# Can one hold to both WCF & LBCF



## NB3K (May 28, 2011)

I know this may seem like a dumb question, I hold to the WCF, but I hold to believer's baptism also. I was glancing over the "Tabular Comparison" of the two, namely because I am a baptist and thought that maybe I would be more LBCF, but I see that the LBCF doe not hold to the reprobate being foreordained to eternal death. But at the same time there are things that the LBCF state that I whole heartedly agree with that the WCF does not state.

My question is can one hold to both without being in hypocrisy?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 28, 2011)

NO


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 28, 2011)

I appreciate both. There are things that are stated better in the WCF in my estimation. I am still a credo Baptist. So I believe there are things that are stated more biblically in the LBCF. Now as far as subscription to one or the other the answer the two do not have agreement concerning ecclesiology nor the sacrament (or ordinance) of baptism.


----------



## Edward (May 28, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Can one hold to both WCF & LBCF



Depends on what you mean by 'hold to'. One would need to take significant exceptions to each. Your views on the sacraments should certainly bar you from holding office in a Presbyterian church, and would bar you from membership in some. One certainly couldn't subscribe to both at the same time.


----------



## NB3K (May 28, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> NO



But it is acceptable for one to hold believer's baptisim and at the same time ascribe to the WCF as I have done.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 28, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > NO
> ...


 
You can believe whatever you want, but that does not mean you subscribe to anything.


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 28, 2011)

You don't subscribe to the WCF. Unless the expression has the meaning 'I agree with some of the WCF'. Which it doesn't!

Don't worry about it, though. I would recommend that you, as a credobaptist, subscribe to the LBCF and leave it there. You may appreciate some sections of the WCF and hold to them, but you can't 'subscribe' to it.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 28, 2011)

No. 

You cannot hold to believers baptism (or antipaedobaptism as Joshua would prefer it to be termed) and subscribe to the WCF. Indeed, the WCF says at 28.5 that to neglect or "contemn" baptism is a "great sin." The term baptism ("this ordinance") there includes infant baptism. Did that part perhaps escape your notice? 

I suppose you could pick and choose selections from the WCF, the 1689, the Savoy and any other confession and make your own. But at that point it would be your confession and not one of the historic confessions. I have known some Baptists who have cobbled together their own confession by coming up with some of their own material and using parts of other confessions or statements of faith. 

Of course, many erstwhile Reformed Presbyterians and Baptists in practice do not believe whole chapters of their confessions e.g. the 2nd and 4th commandments. In the somewhat loose PCA you can be a church member while maintaining baptistic convictions. But you cannot serve as an officer and cannot publicly oppose paedobaptism as that would necessarily be divisive.


----------



## torstar (May 28, 2011)

Joshua said:


> One *MUST* hold to "Believer's Baptism" in order to agree with the Westminster Confession. It's not optional.


 

Not fair, Joshua.

But much appreciated.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 28, 2011)

NB3K said:


> But it is acceptable for one to hold believer's baptisim and at the same time ascribe to the WCF as I have done.



You are either confused as to the contents of the respective confessions, or to the definition of "subscription." Notwithstanding, there is a reason for the two separate confessions, and by extension, a reason for the two separate groups - Presbyterian and Baptist. The reason the Baptists chose to employ the WCF & Savoy as their starting point was to illustrate the profound affinity we share with our Reformed brethren. However, their are substantial and consequential differences as well. And for that reason, the Baptist Confession was framed to articulate the distinctive convictions of men like yourself. So hold fast the confession of your faith with all due deference to the illustrious Westminster heritage which we as Reformed Baptists to a great degree are indebted.


----------



## NB3K (May 29, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> The term baptism ("this ordinance") there includes infant baptism. Did that part perhaps escape your notice?



No. When I first joined the PB I subscribed to the WCF and stated that I did not hold to Infant baptism, and said I would not make an issue of it. Yesterday though I was reading through the "Tabular Comparison of WCF & LBCF) thinking that I would fit in with the LBCF, but as I was reading I saw considerable differences in the WCF over the LBCF (namely in the doctrine of election). But this is also before I looked with more detail to Acts 16.

Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 

Now I know in this account we cannot prove that their was any infants that were baptised, but the man's whole family was baptised, so therefore I believe if there were infants they too were baptised. So now I am starting to see that there is a case for baptising my children even though they have not made a confession of faith that they truly understand.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 29, 2011)

NB3K said:


> So now I am starting to see that there is a case for baptising my children even though they have not made a confession of faith that they truly understand



I would say that this passage certainly allows for the possibility of infant baptism, however the entire passage in context clearly shows that the entire family heard the gospel and that the entire family believed before they were baptized.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 29, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> would say that this passage certainly allows for the possibility of infant baptism, however the entire passage in context clearly shows that the entire family heard the gospel and that the entire family believed before they were baptized.



As a paedo I would also add that the passage may allow for infant baptism, but it speaks nothing to the "why" infants were baptized. Answering the "why" question is much more important than the "who."


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 29, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> As a paedo I would also add that the passage may allow for infant baptism, but it speaks nothing to the "why" they were baptized. Answering the "why" question is much more important than the "who."



I would agree.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 29, 2011)

NB3K said:


> So now I am starting to see that there is a case for baptising my children even though they have not made a confession of faith that they truly understand.



This is the second time in the same thread that your remarks have left me confused as to what you believe concerning the baptism of infants.


----------



## Herald (May 29, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> This is the second time in the same thread that your remarks have left me confused as to what you believe concerning the baptism of infants.



Ditto.


----------



## Grimmson (May 29, 2011)

It is more than just infant baptism that seperates the two, there also the issue of the mode of baptism. See 29.4 of the Second London (copied from the Spurgeon ed.):
"Immersion - the dipping of the person in water - is necessary for the due administration of this ordinance"

And compare to 28.3 of the WCF:
"Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person."


----------



## NB3K (May 30, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> This is the second time in the same thread that your remarks have left me confused as to what you believe concerning the baptism of infants.



First I am trying to understand why those who believe in infant baptism believe it. I then posted Acts 16 as and Ah Ha moment. How is that confusing? I am the one that is in the middle of the learning curve trying to learn this.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 30, 2011)

NB3K said:


> First I am trying to understand why those who believe in infant baptism believe it. I then posted Acts 16 as and Ah Ha moment. How is that confusing? I am the one that is in the middle of the learning curve trying to learn this



The confusion stems from the fact that Acts 16 does not address the "why" question.


----------



## NB3K (May 30, 2011)

This is all I am trying to say: I am 100% Reformed down to the soul of my being. I just don't know where I stand on Baptism. I hope for those whom I have confused now know where I stand. I am asking for help. I am totally in need of guidance on this matter.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 30, 2011)

NB3K said:


> This is all I am trying to say: I am 100% Reformed down to the soul of my being.



You say this, but your lack of understanding of Baptism states otherwise.


----------



## NB3K (May 30, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> You say this, but your lack of understanding of Baptism states otherwise.




Now I am really confused, what do you mean by that?


----------



## ericfromcowtown (May 30, 2011)

NB3K said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> > This is the second time in the same thread that your remarks have left me confused as to what you believe concerning the baptism of infants.
> ...



It sounds like you're wrestling through the differences between the WCF and LBCF, educating yourself about differences within the "reformed camp," and don't know where you stand yet on some of these differences. There is nothing wrong there. You should be commended for taking the time to delve into these things.

As other posters have said, there is also nothing wrong with saying that you find much that is favourable, commendable, or edifying in both of these confessions. 

I think the confusion comes when you talked about "holding" to the WCF and "subscribing" to either (or both) the WCF and LBCF. These words make it seem like you've wrestled (past-tense) and educated (past-tense) yourself about the confessions and have taken a stand one way or the other, and yet do not understand what you've taken a stand on.


----------



## NB3K (May 30, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Originally Posted by NB3K
> This is all I am trying to say: I am 100% Reformed down to the soul of my being.
> You say this, but your lack of understanding of Baptism states otherwise.



How can my lack of understanding baptism question whether or not I am reformed? If in the "Reformed Faith" there are two views of baptism? As for as Grace is concerned I am Augustinian on that matter. When it comes to God's Sovereignty & Providence, there again I stand with Augustine, Luther, & Calvin. THe only issue at hand is baptism.

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------




ericfromcowtown said:


> I think the confusion comes when you talked about "holding" to the WCF and "subscribing" to either (or both) the WCF and LBCF.



This is what happened the other day. I was comparing the two different confessions because I am a baptist, and I tought that I should switch over to the LBCF, but when I was comparing the two, I saw that the WCF makes absolute statements on Election that the LBCF does not namely that the WCF states the foreordaining of the reprobate. But as I studied a bit more and started reading some passages that infant baptisers use my view as a baptist was shaken and I acknowledged that there is a case for it. So right now I DONT KNOW WHERE I STAND ON BAPTISM. I wish I could have better support here than I did at my church. When I said I think the Bible makes a case for infant baptisim my elders could not believe I said that.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------




Chaplainintraining said:


> The confusion stems from the fact that Acts 16 does not address the "why" question.



Then can you help me with the "why" so I may understand.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 30, 2011)

Jason, Some believe that a person is not Reformed unless they hold to a Covenantal view of paedo-baptism. 

Here is a blog I posted concerning Reformed and Reformed Baptists. They are distinct and two different things. It has to do with a historical understanding of what being Reformed Theologically is. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/covenantal-baptists-reformed-historical-understanding-reformed-theology-316/

I am a Credo Baptist. I am not a paedo Baptist. There are also some major differences in the Confessions concerning ecclesiology or how the Church Government functions. You have a lot to learn my friend. Take your time. Do not claim or make a switch theologically too fast. Study the positions out. This will take years most likely if you are going to be solid. Don't just look at a few verses and make decisions. Get to know contexts and arguments from both sides of the issues. I truly mostly hold to the WCF with the exception of baptism. I am an oddity. I also land somewhere in between the ecclesiology of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. I will probably always land somewhere in between the two because I have struggled with the issue for years. Don't be tossed to and fro by making quick decisions concerning doctrinal positions. Take your time in learning the defenses of both. Take your time in learning the defenses of both. I can't emphasize that enough. 

If you want some guidance in directing you where to learn and understand the differing positions just ask. I can pretty well argue both sides of the baptism issue. Actually ecclesiology also plays a part in the baptism issue also. But that will take a bit of discussion also. There are threads and discussions on the Puritanboard that you can search and read to help you understand. Concerning household baptisms you can do a search and find that discussed on the PB also. Get to know the questions and answers that are raised by both sides of the debate. It will benefit you greatly. I also have a lot of blog posts on my Puritanboard blog concerning this issue. You might find some good answers here. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 30, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jason, Some believe that a person is not Reformed unless they hold to a Covenantal view of paedo-baptism.



Although this is the case with some, I wanted to point out that this was not the case with me. I made the comment about baptism because NB3K keeps pointing to the "who" of baptism, not "why." This causes me to see the possibility of a "memorial view" of baptism which is not Reformed Credo or Reformed Paedo. 



NB3K said:


> How can my lack of understanding baptism question whether or not I am reformed?



I am not questioning whether you are Reformed. I am questioning whether you can properly say



NB3K said:


> I am 100% Reformed down to the soul of my being.



You may end up being 100%, but until you gain a better understanding of baptism I would say you are learning. 

The Reformed community does have two views of baptism, but both are seen as a Means of Grace. All forms of memorialism, baptismal regeneration, and removal of original sin fall outside the Reformed community.

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------




NB3K said:


> Then can you help me with the "why" so I may understand



The "why" is wrapped up in covenant theology. I recommend you read Horton's _God of Promise_ to learn the "why."


----------



## Jack K (May 30, 2011)

Jason:

Coming from the Presbyterian side, I can tell you there are many Presbyterians (including office holders) who take the WCF seriously yet don't agree with every single word. If their exceptions to the WCF are few and are considered minor, those exceptions often are allowed and that person can still be considered one who "subscribes" to the Confession. Maybe that's why you think of yourself as subscribing to the WCF.

However, I know of no Presbyterian denomination that takes the Confession seriously and allows routine exceptions to the doctrine of infant baptism. Such exceptions simply are not considered to be minor. So to avoid confusion, I would say it's best for you not to claim subscription to the WCF if you disagree with infant baptism.

On the Baptist side too, the baptism issue is pretty much an across-the-borad non-negotiable. The simple fact is that we have substantial disagreement on this issue, and both sides consider the issue important enough that it's not one to fudge on. For the vast majority of churches, the differences between the WCF and the LBCF on baptism are held to be much more substantial than any differences they may have on reprobation.

So to communicate clearly to the rest of the Reformed world where you stand, it seems to me you'd be better off saying something like you subscribe to the LBCF but prefer the WCF's position on reprobation. It just makes more sense to the rest of us than for you to say you subscribe to the WCF. And communicating to each other where we stand is a big reason why we subscribe to confessions in the first place.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 30, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> The Reformed community does have two views of baptism, but both are seen as a Means of Grace. All forms of memorialism, baptismal regeneration, and removal of original sin fall outside the Reformed community.




Can you demonstrate this from the LBCF? There are some confessional baptists who consider baptism to be a sacrament instead of an ordinance and who see it as a means of grace. Some others do not and take more of a memorial view. I just read the pertinent articles of the LBCF twice and don't see anywhere in which baptism is clearly said to be a means of grace as the WCF teaches. After just now reading Ch. 28 and 29 a third time I can see no warrant to say that the LBCF teaches a sacramental view (i.e. means of grace) of baptism at all. 

On the other hand LBCF 30.7 does indicate the traditional Calvinist view of the Supper.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (May 30, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Can you demonstrate this from the LBCF? There are some confessional baptists who consider baptism to be a sacrament instead of an ordinance and who see it as a means of grace. Some others do not and take more of a memorial view. I just read the pertinent articles of the LBCF twice and don't see anywhere in which baptism is clearly said to be a means of grace as the WCF teaches. After just now reading Ch. 28 and 29 a third time I can see no warrant to say that the LBCF teaches a sacramental view (i.e. means of grace) of baptism at all.
> 
> On the other hand LBCF 30.7 does indicate the traditional Calvinist view of the Supper.



If I misrepresented, I apologize. My information comes from: Defining the Means of Grace « Reformed Baptist Fellowship 

I assumed (incorrectly it seems) that a means of grace view was the standard RB view.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 31, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Can you demonstrate this from the LBCF? There are some confessional baptists who consider baptism to be a sacrament instead of an ordinance and who see it as a means of grace. Some others do not and take more of a memorial view. I just read the pertinent articles of the LBCF twice and don't see anywhere in which baptism is clearly said to be a means of grace as the WCF teaches. After just now reading Ch. 28 and 29 a third time I can see no warrant to say that the LBCF teaches a sacramental view (i.e. means of grace) of baptism at all.
> 
> On the other hand LBCF 30.7 does indicate the traditional Calvinist view of the Supper.



I wouldn't make too much of the "ordinance vs. sacrament" debate. The NT doesn't give a collective name to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, so neither "ordinance" or "sacrament" is any more or less appropriate from an exegetical standpoint. And the use of the term "ordinance" does not preclude one from affirming Baptism as a means of grace (as I do).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 31, 2011)

The last ARBCA GA sermons were on the Means of Grace. 

Here is Fred Malone doing Baptism as a means of grace. http://www.arbca.com/GA2011/baptismasameansofgrace.mp3

The whole list is on this page. 

Sermons


----------



## ryanhamre (May 31, 2011)

Both confessional statements, when compared to each other, contain propositions that are contradictory. Since this is the case, the question can now be, "Can two contradictory propositions both be true at the same time?"

The answer to this question is "No".


----------



## NB3K (Jun 2, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> The "why" is wrapped up in covenant theology. I recommend you read Horton's God of Promise to learn the "why."



Thank you. I will check that work out.


----------

