Thread: Baptism and polity?

The two historical differences between Presbyterians and Baptists are polity and baptism. My question is whether there is any necessary connection between these two doctrines?

In other words, why haven't there been Baptists who adopt Presbyterian polity without changing their view of baptism?

Why haven't there been Presbyterians who change their mind about baptism without accepting Baptist polity?

It seems like when people change their mind on one issue, they adopt the other as well.

These thing do come in packages don't they.

They seem to, but why?

I'm wondering if there are some closet "Presbyterians" among Baptist churches, longing for a more connected polity.

Maybe there are even some Presbyterians who think about credobaptism, but can't handle the independent polity.

Connectionalism (in albeit a modified form) is not absent from confessional Reformed Baptist churches. ARBCA is an association of over 60 congregations who cooperate together on many iniitiatives, have a coordinator and an annual general assembly while retaining the independance of the local church. This is in a long historical line of Baptist Associationalism that stretches back in America to the Charleston Association right back to the London Baptist Association that drafted the 1677/89 confession. The main difference is that ARBCA RB's would not see the GA as being "above" the authority of the local church and that the elders are members of and accountable to their local churches (unlike the Presbytery system). The ARBCA GA is a cooperative effort that is subject to the local churches not vice versa. As an RB I agree with almost all of Witherow's book "The Apostolic Church:What is it?" that you are required to read in your first year at GPTS with obvious differences on the interpretation of Acts 15 (I think it is the fifth principle if memory serves). There are also other RB Associations - a francophone one in Quebec, Canada, others in Italy and other parts of the world.

As for baptism, the Evangelical Free Church allows for both credo and paedobaptist positions based on a pragmatic approach.

Anyone from the Free Presbyterian Church care to comment on this?

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

They seem to, but why?

I'm wondering if there are some closet "Presbyterians" among Baptist churches, longing for a more connected polity.

Maybe there are even some Presbyterians who think about credobaptism, but can't handle the independent polity.

As a Baptist I do want a form of Presbyterian polity in our churches. From my experience and talking to other Baptists, one of the greatest problems afflicting baptist churches is a lack of church discipline. I think moving towards a more presbyterian polity would help alleviate some of this. In the SBC for the most part, deacons double as elders. This would also be taken care of in moving towards a more presbypolity.

My pastor and I joke that if it wasn't for paedo-baptism we'd be presbyterians.

Here is a stab at a guess of a possibility of a partial answer . . .

Credo baptism, at least for the Baptists emerging from English congregationalism, arose at a time when the new idea of democracy was in ascendancy. And it virtually exploded in popularity in the context of frontier revivalism. The idea of "choosing" to be baptized was rising at the same time as the democratic impulse in America. The individualism of the autonomous Baptist congregation is all about independence, freedom, choices, and self-determination. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see how a country "drunk on freedom" would become individualistic in polity and averse to church discipline.

So, yes, I do see some connections for Baptist polity and credo baptism. However, I'm not equipped to comment on Presbyterian history.

One wag made the observation that when we look at the Bible, we tend to find the political structures we are most familiar with already. Episcopal polity reached its zenith during a monarchical era. Presbyterian polity looked an awful lot like the parliamentary system in England. Baptist polity became the structure of choice for those in democratic situations. ???

I think you're quite right in drawing a historical correlation between national polity and church polity. It makes sense historically. My question is, why in this age of eclecticism are we not seeing more crossover?

I mean, we have charismatic Calvinists and dispensational Calvinists and all sorts of strange blends. I would expect that someone would merge Presbyterian polity with credobaptism, or paedobaptism with an independent polity.

It's somewhat of a psychological question. You have a guy like Fred Malone, who joined Presbyterianism because of Calvinism and just kind of went along with the paedobaptism. I wonder how many people shift affiliations because of one dominant doctrine, but never really work out some of the secondary issues. But, nobody really wants to be a loner out in middle ground, so perhaps shouldering some discomfort seems preferable.

It has to go much deeper than that. The basic difference between the two camps seems much more a question of the nature of God and continuity.

A question for Charlie to test a hypothesis I've been thinking about for years. You say if it weren't for credo baptism you'd be Presbyterians. Now ask yourself whether you two, as well as the majority of your church supported the Iraqi war. In all the Reformed churches I've been to in the last several years Presbyterians have tended to oppose the war and Baptists support it. I've noticed it even on Reformed websites and forums. I think it's another basic difference, specifically whether or not the Church is the true Israel and that the modern Jews and nation of Israel are just another another country or are special. I wonder if others reading can see how that fits into the question of continuity just as much as whether circumcision of babies is carried over into baptism of babies, or not. There are other examples that we can explore as well, and I'd appreciate feedback.

Yes, this issue involves around continuity versus discontinuity. Baptists allow for more discontinuity between OT and NT.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Here is a stab at a guess of a possibility of a partial answer . . .

Credo baptism, at least for the Baptists emerging from English congregationalism, arose at a time when the new idea of democracy was in ascendancy. And it virtually exploded in popularity in the context of frontier revivalism. The idea of "choosing" to be baptized was rising at the same time as the democratic impulse in America. The individualism of the autonomous Baptist congregation is all about independence, freedom, choices, and self-determination. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see how a country "drunk on freedom" would become individualistic in polity and averse to church discipline.

So, yes, I do see some connections for Baptist polity and credo baptism. However, I'm not equipped to comment on Presbyterian history.

One wag made the observation that when we look at the Bible, we tend to find the political structures we are most familiar with already. Episcopal polity reached its zenith during a monarchical era. Presbyterian polity looked an awful lot like the parliamentary system in England. Baptist polity became the structure of choice for those in democratic situations. ???

Maybe around the time of Roger Williams did this democratic church polity become a source, but before this in the time of Edwards ,they baptized every person in the community , whether they were faithfully attending or not. It was a rite of passage so to speak.

Originally Posted by TimV

It has to go much deeper than that. The basic difference between the two camps seems much more a question of the nature of God and continuity.

A question for Charlie to test a hypothesis I've been thinking about for years. You say if it weren't for credo baptism you'd be Presbyterians. Now ask yourself whether you two, as well as the majority of your church supported the Iraqi war. In all the Reformed churches I've been to in the last several years Presbyterians have tended to oppose the war and Baptists support it. I've noticed it even on Reformed websites and forums. I think it's another basic difference, specifically whether or not the Church is the true Israel and that the modern Jews and nation of Israel are just another another country or are special. I wonder if others reading can see how that fits into the question of continuity just as much as whether circumcision of babies is carried over into baptism of babies, or not. There are other examples that we can explore as well, and I'd appreciate feedback.

Tim,

Sorry, but my experience has been the exact opposite. Actually, with the exception of this board and the internet, almost every Reformed church has been supportive of the war (to some extent or another). I have seen almost none of the attitudes prevalent on this board in Reformed churches.

The Iraq war is a necessary protection, there are good reasons we should be involve. But protection involves protecting our pockets as well. I cant understand how our coming to the aid of an oil rich nation and also in dollars, and not having a return to us. Its easy spending someone else s monies.
Gods going to turn back to His people, but its a mystery as to the how its going to transpire.

Originally Posted by mybigGod

The Iraq war is a necessary protection, there are good reasons we should be involve. But protection involves protecting our pockets as well. I cant understand how our coming to the aid of an oil rich nation and also in dollars, and not having a return to us. Its easy spending someone else s monies.
Gods going to turn back to His people, but its a mystery as to the how its going to transpire.

I'm not trying to have a discussion on the merits of the war here - this thread is not the place for that.

I was merely trying to point out a discordance withe the presumption about who supports the war. I would also point out that very many of the war's opponents here on the PB are baptists.

I was not really just responding to your question. I just was wondering whether this was something that other people had thought about. Since we all live i a country that we are determined to support a war whether we say we support it or not , then i was just wondering in a collective sense whether in anyone else s mind, that they would think that this was ironic? I hope you did not think i had a lack of respect by my question.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Tim,

Sorry, but my experience has been the exact opposite. Actually, with the exception of this board and the internet, almost every Reformed church has been supportive of the war (to some extent or another). I have seen almost none of the attitudes prevalent on this board in Reformed churches.

Most PCA people, it seems, support the Iraq war...

Back to the original question, you did have infant baptism and congregational government in the puritan era amongst the Congregationalists. There you had a waxing and waning attempt to form associations that exercised discipline. You might have had a plurality of elders or not depending on the local congregation.

I like the historical answer given by Mr. McFadden. I also think there is a link between polity, baptism, and covenant theology which accepts the littlest ones into church membership and expects the entire congregation to be involved in rearing that child to walk all his days with Christ.

Tim,

Sorry, but my experience has been the exact opposite. Actually, with the exception of this board and the internet, almost every Reformed church has been supportive of the war (to some extent or another). I have seen almost none of the attitudes prevalent on this board in Reformed churches.

Thanks, Fred. My observations could probably be more cultural demographics, being in California and all.

Originally Posted by mybigGod

Maybe around the time of Roger Williams did this democratic church polity become a source, but before this in the time of Edwards ,they baptized every person in the community , whether they were faithfully attending or not. It was a rite of passage so to speak.

???
Roger Williams (December 21, 1603–April 1, 1683)
Jonathan Edwards (October 5, 1703 – March 22, 1758)

Williams was a Bapist (for a few months anyhow) while Edwards was a Congregationalist.

Originally Posted by TimV

It has to go much deeper than that. The basic difference between the two camps seems much more a question of the nature of God and continuity.

Agreed. Discontinuity reigns in most Baptist thinking; CT evidently owns the patent on continuity. Maybe that is why there are mediating positions seeking to mix the two.

Now ask yourself whether you two, as well as the majority of your church supported the Iraqi war. In all the Reformed churches I've been to in the last several years Presbyterians have tended to oppose the war and Baptists support it. I've noticed it even on Reformed websites and forums.

"Baptists" in the mainline are often quite progressive politically. "Baptists" in other groups may be quite conservative. Most of my "Baptist" friends were strong supporters of the war here in So. Cal. Most of my old ABC friends in the east would consider Obama too conservative!

"Baptists" in the mainline are often quite progressive politically. "Baptists" in other groups may be quite conservative. Most of my "Baptist" friends were strong supporters of the war here in So. Cal. Most of my old ABC friends in the east would consider Obama too conservative!

Thanks. I was thinking about the divide in the conservative Reformed camp that I'm familiar with, and Baptists tended to support a neocon agenda which was focused entirely around concern for Israel's safety, and Presbyterians tended to believe both sides of that Mideast conflict could go ahead and kill each other off. And I just plugged it into this idea I've had.

But as Fred said (and it has to be mentioned that he's in the South) his experience is the opposite, so I guess I'll have to drop that as an example of a belief held to or a course of action followed that has it's origin in a view of church continuity.

Oh, well. It was kind of an overly complecated hypothesis anyway;-)

Originally Posted by jwithnell

I like the historical answer given by Mr. McFadden. I also think there is a link between polity, baptism, and covenant theology which accepts the littlest ones into church membership and expects the entire congregation to be involved in rearing that child to walk all his days with Christ.

General societal trends do not rule out countercultural mini-trends. Baptists may have become more popular, in part, because that is the direction the culture at large was moving. However, that does not mean that you can't have a Great Awakening, under the leadership of congregationalists.

A few years ago Barna was confidently predicting that the church of the future would be a big box seeker sensitive program-driven mega church. Now he is equally confident that the house church is the wave of the future. MANY small churches flourished back then, just as MANY mega churches do now despite Mr. Barna's readings of our cultural tea leaves.