# It is official: The Free Presbyterian Church of North America



## Jonathan (May 17, 2005)

Today, the Free Presbyterian Church of North America was officially formed. 23 congregations in North America have been removed from the care of the Free Presbyterian Church of Northern Ireland, and are now their own governing Presbytery in North America. Pray hard for this work, that we will undertake to preach the Gospel in this needy land. 
Just finished watching the inaugeration service on sermonaudio.com, and it was real blessing to see the dedication our denomination has for Christ and His Word. We pray that the Holy Spirit will come and bless us as we begin to move forward; please pray along with us.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jonathan_
> Today, the Free Presbyterian Church of North America was officially formed. 23 congregations in North America have been removed from the care of the Free Presbyterian Church of Northern Ireland, and are now their own governing Presbytery in North America. Pray hard for this work, that we will undertake to preach the Gospel in this needy land.
> Just finished watching the inaugeration service on sermonaudio.com, and it was real blessing to see the dedication our denomination has for Christ and His Word. We pray that the Holy Spirit will come and bless us as we begin to move forward; please pray along with us.



What's their position on baptism? Like Ian Paisley's church... some half-and-half choose-for-your-family compromise?


----------



## Jonathan (May 18, 2005)

I will quote from our current book of practice... (there is a new one just about to be put out).

It explains the different beliefs but then makes this statement; 


> *Difference without Division*
> 
> The FPC recognizes that good men have differed and continue to differ on this emotive subject. Yet should God's people seperate from one another over baptism? Can they not hold their view strongly while allowing conscientious brethren to hold a differing view? We believe they can and should. Thus Article 6A of our _Articles of Faith_ states: "The FPC, 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 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 FPC shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honour in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration."
> We do not undervalue baptism, but we do not want needless division either. We would not wish to be exclusively Presbyterian that we could find no place for a C.H. Spurgeon just because he strongly adhered to believer's baptism. Nor would we wish to be so Baptistic that we would exclude a Robert Murray M'Cheyne just because he strongly held to baptism for the children of believers.
> In the World Council of Churches, Baptists and paedo-Baptists are seeking to work out an acceptable position that will do justice to all their traditions. They are doing this in the spirit of compromise on every major doctrine of the gospel. This is betrayal. But is it not sad that Baptists and paedo-Baptists who agree in upholding every fundamental of the faith cannot usually find the love, the humility, or whatever it takes, to stand together in the unity of the gospel? That is the problem the FPC addressed at its inception. Ever since, it has enjoyed a spirit of unity that has not been marred by the diversity of views on baptism it encompasses.



Just on an aside, my dad was not a paedo-baptist till just a few years ago... he was strongly opposed to it, but he still talked with paedo-baptists lovingly and humbly, not seperate from them. I know many good men, including some of our ministers, who are believer-Baptism, and many others who are paedo-Baptism. I do not think compromise is a good word, but if that is the word you prefer, it is a "Godly compromise". We do not flippantly handle this doctrine (the opposite actually), but we also see the importance of unity. I believe separation over this issue is wrong; it is flat-out needless.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 20, 2005)

I like that position. I am a strong believer in believers baptism but desire to be in close fellowship with Presbyterians. I believe there is a Free Presbyterian Church on the South East side of Indianapolis. I think I will try to visit it soon.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 20, 2005)

I'm afraid I don't understand how this works on a practical level. Is the practice of Free P churches to have some congregations that are paedo-baptist and some which are credo-baptist or do some or all congregations contain a mix of paedo and credo adherents? 

And does this translate into some children who are considered covenant church members while others are not? 

Just trying to understand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 20, 2005)

Yea, Probably. Hows that for an answer. I am willing to bet the Credo's can't hold office though.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 20, 2005)

*What Presbyterians Are Good For*



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I like that position.



I thought it rather cool but unusual when I first heard of it a good while ago... that such a doctrinal balance existed.

I am a Reformed Baptist that loiters around Presbyterians-- at least the stalwart conservative ones. " As one of my Presbyterian pastor friends says, "It may be a bit too much of a stereotype, but in the 1800s and early 1900s, Episcopalians controlled the money in the nation, Presbyterians controlled the scholarship, and Baptists and Methodists controlled the numbers, that is, the majority of the Protestants. Baptist theologians like James P. Boyce received their theological training from the Princeton theologians like the Hodges and the Alexanders. Other theologians looked to Presbyterians and admired their scholarship. Taking out a Presbyterian theologian was a hefty coup d´tat." Now, who do I look to for edification and scholarship? Lets see --Presbyterians-- and C.H. Spurgeon.
:bigsmile:


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> I thought it rather cool but unusual when I first heard of it a good while ago... that such a doctrinal balance existed.



According to Phillip Schaff, this same type of unity existed in the early church, between those who baptized their children and those who didn't. 

Schaff says that compulsory infant baptism was not an issue until post-Constantine times. Of course baptism was important in the early church, but it wasn't necessarily an "issue" like it was later. Indeed, if anyone spoke against the very *validity* of paedobaptism, they would all vehemently disagree. So in a sense, they were all "paedobaptists". It was not a mix of paedobaptists and credobaptists. We can unanimously define the early church AT LEAST as NON-credobaptist, since they all accepted the validity of paedobaptism. But they did not all baptize their children. (Though it seems as though the vast majority did) It was not a devisive theological "issue", however. Many probably waited using Tertullian's logic, which was based on the faulty view of baptismal regeneration. But nobody rejected infant baptism altogether, as if it were an invalid practice. --- All said and done, whether parents baptized their children, or chose not to, Schaff points out that they all pretty much "got along with each other" in the early church, in spite of baptismal differences.

Anyway, I think it's pretty neat that people were able to "get along" with each other in the early church regarding this issue. Whether parents decided to baptize their children or not, it doesn't look (historically) like there were huge feuds over it in the first few centuries of the church.

[Edited on 5-20-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Jonathan (May 20, 2005)

Get along is an understatement.  I would say that half of our congregation is believer, half paedo (rough estimate). We get along great... the attitude in discussing the issue is usually very humble in nature. 
I believe that it is the best position to take... sometimes I see people take such a strong stand on baptism, that they ignore unity, love, and humility. The attitude, in our church, towards baptism is usually _approached_ with unity, love and humility. It is a unique (maybe unusual) position, yes, but it does not compromise on Baptism. I believe more reformed churches would be better to take this position.

[Edited on 5-20-2005 by Jonathan]


----------



## Peter (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Yea, Probably. Hows that for an answer. I am willing to bet the Credo's can't hold office though.



Actually I think Pastor Cairns of the Free Presbyterian Church is credo.


----------



## Jonathan (May 20, 2005)

Our pastor is credo...  You would be surprised at how many are credo...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 20, 2005)

Shifting the discussion slightly, is there an official or unofficial eschatology in the Free P Church?


----------



## Jonathan (May 20, 2005)

I think there are some types of Pre-mil (which type unsure, some historic i think); some amil; some post-mil. No official eschatology position, however. Handled like baptism is . My favorite quote by David Brame: "There are 4 types of eschatology: pre-mil, a-mil, post-mil and pan-mil: pan-mil being, It will all pan out in the end." But no, no official position.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 21, 2005)

I still have a question. Do the Credo's baptize the infants or do they allow another Elder in the Congregation who is paedo do it.


----------



## Jonathan (May 22, 2005)

No. A paedo-elder does.


----------

