# Which better? Dispensational Baptist or emerging PCA?



## shackleton (Mar 26, 2008)

When choosing between two churches, which would be better? A Baptist chruch that is dispensational but Calvinistic, they are heavily into Macarthur, good biblical, expositional teaching, pastor was a missionary to some former communist country and is a former Marine. 

Or, a PCA church that is presbyterian in name only, very contemporary, church is not serious at all, people getting up in the middle of service to refill their coffee or get a bagel. The assistant pastor wears red snickers on the pulpit. However, both pastor went to Covenant and they are presbyterian. 

I know someone at both. The PCA church is very people oriented, the Baptist chruch very teaching oriented. 

The answers seems obvious, I guess, I just don't know if I want to go back to hearing about the "rapture" and who the Antichrist is all the time.


----------



## Theoretical (Mar 26, 2008)

I'd take the Baptist church any day, if those were the only two choices, based on your descriptions of them.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 26, 2008)

I would take the Baptist church anyday, and I would report the PCA church to their Presbytery. What you described is something I would expect from a PCUSA church.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 26, 2008)

Wow that is depressing.
I think if I opted out of the PCA I would let their elders know why.
it looks like either choice, God may be using you to open some eyes.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 26, 2008)

I'd hold my nose and go to the Baptist chruch.


----------



## Herald (Mar 26, 2008)

This is a no-brainer. I concur with all of the above.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 26, 2008)

There are other choices but not any that are any good. My wife and I have gone to well over a dozen different churches in the past two years and to be honest they are all the same (mostly like the PCA church). So we are deciding which of all the things we don't like can we live with. It looks like we might have to go back to a Baptist chruch in order to get something that is not charismaticie. I know now full well what Jesus was referring to in Revelation when he said "Because you are not hot or cold but luke warm I will spew you out of my mouth." I have felt that way many times when leaving church.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 26, 2008)

Go the leaky Dispensational Baptist route.


----------



## Craig (Mar 26, 2008)

> However, both pastor went to Covenant and they are presbyterian.



Covenant doesn't seem to be terribly solid...our Associate Pastor went there, and was preserved from the feminism and mushy-mindedness pilfered there.

I don't know if I could go to a Dispensational Baptist church...but from what you've described...I would definitely consider it (and I would not consider that PCA church).


----------



## CDM (Mar 26, 2008)

Neither.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 26, 2008)

I would go to the Baptist chuch in this case, and agree with some other comments that I would report the actions of the PCA church to the presbytery. I'm a very loyal PCA member, but I would definitely take a great Calvinistic baptist church over a mediocre PCA church...


----------



## A5pointer (Mar 26, 2008)

shackleton said:


> When choosing between two churches, which would be better? A Baptist chruch that is dispensational but Calvinistic, they are heavily into Macarthur, good biblical, expositional teaching, pastor was a missionary to some former communist country and is a former Marine.
> 
> Or, a PCA church that is presbyterian in name only, very contemporary, church is not serious at all, *people getting up in the middle of service to refill their coffee or get a bagel*. The assistant pastor wears red snickers on the pulpit. However, both pastor went to Covenant and they are presbyterian.
> 
> ...



You mean this literally?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 26, 2008)

From the description of it, the PCA church doesn't sound like it is doing its job in terms of worship. Go with the Baptist church, as long as you're sure it is Reformed in its doctrine of salvation. You won't get fed at a PCA church like that.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 26, 2008)

First, I would look for a solid reformed church within 2 hours driving distance and head that way. Finding none, I would go with the Baptist alternative.

Over a 4-year period we actually commuted twice a month from PA to Northern VA for church. We attended locally in between, and that local was 20 miles. It was hard.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 26, 2008)

joshua said:


> Assess what it is that keeps you where you are. If those things are not as important as your spiritual growth and protection (and you're not providentially hindered from doing so), move to where a sounder Church can be found.


 
Which is what we finally did.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 26, 2008)

Richard King said:


> Wow that is depressing.
> I think if I opted out of the PCA I would let their elders know why.
> it looks like either choice, God may be using you to open some eyes.



Definitely before I did anything I would initiate discussions with the elders. You do owe them, and your brothers and sisters that are subject to that awful atmosphere, at least that much.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 26, 2008)

As a recovering dispensationalist (over 15 yeas ago)I hate to admit this but I would certainly recommend the Baptist church. As a PCA teaching elder I am grieved over some of our congregations that have more in common with Rick Warren's church or Jacob's Well in Kansas City, than a Reformed church. MacArthur is still dispensationalist (he does not know any better) but is a very solid Calvinist and a great Bible teacher. If the word is preached and people are serious about the word the Lord will deal with them on the dispensational non-sense.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 26, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Richard King said:
> 
> 
> > Wow that is depressing.
> ...





Yes, you are under the authority of the session and have an obligation to make your concerns known to them. In a PCA congreagation as a communing member you have the right to voice your concerns to the session. If you file a complaint with the session, they are obligated to hear your concerns. You can appeal to the Presbytery, but only after you have made every attempt to be heard at the sessional level. I would not walk away from this congregation without calling them to repentance


----------



## Stephen (Mar 26, 2008)

Craig said:


> > However, both pastor went to Covenant and they are presbyterian.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, I have many concerns with what is being turned out of Covenant Seminary. There were some great teachers years ago, but I am not sure what is happening now. Some of the FV guys from Missouri Presbytery are graduates of Covenant, but there are some great covenant men who are solid and confessional.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 26, 2008)

shackleton said:


> When choosing between two churches, which would be better? A Baptist chruch that is dispensational but Calvinistic, they are heavily into Macarthur, *good biblical, expositional teaching*, pastor was a missionary to some former communist country and is a former Marine.



Except when they preach about baptism, the nature of the covenant, Israel, the Church, law/gospel, sanctification, etc. MacArthur doesn’t pull it off well at times, so no guarantee that a MacArthur-wannabe will do any better. It’s very hard for a so-called expositional preacher to get it right in most cases if all they have are the five points of Calvinism to work with.



shackleton said:


> Or, a PCA church that is presbyterian in name only, very contemporary, church is not serious at all, people getting up in the middle of service to refill their coffee or get a bagel. The assistant pastor wears red snickers on the pulpit. However, both pastor went to Covenant and they are presbyterian.
> 
> I know someone at both. The PCA church is very people oriented, the Baptist chruch very teaching oriented.
> 
> The answers seems obvious, I guess, I just don't know if I want to go back to hearing about the "rapture" and who the Antichrist is all the time.



Neither option sounds particularly attractive. The PCA guys sound like what the PCA is heading towards in general, esp. if the church has visions of more than 50 members. 

BTW, what are "red snickers"?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 26, 2008)

Zenas said:


> I would take the Baptist church anyday, and I would report the PCA church to their Presbytery. What you described is something I would expect from a PCUSA church.







toddpedlar said:


> Richard King said:
> 
> 
> > Wow that is depressing.
> ...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 26, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> Neither option sounds particularly attractive. The PCA guys sound like what the PCA is heading towards in general, esp. if the church has visions of more than 50 members.



Not sure I agree with this. I've been to quite a few PCA churches (that's where I go every time I travel) from New York to Texas to California to Colorado, and have never encountered this type of worship. I know this is a somewhat anecdotal comment, but I think the vast majority of PCA congregations are still pretty solid. If what you're saying is true, I would be very disappointed....


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 26, 2008)

Stephen said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Richard King said:
> ...



precisely my advice, too. Please don't neglect this responsibility.


----------



## Craig (Mar 26, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Richard King said:
> 
> 
> > Wow that is depressing.
> ...



Good advice above...

If you are a member of this PCA church, it is your duty to let the elders know why you are leaving.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 26, 2008)

Well, you could always move to Indiana.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 26, 2008)

Unfortunately I am very serious at to their brand of worship. They are trying to be relaxed and non-threatening. The majority of people that attend do not even know that it is presbyterian. 

We are not members there we just know someone who is a deacon and are debating about going because we know him. So I do not know where that leaves our obligations to tell the presbytery. They already know about it anyway. There are a total of five PCA churches in the area, the one I described, one that is even worse, two that are almost an hours drive away one of which is not to bad (it is just hard to get involved with a church that is that far away), and one that is more like a "old time baptist" church than presbyterian church. There is one maybe two that just left and joined the EPC due to their more relaxed standards (they wanted to ordain women one possibly had a women pastor, from what I could gather). 

There are a few reformed churches in the area two of which do not have pastors and one is the PCA church that is a considerable distance away. We were attending a URCNA church which we liked but that is one of the ones that does not have a pastor. 

The area I live in is very dead spiritually. Liberalism is very strong, both the traditional style and the new emerging, Rick Warren chruch grow style. That is why I said that all the churches were pretty much the same.

I know of another family in the area who just holds church in his home. I don't know if we are ready to go that route yet.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 26, 2008)

Go with the Baptists in this case, but as others have said make sure you voice your concerns to your session, and if they won't hear you take it to the presbytery.

It saddens me to hear how some of our PCA churches are moving from "the faith once delivered to the saints."

Above all, bathe your decision in prayer. I will pray that you have strength to make a stand for the truth among those who should know better!


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 26, 2008)

The folks here may not wish this to be the norm in the PCA, but from my experience this is not entirely abnormal and becoming SOP for the PCA.

My experience also has shown that when it boils down to a matter of "style", that the pastor and elders will smile and thank you for your comments as they show you the door. Presbyteries are pretty much helpless to do anything, even if they wanted to, since the local leadership is responsible for such matters (unless you can clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of a presbytery commission they are teaching or doing something totally contrary to the PCA Constitution and damaging the peace and purity of the larger Church). Even if you have friends in presbytery, there usually is some semblance of a good old boy network and the presumption of innocence strong (as it should be). Then, when things don’t work out at the presbytery level, you have to ask yourself if it is worth trying to take it to the GA. 

I hope this does not sound too cynical. I’ve had my own tussle recently with a PCA presbytery commission where the interpretation of the facts seemed pretty clear cut to a lot of people, but the commission found in favor of the local session. And we shared our very specific concerns (they were not matters of "style") with the session. They never even responded. We can only assume they did not agree with our concerns. Needless to say, the session was quite relieved when we left.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 26, 2008)

Erick:

Where is your church membership?


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 26, 2008)

Let's see . . . Calvinistic . . . heavily into MacArthur . . . good biblical, expositional teaching . . . pastor was a missionary to some former communist country . . . and is a former Marine. Hmmmmm. Now let me think about this. I know that there is a right answer here somewhere. Could it be . . . BAPTIST?!!!!!!!!!!

If there were my two best choices, I would gladly hitch a ride on the rapture express. I disagree with the notion that MacArthur doesn't know any bettter, however. He has been on a pilgrimage away from dispensationalism and towards Calvinism, the Puritans, and Reformed theology for some time. He KNOWS the arguments as well as anyone but has not been able to completely sever himself from his heritage.

Is the church a decent church otherwise? You emphasize the teaching but not the other facets of the congregational life and ministry in the community. If all things were truly equal, I would select the baptist (no surprise there). However, all things are seldom equal.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 26, 2008)

I agree that it is your duty to complain especially if you held membership in that church (which I understand you don't--however I thought it was mandated by the board rules that one state what church one is a member of). But my understanding is that the directory for worship is not binding in the PCA so I really don't know what good it would do unless they are teaching heresy. 

I can think of some situations (including home missions) in which Old School leaning ministers left the PCA for the OPC or an OPC was planted in areas where all of the PCA's had "contemporary" worship, etc. and at least one case in which a PCA presbytery was hostile toward an Old School church planter whose style was seen as too confrontational toward Mormons, etc. 

Is the URCNA looking for a pastor? If so I would probably go there if it is otherwise solid.

I take "red snickers" to mean red sneakers.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 26, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> Presbyteries are pretty much helpless to do anything, even if they wanted to, since the local leadership is responsible for such matters (unless you can clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of a presbytery commission they are teaching or doing something totally contrary to the PCA Constitution and damaging the peace and purity of the larger Church). Even if you have friends in presbytery, there usually is some semblance of a good old boy network and the presumption of innocence strong (as it should be). Then, when things don’t work out at the presbytery level, you have to ask yourself if it is worth trying to take it to the GA.



Obviously, Presbyterians are not pretty much helpless with regard to options for appeal. There is much more oversight present in the Presbyterian form of government than in any other form I can imagine. For a Presbyterian to be "pretty much helpless", the local session needs to be corrupt, the Presbytery needs to be corrupt, and most of the General Assembly or Synod needs to be corrupt. Only then, after all of that conspiracy and corruption beyond all reason, is a Presbyterian helpless and out of human options as to appeal.

If you're wondering why I take exception to your assertion, it's because of the flippant way with which you dismiss the carefully thought out Presbyterian form of government and the immense amount of over-sight that has been worked in, with assumptions that everyone is a corrupt "good ole' boy". Perhaps you should re-think your premises and your approach.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 26, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Let's see . . . Calvinistic . . . heavily into Macarthur . . . good biblical, expositional teaching . . . pastor was a missionary to some former communist country . . . and is a former Marine. Hmmmmm. Now let me think about this. I know that there is a right answer here somewhere. Could it be . . . BAPTIST?!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> If there were my two best choices, I would gladly hitch a ride on the rapture express. I disagree with the notion that MacArthur doesn't know any bettter, however. He has been on a pilgrimage away from dispensationalism and towards Calvinism, the Puritans, and Reformed theology for some time. He KNOWS the arguments as well as anyone but has not been able to completely sever himself from his heritage.
> 
> Is the church a decent church otherwise? You emphasize the teaching but not the other facets of the congregational life and ministry in the community. If all things were truly equal, I would select the baptist (no surprise there). However, all things are seldom equal.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 26, 2008)

I agree with Chris (Pilgrim) though I am biased for the URCNA (for obvious reasons). I would suggest that you should go and be with those people, submit yourself to the rule of the elders there and wait out the time for them to call & install a minister. 

In the meanwhile, be thankful there is a solid Reformed church nearby. I am not saying you are ungrateful, but don't look a gift horse in the mouth.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 26, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> From the description of it, the PCA church doesn't sound like it is doing its job in terms of worship. Go with the Baptist church, as long as you're sure it is Reformed in its doctrine of salvation. You won't get fed at a PCA church like that.



Good enough as far as it goes, but what happens when it's time for infants to be baptized if one believes as the WCF states that it is sinful to neglect it? 

I would probably do as jaybird counseled and look for the closest solid Reformed church, seek membership there and go as often as possible, maybe attending the Baptist church when you can't get to the Reformed one if the preaching at the Baptist church is solid and doesn't focus heavily on eschatology. Then I would either look to move or work toward a sound church being planted in the area if the current RINO (Reformed in name only) churches seem to be irreformable.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 26, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Obviously, Presbyterians are not pretty much helpless with regard to options for appeal. There is much more oversight present in the Presbyterian form of government than in any other form I can imagine. For a Presbyterian to be "pretty much helpless", the local session needs to be corrupt, the Presbytery needs to be corrupt, and most of the General Assembly or Synod needs to be corrupt. Only then, after all of that conspiracy and corruption beyond all reason, is a Presbyterian helpless and out of human options as to appeal.
> 
> If you're wondering why I take exception to your assertion, it's because of the flippant way with which you dismiss the carefully thought out Presbyterian form of government and the immense amount of over-sight that has been worked in, with assumptions that everyone is a corrupt "good ole' boy". Perhaps you should re-think your premises and your approach.



There is principle and there is practice. I love Presbyterian polity in principle. In some cases the practice stinks. I am reminded that PCA does not stand for Perfect Church in America. In reality, it encompasses a broad spectrum of interpretations as to what it means to be a real Presbyterian. Coffee and feet up in worship seems to be just as acceptable in the present PCA as old fashioned, straight back Southern Presbyterianism, maybe more so. What presbytery would disagree?

I hope that analysis is not too flippant, but it seems to match what I have experienced in my not-quite 30 years in the PCA.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 26, 2008)

Zenas said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyteries are pretty much helpless to do anything, even if they wanted to, since the local leadership is responsible for such matters (unless you can clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of a presbytery commission they are teaching or doing something totally contrary to the PCA Constitution and damaging the peace and purity of the larger Church). Even if you have friends in presbytery, there usually is some semblance of a good old boy network and the presumption of innocence strong (as it should be). Then, when things don’t work out at the presbytery level, you have to ask yourself if it is worth trying to take it to the GA.
> ...



My understanding is that nothing will be done in the PCA WRT to worship style, etc if that is the only complaint, unless maybe it is full blown charismatic. 

Not to start things up again, but I think the "good ole boy" network goes a long way toward explaining how things went down the way they did in the LA Presbytery i.e. a reluctance to consider that a long time colleague might be in error.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 26, 2008)

Poimen said:


> I agree with Chris (Pilgrim) though I am biased for the URCNA (for obvious reasons). I would suggest that you should go and be with those people, submit yourself to the rule of the elders there and wait out the time for them to call & install a minister.
> 
> In the meanwhile, be thankful there is a solid Reformed church nearby. I am not saying you are ungrateful, but don't look a gift horse in the mouth.



Indeed. In some parts of the country there is not a solid Reformed church for hundreds of miles.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 26, 2008)

There is an OPC congregation in Overland Park, KS. Judging from the OPC website it may not have a pastor either. Perhaps it is the other church without a pastor that you noted. However, if you are convinced that Presbyterianism is the teaching of the scriptures, then my counsel is join this church or the URCNA if the elders are "able to teach" as scripture requires and assuming that both are solid and that they haven't chewed up and spit out a succession of pastors as is sometimes the case. 

This would be my advice even if Charles Spurgeon himself were the pastor of the Baptist church.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 26, 2008)

mangum said:


> Neither.



Read WCF 26. A Christian must always worship somewhere, and if those are the only two options, then I would go to the Baptist church which seems to be reforming in accordance with the word of God, rather than a PCA church which is drifting from Biblical standards. They sound as if they might even abandon there rapturist teaching the way they are going.


----------



## JDKetterman (Mar 26, 2008)

I would find some liked minded people and plant a church...


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 26, 2008)

JDKetterman said:


> I would find some liked minded people and plant a church...









Great idea!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 26, 2008)

Interesting proposition JDK...


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 26, 2008)

JDKetterman said:


> I would find some liked minded people and plant a church...



MUCH easier said than done in the more sparsely populated parts of the country, though...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 26, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> JDKetterman said:
> 
> 
> > I would find some liked minded people and plant a church...
> ...



Why not just meet with the Lord's people in the church that is already there?


----------



## shackleton (Mar 26, 2008)

Poimen said:


> Erick:
> 
> Where is your church membership?



My wife and I are still members of the baptist church we went to before we became reformed just over 2 years ago.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 26, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Chris (Pilgrim) though I am biased for the URCNA (for obvious reasons). I would suggest that you should go and be with those people, submit yourself to the rule of the elders there and wait out the time for them to call & install a minister.
> ...



 And I am at the center of it all!


----------



## danmpem (Mar 26, 2008)

shackleton said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Erick:
> ...



Is it semi-pelagian, dispinsational, or fairly non-affiliated?


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 26, 2008)

shackleton said:


> We are not members there we just know someone who is a deacon and are debating about going because we know him. So I do not know where that leaves our obligations to tell the presbytery.



Ah - thought you were members, since your signature seems to indicate that you are.



> There are a few reformed churches in the area two of which do not have pastors and one is the PCA church that is a considerable distance away. We were attending a URCNA church which we liked but that is one of the ones that does not have a pastor.



Hm. I'd be in that URCNA church like a fly on ... well, you get the picture.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 26, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > JDKetterman said:
> ...



I'm confused by your response, Daniel. What exactly do you mean? I was simply remarking that some seem to think that there are clearly enough Reformed-minded people in any given area (say, 400 square miles) that one ought to be able, if he desired, to get a reformed church plant going. Ain't necessarily so.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 26, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> I hope that analysis is not too flippant, but it seems to match what I have experienced in my not-quite 30 years in the PCA.



You're entitled to your opinion, and mine stands regardless.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 27, 2008)

I am going to be contrary to what most have said so far and say go PCA.

Because church government matters, because the covenant matters, and because the sacraments matter.

As many friends as I have who are in great Reformed Baptist churches, and no matter the level of teaching (in SOME areas,remember they are still baptist) they will still teach you (and more importantly your children) a false view of the covenant, the sacraments, & church government.

In my humble opinion the insistence of (almost all) Baptist on (heretical) rebabtism of covenant children would be a deal breaker.

Since I am convinced that for a covenant child to be re-baptised (sic) would be a denial of the faith, I could not in good conscience place my family in that setting long term.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 27, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Is it semi-pelagian, dispinsational, or fairly non-affiliated?



It is all the above and very anti Calvinistic. The pastor did a sermon series on the evils of Calvinism using Ergon Canor as his example, that is why we left. 

Todd, we were going to a PCA church right after we left the baptist church but had problems with the pastor and left so we are familiar with the presbyterian model that is why we were trying the other PCA churches in the area.


----------



## Wannabee (Mar 27, 2008)

shackleton said:


> The area I live in is very dead spiritually. Liberalism is very strong, both the traditional style and the new emerging, Rick Warren chruch grow style. That is why I said that all the churches were pretty much the same.


Hmmm. Sounds like you live in America. This, sadly, is the standard wherever we have gone. And the PCA church sounds like what I've heard about the local PCA church here. 

Dennis hit the nail on the head. With the connections and emphasis this man has, I surely doubt he'll be preaching on the rapture much. The idea that the sensational eschatalogical system bleeds from every verse is relegated to the Dispensational churches that rely on systems, charts and programs rather than God's Word. Give this guy a chance and sit under his teaching for a while. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something and become more like Christ.

Having said that, I can sympathize with the counsel to make the trek to a paedo church. We have lived in situations where we drove 20-30 miles to attend a like-minded church. While I could worship with, attend and fellowship with a paedo church, I doubt I could join because I probably could not accept their constitution or by-laws. I certainly would not be willing to baptize my children. And, while I'm certain they would welcome anyone who desired to worship with them, believer's baptism precludes membership in many churches. Not all churches hold to this, in fact most don't. But you might discuss this with the baptist pastor and see what your possibilities and limitations would be. It could take options of the table for you.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 27, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...



Sorry Todd, I was really talking about JDKetterman's comment, but your's was attached by mistake.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 27, 2008)

I'd have to go with the PCA church as well. Church government and the sacraments matter much more than worship style.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2008)

It seems like a false choice between the Baptist church and the PCA ones you describe since those are not the only choices available. Are you simply ruling out the URCNA and OPC churches because they currently do not have a pastor? If so that is a mistake unless you know something you haven't posted here.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2008)

Whether or not the Baptist church preaches much on the rapture, many of them view anyone who doesn't take an essentially dispensational view of Israel and the Church as inherently anti-semitic. See Barry Horner's _Future Israel_, which was strongly endorsed by John MacArthur.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 27, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > JDKetterman said:
> ...




Brilliant suggestion. Why plant a church if there is already a church.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 27, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...



Precisely. There are enough divisions in the body of Christ as it is. Why multiply them unnecessarily.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 27, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> It seems like a false choice between the Baptist church and the PCA ones you describe since those are not the only choices available. Are you simply ruling out the URCNA and OPC churches because they currently do not have a pastor? If so that is a mistake unless you know something you haven't posted here.



I am simply ruling them out, for now, since they do not have a pastor. Plus I have become familiar with the PCA but maybe it is time to try something different.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 27, 2008)

My wife and I both really liked the URCNA church and the denomination but we are worried about the fact that they do not have a pastor how long that will take and who it may be.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2008)

shackleton said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like a false choice between the Baptist church and the PCA ones you describe since those are not the only choices available. Are you simply ruling out the URCNA and OPC churches because they currently do not have a pastor? If so that is a mistake unless you know something you haven't posted here.
> ...



Perhaps it is. I doubt you would have posted the thread if you would have been comfortable with either of the choices you gave. I can tell you from experience that it is best to check out ALL of the options that you think may be viable and to communicate directly with the elders and others rather than making assumptions. Take it from one who learned the hard way 

The OPC holds to the exact same standards as the PCA. Typically though they tend to worship more in conformity with the RPW than the average PCA church, but there are of course exceptions either way, with more Old School leaning congregations in the PCA in some areas and a few OPC churches that have adopted more contemporary forms of worship. I believe this is because the Directory for Public Worship is binding in the OPC and it is not in the PCA, as noted previously.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2008)

shackleton said:


> My wife and I both really liked the URCNA church and the denomination but we are worried about the fact that they do not have a pastor how long that will take and who it may be.



It would be good to try to find out if they are actively looking and what kind of man and ministry they are looking for. Unfortunately some churches do go for long periods of time, even years, without a pastor, and some have had several pastors come and go over a period of just a few years. Sometimes that is the church's fault and sometimes it is not (i.e. the pastor of a Reformed church becomes convinced of "believer's baptism" and has to leave, etc.) But I wouldn't automatically assume the worst with this URCNA church or the OPC congregation. Why not check them out further? Maybe try to call or email one or more of the elders or have coffee or something for starters. It seems that y'all are worried about attending a Dispensational Baptist church or PCA churches that go overboard trying to be relevant as it is.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 27, 2008)

I really liked the pastor of the URCNA church he was nice, knowledgeable and willing to talk theology. He went back to his home church in Canada where his parents were, I can't blame him. My wife and I are worried about putting too much time into this chruch without knowing what kind of pastor they will get. I have seen churches change a lot with different pastors. 

It is hard to find a pastor that knows or cares for theology and teaching most are concerned with making the chruch bigger. "Theology is of the DEVIL!!!" It divides people, that is not what people want, it does not help them with how to make their kids mind.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 27, 2008)

Kevin said:


> I am going to be contrary to what most have said so far and say go PCA.
> 
> Because church government matters, because the covenant matters, and because the sacraments matter.
> 
> ...



Could I barrow what you just said? That is why I am a closet Presbyterian.


----------



## danmpem (Mar 27, 2008)

shackleton said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > Is it semi-pelagian, dispinsational, or fairly non-affiliated?
> ...



Who was Canor? Was he just a Calvinist gone wrong?


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 27, 2008)

Ergun Caner is the President of Liberty Theological Seminary and a very loud opponent of Calvinism.

He wrote an article recently that uses the "problem" of the Pentecostals as a template for understanding the "problem" of the Calvinists.



> Thirty years ago, however, we could not blame all Pentecostals for the discord in our churches, and neither can we blame every Calvinist for the growing discord today. Those who instigated the fights that ultimately led to splits did not represent every Pentecostal. Neither do the most strident of the Reformed-leaning Baptists represent all Calvinists today.



In the article he delineates the marks of a "neo-calvinist" (aka hyper-calvinist).

They believe . . .
1. "Double Predesitination." 
2. "Not all babies who die go to heaven. 
3. "God's "love for mankind" must be redefined." 
4. "Invitations are an insult to the sovereignty of God.
5. "Calvinism is the only Gospel." 

Caner will be long remembered for his line in the article: "I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. I am a Baptist."

In reply to one of the most irenic Calvinists, Caner made a number of "interesting" comments:



> Have any of your grown a soul-winning church like Woodstock?
> Do you send out missionaries every two weeks?
> Have any of you done ANYTHING accept kill your churches with sermons expounding the Westminster Confession?
> Probably not.
> ...


----------



## KMK (Mar 27, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Ergun Caner is the President of Liberty Theological Seminary and a very loud opponent of Calvinism.
> 
> He wrote an article recently that uses the "problem" of the Pentecostals as a template for understanding the "problem" of the Calvinists.
> 
> ...



Wow... I didn't know this kind of hostility existed in the SBC. I guess I am a 'naive Calvinist'


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 28, 2008)

KMK said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Ergun Caner is the President of Liberty Theological Seminary and a very loud opponent of Calvinism.
> ...



Maybe so. I think that Caner is probably right that a lot more in the SBC agree with him than the Founders although most are not quite as vehement as him. The Caners are former Muslims and seem to equate Calvinism with Muslim fatalism. There is indeed a tremendous amount of hostility toward Calvinism in some quarters of the SBC. Free will is an article of the faith for many in the pews as well as the pulpit and the "altar call" or invitation is far more significant in many churches than is the Lord's Supper and for all practical purposes is a sacrament in many churches. It's not uncommon for it to go on for over 20 minutes, with the pastor haranguing the congregation for someone to come down to the "altar", although this certainly doesn't happen in every church and not necessarily every week with the same intensity. A few years ago, the late Adrian Rogers was reported to have said something like "we got rid of the liberals, now it's time to get rid of the Calvinists." The controversy is likely only to become more prominent as more and more Calvinistic ministers come out of places like SBTS.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 28, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Maybe so. I think that Caner is probably right that a lot more in the SBC agree with him than the Founders although most are not quite as vehement as him. The Caners are former Muslims and seem to equate Calvinism with Muslim fatalism. There is indeed a tremendous amount of hostility toward Calvinism in some quarters of the SBC. Free will is an article of the faith for many in the pews as well as the pulpit and the "altar call" or invitation is far more significant in many churches than is the Lord's Supper and for all practical purposes is a sacrament in many churches. It's not uncommon for it to go on for over 20 minutes, with the pastor haranguing the congregation for someone to come down to the "altar", although this certainly doesn't happen in every church and not necessarily every week with the same intensity. A few years ago, the late Adrian Rogers was reported to have said something like "we got rid of the liberals, now it's time to get rid of the Calvinists." The controversy is likely only to become more prominent as more and more Calvinistic ministers come out of places like SBTS.



Not being SBC, I trust your version of the situation, Chris. That is a helpful insight to see the connection to Muslim fatalism. You made me laugh on the point of the sacramental nature of the "altar call." Most baptists have a doctrine of the "real absence" in the Lord's Supper. A pastor would get fired quicker for skipping the altar call than for missing the Lord's Supper.

Considering the statistics out of SBTS, don't you think that the Founder's movement has the weight of numbers on its side? After all, the flagship of the denomination produces the highest number of grads and Mohler has been absolutely spectacular in reshaping the corporate culture from a fairly liberal one to a Calvinist school.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 28, 2008)

Question on the PCA church: Looking past the bagels and the non-formal clothing, what's the teaching like ?


----------



## shackleton (Mar 28, 2008)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Question on the PCA church: Looking past the bagels and the non-formal clothing, what's the teaching like ?



The teaching is definitely a weak point as well. I think this follows from a complete lack of structure in the leadership and all the way down. Part of what my wife and I don't care for about it is the lack of structure which naturally flows to lack of any real good teaching, if they had one I think the other would follow. 

I hesitate to say this but of out of all the PCA churches we have been to I think there is definitely a lack of mature leadership. _In my area,_ it is all young guys, younger than me even, fresh out of school with no experience at leading or teaching (they don't even have much _life_ experience, which is really annoying) they are just thrown in there and expected to know what to do. It seems like a mentorship program would be better. Send the young pastors in to learn from an older seasoned pastor then after a few years let them set out on there own. They also aren't very theologically astute, which is frustrating when you are fresh out of an arminian baptist chruch and need answers, guidance and direction. 

The only real reason we are considering this chruch is because we know one of the deacons there.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 28, 2008)

SRoper said:


> I'd have to go with the PCA church as well. Church government and the sacraments matter much more than worship style.





If worship does not matter than why should sacraments and government matter? Worship like sacraments and government flow from our theology. If worship does not matter than why not bring in the U-2 band and let people just worship however they feel. This is the problem with some emergent PCA churches in introducing strange practices. The whole concept of emergent is that the church is to change with the times, which is in violation of our confessional standards.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 28, 2008)

I didn't say that worship doesn't matter but that worship style matters less than the sacraments and church government. I believe Scripture teaches infant baptism, the real presence, and presbyterian church government. I think it's harder to show from Scripture that wearing casual clothes or eating a bagel during service is inappropriate.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 28, 2008)

shackleton said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Question on the PCA church: Looking past the bagels and the non-formal clothing, what's the teaching like ?
> ...



This may be true, and it may be due in part to the rapid rate of growth of the PCA in recent years. I can't remember where I saw it, but last year I saw a list that shows the PCA as one of the top 5 fastest growing denominations in America, when you separate it from the giant "Prebyterian" label (which is actually shrinking overall). From 2002 to 2006, the number of PCA churches increased by 100 and the number of members increased by nearly 30,000. Maybe the supply of the pastors can't keep up with the demand, hence the proliferation of very inexperienced pastors in the pulpit. Just a theory...


----------



## JDKetterman (Mar 28, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Well, I was simply giving what I would do. If I had a choice between a emerging PCA and dispensational/calvinistic baptist church, I would probably try planting a church. Theologically, I have problems with both. Baptism for me is a issue is worth dividing over, and emerging/seeker sensitive type of churches is something that I would divide over as well. 

If I were to have a family, I would want them to be covenant members of a church, and I also likewise to be raised in church that is not only Reformed in name, but in practice and doctrine. 

However, if you have other choices like a URC, OPC, or another PCA, I would probably try checking those out first. However, if those were my only two choices, I would try finding a like minded group of people and plant a church.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 28, 2008)

The original question did not give a third option, that only these two churches were available. Certainly if there are more solid reformed churches than the choice is obvious.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 28, 2008)

joshua said:


> JDKetterman said:
> 
> 
> > However, if those were my only two choices, I would try finding a like minded group of people and plant a church.
> ...



I think the idea would be finding a like minded group of people and then coming under the authority of a presbytery and working with a denomination's home mission board, etc. Sometimes it may also be useful to contact the presbytery or nearest church first (even if it is too far to drive to worship regularly) as they may be aware of others in the area who might be interested in being part of a church plant.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 28, 2008)

*Church Planting Lesson Learned*

As someone who has been involved in several church plants in the past: Be watchful as far as who indicates interest in starting a work, especially as far as their commitment level. Learn to accurately assess their interest. People can sound very "gung ho" who are in fact, malcontents as far as where they are. A work that begins on a basis of discontentment is not very promising.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 28, 2008)

Under presbyterian standards how is one who is not ordained, nor outwardly called to the ministry supposed to plant a church? My impression was that presbyterian standards are a lot stricter than this. Not just anyone can go start a presbyterian chruch. Especially when there are other churches in the presbytery how is one to get permission to start a new church plant in this or another presbytery?


----------



## Stephen (Mar 28, 2008)

shackleton said:


> Under presbyterian standards how is one who is not ordained, nor outwardly called to the ministry supposed to plant a church? My impression was that presbyterian standards are a lot stricter than this. Not just anyone can go start a presbyterian chruch. Especially when there are other churches in the presbytery how is one to get permission to start a new church plant in this or another presbytery?





You cannot plant a church if you are not called to a work. Only a qualified ordained man can do that.


----------



## Archlute (Mar 28, 2008)

Stephen said:


> You cannot plant a church if you are not called to a work. Only a qualified ordained man can do that.



It's not quite as simple as that, although if you are trying to get others to look at it from a cut-and-dry, high-church presbyterian model you may attempt to persuade others that it is so.

It would be better said that if you are working from within the bounds of a presbyterian body, and you have not been so outwardly called, it is less than likely that you will be able to accomplish your goals. 

You could be called to a work outside of the bounds of the PCA by an independent group, and decide to minister there (but you'd have to give up membership in the PCA and relocate it within a congregational polity). You could leave the PCA, declare yourself independent (or affiliate with another church planting denomination) and begin a work. Etc.

I get a little tired of individuals who would throw out a statement, such as the one quoted above, and make it sound as if this was from the mouth of God. Nobody who studies the history of polity in the church with any amount of historical integrity can make such assertions without qualification. It is fine to speak this way from within the presbyterian understanding, but one should at least acknowledge that from within the history of the church, and even within the history of Reformed churches, there have been differing opinions on this matter. That is a fact.

John Owen (unless he's now not really reformed), and the Savoy Platform of Polity (which is congregational) are clear that where Christians have gathered, they have a right to constitute and recognize their own officers. Cotton's _Keys of the Kingdom_ also assigns this authority to gathered Christians apart from the "authorized and duly recognized ordained oligarchy" etc. etc. These were all men who affirmed the WCF (although changing the section on polity, of course), and who were truly Reformed ministers. To ignore their testimony and their theological acumen is to do them a disservice.

If you really want to get high-church, then go read Francis Turretin's _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_ on the matter. He is clear, and I constantly try to remind my Reformed brethren of this, that any view that would seek to limit the validity of the preaching of the Word _and the administration of the sacraments_ to a "properly ordained clergy" is saying nothing other than Roman Catholicism on the position, which he says the Reformed reject.

Turretin, Perkins, and Owen all allow for the gathering/building up of churches by *formally* unordained men, where there is a lack of true churches or the church is in a state of disrepair. They do this by recognizing that Christ is the One who calls and ordains (appoints) a man to the work of the ministry by His Spirit, and that church bodies merely recognize this. If a church body fails to recognize this due to sloth, sinful politics, etc, or if there is no nearby authority available to the work, then these men would all give the go ahead to a formally unrecognized man laboring in the work of the ministry out of Christian duty and love.

Whether or not your situation falls under any portion of that umbrella, I will not presume to judge. However, basic historical integrity cannot so clearly limit the work of church planting and ministry in such black and white terms as is often done by those wanting to say otherwise.


----------



## Archlute (Mar 28, 2008)

jaybird0827 said:


> As someone who has been involved in several church plants in the past: Be watchful as far as who indicates interest in starting a work, especially as far as their commitment level. Learn to accurately assess their interest. People can sound very "gung ho" who are in fact, malcontents as far as where they are. A work that begins on a basis of discontentment is not very promising.





They can destroy a work before it has even come close to taking off.


----------



## reformedcop (Mar 29, 2008)

Kevin said:


> I am going to be contrary to what most have said so far and say go PCA.
> 
> Because church government matters, because the covenant matters, and because the sacraments matter.
> 
> ...



My first choice would be to drive the hour to the more solid church (I thought I remember you saying there was one). I have to agree with Kevin on this one. The sacraments, covenant and church government matter. Both options are definately less than ideal, but I hesitantly say the PCA would be the better of the two.

I drive 50 minutes to my church while there is a reformed baptist church about five minutes away. At the baptist church, you have to be a member to partake in the Lord's Supper and they would most certainly insist on re-baptism and an affirmation of the credo position to place membership. So, we couldn't really fully fellowship there under those circumstances anyway. Kind of a bummer, some of my dear brothers attend there.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 29, 2008)

shackleton said:


> Under presbyterian standards how is one who is not ordained, nor outwardly called to the ministry supposed to plant a church? My impression was that presbyterian standards are a lot stricter than this. Not just anyone can go start a presbyterian chruch. Especially when there are other churches in the presbytery how is one to get permission to start a new church plant in this or another presbytery?



In your case in my opinion the church planting idea really doesn't apply since there are already many congregations in the area. In addition to the ones already mentioned, there is also an RPCNA congregation in Shawnee, KS and an RCUS congregation in KC, MO. Even assuming for the sake of argument that none of the PCA churches there are viable options, with OPC, URCNA, RCUS and RPCNA congregations (the latter two DO have pastors) in the area, (not to mention that, if you want to look at Baptist options (not recommended given the above if you are convinced of Presbyterianism) a simple web search turns up at least a half dozen Calvinistic Baptist churches in the KC metro, some of which just might not be Dispensational!) it is an embarrassment of riches that most wouldn't dream of.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 29, 2008)

I am not completely sold out on Presbyterianism, I like reformed theology but not necessarily that strict form of government. To be honest it reminds me of a home owners association, someone else is constantly telling you what you can and can't do with _your stuff_. (A presbytery, another church, is policing the activities in someone else's church). It makes me think, "Mind your own business, you worry about your chruch and I will worry about mine!" So maybe in that sense I am not cut out to be Pres. I was just trying to make a point when told to "plant a chruch," that is not kosher under pres. government. 

I have been to all those churches listed above and was not very fond of the attitude of the people or pastors there, they can be very mean, arrogant and hateful, Calvinism tends to do that to some people. The two churches listed in the original post were listed for a reason, I had tried everything else and out of frustration was considering those two. I think I am learning, after two years of studying and attending different reformed and Pres. churches, that a milder form of reformed theology might be better. _To me_, method and form of baptism are not worth dividing over. How much water is used is inconsequential. I think good arguments can be made for both infant and believers baptism a lot of anger and strife exists on both sides. I do however love covenant theology and if infant baptism goes along with that it is fine. 

Pilgrim, I had not seen all those "Reformed Baptist" churches you have found, half a dozen you said, I know of one and it went out of business at the beginning of this year. Maybe you could show me where you found those. There is no way I could be RPCNA. I could live with the no music, psalms only _I think_, but there is just a certain attitude that goes along with it that I do not like. I would have to say it is that certain attitude that rubs me the wrong way and makes me uncomfortable at churches with a strictly reformed emphasis (both with Baptist, Pres. and Dutch reformed). I am sure most people on this board would love at least five churches that are in this area. But like I stated above, I want the truth preached in love and _that_ is what is hard to find. So my wife and I were trying to decide which of the things we did not like could we live with, hence the original post. This thread has helped me think through my decision and what I want out of a church and I think you all for that.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 29, 2008)

shackleton said:


> I am not completely sold out on Presbyterianism, I like reformed theology but not necessarily that strict form of government. To be honest it reminds me of a home owners association, someone else is constantly telling you what you can and can't do with _your stuff_. (A presbytery, another church, is policing the activities in someone else's church). It makes me think, "Mind your own business, you worry about your chruch and I will worry about mine!" So maybe in that sense I am not cut out to be Pres. I was just trying to make a point when told to "plant a chruch," that is not kosher under pres. government.
> 
> I have been to all those churches listed above and was not very fond of the attitude of the people or pastors there, they can be very mean, arrogant and hateful, Calvinism tends to do that to some people. The two churches listed in the original post were listed for a reason, I had tried everything else and out of frustration was considering those two. I think I am learning, after two years of studying and attending different reformed and Pres. churches, that a milder form of reformed theology might be better. _To me_, method and form of baptism are not worth dividing over. How much water is used is inconsequential. I think good arguments can be made for both infant and believers baptism a lot of anger and strife exists on both sides. I do however love covenant theology and if infant baptism goes along with that it is fine.
> 
> Pilgrim, I had not seen all those "Reformed Baptist" churches you have found, five you said, I know of one and it went out of business at the beginning of this year. Maybe you could show me where you found those. This thread has helped me think through my decision and what I want out of a church and I think you all for that.



It is too bad that you didn't have a good experience in some of the churches. 

I think most here will agree that of all the problems in Reformed churches today, the Presbytery coming in and telling churches what to do is very low on the list if not practically non existent. That's the reason for the red sneakers, etc. unless the presbytery as a whole endorses that and they very well may. Those PCA churches have appear to have adopted a "milder form of reformed theology" but it doesn't seem to be a form that is palatable to you (nor am I saying it should be). 

With the Baptist churches, I was going by what was listed in the Founders directory. Maybe you are aware of all of them, maybe not. It appeared that there were a good number of churches in the KC area in both KS and MO. Some of these may be Dispensational but at least one said that it subscribed to the 1689, which is usually a sign that they are not. But what is there may not be totally up to date. Most if not all of them however aren't going to see mode and subjects of baptism as being of little consequence (they are Baptists after all) so you may end up at an impasse there as well until you come to a final decision which way to go on that issue. It sometimes isn't easy and took me a few years.


----------



## JDKetterman (Mar 29, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > JDKetterman said:
> ...



This is what I had in mind


----------



## shackleton (Mar 29, 2008)

Pilgrim, thanks. From what I have found on internet over the past two years a lot of those churches listed are either, out of existence or are a group of about 5 that meet in someone's house and have kind of a loose set of standards (I am speaking strictly of my area). There are a lot of little inbred churches with just the pastor, his family and maybe one or two other families. They are usually small because no one could stand them. These churches tend to be like small business, some take off, some just barely survive then eventually die after a year but their names are still found on the internet. 

I by nature have never been big on laws, rules and regulations but I think there should be order and not complete autonomy. There is one church in the area who makes it a habit of going after the other churches, even chasing one of to the EPC, that is what I was referring to. I have to admit I have not read enough about the issue of the sacraments yet to make a dogmatic claim one way or the other, and yes baptists are just as dogmatic about believer's only baptism.


----------

