Presbyterian and Baptist Church

[Presbaptist]

Why has there not been a combination of Presbyterian and Baptist Church in history? By Presbyterian I mean Presbyterian government. By Baptist I mean credo-Baptist (aka, believers ONLY baptism)?

In history, there has been these combinations:
- Presbyterian (as government) and paedo Baptist (WCF, Three Forms of Unity, etc.)
- Congregational (as government) and paedo Baptist (Savoy Declaration)
- Congregational (as government) and credo Baptist (2LBC, New Hampshire, etc.)

But why no:
Presbyterian (as government) and credo Baptist

Today, I am aware credo Baptists can become members of, for example, a PCA church. But that member could not be an elder or pastor because he holds to credo-baptism (aka, believers ONLY baptism).

I am also aware that various Baptists have "denominations" (SBC, ARBCA, etc.) But these denominations, fundamentally, are Congregational (aka, no authority outside the local church).

 

[MChase]

Why has there not been a combination of Presbyterian and Baptist Church in history? By Presbyterian I mean Presbyterian government. By Baptist I mean credo-Baptist (aka, believers ONLY baptism)?

In history, there has been these combinations:
- Presbyterian (as government) and paedo Baptist (WCF, Three Forms of Unity, etc.)
- Congregational (as government) and paedo Baptist (Savoy Declaration)
- Congregational (as government) and credo Baptist (2LBC, New Hampshire, etc.)

But why no:
Presbyterian (as government) and credo Baptist

Today, I am aware credo Baptists can become members of, for example, a PCA church. But that member could not be an elder or pastor because he holds to credo-baptism (aka, believers ONLY baptism).

I am also aware that various Baptists have "denominations" (SBC, ARBCA, etc.) But these denominations, fundamentally, are Congregational (aka, no authority outside the local church).

The Free Presbyterians of Ulster/NA are (more or less) Credobaptist and Presbyterian.

 

[Presbaptist]

The Free Presbyterians of Ulster/NA are (more or less) Credobaptist and Presbyterian.

Two questions:
1. Free Presbyterians of Ulster/NA have members and clergy who hold to paedo baptism, correct? If so, this is not what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting Presbyterian (as government) and credo Baptism.
2. In the Free Presbyterian of Ulster/NA, can a member be a pastor or elder and hold to credo baptism (aka believers on Baptism)?

 

[MChase]

In the Free Presbyterian of Ulster/NA, can a member be a pastor or elder and hold to credo baptism (aka believers on Baptism)?

Yes, they allow liberty on the issue.

 

[Jake]

Yes there are some small Presbyterian denominations which allow both credo- and paedo- views on Baptism. In addition to the aforementioned FPs (FPCNA and FPCoU), there are also the Evangel Presbytery and the CREC. But while each of these are a bit different from one another, I don't think this is quite what you're asking about.

I have wondered about this myself. I was raised Baptist (SBC, seeker sensitive, semi-pelagian), and as I was working through Reformed distinctives, I was convinced of Presbyterian church government before I was convinced of infant baptism. Since I was unmarried and saw the importance of this, this led to joining a Presbyterian church while I figured this out. It also helped that I was familiar with confessionally Reformed Presbyterian churches in my area, where there wasn't as obvious of a church option confessing the 2LBCF or similar.

While I do not want to downplay the fact that many Baptists are and have been convinced of congregational church government, I would suspect that the minority position of the Baptists through the Reformational period led to independency being emphasized. Look at the reason the First London Baptist Confession was written, printed at the top of the confession:

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are
commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and
information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently,
both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them.

I have not studied Baptist history nearly as much as Presbyterian history, but I have a suspicion that the Baptist view of church government and the role of the state in relationship to the church is influenced by their minority status, whereas Presbyterians have a history of being more established (i.e., Church of Scotland and later the Westminster Assembly following the SL&C).

 

[Presbaptist]

Yes there are some small Presbyterian denominations which allow both credo- and paedo- views on Baptism. In addition to the aforementioned FPs (FPCNA and FPCoU), there are also the Evangel Presbytery and the CREC. But while each of these are a bit different from one another, I don't think this is quite what you're asking about.

I have wondered about this myself. I was raised Baptist (SBC, seeker sensitive, semi-pelagian), and as I was working through Reformed distinctives, I was convinced of Presbyterian church government before I was convinced of infant baptism. Since I was unmarried and saw the importance of this, this led to joining a Presbyterian church while I figured this out. It also helped that I was familiar with confessionally Reformed Presbyterian churches in my area, where there wasn't as obvious of a church option confessing the 2LBCF or similar.

While I do not want to downplay the fact that many Baptists are and have been convinced of congregational church government, I would suspect that the minority position of the Baptists through the Reformational period led to independency being emphasized. Look at the reason the First London Baptist Confession was written, printed at the top of the confession:

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are
commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and
information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently,
both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them.

I have not studied Baptist history nearly as much as Presbyterian history, but I have a suspicion that the Baptist view of church government and the role of the state in relationship to the church is influenced by their minority status, whereas Presbyterians have a history of being more established (i.e., Church of Scotland and later the Westminster Assembly following the SL&C).

Two points:
1. You are right. There may be denominations like the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster/NA and a few smaller others that allow for liberty on the issue of baptism, even some maybe allowing credo Baptists to be elders or pastors, but there is not, to my knowledge, a Presbyterian (as government) and credo baptism church.
2. Baptist Churches were historically more "connectional." I think there are some movements today among Baptists to get back to connectionalism, but these movements fall short of full Presbyterianism (as government).

 

[Charles Johnson]

But why no:
Presbyterian (as government) and credo Baptist

Because presbyterian bodies examine candidates prior to ordination, and if they find they maintain serious errors relative to the sacraments, they refuse them ordination. Depending on the body, discipline is also possible for those who refuse to baptize covenant children.
So functionally speaking, a presbyterian body cannot become credo-baptist over any amount of time.
Moreover, credo-baptism is inherently individualistic, and highly individualistic persons do not lose sleep over not pertaining to a regional church with binding synods.

 

[Presbaptist]

Because presbyterian bodies examine candidates prior to ordination, and if they find they maintain serious errors relative to the sacraments, they refuse them ordination. Depending on the body, discipline is also possible for those who refuse to baptize covenant children.
So functionally speaking, a presbyterian body cannot become credo-baptist over any amount of time.
Moreover, credo-baptism is inherently individualistic, and highly individualistic persons do not lose sleep over not pertaining to a regional church with binding synods.

I'm talking about why don't credo Baptists join together like Presbyterian (as government) bodies?

I'm not talking about a Presbyterian body (as government and paedo baptism) becoming a credo Baptist body because that would go against their belief in paedo baptism.

In other words, I'm talking about the 2LBC modified to be a Presbyterian government system. This kind of confession does not exist in history.

Your answer about so called individualistic nature of credo baptism is interesting, but I would like to see this argument developed and defended.

 

[TylerRay]

Why has there not been a combination of Presbyterian and Baptist Church in history? By Presbyterian I mean Presbyterian government. By Baptist I mean credo-Baptist (aka, believers ONLY baptism)?

In history, there has been these combinations:
- Presbyterian (as government) and paedo Baptist (WCF, Three Forms of Unity, etc.)
- Congregational (as government) and paedo Baptist (Savoy Declaration)
- Congregational (as government) and credo Baptist (2LBC, New Hampshire, etc.)

But why no:
Presbyterian (as government) and credo Baptist

Today, I am aware credo Baptists can become members of, for example, a PCA church. But that member could not be an elder or pastor because he holds to credo-baptism (aka, believers ONLY baptism).

I am also aware that various Baptists have "denominations" (SBC, ARBCA, etc.) But these denominations, fundamentally, are Congregational (aka, no authority outside the local church).

The first Baptists were independents before they abandoned infant baptism. The Presbyterian churches of the 17th century were more stable than the independent churches due to the inherent checks and balances of Presbyterian polity. The independents, on the other hand, went in many different directions. Credobaptism was one of those directions.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'm talking about why don't credo Baptists join together like Presbyterian (as government) bodies?

I'm not talking about a Presbyterian body (as government and paedo baptism) becoming a credo Baptist body because that would go against their belief in paedo baptism.

In other words, I'm talking about the 2LBC modified to be a Presbyterian government system. This kind of confession does not exist in history.

Your answer about so called individualistic nature of credo baptism is interesting, but I would like to see this argument developed and defended.

Re: individualism, when I was in a credo-baptist church I heard a lot that everyone had to decide to be baptized for themselves, and that one's parents couldn't do that for them. Therefore, infant baptism was inherently invalid.
That betrays an individualistic view of the faith. (My point here isn't whether that's right or wrong, but simply that it is, or at least that's how I understood it when I was of that persuasion).
Now, if one's own parents can't "impose" the faith on him, then certainly a Synod shouldn't be able to impose dogmas on a church or individual. The church basically has be a free association where every church and member is free to come or go as their conscience leads them. So presbyterianism is out of the question.
(Note I'm not saying baptists think church membership is optional. Some do and some don't).

 

[Presbaptist]

The first Baptists were independents before they abandoned infant baptism. The Presbyterian churches of the 17th century were more stable than the independent churches due to the inherent checks and balances of Presbyterian polity. The independents, on the other hand, went in many different directions. Credobaptism was one of those directions.

Do you think the first Baptists had to be independent before abandoning infant baptism? It seems to me, they had to be independent. Why? Presbyterians (as government and as paedo baptism) rejected credo baptism, and thus would have expelled them from the church. But why didn't the Baptists just form new presbyteries with credo baptist conviction?

 

[TylerRay]

Do you think the first Baptists had to be independent before abandoning infant baptism? It seems to me, they had to be independent. Why? Presbyterians (as government and as paedo baptism) rejected credo baptism, and thus would have expelled them from the church. But why didn't the Baptists just form new presbyteries with credo baptist conviction?

Yes, they would have been held accountable by the courts of the church if they had abandoned infant baptism in a Presbyterian context.

The reason they didn't form presbyteries is that they held to independency by conviction. They denounced presbyterian polity.

 

[Presbaptist]

Re: individualism, when I was in a credo-baptist church I heard a lot that everyone had to decide to be baptized for themselves, and that one's parents couldn't do that for them. Therefore, infant baptism was inherently invalid.
That betrays an individualistic view of the faith. (My point here isn't whether that's right or wrong, but simply that it is, or at least that's how I understood it when I was of that persuasion).
Now, if one's own parents can't "impose" the faith on him, then certainly a Synod shouldn't be able to impose dogmas on a church or individual. The church basically has be a free association where every church and member is free to come or go as their conscience leads them. So presbyterianism is out of the question.
(Note I'm not saying baptists think church membership is optional. Some do and some don't).

Your explanation of individualism does not add up for two reasons.

1. You fail to distinguish between individualism and an individual. Even in Presbyterianism (as government), INDIVIDUALS freely join a church or freely leave a church. Infant baptism may be more "collective" but it does not follow that credo baptism embraces individualism.

2. Synods can impose dogmas on a church but not a individual, unless you have a state church.

Your argument re: individualism is creative but does not hold up, an probably couldn't be sustained on historical grounds.

Yes, they would have been held accountable by the courts of the church if they had abandoned infant baptism in a Presbyterian context.

The reason they didn't form presbyteries is that they held to independency by conviction. They denounced presbyterian polity.

Yes, I know they held to Independency. But my question still remains. Why? Why has there not been Presbyterian (as government) and credo baptism?

 

[Ye_Olde_Heidelberger]

This denomination was formed a few years ago Evangel Presbytery. They allow for both views on baptism.

 

[Presbaptist]

This denomination was formed a few years ago Evangel Presbytery. They allow for both views on baptism.

This is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for Presbyterian (as government) and credo baptism (believers only baptism).

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Because presbyterian bodies examine candidates prior to ordination, and if they find they maintain serious errors relative to the sacraments, they refuse them ordination. Depending on the body, discipline is also possible for those who refuse to baptize covenant children. So functionally speaking, a presbyterian body cannot become credo-baptist over any amount of time.

I don't mean to be snide, but the existence and current state of the PCUSA is proof that the Presbyterian model is not as "error proof" as you'd like to present here.

 

[dsanch1120]

1. You fail to distinguish between individualism and an individual. Even in Presbyterianism (as government), INDIVIDUALS freely join a church or freely leave a church. Infant baptism may be more "collective" but it does not follow that credo baptism embraces individualism.

A group of individuals who come together because they have individualism in common may be united as a group, but they still remain individualistic.
You may not see a connection, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Baptist theology is more individualistic, and baptist churches, are, in the sense of the local church entity, individualistic.

Your argument re: individualism is creative but does not hold up, an probably couldn't be sustained on historical grounds.

I actually think the history shows that Charles is correct. Theology impacts practice. It’s not a coincidence, in my opinion, that almost every non-denominational church is baptist theologically or that the baptist denominations tend to be governed the way they are.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I don't mean to be snide, but the existence and current state of the PCUSA is proof that the Presbyterian model is not as "error proof" as you'd like to present here.

What? That didn't even enter into my mind. It's not error-proof, it's credobaptism proof. The PCUSA, for all its shifting, never considered ending paedobaptism, nor would it.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Your explanation of individualism does not add up for two reasons.

1. You fail to distinguish between individualism and an individual. Even in Presbyterianism (as government), INDIVIDUALS freely join a church or freely leave a church. Infant baptism may be more "collective" but it does not follow that credo baptism embraces individualism.

On the contrary, a large portion of Presbyterians are born into it. Maybe their parents freely joined, but they didn't. Baptists typically dislike the idea of being born into a church. You have to ripen and decide to join on your own accord. There are no baby-members.

2. Synods can impose dogmas on a church but not a individual, unless you have a state church.

Our Synod has adopted the Westminster Confession. Individual churches and persons, especially pastors, don't have the right to reject it. Pastors that reject it will be defrocked and members will be admonished, and if they are obstinate, they may be excommunicated (although the strictness with which that is applied depends on the Synod. Some might only excommunicate for grave heresies, for example).
That's different from the SBC, for example, where the conference can't put a member or pastor on trial and churches are free to disassociate without discipline.
The latter is more individualistic.
Again brothers, that's an observation, not a criticism. When I was a credo-baptist I thought that individualism was a good thing.

 

[Sam Jer]

I have not studied Baptist history nearly as much as Presbyterian history, but I have a suspicion that the Baptist view of church government and the role of the state in relationship to the church is influenced by their minority status, whereas Presbyterians have a history of being more established (i.e., Church of Scotland and later the Westminster Assembly following the SL&C).

It should be noted that Presbyterianism was not really established*¹ for too much of history. It was established in Scotland from 1560-1633, then a short period of conflict around the wars of the three kingdoms (and there was a period of persecution by the hands of Cromwell, an English independant, at this time), and then again, after a period of persecution and preassure known as the killing time, from 1690-1843 (this period ended in 1733 for the associate Presbytery; and the united societies, which are the forefathers of the RPCNA, never agreed to join it. The official Church of Scotland continued to be established after 1843 but this is no longer as relevant for conservative Presbyterian history).
I am not aware of Presbyterianism being established anywhere else (the Continental Reformed not cobsidered).

So throughout Presbyterian History, more often than not giving up principles of Church Government and Establishment was the easy option. The United Scieties, who are the forefathers of the RPCNA, went without any ministers for a decade and half after 1690 simply because they had no one to ordain (whether or not they should have just joined the established church is a diffrent debate). Covenanters who were suffering under Erastianism nevertheless have not said "forget this establishment idea", even when the king was killing them on the right and left, and literally attacking them with an army when they went to church (which was constrained to meet on the fields).

Those who went with these principles did it on principle, not because it was the conveniant choice. Even though in America they did end up changing the confession (speaking of the PCUSA, which are the parents of PCA, OPC ext), some did retain the principle. Going back to the RPCNA, they would not even vote in America for the longest time because of the establishment principle, and a few still don't.


*¹ by the civil magistrate

 

[Sam Jer]

Regarding why there aren't Presbyterial Baptists, I think enough people have pointed out that it comes together. Besides, how would such a body even get Presbyterial ordinations for it's first Presbytery? I guess it could happen but you'd need to run to some paedobaptist body, or have Presbyterian ministers somehow abandon baptism without abandoning Church-Government.

 

[Ben Zartman]

In order to call oneself a "Reformed Baptist," one must subscribe to one of the two historic Baptist confessions, usually it is the 2LBCF, which forbids a presbyterian type of church government because the writers did not see it in scripture, nor do we who hold to it today. What the ramifications of the Jerusalem Council and other passages appealed to for a presbyterian model are doesn't need to be debated here--suffice it to say that the Confession is against association.
The effort to craft a new confession would be not only monumental, but would make the church that did it an outlier--they could no longer legitimately call themselves RB. And for all our independence, there's a lot of fellowship between LBCF churches. I suppose that if a church (or several, it would have to be) wanted to join and form a presbytery, because they were convinced from Scripture that God requires that, they could draft and adopt a new confession of their own.
But the baptists forays into denominational association, past and present, have always ended in disaster: the Downgrade Controversy, ARBCA's implosion, the sprawling confusion that is the SBC, the sub-groups always spinning off of it--these are all examples of what happens when churches desire what, in Baptist dogma, God has not required. "Let us build a tower that reaches to heaven, lest we be scattered."

 

[Northern Crofter]

It should be noted that Presbyterianism was not really established for too much of history. It was established in Scotland from 1560-1633

It's much older than that, and the Scots taught that, first in the 1578 Second Book of Discipline, and then in The Form of Presbyterian Church Government according to the Westminster Standards (adopted in 1645) where the Assembly more fully justified the return to the practice based on Scriptural practice:

"THE scripture doth hold out a presbytery in a church."

"The scripture doth hold forth, that many particular congregations may be under one presbyterial government."

"First, The church of Jerusalem consisted of more congregations than one, as is manifest... All those congregations were under one presbyterial government"

"The apostles did the ordinary acts of presbyters, as presbyters in that kirk; which proveth a presbyterial church before the dispersion, Acts vi."

"The several congregations in Jerusalem being one church, the elders of that church are mentioned as meeting together for acts of government; which proves that those several congregations were under one presbyterial government."

"Secondly, By the instance of the church of Ephesus..." etc.

There is also an appeal to the Old Testament: "...there was power and authority, under the Old Testament, to keep unclean persons from holy things.
The like power and authority, by way of analogy, continues under the New Testament" and Ezekiel 34.4 is used as a reference. I believe Moses and the 70 elders (a model copied by Christ) could be added to that proof for the divine warrant of presbyterial government.

What the ramifications of the Jerusalem Council and other passages appealed to for a presbyterian model are doesn't need to be debated here

Just to be clear, I'm not debating that, just pointing out that the Reformers did not consider presbyterianism a recent invention.

 

[Sam Jer]

It's much older than that, and the Scots taught that, first in the 1578 Second Book of Discipline, and then in The Form of Presbyterian Church Government according to the Westminster Standards (adopted in 1645) where the Assembly more fully justified the return to the practice based on Scriptural practice:

"THE scripture doth hold out a presbytery in a church."

"The scripture doth hold forth, that many particular congregations may be under one presbyterial government."

"First, The church of Jerusalem consisted of more congregations than one, as is manifest... All those congregations were under one presbyterial government"

"The apostles did the ordinary acts of presbyters, as presbyters in that kirk; which proveth a presbyterial church before the dispersion, Acts vi."

"The several congregations in Jerusalem being one church, the elders of that church are mentioned as meeting together for acts of government; which proves that those several congregations were under one presbyterial government."

"Secondly, By the instance of the church of Ephesus..." etc.

There is also an appeal to the Old Testament: "...there was power and authority, under the Old Testament, to keep unclean persons from holy things.
The like power and authority, by way of analogy, continues under the New Testament" and Ezekiel 34.4 is used as a reference. I believe Moses and the 70 elders (a model copied by Christ) could be added to that proof for the divine warrant of presbyterial government.

Just to be clear, I'm not debating that, just pointing out that the Reformers did not consider presbyterianism a recent invention.

To clarify, I meant establiahed by the civil magistrate, not practiced or taught, which was much longer. The dates have been collected from google.

 

[Phil D.]

The common alignment between church polity and baptism is more a matter of historical lineage and development than theological necessity. Presbyterianism (proper) initially developed from within and as establishment churches, whereas Baptists (proper) were born and treated as a fringe minority extremely skeptical of and persecuted by the establishment. The Westminster congregationalists and the ensuing Grand Debate prove that independency and peadobaptism are not mutually exclusive, nor in principle is the reverse orientation. Congregationalists outnumbered Baptists in America for two centuries. If a group of Reformed Baptists wanted to amend their Confession in the area of polity, it would no more cause theological conflict in its other parts than when the American Presbyterians amended their Confession in the area of establishment.

 

[Presbaptist]

In order to call oneself a "Reformed Baptist," one must subscribe to one of the two historic Baptist confessions, usually it is the 2LBCF, which forbids a presbyterian type of church government because the writers did not see it in scripture, nor do we who hold to it today. What the ramifications of the Jerusalem Council and other passages appealed to for a presbyterian model are doesn't need to be debated here--suffice it to say that the Confession is against association.
The effort to craft a new confession would be not only monumental, but would make the church that did it an outlier--they could no longer legitimately call themselves RB. And for all our independence, there's a lot of fellowship between LBCF churches. I suppose that if a church (or several, it would have to be) wanted to join and form a presbytery, because they were convinced from Scripture that God requires that, they could draft and adopt a new confession of their own.
But the baptists forays into denominational association, past and present, have always ended in disaster: the Downgrade Controversy, ARBCA's implosion, the sprawling confusion that is the SBC, the sub-groups always spinning off of it--these are all examples of what happens when churches desire what, in Baptist dogma, God has not required. "Let us build a tower that reaches to heaven, lest we be scattered."

1. Your point about being called a Reformed Baptist reminds me of Scott Clark's position on what is "Reformed." There were many confessions in the 16th-17th centuries other than the WCF and Three Forms. Likewise, is the New Hampshire Confession or Baptist Faith and Message "Reformed" enough?
2. Being Presbyterian (as government) does not prevent sin, factions, and splits. But it seems like part of the problem with Baptist connectionalism is that it has more of a tendency to fall apart, probably because of the nature of it: independence. Has the old joke says: Baptists plant lots of churches because they are the best at church splits.

The common alignment between church polity and baptism is more a matter of historical lineage and development than theological necessity. Presbyterianism (proper) initially developed from within and as establishment churches, whereas Baptists (proper) were born and treated as a fringe minority extremely skeptical of and persecuted by the establishment. The Westminster congregationalists and the ensuing Grand Debate prove that independency and peadobaptism are not mutually exclusive, nor in principle is the reverse orientation. Congregationalists outnumbered Baptists in America for two centuries. If a group of Reformed Baptists wanted to amend their Confession in the area of polity, it would no more cause theological conflict in its other parts than when the American Presbyterians amended their Confession in the area of establishment.

I agree. When do you want to start a new denomination?

 

[Ben Zartman]

1. Your point about being called a Reformed Baptist reminds me of Scott Clark's position on what is "Reformed." There were many confessions in the 16th-17th centuries other than the WCF and Three Forms. Likewise, is the New Hampshire Confession or Baptist Faith and Message "Reformed" enough?
2. Being Presbyterian (as government) does not prevent sin, factions, and splits. But it seems like part of the problem with Baptist connectionalism is that it has more of a tendency to fall apart, probably because of the nature of it: independence. Has the old joke says: Baptists plant lots of churches because they are the best at church splits.


I agree. When do you want to start a new denomination?

The NH and Faith and Message are products of recent times, and beg the question: why depart from the LBCF? And if the departure has been made, why take the same name? The name is just a convenient handle which ideally, will tell strangers what to expect if they attend a service. Sadly, the LBCF has been taken up by many who can't seem to understand it, and they innovate in worship with holidays, they join denominations, engage in para-church "ministries," etc. But if the name "Reformed Baptist" becomes too broad, perhaps we'll refine it yet again. I already did so in my signature when someone insisted that paedobaptism is a sine qua non of the title "Reformed".

But in answer to the joke made above by another respondent about Baptists being good at splitting, please count how many presbyterian denominations exist, and are cropping up year by year, even here on this board.

 

[Presbaptist]

The NH and Faith and Message are products of recent times, and beg the question: why depart from the LBCF? And if the departure has been made, why take the same name? The name is just a convenient handle which ideally, will tell strangers what to expect if they attend a service. Sadly, the LBCF has been taken up by many who can't seem to understand it, and they innovate in worship with holidays, they join denominations, engage in para-church "ministries," etc. But if the name "Reformed Baptist" becomes too broad, perhaps we'll refine it yet again. I already did so in my signature when someone insisted that paedobaptism is a sine qua non of the title "Reformed".

But in answer to the joke made above by another respondent about Baptists being good at splitting, please count how many presbyterian denominations exist, and are cropping up year by year, even here on this board.

I don't know but I'm sure someone on Puritan Board will. When did the moniker Reformed Baptist first come into play? From my reading, Particular Baptist was the original moniker.

 

[Ben Zartman]

And before that, we were first called "Christians" at Antioch. Monikers have to change to adapt to times. When "Reformed Baptist" is no longer precise enough, some other name will come along. The name matters less than the things we confess, which are summed up nicely in 2LBCF.

I don't know but I'm sure someone on Puritan Board will. When did the moniker Reformed Baptist first come into play? From my reading, Particular Baptist was the original moniker.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

What? That didn't even enter into my mind. It's not error-proof, it's credobaptism proof. The PCUSA, for all its shifting, never considered ending paedobaptism, nor would it.

So let me get this straight. "Presbyterianism" wasn't able to stop the largest Presbyterian body in the United States from tolerating homosexuality, transgenderism, and even ATHEISM among the clergy, but CREDOBAPTISM is where they draw the line?

Yeah, I am not convinced that your argument is sound.