I have a retraction to declare. This retraction is a very difficult retraction to make since it affects my entire theological outlook of the church. First and foremost I am a Reformed Baptist and remain Baptistic. I hold dearly to the 1689 Confession of Faith minus one chapter now. My theology has changed some in the past year. I have come to No instruments in the worship and singing only psalms. I have even come to accept the Holy Spirit working in the Old testament in the same way has the New testament. The indwelling of the Spirit of God, the law written on the heart of old testament saints..

What now follows is my retraction of the Independant Church Government. I now hold to a Presbyterial church government, and view the independant system as only as a reactionary against the state churches and romanism. And independancy is a sin of individualism and lone rangerism and is contrary to the Word of God.

I have always been told that Acts 15 was for the apostles era which has always made me leary since I could not find anything in the New Testament that said that would cease like the gift signs does. Now that deny that answer with my utmost. Luke 22:66 calls the Old testament Sanedrin a Presbytery in the Greek and if the Old testament Sanedrin is a Presbytery it starts to show a continuing Office from the Old Testament. Now factor in that Timothy is told to ordain elders in every city with the laying on of hands by the Presbytery (Oh there is that word again) we see that it is suppose to continue throughout the New Testament era and just apostles times. Now view Acts 15 in the mix and it completes the picture of a continuing function of a Presbytery. I might also add that Acts 15 is a binding counsel NOT a nonbinding counsel. So I see a number of scriptures decribing the function of the Presbytery. Ordaination in Timothy, Faith and Practice in Acts 15, Church discipline in Matthew after local church, and for erroring Pastors.

What does this mean for me... I guess it means I am a hybrid.. A Presbyterial Reformed Baptist.

Now that's a Hard one...
Michael

__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland

[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]

[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]

Michael - if you believe independency is sin, then you are not a Baptist. No matter what else you say, you have set yourself against Baptist polity and practice. You may be an unwilling Presbyterian, but you are not a Baptist.

Oh...and I am offended at your characterization of Baptist churches as sinful. If Baptist churches are sinning, then they cannot be a real church. If they are not a real church then brother Rich Lenio is sinning by attending a Baptist church in Okinawa. Please do all Baptists a favor and just call yourself a Presbyterian.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Bill, are Paedobaptists sinning by baptizing the infants of believers? If so, from the Credo perspective, the churches are sinning...does that mean we should say that those churches aren't churches? Just trying to follow you're thinking...not trying to get a paedo-credo debate going.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

My history study has shown some baptist in the past held to Presbyterial polity and not independency, some from the Primative Baptist groups and others. So I also guess the 1689 General Assembly is not a counsel?

I do not agree that polity makes or breaks a Baptist... Baptism Does...
I will stick to the term Presbyterial Reformed Baptist....


Also, I am not saying baptist church are not churches....

Have a Good Sabbath
Michael

Here's an interesting quote to consider:

That's from Louis Berkhof's Introduction to Systematic Theology, p.24

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness. -George Orwell

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

Michael - there are Presbyterians that practice credobaptism. Baptism alone is not the only distinctive of Baptist churches.

Baptist churches in America do have conferences and associations, but they have no ecclesiastical authority. There may be some smaller Baptist denominations that hold sway over member churches, but that would be a distinct minority among Baptists.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession lacks ecclesiastical authority. Our Presbyterian brethren recognize the Westminster Confession of Faith as an authoritative document. Individual Baptist churches may view the 1689 LBC similarly, but their is no ecclesiastical body that enforces the 1689 LBC.

You wrote:

Allow me to be charitable. Perhaps you do believe Baptist churches are true churches. But doesn't it strike you as contradictory that a true church exists in a state of constant and willful sin?

Josh - I don't believe paedo's are sinning (although paedo's believe credo's are sinning). I disagree with paedo baptism but I'm willing to extend liberty in an area that has been debated since at least the Reformation. I also don't believe Presbyterian polity is sinful. I believe their is liberty in this area also. I know that many of my Presbyterian brethren would not be as charitable in turn, but that is something they have to deal with.

Ok, wouldn't you have to concede that, according to Credobaptist theology, if you don't think paedobaptism is valid and churches are doing it, then it's a break in the RPW? Or do you not hold to the RPW?

Josh - I hold to the RPW with a very weak grip. Go ahead. Throw the "he's a heretic" brick!

Forgot to add this to my last response. IMHO the RPW is not a commandment. It has latitude. It is a guideline. Some would say that EP is part of the RPW. Right there you're going to have a fight on your hands within the ranks of the PB. I choose to exercise liberty in the RPW.

Have you ever seen me say or imply such a thing toward a person? I'm not setting you up for anything...I'm just trying to follow your logic, specifically with consistency. It's my thinking that if a credo believes paedobaptism is not biblical, he should consider it sinful, since according to the credo it's going beyond what scripture teaches. Turn the tables, I think the paedobaptist should see it as sinful that the credo is not doing what they think the Bible teaches as well. But, more specifically to this thread, you implied that if one thinks independency is sin, then he should believe that Baptist churches are sinning. You then said that if the Baptist church is sinning, it's not a church. Maybe I'm misreading something...

First...dear brother I am not accusing you of labeling me a heretic. That is why I used the emoticon. I was trying to make a funny. My bad.

Second...I honestly believe that there are areas of doctrine that have systemic disagreements within the church. These areas of disagreement have to be weighed as to whether they are inherently sinful or whether they are a difference of interpretation. There is a very good possibility that I am trivializing the momentous. From the bottom of my heart, I believe that if two opposing theological systems are in disagreement that does not mean one or the other is sinning. I am convinced that our limited, finite mind is not able to grasp complete theological truth in every area. That does not mean we fail to seek the truth. We continue the quest for truth until the Lord calls us home. I believe sin creeps in based on how the disagreements are articulated. Often times the niches we create in order to hold to our positions are the real culprits.

Regarding what I said about Baptist churches and sinning, allow me to explain. If Michael actually believes independent Baptist churches are sinning by being independent, perhaps he should ratchet up the argument a bit and consider whether Baptist churches are actually true churches. I mean after all, if a professed believer continues in willful and unrepentant sin we would question his profession. Should it be any different for a church that is made up of believers? I guess I am asking that we send our true colors up the mast for all to see.

P.S. I am not suggesting that every theological issue is open to liberty.

I understand, completely. I knew you weren't accusing me, but I genuinely wanted to know if I'd ever come across in such a manner. I wasn't offended at all.
I don't know. I'd think that one, or the other, or both has to be sinful. Not that it's intentionally so, but sinful nonetheless.
Well, the problem with this would be that the churches in question wouldn't think this was sin, thus it would be in their own estimation unrepentant, willful, sin-seeing as how they think they can defend their position from scripture.
Gotcha.

Josh - I guess I'll just have to be wishy-washy on some areas. Maybe I should label a spade a spade in areas of baptism or church polity. I'm not there at present. I'm just too nice a guy.

Hello Michael. Your story sounds very much like mine. My journey from London (I was a 1689 Confessional Baptist) to Heidelberg (Three Forms) by way of Westminster happened in much the same way. I saw the mess and schism that is independency, and came to presbyterial convictions around the same time that I found acapella psalm singing to be the wisest and most biblical way to worship in song.

It didn't take long, though, for me to begin to have doubts about credobaptism as a result of my change of view with regard to church government. Here's the issue: if presbyterian church government is biblical, then the credobaptists had no right to separate from the established churches because of their independently derived position on baptism. If the presbyterial model holds, then the right way to go about handling doubts about baptism would be to follow the process of taking the issue to session, presbytery, and ultimately assembly. So for the English Baptists that were present at Westminster (or at least petitioned the Assembly with respect to baptism), once the Assembly had ruled that paedobaptism was the biblical position, shouldn't the Baptists have given up their independent take on scripture, and submitted to the ruling of the church? If nothing else, that fact alone should cause them to seriously reconsider their position, and be ready to admit that they could very well be in error.

So while I too found myself for a short time having to wear a tag saying "Presbyterial Reformed Baptist", I wasn't able to wear it for long, because I found that I was unable to defend credobaptism without invoking the principles of independency. There is a reason that the two issues go together for 99.999% of churches; ultimately holding to the one necessitates the other.

__________________
Philip A - Member, High Desert United Reformed Church, Apple Valley, CA.

"Reason also is choice" - Milton, Paradise Lost
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:XXXII.
"where there is text, there is hope" - Richard A. Muller

While I disagree with what you believe, I appreciate your honesty in shedding the Baptist label when, in fact, you were no longer a Baptist.

Just a couple of notes.

"So for the English Baptists that were present at Westminster (or at least petitioned the Assembly with respect to baptism)..."

There were no Baptists in the Assembly. They were not invited. There were, however Paedobaptistic Independents (i.e. Congregationalists).
See this link for a list of pastors and theologians:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/AssemblyMembers.htm

Baptist churches can still be considered true churches so long as they do not hold a heretical view of the Lord's Supper (and some baptist churches do), or obviously some cultic or heretical doctrine of fundamentals. Ecclesiology will not unchurch a true church. Biblical Ecclesiology prevents independent sectarians from being an ecclesiological train wreck, but that will never a church. Bad theology, or the wrong administration of the sacraments will.

On the "Presbyterian Reformed Baptist" thing, if you are considering this according to ecclesiology, that fish won't swim. It just doesn't exist. If you mean according to the sacraments, then simply say "I'm a baptist attending a presbyterian church." There are a number of independent churches that still hold to non-instrumental EP but you just have to find them.

On the "your church is in sin" thing, well, that is something one cannot get around if they are either a Presbyterian, or sectarian. One or the other presses the issues with the other team that they ahve made a serious mistake in either the sacraments (Christ's work in beleivers) or ecclesiology (Christ's authority over beleivers.) If one is right, by necessity, the other is sinning. But again, that does not unchurch a church unless it is a matter of cardinal truth - like an issue around salvation, grace, justification, law and gospel, the nature of the Supper, etc.

Just some thoughts.

__________________
C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D.
John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon.com, www.apuritansmind.com and www.puritanpublications.com
Member - Christ Presbyterian Church, Professor at WTS for Puritan History & Theology.

Suggested Tag: "I'm not user friendly."

Life Maxim: Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
Like Card Magic? Check out: www.cardconjurer.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Phillip,

I wonder if you could explain more about the part in your last post I bolded. Regardless of your view on church government, I am not sure the bible any where asks believers to submit to the church irregardless of what the scripture teaches. If the English baptists truely believed the bible teaches believers baptism, then they should not at all have submitted to the church in this matter. Whether or not they would remain in that church or leave is prehaps another discussion.

I agree that going against your teachers ought to be something done in extreme carefulness. But to say we ought to just submit to the church against our biblical convictions is going to an unbiblical extreme. The bible itself teaches that sometimes we must go against the established 'church' (Job 32:6-10, Ps 119:99-100, Acts 24:14).

__________________
Mark
Independent baptist
Singapore

According to Acts 16:4, the decision of the Jerusalem Council was disseminated to the individual congregations "for the people to obey" (NIV); "to keep" (ASV); "to observe" (NASB); "for observance" (ESV). In other words, the decisions of the Council were not to be considered as merely pious advice with take-it-or-leave-it status, but as being authoritative, with the individual churches being expected to follow it. Thus, Acts 15, connected with Acts 16:4 (along with many other places in Scripture), serves as one of the kernels of the presbyterian system of church government.

Another place where presbyterian church government can be found, in principle, is in Exodus 18:13-27, where Moses is advised, by his father-in-law Jethro (ancestor of Jethro Bodine) to split his judging activities with leaders of the various tribes because he was unable to carry that burden alone.

More than you wanted to know, I'm sure, but Acts 16:4 gives us the understanding of the nature of the decision of Acts 15.

Baptists and Congregationalists will disagree, but I believe that presbyterianism is the only system of church government to be found in the Scriptures.

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

"When I cease to preach salvation by faith in Jesus, put me into a lunatic asylum, for you may be sure that my mind is gone." - Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)