. My pastor doesn't believe he is fully reformed, but that pastor and his family are fully accepted in our worship. Of course if the Baptist pastor wanted to become a member and hold office in our church, he would have to be paedo. Credo-baptists are our brothers and sisters in Christ not a sect.

I agree with McFadden's diagnosis of "reaction formation." It seems to be a common thread among ex-Baptist ex-dispensational Reformed people. One would think that more moderate language is in order, especially since there are more gospel-preaching Baptists in Greenville, SC than in RSC's entire denomination. When a minority like that starts describing others in terms such as "not true churches," the word that comes to mind is "bluster." In some ways, he sounds more "fundamentalist" than the BJU students around here.

If Baptists are not a "true church," then my own baptism is invalid since I was immersed in a Missionary Baptist church. But then, I'm not a Donatist.

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

The Canadian Reformed churches have often been said to hold to "Our church is the only true church." While there were some who definitely held that position, I think we've moved almost entirely away from that.

That is very good to hear. This issue actually came up, Wes, during the ARP's General Synod (mentioned by a Canadian minister). We were voting on whether to approve the CRC as a member of NAPARC (not that our voted would have mattered, as you have already secured the minimum number of votes), and someone asked about the "only true church" mentality. We were assure that the CRC had moved away from this -- obviously evidenced by the desire to be a part of NAPARC.

And, yes, we all voted "aye"!

Not CRC MM, CanRC...

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

In some interviews that I listened to from some members of the founders ministries they said that Presbyterian chruches were 'irregular' churches.

Some of them certainly are

Judging by anecdotal data, America is FULL of irregular churches!!!

Where's Dr Clark? I wanna hear some of his comments on this issue.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by Mayflower

If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?

Without getting too involved -- The above statement would not follow, for the same reason that Roman Catholic baptisms were historically accepted by the Reformed churches. How much more the baptism of those who preach the true gospel!

Most reformed churches accept the Roman Catholic baptisms, but not all reformed churches agreed with that. For me that is the most contradicted teaching of many presbyterian churches whom are accepting roman catholic baptism !!!!

blah blah blah..... all the same charges could be said by baptists towards presbies.

You baby dunkers aren't true churches either it could be said.


But, who REALLY believes that?

At least most baptists and presbies alike are charitable enough to call the other one merely "irregular" instead of altogether "invalid."

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Judging by anecdotal data, America is FULL of irregular churches!!!

There's only one solution:

We also need some EK-LAX (short for Ekklesia lax) for those with constipated ecclesiologies.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by Mayflower

If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?

Without getting too involved -- The above statement would not follow, for the same reason that Roman Catholic baptisms were historically accepted by the Reformed churches. How much more the baptism of those who preach the true gospel!

Not in U.S. South. It was quite the opposite. See Thornwell & Co.

Wow. I didn't know that some Presbyterian Churches took that stance on Baptism. I know that many baptist churches only count a baptism as valid if it occurred after they got saved.

For those that believe in infant baptism, why is it such a big deal that infants get baptized? Is it because you hold the same view as Calvin on baptism or is it for other reasons?

Originally Posted by Gator_Baptist

For those that believe in infant baptism, why is it such a big deal that infants get baptized? Is it because you hold the same view as Calvin on baptism or is it for other reasons?

Why is it so important? Because we understand it is the command of God as a part of his instituted worship. A cursory reading of the fundamentals of Reformed or Covenant theology will explain the position. You might want to explore the Baptism forum here, or the PaedoBaptism Answers subforum. If after reading some of those threads, you would like to ask questions about the subject, please feel free to use the PaedoAnswers forum, where I am sure many will be more than happy to assist!

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by Gator_Baptist

For those that believe in infant baptism, why is it such a big deal that infants get baptized? Is it because you hold the same view as Calvin on baptism or is it for other reasons?

Why is it so important? Because we understand it is the command of God as a part of his instituted worship. A cursory reading of the fundamentals of Reformed or Covenant theology will explain the position. You might want to explore the Baptism forum here, or the PaedoBaptism Answers subforum. If after reading some of those threads, you would like to ask questions about the subject, please feel free to use the PaedoAnswers forum, where I am sure many will be more than happy to assist!

Thank you very much. I will check it out.

The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.

Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.

"Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Originally Posted by Gator_Baptist

For those that believe in infant baptism, why is it such a big deal that infants get baptized? Is it because you hold the same view as Calvin on baptism or is it for other reasons?

Why is it so important? Because we understand it is the command of God as a part of his instituted worship. A cursory reading of the fundamentals of Reformed or Covenant theology will explain the position. You might want to explore the Baptism forum here, or the PaedoBaptism Answers subforum. If after reading some of those threads, you would like to ask questions about the subject, please feel free to use the PaedoAnswers forum, where I am sure many will be more than happy to assist!

I have the highest respect for Paedobaptists who hold that baptizing their infants is a matter of significant importance. To follow one's conscience is an honorable thing and when I see that in my paedobaptist brethren it warms my heart.

Originally Posted by sastark

The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.

Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.

"Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."

It is fine to call the wrong administration of an ordinance "irregular" but to call a church not a true church due to an irregular administration of a sacrament is over-the-top.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by sastark

The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.

Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.

"Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."

It is fine to call the wrong administration of an ordinance "irregular" but to call a church not a true church due to an irregular administration of a sacrament is over-the-top.

Unless I misunderstand, what you just said is in contradiction with most reformed theologians, as well as the WCF. The proper administration of the sacraments has long been regarded as a mark of the true church. I suppose the question is: do Baptists properly administer the sacrament of Baptism? Dr. Clark obviously thinks "no".

Then, again, both baptists and presbies must charge the other with being a false church; which most would see as lacking in common sense.

I like the irregular versus invalid distinction.

Originally Posted by sastark

The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.

Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.

"Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."

Indeed, and thank you.

Unless I misunderstand, what you just said is in contradiction with most reformed theologians, as well as the WCF. The proper administration of the sacraments has long been regarded as a mark of the true church. I suppose the question is: do Baptists properly administer the sacrament of Baptism? Dr. Clark obviously thinks "no".[/QUOTE]

This is why most Baptist hold to the 1689 LBCF and not the WCF.

Chapter 29: Of Baptism

1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )

2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )

3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 )

4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )

Originally Posted by sastark

The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.

Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.

"Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."

The difference being that most Baptist churches (at least of the Reformed variety) would not accuse Presbyterians of not being members of a true church.

Does one have to agree with Clark in order to hold office in the URC?

Bill gets at the heart of the difference. According to the law of non-contradiction A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. While none of our eschatological views may be correct, it is obvious that they cannot ALL be correct. The incorrect ones are wrong . . . or false. The same would be true of baptism.

While Baptists and Presbyterians may BOTH be incorrect in their views of baptism, they canNOT both be right. At least one side is wrong. To label the wrong one an error or false is not beyond the pale. The dispute comes in what we do with that information. If we are so convinced that we are correct and that disagreement about such is not merely wrong but something that invalidates one's claim to be a church, then Dr. Clark's argument would follow quite reasonably. One could, I suppose, make the same claim about whether one was EP or not EP. Insofar as one MUST be "false," does that error impugn the validity of the church since it would be teaching "falsely"???

Personally, perhaps I'm letting my seminary-of-origin skirt show here, but I am not prepared to brand as that which makes a church "invalid" all things with which I am in disagreement, even strong disagreement.

During most of my ministry, the logic of infant baptism was lost on me. It just seemed like a superstitious hangover from tradition without any solid Biblical warrant. In more recent years, however, the inexorable logic of the covenant has been chipping away at my former position considerably. One of our PB brothers even called me an "erstwhile Baptist" en route to the paedo side. But, whether I am right or wrong on baptism, I do not believe that such difference can be made to invalidate a church, except by a very sectarian reading of "rightly administer." Due to the interconnectedness of all doctrine, one could also argue in the same vein that theological errors regarding eschatology invalidate one's claim to being in a true church since the Word is not being "faithfully" preached if it is admixed to errors, even in eschatology.

[Oh, and for the record (being in the minority obviously doesn't bother me that much), when I pastored in Baptist churches, we accepted Presbyterians upon profession of faith without requiring re-baptism.] And, we ALWAYS encouraged them to partake in communion whether they were members of a Baptist church or some other Christian church.

I looked at the original RSC quote and it was one of several comments on a blog thread that perhaps may have been written in haste? The word discipline, assuming he means Matt 18 church discipline, implies that the end result is to treat the person as an unbeliever. Excommunication is a very solemn thing where hopefully the person realizes that he is being treated as an unsaved pagan due to his grievous sin, and must repent.

I find this whole thing to be so wierd.....I mean, would even the most far to the right Reformed paedo think a Baptist is an unsaved pagan? Spurgeon was a pagan? John Piper?


Between that and all the credo remarks recently from National leaders about not serving communion to a paedo, as if the paedo is not fit to partake of the Lord's supper, I do think the holy spirit must be grieved.

DMc I appreciated your posts.

On subjects like this where emotions can run high, let's be careful not to impute meaning beyond authorial intent to people's statements and actions. For instance, withholding the supper from one (whether rightly or wrongly) does not mean the withholding church does not consider the denied recipient unsaved or a pagan. It simply means ecclesiastical and doctrinal matters prevent formal fellowship. It is similar to a church member being under discipline and not receiving the sacrament for a time.

Here's the funny part. If Dr. Clark's church contacted the wandering member's new "church" and informed them that "so-and-so" was under discipline, and the baptist "church" was actually pretty good and took discipline seriously, it would be faced with an interesting set of choices:
1. Disband because OURC doesn't think well of them
2. Discipline someone for coming to their "church"
3. Congratulate the wandering member on a fortunate escape
4. Rebuke OURC for sectarianism

Originally Posted by py3ak

Here's the funny part. If Dr. Clark's church contacted the wandering member's new "church" and informed them that "so-and-so" was under discipline, and the baptist "church" was actually pretty good and took discipline seriously, it would be faced with an interesting set of choices:
1. Disband because OURC doesn't think well of them
2. Discipline someone for coming to their "church"
3. Congratulate the wandering member on a fortunate escape
4. Rebuke OURC for sectarianism

Ruben, make this a poll and we can have some fun with it!

Ouch. But, despite the views held by a very small minority I pray that Churches do not practice this type of 'discrimination'. And before the rest of my Baptist brethren jump up in arms, I have heard this type of criticism leveled at paedobaptists in the past. We have often hosted brothers and sisters in our church who were not Baptist and we have always welcomed them at the communion table and embraced them as fellow believers.