John Bunyan and Baptist Churchmanship by Mark Dever

[MW]

I had great admiration for he Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

I think you mean another denomination; the FPs of Scotland are strict paedobaptists.

 

[MW]

The question of consistency really boils down to this -- do Baptists, in rejecting infant baptism, mean to teach that the ordinance as administered by paedobaptists is invalid or unlawful? If the first, then it is consistent to bar from communion, because the parties baptised are not deemed as baptised by the Baptist communion. If the latter, then it is consistent to allow them to partake of communion, because the parties are deemed to be baptised although the way they were baptised is not accepted as lawful.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I had great admiration for he Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

I think you mean another denomination; the FPs of Scotland are strict paedobaptists.

Yeah, it might be Ireland. Ian Paisley's Church.

Here is the link...

Free Presbyterian Church - Main Page

This is from their Articles of Faith.

6a. Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The question of consistency really boils down to this -- do Baptists, in rejecting infant baptism, mean to teach that the ordinance as administered by paedobaptists is invalid or unlawful? If the first, then it is consistent to bar from communion, because the parties baptised are not deemed as baptised by the Baptist communion. If the latter, then it is consistent to allow them to partake of communion, because the parties are deemed to be baptised although the way they were baptised is not accepted as lawful.

Although I do know RB's who are not hung up on the issue of mode of baptism they are looking for a confession of faith.

And if a Reformed Baptist is in a Congregation that is WCF bound then the RB's who have children should be considered unlawfully unrepentant for not having their children Baptized. So the Lord's Table should be prohibit them possibly.

When I was in the PCA, my kids had been Baptised based upon profession of their faith. So it wasn't an issue for me when I fellowshipped within the PCA.

This is a sticky issue.

 

[MW]

And if a Reformed Baptist is in a Congregation that is WCF bound then the RB's who have children should be considered unlawfully unrepentant for not having their children Baptized. So the Lord's Table should be prohibit them possibly.

Unless they cause disruption to the church, there is no reason to bar them from communion. The overisght is in place to be a helper of their joy, not a lord of their faith.

 

[timmopussycat]

The question of consistency really boils down to this -- do Baptists, in rejecting infant baptism, mean to teach that the ordinance as administered by paedobaptists is invalid or unlawful? If the first, then it is consistent to bar from communion, because the parties baptised are not deemed as baptised by the Baptist communion. If the latter, then it is consistent to allow them to partake of communion, because the parties are deemed to be baptised although the way they were baptised is not accepted as lawful.

If the first alternative is true, (and if Peter intended to refer to the one baptized making an "appeal to God for a good conscience" in in 1 Pt. 3:21, the first is biblical teaching), it ONLY is consistent to bar infants from communion until they profess faith. Many churches will recognize a babe in Christ, but not have a baptism service before the next communion service.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

And if a Reformed Baptist is in a Congregation that is WCF bound then the RB's who have children should be considered unlawfully unrepentant for not having their children Baptized. So the Lord's Table should be prohibit them possibly.

Unless they cause disruption to the church, there is no reason to bar them from communion. The overisght is in place to be a helper of their joy, not a lord of their faith.

WCF 26:2 rules out debarring Baptists. Presbyterian elders are not to be like the kings of the Gentiles.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I had great admiration for he Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

I think you mean another denomination; the FPs of Scotland are strict paedobaptists.

Yeah, it might be Ireland. Ian Paisley's Church.

Here is the link...

Free Presbyterian Church - Main Page

This is from their Articles of Faith.

6a. Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.

That denomination (which I used to be a member of) basically takes an agnostic view of baptism; you could be a minister in it, and administer the Lord's Supper, but never have been baptised in any form.