Baptists & Presbyterians Together?

Could Baptists & Presbyterians successfully co-exist in one Reformed Denomination?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 17.2%
  • No

    Votes: 72 82.8%

  • Total voters
    87
Status
Not open for further replies.
I tell people about Jesus Christ, not about John Calvin or Charles Spurgeon.

I understand your sentiment Pastor. I am not trying to be disrespectful to what you are saying and believe you would agree with my sentiments that follow. Just like you would tell people about and to listen to John Piper.

I tell people about Jesus Christ and Historical Christianity. I also tell them about good theologians so that they might benefits from the gifts of our Church. Those being our past Elders and Teachers. They are gifts to the Church so that we may all grow and mature in the body of Christ.
 
I have been blessed in a Reformed Baptist church (there were no sound Presbyterians or Reformed in my area of upstate NY), and in particular by Al Martin over the radio. I began learning of the Doctrines of Grace in this RBC, and still have dear friends from those days there.

The church were I serve presently as a TE ministers to Reformed Baptists visiting from the UK, and they are delighted there is a Reformed church in the area (the only one in this city and to the western coast of the country).

Still, there would be great difficulty seeking to be a unified church comprised of both paedo and credos. The church gov't aspect is not applicable here as there is no presbytery and no session, so we are but an independent Reformed church (and mostly autonomous, save for a loose oversight from the church in another city which helped plant us).

What would be an insurmountable obstacle is the preaching of the continuity of the covenant of grace, whereby the same covenant as was cut with Abraham is the one we are in with Christ, only with the administration of the sign and seal changed from circumcision to baptism, adapting to the universality of the gospel outreach.

Another insurmountable would be if this church were led by a credo TE, those baptized as infants would be ineligible for the Lord's Table, that baptism not being recognized by credos. As it is, though, I do (of course) recognize credo baptisms.

As we are the only Reformed church in my half of the country, I graciously and gladly receive credos, even into membership, with the proviso they do not disturb the peace of the church or seek to subvert the paedo teaching.

I am very careful and deliberate when talking of the covenant, and sensitive to those who may be of differing views, but nonetheless preach the whole counsel of God. I do not make it a dividing point, but rather stress our unity in the soteriological aspects of our faith, we all being received equally in our Saviour.

I have a great respect and love of Reformed Baptists generally, and of many in particular. We shall be fellow heirs in the great inheritance awaiting us.

In fact, we should all have a genuine catholicity of spirit, receiving all who confess Christ in sincerity and truth. Which does not mean I keep silent about some of the strange and unholy doctrines seeping into the churches here in these parts, and all over I gather. I do not include credos in this grouping!

As I have said elsewhere, I think (as a diehard and passionate paedo) the Lord allowed errant Baptist doctrine to multiply and prosper so as to offset the Presbyterians' often primarily focusing only on their "covenant children" and not seeking to convert those outside the church, whereas the Baptists are gung ho to preach to all, in the highways and byways.

Plus the Baptists are fervent adherents of liberty of conscience (aka soul liberty) — strongly against any government interference with or involvement in the life of the church — as am I.

I also find many Baptists have a firm stand of separation from the world, whereas many of my Presbyterian and Reformed brethren think they may join in "common grace" activities to redeem the culture, and as a result have the culture "redeem" them to its own worldly ways.
 
When I joined the PCA I promised to strive for the "purity and peace" of the church. While I realize that the vow speaks specifically (in its context) of the PCA, I personally believe that striving for the purity and peace of the church has to do with seeking peace with all true believers whatever their denomination.

The complete and true church of Jesus Christ, the bride of Christ is in some respects unseen, and it is worldwide. I seek to be at peace with all my brothers and sisters in Christ, but it does not mean that we should unite across denominational lines.
 
Y'all are making this much harder than it needs to be. There is a very simple answer to the OP... All reformed baptist simply become biblical and embrace covenant theology along with the other biblical Presbyterian doctrines. Then once all RB have become Presbyterian we can then look to merge and create one Reformed Bible Believing Presbyterian denomination. See how easy that is :p:worms:

In all seriousness, I voted no because I do not see this happening. We have unity in the gospel but we do disagree on very important points of doctrine. What about other reformed groups that you left out? Where would the Contenintal Reformed fit in for example. I feel closer to a Reformed Baptist brother than I do to a mainline liberal Presbyterian. But I am a Reformed Presbyterian because by conscience and conviction I believe it to be the most Biblical system while I was raised Charasmatic and Baptistic. As I am sure my RB brothers feel the same as to why they are RB. I am thankful for many RB pastors that I read and listen to such as Spurgeon, Piper and Washer. I will happily fellowship with RB brothers but I would not want to attempt to merge my church with there's. I think in the long run we would create more division than unity. As much as I appreciate the RB we still have very important differences. If the Lord blesses me with daughters also I will encourage and council them to marry God fearing Reformed Presbyterian men not Reformed Baptist men. Some of you may have just fallen out of your chairs, but take a deep breath and think about it for a moment. I would thank the Lord for a God fearing RB son in law over a liberal or non believer but i would still have grandchildren lacking the sign of the covenant and possibly a son in law who is not under the care of elders to teach and discipline when needed. If you are RB just flip the scenario to your grandchildren not receiving believers submersion baptism. Call me mean or crazy but this is just my humble to cents. And another question for my RB brothers, why would y'all want to join with Presbyterians in a denomination when you do not even have your own denomination. I just don't ever see this happening and I don't think that's a bad thing.

:worms::worms::worms::worms::worms::worms::worms::worms:
 
Last edited:
C.M. Sheffield is so often right on nearly everything, and his approach to issues so scholarly yet humble, Nevertheless with a fair amount of caution I must disagree with his previous remarks on my earlier post about a possible home for Baptists and Presbyterians.

My previous post suggested that the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, the 4C's, is a place where congregations and individuals that hold paedobaptist and credobaptist views exist side by side amicably (I am a paedobaptist).

I am thus surprised and disappointed that C.M. would use this particular forum to launch a criticism against the 4C's position on the credentialing of women ministers., a topic that has nothing to do with this particular forum .

However, since C.M.'s questioning of the conservatism of the 4C's is so sharp, and I believe unfair, I am forced to come to the defense of the 4C's to provide some facts that would give a fuller picture on the situation.

Out of 302 churches in the Conference, 4 of them are pastored by women but only one of these women has her ministerial credentials with the 4C's. Additionally 2 other churches are pastored by husband and wife teams, but only one of these teams has their ministerial credentials with the 4C's. Thus, even though I believe that one woman with ministerial credentials is one woman too many, the picture of the 4C's as being egalitarian in practice with regard to women ministers, is entirely unrealistic and far from the truth.

Because of our congregational polity, there is no requirement in the 4C's for pastors of 4C churches to have their ministerial credentials with the Conference. Thus we have pastors of 4C churches credentialed with Presbyterian, Baptist, C&MA, Ev Free and other Protestant bodies.

I am pleased that the Southern Baptist Convention is in the hands of the conservative evangelicals and not controlled by the moderates. I agree with the SBC's position on women in ministerial leadership (complementarian). But yet, even the SBC's own web site states that the Baptist Faith & Message and resolutions, "is not binding upon local churches". Therefore it seems that a local Baptist church could have a woman pastor and still be a member of the SBC. It would appear that both the 4C's and the SBC do not bind the consciences of their respective congregations on this matter of women ministerial credentials.

I must state with my strongest ardor that I do not approve of the 4C's position on credentialing women ministers. I have worked many years to change it to the credentialing of only men ministers. I am a member/supporter of the Council On Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW). For many years I have represented the CBMW at the Annual Meetings of the 4C's as an exhibitor. Each year our materials and presence has been received warmly. The complementarian position is probably the majority view in the 4C's.

I am comfortable with the conservatism and the orthodoxy of the 4C's regardless of it's position on the credentialing of women ministers, but I am not complacent. Yet even amongst our membership is David Wells of Gordon-Conwell, and the late Moshe Rosen, Founder of Jews for Jesus was one of our ministers. Please pray for us and join us if you identify with the Pilgrims and English Separatists.
 
But yet, even the SBC's own web site states that the Baptist Faith & Message and resolutions, "is not binding upon local churches". Therefore it seems that a local Baptist church could have a woman pastor and still be a member of the SBC. It would appear that both the 4C's and the SBC do not bind the consciences of their respective congregations on this matter of women ministerial credentials

Tis true. However, I don't know of any women pastors in the SBC, although I'm sure there are some. A SBC church that calls a women pastor would have a difficult time within the SBC. Most such churches will be dually aligned with another group.

BTW, I like the CCCC.
 
C.M. Sheffield is so often right on nearly everything, and his approach to issues so scholarly yet humble, Nevertheless with a fair amount of caution I must disagree with his previous remarks on my earlier post about a possible home for Baptists and Presbyterians.

My previous post suggested that the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, the 4C's, is a place where congregations and individuals that hold paedobaptist and credobaptist views exist side by side amicably (I am a paedobaptist).

I am thus surprised and disappointed that C.M. would use this particular forum to launch a criticism against the 4C's position on the credentialing of women ministers., a topic that has nothing to do with this particular forum .

However, since C.M.'s questioning of the conservatism of the 4C's is so sharp, and I believe unfair, I am forced to come to the defense of the 4C's to provide some facts that would give a fuller picture on the situation.

Out of 302 churches in the Conference, 4 of them are pastored by women but only one of these women has her ministerial credentials with the 4C's. Additionally 2 other churches are pastored by husband and wife teams, but only one of these teams has their ministerial credentials with the 4C's. Thus, even though I believe that one woman with ministerial credentials is one woman too many, the picture of the 4C's as being egalitarian in practice with regard to women ministers, is entirely unrealistic and far from the truth.

Because of our congregational polity, there is no requirement in the 4C's for pastors of 4C churches to have their ministerial credentials with the Conference. Thus we have pastors of 4C churches credentialed with Presbyterian, Baptist, C&MA, Ev Free and other Protestant bodies.

I am pleased that the Southern Baptist Convention is in the hands of the conservative evangelicals and not controlled by the moderates. I agree with the SBC's position on women in ministerial leadership (complementarian). But yet, even the SBC's own web site states that the Baptist Faith & Message and resolutions, "is not binding upon local churches". Therefore it seems that a local Baptist church could have a woman pastor and still be a member of the SBC. It would appear that both the 4C's and the SBC do not bind the consciences of their respective congregations on this matter of women ministerial credentials.

I must state with my strongest ardor that I do not approve of the 4C's position on credentialing women ministers. I have worked many years to change it to the credentialing of only men ministers. I am a member/supporter of the Council On Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW). For many years I have represented the CBMW at the Annual Meetings of the 4C's as an exhibitor. Each year our materials and presence has been received warmly. The complementarian position is probably the majority view in the 4C's.

I am comfortable with the conservatism and the orthodoxy of the 4C's regardless of it's position on the credentialing of women ministers, but I am not complacent. Yet even amongst our membership is David Wells of Gordon-Conwell, and the late Moshe Rosen, Founder of Jews for Jesus was one of our ministers. Please pray for us and join us if you identify with the Pilgrims and English Separatists.

David,

I believe you have misread my sharp criticism of the liberals and moderates within the CCCC for criticism of the CCCC as a whole. And yes, the statement from the CCCC confirms the influence of liberalism on your denomination. I lament that as much as you, I'm sure. But if you read my vitriolic tone as directed toward you or the CCCC as a whole, then allow me to apologize. That wasn't the intended target.

I hate liberalism in all its forms whether it be in the CCCC or the SBC (of which I am much more critical). And I will decry it wherever I find it. I would hope you feel the same.
 
One problem that arises is the view of the subjects of baptism in the eyes of the opposing camp. In the situation of a “mixed” denomination a Credo must accept a Paedo’s children as “validly” baptized in the eyes of the Church while a Paedo must accept a Credo’s decision of “leaving” their children in an un-baptized state as biblical in the eyes of the Church as well as “in the covenant!”

Also consider the possibility of a member who, through the course of study, changes their position within an environment that this is tolerated. The really tricky part is when a family with children of varying ages takes the plunge from Credo to Paedo what or who’s rules would determine the authorization of baptizing the children of the family? Do the Credo’s make the decision that since the child is of X age or of a certain level of understanding that they must bring a “credible confession of faith” to the table in order to be admitted to the sacrament?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top