# The Marks of the (True) Church and Baptism



## Sebastian Heck (Feb 1, 2011)

What role should our view of Baptism (paedo- vs. credo) play with respect to the second mark of any true church: the right (i.e. biblical) administration of the sacraments?

Does it make a difference whether a church practices infant baptism (Romish, Lutheran, Reformed, Federal Vision, etc.) or credobaptism (Anabaptist, Baptist etc.), as long as it practices Christian (Trinitarian) baptism, it is a true church?

What do you think? (Mind you, I am *NOT* discussing baptism_ per se_ here, only the question whether our view of baptism informs the second mark of the church!)


----------



## Dearly Bought (Feb 1, 2011)

Credobaptist and paedobaptist churches cannot rightly recognize each other as true churches if the biblical administration of the sacraments is a mark of the true church. From a credobaptist perspective, we include vast numbers of the unregenerate in our churches. From a paedobaptist perspective, our credobaptist friends exclude vast numbers of Christians from the church.

The sacraments are a visible word, a further proclamation of the Gospel that we preach. Rightly considered in this way, the "second" mark of the true church is really an extension of the first mark. To tamper with the administration of the sacraments is to tamper with the Gospel itself.


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 1, 2011)

Sebastian,

As an "Reformed" baptist I have thought about this a lot. I agree with the core of the three marks of the Church, but have to acknowledge that my practice of credo-baptism is out of accord with the majority of what Reformed churches have held and practiced.

So what is my take on the 2nd mark? Obviously I can't take a strict view otherwise I unchurch my church! So yes there is an element of "special pleading" on my part. Yet I think its a good guide to have these three marks. 

So I understand and practice it this way. So long as a church practices the sacraments in the proper way, as their historic confessions permit, then I'd accept them as true churches. I don't mean that to be a carte blanche. What I mean is that so long as a presbyterian/paedobaptist church baptises adult converts and the children of believers as per the historic confessions I would accept them as true churches (as against Rome which baptises all-comers), so long as they have an accurate understanding that baptism is not a regenerating ordinance then they are a true church.

On the baptist side so long as they require a credible profession and not merely a decision for example, and do not understand it as regenerating then I'd accept them as a true church.

With regard to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper ditto - if there is a carefulness about its administration, fencing the table etc. Then they are fulfilling the requirements of the Bible and confessions. I thinking of Calvin leaning over the Table to make sure the Libertines had no access.

I think that is the main thrust of the Belgic confession which surely was written in the context of a largely agreed mode of baptism but widespread abuse as to who it was applied to. Without doubt the authors believed only that paedobaptism was legitimate, but maybe the former was the main target i.e. abuse of sacrament by Rome?


----------

