# Presbyterian attending Baptist Churches?



## ww

I know of plenty of credobaptists who attend PCA, OPC churches etc. Actually I'll go a step further I've met several credobaptists who are very influential and in many instances are the backbone of PCA churches in spite of the fact that they cannot hold Church Office. 

But are there any Presbyterian/paedobaptist folks attending Baptistic or non-denominational (baptistic) Calvinistic Churches on PB? If so what do you do when you have children who need to be baptized?


----------



## lynnie

My pastor used to work (CCEF counselor type stuff) at a Reformed and Baptist church that had a good reputation all around and attracted many people including paedos. He said the church just sent them over to the closest PCA if they had a baby they wanted baptized. The PCA church was fine with it since they knew the pastor would only send over believing parents. (The quality of the teaching and doctrine at that time was actually far better at the Baptist church; the local PCA sermons were rumored to consist of watered over World Magazine articles).

I would guess John Piper must draw some paedos, I wonder what they do out there......


----------



## larryjf

Wouldn't the fact that they don't properly administer the sacraments mean that they aren't a true church?


----------



## matt01

whitway said:


> But are there any Presbyterian/paedobaptist folks attending Baptistic or non-denominational (baptistic) Calvinistic Churches on PB? If so what do you do when you have children who need to be baptized?



Wait until they are able to join themselves to a local presbyterian church.


----------



## JohnGill

whitway said:


> I know of plenty of credobaptists who attend PCA, OPC churches etc. Actually I'll go a step further I've met several credobaptists who are very influential and in many instances are the backbone of PCA churches in spite of the fact that they cannot hold Church Office.
> 
> But are there any Presbyterian/paedobaptist folks attending Baptistic or non-denominational (baptistic) Calvinistic Churches on PB? If so what do you do when you have children who need to be baptized?



I don't know if there any on the PB, but there are some at my church. (SBC) We don't baptize children until a profession of faith is made. Sometimes the families take their children to a local PCUSA church just for that. Other times they wait until they go on vacation and do it at their home church. (Military families.) There is a local Episcopal church pastored by a pastor from the OPC. Most presbyterians attending Baptistic churches in town are unaware of this. Any I meet I let them know that they have that option as well. Hope this helps.


----------



## ww

lynnie said:


> My pastor used to work (CCEF counselor type stuff) at a Reformed and Baptist church that had a good reputation all around and attracted many people including paedos. He said the church just sent them over to the closest PCA if they had a baby they wanted baptized. The PCA church was fine with it since they knew the pastor would only send over believing parents. (The quality of the teaching and doctrine at that time was actually far better at the Baptist church; the local PCA sermons were rumored to consist of watered over World Magazine articles).
> 
> I would guess John Piper must draw some paedos, I wonder what they do out there......



Excellent Points and hitting home as to why I asked the question in the first place.

-----Added 3/8/2009 at 06:24:57 EST-----



larryjf said:


> Wouldn't the fact that they don't properly administer the sacraments mean that they aren't a true church?



I guess that's matter of debate however I guess I'm asking those who do believe that a Calvinistic Baptist Church is a True Church.


----------



## charliejunfan

I attend a Reformed Baptist church but will switch once I have children if not before....


----------



## DMcFadden

larryjf said:


> Wouldn't the fact that they don't properly administer the sacraments mean that they aren't a true church?



Sorry, Larry, those of us in Baptist churches, aka synagogues of Satan usually just sit around engaging in occult blood ceremonies, practicing cannibalism, chanting vain repetitious mantras, etc. 

 So much for the line that Presbyterians accept Baptists but that Baptists don't accept Presbyterians.



> I guess that's matter of debate however I guess I'm asking those who do believe that a Calvinistic Baptist Church is a True Church.



Indeed, Wayne, indeed.

Since one of the mods recently suggested that I might be a crypto-Presbyterian who hasn't come out of the closet yet, you cannot imagine how confusing this is to one's identity! It is sort of like being a Texas rancher at a PETA convention, Jesse Jackson at a KKK rally, Hugh Heffner at a NOW gathering, or an Arminian Pentecostal on the PB.


----------



## Herald

larryjf said:


> Wouldn't the fact that they don't properly administer the sacraments mean that they aren't a true church?



Larry, I still consider a Presbyterian church a true church even though they don't properly administer the sacraments. 

Actually, most Presbyterians I know consider Baptists to be in error regarding baptism, but they don't deny we're a true church. That arguments cuts both ways.


----------



## Knoxienne

Herald said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the fact that they don't properly administer the sacraments mean that they aren't a true church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry, I still consider a Presbyterian church a true church even though they don't properly administer the sacraments.
> 
> Actually, most Presbyterians I know consider Baptists to be in error regarding baptism, but they don't deny we're a true church. That arguments cuts both ways.
Click to expand...


I know that in our denomination (URCNA) there are some people and leaders who don't believe that baptists are saved - perhaps because of the counter-reformation - who knows. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't believe that Spurgeon, Gill and Pink were saved needs a lot more than his head examined.  These people need to be reminded that it was paedos who murdered baptists, not the other way around. 

I would rather sit under strong meaty preaching from a reformed baptist than sermonettes for Christianettes preached by many Presbyterians any day. I'm not saying all presbyterian preachers preach that way, but I do tend to favor more baptist preachers than Presbyterians. 

As far as baptism goes, A baptist brother of ours said he'd rather see an infant be baptized and grow up to accept the promises of the covenant and live a godly life than see a young man get baptized and live like the Devil. Likewise, I'd rather see a young person get baptized upon making a profession of faith and live in a godly manner than see a young child who's been baptized in infancy take his baptism for granted.


----------



## JohnGill

Knoxienne said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the fact that they don't properly administer the sacraments mean that they aren't a true church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry, I still consider a Presbyterian church a true church even though they don't properly administer the sacraments.
> 
> Actually, most Presbyterians I know consider Baptists to be in error regarding baptism, but they don't deny we're a true church. That arguments cuts both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that in our denomination (URCNA) there are some people and leaders who don't believe that baptists are saved - perhaps because of the counter-reformation - who knows. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't believe that Spurgeon, Gill and Pink were saved needs a lot more than his head examined.  These people need to be reminded that it was paedos who murdered baptists, not the other way around.
> 
> I would rather sit under strong meaty preaching from a reformed baptist than sermonettes for Christianettes preached by many Presbyterians any day. I'm not saying all presbyterian preachers preach that way, but I do tend to favor more baptist preachers than Presbyterians.
> 
> As far as baptism goes, A baptist brother of ours said he'd rather see an infant be baptized and grow up to accept the promises of the covenant and live a godly life than see a young man get baptized and live like the Devil. Likewise, I'd rather see a young person get baptized upon making a profession of faith and live in a godly manner than see a young child who's been baptized in infancy take his baptism for granted.
Click to expand...


I'd expect such a wise post from you being married to Theognome.


----------



## larryjf

There's a big difference between saying that a baptist church is not a true church and saying that baptists aren't saved (which i never said). The marks of a true church are not the same as the marks of a true christian.

The marks of a true church are:

Rightly preaching the Word of God
Rightly administering the sacraments
Rightly practicing discipline

The Belgic Confession states it this way (article 29):


> The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.


----------



## Knoxienne

larryjf said:


> There's a big difference between saying that a baptist church is not a true church and saying that baptists aren't saved (which i never said). The marks of a true church are not the same as the marks of a true christian.
> 
> The marks of a true church are:
> 
> Rightly preaching the Word of God
> Rightly administering the sacraments
> Rightly practicing discipline
> 
> The Belgic Confession states it this way (article 29):
> 
> 
> 
> The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.
Click to expand...


Larry - Please forgive me if you thought I was accusing you of saying something you did not - I was not reacting to your words at all - just to the ideas believed by many in my denomination - people who would also say the baptist church is not a true church. I should have been clearer.


----------



## larryjf

Toni,

I appreciate that. I may have taken it the wrong way as i did think it was directed towards me.

-----Added 3/8/2009 at 08:03:28 EST-----

Since no church practices the 3 marks perfectly the question that should actually be asked is how "rightly" these marks must be carried out.

If only the understanding of what the Baptism represents is what's needed to rightly administer the sacrament then both Baptists and Presbyterians meet the requirement.

But if those to whom the sacrament is withheld from is important, then one of us does not meet the requirement.

Just consider for a moment that it is wrong to keep infants from being baptized, then we could draw an analogy by excluding a different group of people to see if we would have the same spirit of brotherhood considering the sacrament.
So what if African-Americans were withheld from the sacrament...would it be a true church? If not, then it does matter who's withheld from the sacrament in defining a true church.


----------



## reh cha cha

wow


----------



## Rich Koster

As much as we argue the point, we are going to find out that we BOTH baptized un-elect on the Day.


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]The question is about Presbyterians attending Baptist churches, not about the status of Baptist churches. Keep your posts on topic or watch them go up in smoke.[/Moderator]


----------



## JohnGill

py3ak said:


> [Moderator]The question is about Presbyterians attending Baptist churches, not about the status of Baptist churches. Keep your posts on topic or watch them go up in smoke.[/Moderator]



Elijah?

I remember a Joel Beeke sermon that mentioned credos going to paedos churches and vice versa. He might be able to answer the question if you email him. Or Pastor VanderZwaag.


----------



## DMcFadden

During my pastoral years, I had several Presbyterians who attended our church. In my limited experience, congregations in some areas do not offer a plethora of good options. The call to be part of the visible Body of Christ trumps the specific details of some of our intra-mural disputes. A solidly Calvinistic Baptist would probably be an improvement over the tepid teaching of some mainline Presbyterians. And, I would MUCH rather be part of a confessional Presbyterian church (even if they wouldn't let me teach) than attend a liberal American Baptist congregation.


----------



## ww

DMcFadden said:


> During my pastoral years, I had several Presbyterians who attended our church. In my limited experience, congregations in some areas do not offer a plethora of good options. The call to be part of the visible Body of Christ trumps the specific details of some of our intra-mural disputes. A solidly Calvinistic Baptist would probably be an improvement over the tepid teaching of some mainline Presbyterians. And, I would MUCH rather be part of a confessional Presbyterian church (even if they wouldn't let me teach) than attend a liberal American Baptist congregation.


----------



## larryjf

Out of deference to the moderator i will not be posting "off topic" on this thread. If the mod deems it to be "on topic" then i will be more than happy to continue.


----------



## Rich Koster

DMcFadden said:


> During my pastoral years, I had several Presbyterians who attended our church. In my limited experience, congregations in some areas do not offer a plethora of good options. The call to be part of the visible Body of Christ trumps the specific details of some of our intra-mural disputes. A solidly Calvinistic Baptist would probably be an improvement over the tepid teaching of some mainline Presbyterians. And, I would MUCH rather be part of a confessional Presbyterian church (even if they wouldn't let me teach) than attend a liberal American Baptist congregation.



I believe that I am a solid Calvinistic Baptist. I attend a liberal AB Church. They let me teach and I don't hold back. I ran some "accept and affirm" people off already. However, I do have a small audience and agreement with part of them. Should I stop or continue sharing the doctrines of grace? Should I start this on a new thread?


----------



## Ivan

JohnGill said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Moderator]The question is about Presbyterians attending Baptist churches, not about the status of Baptist churches. Keep your posts on topic or watch them go up in smoke.[/Moderator]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elijah?
Click to expand...


It took me a while but I got it!


----------



## DMcFadden

Rich,

My pilgrimage is quite different from yours. I was a pastoral leader in ABC circles and served on a number of boards at the local, regional, and national levels. When my region withdrew, I naturally went with them. That is not to say that you are not having an impact on your neck of the woods. NJ is a funny area: it has both liberal AND conservative ABC congregations and a conservative Executive Minister of the region. Go figure! I'm not judging the validity of your staying in your church. At this point in life, it would not be possible for me, however.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I attended a Baptist Church for 3 years in Okinawa primarily because there was no choice but, in the end, felt very privileged to have attended there in the Providence of God. It helped me to stop labeling people and to start thinking of people as Christians who are in need of patience and bearing with them. I never taught against credo-Baptism though, by the providence of God, one of the former couples that attended there now attends the same PCA Church here in VA. I taught about baptism about 3 weeks ago on the baptism of their infant daughter: http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/baptism-teaching-its-meaning-significance-43895/

In my case, we had our two children born in Okinawa baptized when we were on vacation for Sophia or when we returned to the States with Calvin.


----------



## Marrow Man

My NT/Greek prof at Seminary (he teaches at Covenant now) received his Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen. One day before class, someone asked him if he belonged to the Church of Scotland while he was over there. He responded that no, he worshiped at the Baptist church.

This prof was straight from Scottish stock. I would suspect his blood ran blue. So it puzzled everyone when he said this. Then he told us why. He asked, in a congregation of about 150, how many elders should a church have. A few numbers were called out (5? 8? 10?). Then he told us the answer -- 30. This church of 150 had 30 elders, 10 of which (he said) might have been Christian. Every lawyer or accountant in the congregation was made an elder, it seems. Very pragmatic and ungodly. So the Baptist church is where he went for those 2 or 3 years.

I'm not sure if any of his children were born there or, if so, what he did with regard to their baptisms.


----------



## Herald

larryjf said:


> There's a big difference between saying that a baptist church is not a true church and saying that baptists aren't saved (which i never said). The marks of a true church are not the same as the marks of a true christian.
> 
> The marks of a true church are:
> 
> Rightly preaching the Word of God
> Rightly administering the sacraments
> Rightly practicing discipline
> 
> The Belgic Confession states it this way (article 29):
> 
> 
> 
> The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.
Click to expand...


This line of reasoning is not helpful at all. It only serves to pit Presbyterians and Baptists against each other. Presbyterians can say that Baptist churches aren't true churches and vice versa. Both groups will stand on their respective confessions waving their true church flag and fail to see they've missed the big picture. "I'm so glad that I don't go to THAT church. After all, they're not a true church." It smacks of theological hubris cloaked in confessional conviction.

The PB recognizes a plurality of denominations that fit the criteria of a true church. We are bound together on this board by agreement with accepted confessions. It would be helpful to keep in mind that some paedo-communionists would question whether those paedo churches that refuse paedo communion are true churches. Interesting how the worm turns. 

Debating the administration of the sacraments is fair game. We do that all the time on the PB.


----------



## Marrow Man

It might be helpful to acknowledge, with regard to the administration of the sacraments, that Rome has a view of baptism that is regenerative (as in the washing away of original sin) and a view of communion that is rank idolatry. The Reformers were primarily railing against these views. Neither Baptists nor Presbyteries, for their disagreements, come anywhere near these destructive teachings.


----------



## larryjf

Bill,

I'm sorry that i can't comment on your post due to the moderator's post. If you are interested in my thoughts on your post please PM me.

I hope you understand.

-----Added 3/8/2009 at 11:00:16 EST-----



Marrow Man said:


> It might be helpful to acknowledge, with regard to the administration of the sacraments, that Rome has a view of baptism that is regenerative (as in the washing away of original sin) and a view of communion that is rank idolatry. The Reformers were primarily railing against these views. Neither Baptists nor Presbyteries, for their disagreements, come anywhere near these destructive teachings.



I spoke to this here...
http://www.puritanboard.com/566146-post14.html


----------

