Baptists & Presbyterians Together?

[C. M. Sheffield]

I'm curious as to how many of you believe there could be a serious denomination which brought Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians under the same roof. I know that the FPCNA and the CREC have managed to pull it off. Why haven't we (i.e. PBers) looked at this more seriously. In fact, the CREC (putting aside their error for the moment) have what I believe is a pretty good model for doing just what I'm talking about.

For the sake of discussion, if that (i.e. CREC church order) was the model in question, what would be your objections or conditions?

I for one, would be thrilled at the prospect!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am not sure the CREC is a denomination as much as an affiliation like the ARBCA. The best model for your thinking would be the Free Presbyterian Church that you refer to. I don't think you can separate the errors of the CREC from what it is doing. It is a renegade thing where men go who don't want to be held accountable to their adopted confession of faith. I am not sure the accountability nor oversight is present in the CREC. But I could stand to be corrected.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

No, there more presbyterian than ARBCA and less so than most Presbyterians. Something of an hybrid. Which, on its face, is neither erroneous nor heretical.

And you didn't really answer the post.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

No, there more presbyterian than ARBCA and less so than most Presbyterians. Something of an hybrid. Which, on its face, is neither erroneous nor heretical.

And you didn't really answer the post.

I'm curious as to how many of you believe there could be a serious denomination which brought Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians under the same roof.

1. In truth I don't believe it is a good idea. There are two many differences in ecclesiology and theology. As I noted above I believe the best model of this is the Free Presbyterian Church you referred to. Not the CREC for the reasons I gave. The FPC still has one set of Ecclesiology. It is Presbyterian and not congregational. The CREC is a Federation of both. The differences are big. I got into a discussion about this awhile back if you remember. You were one who opposed my thoughts on that basis alone.

Why haven't we (i.e. PBers) looked at this more seriously.

2. We have discussed this on the PB before. If you want I will try to take time and do a search for you if you don't want to. But it is getting late.

In fact, the CREC (putting aside their error for the moment) have what I believe is a pretty good model for doing just what I'm talking about.

Refer to answer 1.

For the sake of discussion, if that (i.e. CREC church order) was the model in question, what would be your objections or conditions?

Answered this already also.... I believe I tried to answer your questions in the first post. Sorry if I didn't hit the nail on the head.

This thread is something we discussed a few years ago. It might shed a bit of light.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/response-grudem-baptism-church-membership-23890/#post293561

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Just to jog your memory here are a few quotes you made...

PuritanCovenanter,

For clarity: Are you advocating presbyterian polity for RB churches?

As it stands, your comments thus far constitute a redefinition of historic Baptist ecclesiology and its commitment to the autonomy of the local church.

I am not necessarily taking away autonomy. Being in an association and submitting to it is voluntary. But violating the beliefs of the confession would be cause for removal, or discipline, or for a try at recovery and restoration.

That takes away autonomy!

A higher ecclesiastical court imposing discipline (for who knows what?!) on a local church is an out-n-out abrogation of a church's autonomy - An usurpation of its divine right of governance!

An objection I have that I've yet to voice is to the idea that "unity" is accomplished by external organization. This simply isn't so. Unity for Reformed Baptists is found not in an ecclesiastical bureaucracy but in our mutual faith in the Gospel, chiefly summarized in the Baptist Confession of Faith, and our cooperation with one another through ARBCA (which is a fairly new assembly of Confessional Baptists).

Though I would support changing ARBCA's name to something shorter and more user friendly. Five words is a mouth full. Four maybe. Three's a charm (e.g. Reformed Baptist Association - RBA). Just my


This has some relevance to our conversation:

Various schemes have been proposed by the wisdom of men for amalgamating the different Christian denominations. All these originate in the erroneous conception that the unity of the universal church must be found in external organization. To effect the union sought for, compromises are required of the several parties, and the individual conscience must yield to the judgment of the many. All these schemes of amalgamation are inconsistent with the Baptist faith. We seek spiritual unity. We would have every individual to stand on Bible ground, and to take his position there, in the unbiassed exercise of his own judgment and conscience. There we strive to take our position; and there, and there only, we invite our brethren of all denominations to meet us.

J. L. Dagg
Manual of Church Order (pp. 303-304)​

So, are you seeking to change ecclesiology? That is a big hurdle.

 

[KensingtonerRebbe]

Any Presbyterian church body which sought union with Baptists of any variety would putting its relations with the Reformed (with whom they have much more in common) in serious jeopardy(See BC Art. 29). Although I'm not sure this group would probably not be welcome at NAPRC.

Sounds quite misguided to me.

 

[Wayne]

Instead of pondering a mixture of Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps it would be more profitable to wonder why Baptistsm, by themselves, have to be congregationalists? Why couldn't Baptists have a structure of connectional courts (akin to Presbyteries) and a more binding national meeting (General Assembly)?

As to the CREC model, that group specifically has a polity with woefully insufficient safeguards.

 

[jwithnell]

We share the same dogma, but we don't share the same doctrine in many cases, including church gov't and the way covenant theology seeps into just about all things Presbyterian. We can walk in unity of faith, but must respectfully differ in our denominations.

 

[TimV]

The CREC is a collection of misfits.

To answer your question, the anabaptist tradition sees the world differently than Reformed people, so there's really not much in common as opposed to say Lutheran churches. I can just imagine one of my kids transferring membership to a church of that hypothetical denomination in another town and having them say "well, ah, no, you can't be a member unless you submit to being baptised again".

 

[Michael]

How would church membership be defined in the denomination?

 

[KMK]

A denomination of Reformed Baptists? These Baptists would have to discard their Reformed confession and would no longer be Reformed.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Look, when some of you bash CREC's model of polity because the local congregations have more autonomy than do most Presbyterians, don't go off and attribute that to their errant views in other areas. The subtle insinuation is that one could only arrive at a polity like that (i.e. more autonomous) if one embraces FV. That's false.

I can say without reservation that FV is error while at the same time acknowledging CREC church order as a possible model for other denominations.

I was using CREC only as an example for the sake of conversation. Perhaps I should of known that everyone would have gotten hug up on them instead of interacting with my real question.

Michael,

My thoughts are that there would be Baptist and pædobaptist congregations. Those desiring baptism would be baptized in accordance with the practice of the church to which they applied. I believe the EFC receives into membership those from sister churches regardless of the baptismal practice of the sending church. Perhaps there is a better way of handling it but I'd have look into that a bit more.

 

[TimV]

Would you ordain an elder who refused to get re-baptised?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

A denomination of Reformed Baptists? These Baptists would have to discard their Reformed confession and would no longer be Reformed.

Why? Each local church would have either the Belgic, Westminster, Savoy or Baptist Confession of Faith as its confession. Any of these would be considered acceptable. But each church would necessarily have to adopt one of those confessions. Why couldn't that work?

 

[Reformed Baptist]

I am for a unity among these groups. How and when I don't have a clue. But I do wish it with all my heart and would support it.

 

[JBaldwin]

Who would give up their theological views for the sake of unity? The reformed Baptists or the Presbyterians?

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Who would give up their theological views for the sake of unity? The reformed Baptists or the Presbyterians?

Count me as the dreamer that believes we can (and will) come to the unity of the faith and be of one mind.

 

[Particular Baptist]

Rev. Sheffield I'm with you on this. Personally, I think that the best way to integrate both groups would be through a hybrid which would lean more congregational than presbyterian in government. Perhaps the best example of how both groups can come together isn't so much the Free Presbyterians as it is the Old Calvinistic Methodists of Wales. Their 1823 Confession of Faith allows for differing points of view on the issue of baptism, but yet allows both to worship together and come together.

The thing that I think both sides would have to agree on is that only those who are visible saints are full members of the church. Those who are raised by credobaptist parents would be raised the same way that their paedobaptist counterparts would be, except they would make a professsion of faith and be baptized and therefore become full members at a certain age, perhaps 18 or 21, and if they are still showing visible signs of regeneration. The same would apply to those baptized as infants, except they would have to give a profession of faith in their teens before the whole congregation before being allowed to take communion and gain full membership at the same age that their credo counterparts would.

But, overall, I think that full membership would have to be based upon visible sainthood and signs of regeneration.

 

[Marrow Man]

Would I like for Baptists and Presbyterians to be able to coexist together in one denomination? Yes. Do I think it will ever happen? No.

Reformed Presbyterians can't even agree to get together in one denomination.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Look, when some of you bash CREC's model of polity because the local congregations have more autonomy than do most Presbyterians, don't go off and attribute that to their errant views in other areas. The subtle insinuation is that one could only arrive at a polity like that (i.e. more autonomous) if one embraces FV. That's false.

I can say without reservation that FV is error while at the same time acknowledging CREC church order as a possible model for other denominations.

I was using CREC only as an example for the sake of conversation. Perhaps I should of known that everyone would have gotten hug up on them instead of interacting with my real question.

Michael,

My thoughts are that there would be Baptist and pædobaptist congregations. Those desiring baptism would be baptized in accordance with the practice of the church to which they applied. I believe the EFC receives into membership those from sister churches regardless of the baptismal practice of the sending church. Perhaps there is a better way of handling it but I'd have look into that a bit more.

Pastor Mike, I tried to interact with your question from the ecclesiology situation. What part of that did I not interact with? I sort of asked the same questions you are asking in the thread about 1689ers coming together and ecclesiology. That was just amongst Baptists and it received major criticism as it probably should have. If the Bbaptists can't be unified amongst ourselves how can this happen when the Baptists are so different from the Presbyterians in ecclesiology? I even reposted your thoughts on the matter above without reference to the Federal Vision.

What question have we not addressed? Can you restate your question so we can specifically address what you believe we are not addressing?

I too long to be Unified but see to many doctrinal problems.

BTW, JWhitnell the Particular Baptist do what we do precisely because of what is revealed based upon Covenant Theology. It permeates the whole model of our theology. Even our view of what is a Covenant Child in the New Covenant.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/covenant-head-covenant-children-349/

Check out some of my blogs on Covenant Theology.


http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter

 

[littlepeople]

I would have voted yes, if the "reformed" qualifier was dropped.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Who would give up their theological views for the sake of unity? The reformed Baptists or the Presbyterians?

No one. As I just stated:

Each local church would have either the Belgic, Westminster, Savoy or Baptist Confession of Faith as its confession. Any of these would be considered acceptable. But each church would necessarily have to adopt one of those confessions. Why couldn't that work?

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

I would have voted yes, if the "reformed" qualifier was dropped.

 

[Grillsy]

Because the individual churches would not be confessing the same standards and therefore would be in substantial disagreement on a major issues.
An experiment like this would result in a VERY loose unity at best and become a complete boondoggle at worst.
For the sake of this supposed unity we would have many churches teaching many different things. Essentially it would be no different from independent congregations today. Even with some sort of loose government.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

So let's say we decide to visit a 1689 congregation on a communion Sunday. According to them, my wife and I cannot partake because we were both baptized prior to our conversions. (She as an infant by a Roman Catholic priest, me at age 11 in a pond at the "Jesus Festival" 4 years before I put my faith in Jesus.) So what's the point of some kind of external unity if we can't even commune there? (Let alone transferring membership due to a relocation in the area.)

 

[Particular Baptist]

Personally, I would not go with the idea that each congregation has separate confessions. One confession should suffice for the whole denomination, association, convention or whatever type of unity it would be called. Again, I think that such a confession could be worded in such a way that 1.) it leaves out mention as to whom and how baptism is to be administered, while confession what both sides see baptism as symbolizing and a necessary sacrament of the church, or, 2.) it confesses that both practices would be allowed in the denomination and that the issue should not divide visible saints.

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

Here's a quote from the 1823 Calvinistic Methodist Confession on Baptism

38. Of Baptism.
Baptism is an ordinance which Christ, as King, instituted in his church, to be observed to the end of time (a), and to be administered only by ministers appointed and sent by Christ himself (b). It is duly administered by sprinkling or pouring water on the baptised person, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (c). It should be administered but once on the same person (d). All who profess themselves believers, and their infant children, have a scriptural right to this ordinance (e). It is an emblem of their death unto sin, and of newness of life unto righteousness (f). This ordinance is not essentially necessary to salvation; yet it is a sin wilfully to neglect it, inasmuch as that would be an act of disobedience to a positive command of Christ (g). It should be administered publicly in the congregation, except when circumstances require it otherwise (h).

Addendum (Added in 1874) We also recognize in addition to the form referred to in Article 38 the validity of Believer's Baptism by immersion or effusion, and the dedication of infants. The doctrine of Baptism as an ordinance is something to be decided by each individual believer after studying the Scriptures and seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rich Koster]

We would have to make timing and method of baptism a matter of conscience. This would appear to work on paper, but in reality we would end up respecting each other, but inwardly disagreeing when the opposing timing/method is practiced. I believe parallel camps, that don't hurl rocks at the other, is the more honest and charitable way to go.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Personally, I would not go with the idea that each congregation has separate confessions. One confession should suffice for the whole denomination, association, convention or whatever type of unity it would be called. Again, I think that such a confession could be worded in such a way that 1.) it leaves out mention as to whom and how baptism is to be administered, while confession what both sides see baptism as symbolizing and a necessary sacrament of the church, or, 2.) it confesses that both practices would be allowed in the denomination and that the issue should not divide visible saints.

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

Here's a quote from the 1823 Calvinistic Methodist Confession on Baptism

38. Of Baptism.
Baptism is an ordinance which Christ, as King, instituted in his church, to be observed to the end of time (a), and to be administered only by ministers appointed and sent by Christ himself (b). It is duly administered by sprinkling or pouring water on the baptised person, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (c). It should be administered but once on the same person (d). All who profess themselves believers, and their infant children, have a scriptural right to this ordinance (e). It is an emblem of their death unto sin, and of newness of life unto righteousness (f). This ordinance is not essentially necessary to salvation; yet it is a sin wilfully to neglect it, inasmuch as that would be an act of disobedience to a positive command of Christ (g). It should be administered publicly in the congregation, except when circumstances require it otherwise (h).

Addendum (Added in 1874) We also recognize in addition to the form referred to in Article 38 the validity of Believer's Baptism by immersion or effusion, and the dedication of infants. The doctrine of Baptism as an ordinance is something to be decided by each individual believer after studying the Scriptures and seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

OK, so it seems that this clause would still exclude sola-credo-baptist Baptizers. Provision is simply allowed for "individual believers" to abstain from undergoing paedo-baptism (presumably on behalf of their children, though this is not clear from the text.) This would essentially be what you have in most congregations of the OPC and PCA: Baptists may join and abstain from having their kids baptized as infants as a matter of conscience, but they may not be ordained as officers in the church.

 

[Particular Baptist]

Personally, I would not go with the idea that each congregation has separate confessions. One confession should suffice for the whole denomination, association, convention or whatever type of unity it would be called. Again, I think that such a confession could be worded in such a way that 1.) it leaves out mention as to whom and how baptism is to be administered, while confession what both sides see baptism as symbolizing and a necessary sacrament of the church, or, 2.) it confesses that both practices would be allowed in the denomination and that the issue should not divide visible saints.

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

Here's a quote from the 1823 Calvinistic Methodist Confession on Baptism

38. Of Baptism.
Baptism is an ordinance which Christ, as King, instituted in his church, to be observed to the end of time (a), and to be administered only by ministers appointed and sent by Christ himself (b). It is duly administered by sprinkling or pouring water on the baptised person, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (c). It should be administered but once on the same person (d). All who profess themselves believers, and their infant children, have a scriptural right to this ordinance (e). It is an emblem of their death unto sin, and of newness of life unto righteousness (f). This ordinance is not essentially necessary to salvation; yet it is a sin wilfully to neglect it, inasmuch as that would be an act of disobedience to a positive command of Christ (g). It should be administered publicly in the congregation, except when circumstances require it otherwise (h).

Addendum (Added in 1874) We also recognize in addition to the form referred to in Article 38 the validity of Believer's Baptism by immersion or effusion, and the dedication of infants. The doctrine of Baptism as an ordinance is something to be decided by each individual believer after studying the Scriptures and seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

OK, so it seems that this clause would still exclude sola-credo-baptist Baptizers. Provision is simply allowed for "individual believers" to abstain from undergoing paedo-baptism (presumably on behalf of their children, though this is not clear from the text.) This would essentially be what you have in most congregations of the OPC and PCA: Baptists may join and abstain from having their kids baptized as infants as a matter of conscience, but they may not be ordained as officers in the church.

I don't see the article as stating that. I think that it's simply stating that one's stance on baptism is not reason to bar them from membership. Where does this say that 'sola-credo-baptist Baptizers' would be excluded from being church officers. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Calvinistic Methodist and a credobaptist yet he was a minister. The confession is silent on the matter of who should be or should not be ordained as an officer of the church. The confession seems to lean towards the practice of the EFCA and FPC, which ordain both credo and paedo ministers.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Personally, I would not go with the idea that each congregation has separate confessions. One confession should suffice for the whole denomination, association, convention or whatever type of unity it would be called. Again, I think that such a confession could be worded in such a way that 1.) it leaves out mention as to whom and how baptism is to be administered, while confession what both sides see baptism as symbolizing and a necessary sacrament of the church, or, 2.) it confesses that both practices would be allowed in the denomination and that the issue should not divide visible saints.

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

Here's a quote from the 1823 Calvinistic Methodist Confession on Baptism

38. Of Baptism.
Baptism is an ordinance which Christ, as King, instituted in his church, to be observed to the end of time (a), and to be administered only by ministers appointed and sent by Christ himself (b). It is duly administered by sprinkling or pouring water on the baptised person, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (c). It should be administered but once on the same person (d). All who profess themselves believers, and their infant children, have a scriptural right to this ordinance (e). It is an emblem of their death unto sin, and of newness of life unto righteousness (f). This ordinance is not essentially necessary to salvation; yet it is a sin wilfully to neglect it, inasmuch as that would be an act of disobedience to a positive command of Christ (g). It should be administered publicly in the congregation, except when circumstances require it otherwise (h).

Addendum (Added in 1874) We also recognize in addition to the form referred to in Article 38 the validity of Believer's Baptism by immersion or effusion, and the dedication of infants. The doctrine of Baptism as an ordinance is something to be decided by each individual believer after studying the Scriptures and seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

OK, so it seems that this clause would still exclude sola-credo-baptist Baptizers. Provision is simply allowed for "individual believers" to abstain from undergoing paedo-baptism (presumably on behalf of their children, though this is not clear from the text.) This would essentially be what you have in most congregations of the OPC and PCA: Baptists may join and abstain from having their kids baptized as infants as a matter of conscience, but they may not be ordained as officers in the church.

I don't see the article as stating that. I think that it's simply stating that one's stance on baptism is not reason to bar them from membership. Where does this say that 'sola-credo-baptist Baptizers' would be excluded from being church officers. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Calvinistic Methodist and a credobaptist yet he was a minister. The confession is silent on the matter of who should be or should not be ordained as an officer of the church. The confession seems to lean towards the practice of the EFCA and FPC, which ordain both credo and paedo ministers.

You may be right about that, but at the very least every congregation would have to provide for the baptism of any infant whose parents wanted to exercise their "right unto the ordinance". So you couldn't have a strictly sola-credo congregation. If the minister doesn't want to do it, he'd have to find another who will do it in his church.

 

[Particular Baptist]

You're exactly right. I believe that such is the case in the EFCA and FPC.