# Is there such a denomination?



## Hungus (May 10, 2006)

Greetings all,
In my small circle of credo baptist reformed friends we have been discussing ecclesiology for some time, I thought I might drop our current question here on the board as my first post:

Does anyone know of a credo-baptist, non-congregational ( synod or episcopal) reformed denomination? I inquired of Dr Riddlebarger and his reply was to give up on credo-baptism.  I can not quite do that  I am taking his secondary advice however and now that this semester is over will be working through his lecture notes on the subject and Dr. Horton's volume on the covenant


----------



## Herald (May 10, 2006)

Rob...welcome by the way! As far as your question....I'm stymied.


----------



## turmeric (May 10, 2006)

Far be it from me to help someone stay credo, but...if you had enough likeminded friends, who also don't believe in congregationalism you could start a credo-baptist church with presbyterial government.


----------



## beej6 (May 10, 2006)

Kelly, (or Robert? or Rob?)

Here's one for you to check out:

http://www.freepres.org/main.asp

The Free Presbyterian Church {Irish} does not believe that the issue of baptism should divide believers. They have some other distinctives which are represented on their website. Officers as well as members are free to believe in either infant or believers' baptism.

You're probably wondering how I knew that. By coincidence, a discussion came up at our church's fellowship as to whether there were any credobaptist Presbyterian churches. This is as close as I could find....

Check out my website for other possibilities...


----------



## brymaes (May 11, 2006)

The Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (http://www.crechurches.org) allow paedo and credo churches and officers.

They are also sympathetic to the Federal Vision, though.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (May 11, 2006)

Hey I wish you well in starting your own denomination if you can't find one that is suitable. I've often thought of getting people together and starting a denomination because I cannot find one church that I completely agree with on everything. 

I think it would be a Baptist church with elders, the women would be free to cover their heads without feeling they look wierd, we'd have the Lord's Supper every week (with actual wine), we'd use musical instruments :bigsmile: in worship, and people would be given the opportunity to discover and develop their spiritual gifts. Sadly, I feel we don't get that at my church.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 11, 2006)

I really liked the FPC...the only issue I had was their being split on baptism....they have it in their standards that they will not argue or debate the issue...to each his own...


however, for membership it is required that 1) the women in your family (wife and daughters) cover their heads for worship 2) you agree to abstain from all tabacco and alchohol


----------



## BaptistCanuk (May 11, 2006)

LadyFlynt, what did you think when they told you you couldn't use tobacco or alcohol? I don't believe they have any authority over something that God hasn't given them. Myself, I probably woulda said, "see ya". I don't smoke but I like a glass of wine now and then and I don't believe either is a sin. 

I know this got off topic but I wanted to ask you. I understand if you make a new thread of it.


----------



## gwine (May 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Hey I wish you well in starting your own denomination if you can't find one that is suitable. I've often thought of getting people together and starting a denomination because I cannot find one church that I completely agree with on everything.
> 
> I think it would be a Baptist church with elders, the women would be free to cover their heads without feeling they look wierd, we'd have the Lord's Supper every week *(with actual wine)*, we'd use musical instruments :bigsmile: in worship, and people would be given the opportunity to discover and develop their spiritual gifts. Sadly, I feel we don't get that at my church.



And it would be the best wine you could get, right? None of that cheap $5 a bottle swill.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 11, 2006)

On the alchohol issue...I understood their stand considering they are dealing with ALOT of alchoholism right now in the old country...however, I didn't believe it was their place to require total abstaination. I grew up IFB, so I had mixed feelings on it. As far as requiring covered heads


----------



## beej6 (May 11, 2006)

Since there is no such thing as a perfect church, it stands to reason that there is no such thing as a perfect denomination.

OTOH, I'm not sure it would be a good idea if we could all have our own denominations with our particular doctrinal (and other) individualities. After all, that's what the congregationalists believe. ;-)


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by beej6_
> Since there is no such thing as a perfect church, it stands to reason that there is no such thing as a perfect denomination.
> 
> OTOH, I'm not sure it would be a good idea if we could all have our own denominations with our particular doctrinal (and other) individualities. After all, that's what the congregationalists believe. ;-)



Indeed. Furthermore, regardless of one's ecclesiology, if people are not both willing and able to at least try to help work towards _some_ measure of reform in their current church, they certainly would not truly be able to competently lead a new church.


----------



## Robin (May 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> I...will be working through his lecture notes on the subject and Dr. Horton's volume on the covenant



Hi Kelly,

We've been studying Mike's book in class with Kim.

This book clarifies baptism (I think) splendidly!!! It is a thrill to learn the reasons why baptism is taught the way it is in Scripture - via the covenantal understanding.

As Kim has said, both (P&C) camps have the exact same problem with the apostasy of "believers" after baptism. 

The upshot is, the question of baptism is based on eschatology and God's covenants. God's eschatological outworking of His covenants.

in my opinion  I think this is why there isn't satisfactory answers via ecclesiastic/denom debates.

Read "The God of Promise" asap all those with "baptism" issues!! No - wait! All Christians read this tome and learn what The Faith, once delivered -- is all about!



Robin

[Edited on 5-12-2006 by Robin]


----------



## gregbed (May 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> Greetings all,
> In my small circle of credo baptist reformed friends we have been discussing ecclesiology for some time, I thought I might drop our current question here on the board as my first post:
> 
> Does anyone know of a credo-baptist, non-congregational ( synod or episcopal) reformed denomination? I inquired of Dr Riddlebarger and his reply was to give up on credo-baptism.  I can not quite do that  I am taking his secondary advice however and now that this semester is over will be working through his lecture notes on the subject and Dr. Horton's volume on the covenant


Churches affiliated with Sovereign Grace Ministries (www.sovereigngraceministries.org). Oh yeah, they are also charismatic. But C.J. Mahaney, the director of SGM, has spoken at the church that John MacArthur pastors. They along with Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler and Mark Dever formed the Together for the Gospel conference. They actively promote the readings of Piper, Carson, Jerry Bridges, Spurgeon, Ryle, Valley of Vision, etc. I would like it if the worship were a little more Presbyterian, but they have proved to be pretty sound. I have met, and heard preach, a good number of their pastors and have only had reservations about one. Even he was better than 90% of the guest preachers who filled the pulpit at my old church (independent dispensationalist, Ryrie was the Westminster confession, church). That one was down the road from Friends of Israel, who came by quite a bit, so that skews the numbers some.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 13, 2006)

I looked into and studied Sovereign Grace Ministries (their emphases, leaders, materials and churches) a lot when first encountering Reformed theology - in fact, for several months I thought I was going to be a part of them. One pastor at Covenant Life was one of the first people to talk with me (over the phone) about some of my issues with the doctrines of grace. While I certainly could never fully recommend them to someone as an ideal church to join (due to size as well as charismatism, baptism, confessional subscription and ecclesiology), there is much sound teaching and good pastoral guidance there as well.

Greg, regarding their ecclesiology, and them not being "independent" as inquired by this thread, would you think it a fair assessment to classify them as essentially being largely congregational in theory, with a definite episcopal-like element on the informal level? I get that impression for several reasons: One is some of Jeff Purswell's comments in this interview, especially on page six. Also, I got the impression that they were in many ways congregational when I was studying them more closely a few years back, and I had also read an interview with Joshua Harris in which he described them as being "essentially Reformed," with some specifically-mentioned exceptions being that they reject cessationism, paedobaptism and (in Harris' words) "church government." At the same time, I've heard from a few people either in a Sovereign Grace church or else closely acquainted with them that there is, however, more of an episcopal element within the leadership structure than one would expect in most congregational church groups.


----------



## beej6 (May 13, 2006)

So I have a selfish question to ask, then, re: SGM. Should I include them in my webpage? (see my sig below) If I did, it would be under the section where I include links to my Reformed Baptist brethren, as from examining the SGM website, that's the category where they fit my website best. 

I guess what I'm saying is I'm comfortable with saying that my Reformed Baptist brethren are "essentially Reformed," not dividing on the basis of sacramentology nor ecclesiology. However, is SGM's view on cessationism any different from, say, the EPC?


----------



## a mere housewife (May 13, 2006)

Chris said:


> Indeed. Furthermore, regardless of one's ecclesiology, if people are not both willing and able to at least try to help work towards _some_ measure of reform in their current church, they certainly would not truly be able to competently lead a new church.



Absolutely amen.

We will never love the church any more than we love the part of it we are in. Sometimes love means separation. But it is in hope of reclaiming, not in a quest to find some part of Christ's body more worthy of our efforts, that we separate.

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by a mere housewife]


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 13, 2006)

Robert,

I would agree with Dr. Riddlebarger in the long run for reasons too numerous to discuss here. And too highly recommend that book.

That being said I know of none on the credo side. Although Lutherans vary in which you will find Lutheran congregation that are in polity and form congregational, presbyterian & episcopal.

The credo view of polity seemed to historically develop in parallel with their view of baptism and a wrong view of "the priesthood of believers" divorcing it from vocation per se. This why they tended, as the precursor anabaptist, to withdraw from society either pacifly or violently depending upon the group. These items developed organically as a whole. This why Luther and even Calvin saw their pseudo "holy living" as anti-holy living similar to the false love of cloistered monks who withdrew from society and could thereby NOT love their neighbor with their works. Hence their "holy living" was really great sin and controlled by the devil. To this Luther said even the devil has his martyrs.

The anabaptist linked a "false purity" of the church idea to divorcing church and state. But it is one thing to say church and state never are to be married, quite another to say Christians should withdraw from society in what amounts to cloisters (e.g. Quakers).

The anabaptist saw the chief sin of Rome not their denial of justification by faith alone and thereby the Gospel and thereby the Lord Christ, but a parallel of Rome's church/state marriage and the baptism of children. This is quite interesting. Because they thought the church should be divorced from the state as far as utter withdraw (e.g. a christian could not even be a soldier or magistrate). Indeed Rome was wrongly yoked but the over reaction by the anabaptist was just as much of the devil because it called for utter withdraw. Simultaneously the anabaptist linked this to the baptism of children. For as Rome was married to the State, a Roman baptism was nothing more than a child being "baptized" into the state. Ironic that they could see this by the state, baptising an infant that couldn't confirm it by profession, but then completely loose the idea under so called "believer's baptism". Contradictory thinking at its best. Anyway, thus, when the anabaptist sought to rid themselves of this error they through out the baptism of children. They so divorced the kingdom of God escatologically, and in a gnostic confusion, from the kingdom of earth, they confused the signs of baptism and supper similarly. To this it was not surprising that the false prophesies of "Jesus is returning tomorrow" type cults arose. After all they had already confused the church on earth and in time on the kingdom of earth as the end times pure or 100% regenerate church at the consumation of history. Ironically today this is why strong old school dispensationalism always is trying to do the same.

The anabaptist idea of purity was far from true holy living but ironically similar to Roman Catholicisms "holy living" particularly as found in the monk cloisters. It was a false love and devil's love. This was entirely different from Luther and Calvin and the real reformers (of which the anabaptist were categorically not) who said the Christian lives in a dual reality and actually serves neighbor by love via his vocation in the mundane things. A soldier, even for the enemies kingdom, is still a godly calling. It is a submission and doing loving service even to an evil king, a turning of the other cheek for even Christ himself submitted to both Caesar and Herod, to the point of death, even death on a scandalous cross. The anabaptist idea of purity was altogether a false love of an "outward" clean looking life, just like the monks of Rome. The reformed view of "priesthood of all believers" was not just unto witnessing and "church vocations" but found rooted in the very mundane earthly callings of life. Just as Christ himself served in mundane callings (to fulfill all righteousness) before his own earthly last three year ministry at the right time. We tend to only think of the later as His active righteousness, yet Jesus was called of God to be born bodily, be a perfectly obedient son, work in his father's trade, etc... These callings were high and holy callings from God Himself & in which Christ fulfilled ALL righteousness Himself. Yet to the eyes of religious types and "spiritual works merit mongers" these are mundane insignificant things. The irony of the anabaptist is that they fell for the devil's trick and became in principle, though the outward form differed, just as apostate as Rome herself. And in both cases the point of attack through them by the devil was the Gospel & the sacraments and the most helpless of all of God's people...the children.

Ldh

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Hungus (May 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Robert,
> 
> I would agree with Dr. Riddlebarger in the long run for reasons too numerous to discuss here. And too highly recommend that book.



I intend to take the time to go through the works thoroughly. Having not yet really started however I will say that in cursory glance 2 things bother me. 

The first is that people tend to forget that there are 3 streams of "Baptists" grew from One certainly was the "Radical Reformers" or Anabaptists, The other two are from the CoE (Church of England) where the LBC Baptists come from and then the general Baptists who in all honesty do not annoy me enough to waste the time researching their history. The Anabaptists keep coming up on my scopes because Emir Caner was my advisor 2 semesters ago, (and then his brother Ergun who cannot keep his own mouth shut), as well as One of the most dear, but dearly wrong, people I know Dr James Bryant keeps bringing them up I think it is his pet research project. He desperately wants to prove a causal connection between Anabaptistry and modern Baptists. And so when people defend paedo-baptism one of the prime arguments seems to consistently be the errancy of the Anabaptists. I know they are wrong but it doesn't stop the CoE stream from which reformed Baptists descend.

The second is this, Dr Riddlebarger contends that if one person in the household came to Christ then they were all baptised. Perhaps if the Paternal leader of the household being regenerate was good reason to baptise, but if that carries forward to today and a man becomes regenerate then do we baptise his unbelieving wife, or mother who may live with him? If consistent then it looks like one should.

Ok I will have to hit a third since I am on topic for the moment and that is Baptism being the covenant sign for the NT, I tend to read that circumcision of the heart replaced circumcision not baptism. In any case these are the 3 things first on my plate for study. I can remember back 20 years ago this summer when I went from being a die-hard Classical Dispensationalist to being amil so it is entirely possible I could switch on this matter also. 

Now that exams are finally over (3.923 GPa  man I hated getting that B) I have a small amount of down time before summer sessions start at UTA that I intend to spend going through Dr. R's suggestions. (Though I suppose I really shouldn't use vernacular such as baby sprinkling or drowning out the demons in my note on the subject  )


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 13, 2006)

Robert,

I think you misunderstood my post. That was my fault, my apologies. I was not giving an argument for PB by way of error of the Anabaptist, that wouldn't serve anything.

Rather what Luther and Calvin saw in the anabaptist "stream" being the same principle in the Roman church. It's the principle that bears looking at or into, not the lineage or "stream" from which it comes. Simply put what Luther saw, and was correct, was that the "new layman" had become the "old monk", and ultimately Satan seeking to supress afresh the Gospel.



> but if that carries forward to today and a man becomes regenerate then do we baptise his unbelieving wife, or mother who may live with him?



This is in part the issue in which Reformed see the sacraments as relational (true covenantal) while ironically the others see them ultimately in Greek philosophical categories. If you read Dr. Horton's book you will find that section very helpful.

But check it out and enjoy it, you'll find it very encouraging even if you don't agree with the Sacraments at this point.

Blessings,

Ldh

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 13, 2006)

Robert,

Since this thread has a specific and simple intent, I won't go into detail here, but just want to give you a brief response to think on since you put these thoughts out here.



> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> The first is that people tend to forget that there are 3 streams of "Baptists" grew from One certainly was the "Radical Reformers" or Anabaptists, The other two are from the CoE (Church of England) where the LBC Baptists come from and then the general Baptists who in all honesty do not annoy me enough to waste the time researching their history. The Anabaptists keep coming up on my scopes because Emir Caner was my advisor 2 semesters ago, (and then his brother Ergun who cannot keep his own mouth shut), as well as One of the most dear, but dearly wrong, people I know Dr James Bryant keeps bringing them up I think it is his pet research project. He desperately wants to prove a causal connection between Anabaptistry and modern Baptists. And so when people defend paedo-baptism one of the prime arguments seems to consistently be the errancy of the Anabaptists. I know they are wrong but it doesn't stop the CoE stream from which reformed Baptists descend.



I concur that this is an absolutely necessary distinction to make always, speaking both doctrinally and historically. While I ultimately agree with Rev. Riddlebarger's statement regarding credobaptism versus paedobaptism, one past thread I'm sure you would heartily enjoy (and which I appreciate myself) on this topic is here.



> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> The second is this, Dr Riddlebarger contends that if one person in the household came to Christ then they were all baptised. Perhaps if the Paternal leader of the household being regenerate was good reason to baptise, but if that carries forward to today and a man becomes regenerate then do we baptise his unbelieving wife, or mother who may live with him? If consistent then it looks like one should.



There was a very good discussion on this topic in light of 1 Corinthians 7:14 a few months back.



> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> Ok I will have to hit a third since I am on topic for the moment and that is Baptism being the covenant sign for the NT, I tend to read that circumcision of the heart replaced circumcision not baptism. In any case these are the 3 things first on my plate for study. I can remember back 20 years ago this summer when I went from being a die-hard Classical Dispensationalist to being amil so it is entirely possible I could switch on this matter also.



I would simply ask a few questions for thought here to hopefully clarify some of the terms you're using and what you (and all of us) understand them to mean:

1) What exactly do you believe and understand the "circumcision of the heart" to be referring to, biblically speaking?

2) Using your answer to that question, was that same thing present under the Old Covenant, or not?

3) What implication does your answer to that question have for "cimcumcision of the heart" _replacing_ physical circumcision?



> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> Now that exams are finally over (3.923 GPa  man I hated getting that B) I have a small amount of down time before summer sessions start at UTA that I intend to spend going through Dr. R's suggestions. (Though I suppose I really shouldn't use vernacular such as baby sprinkling or drowning out the demons in my note on the subject  )



I can certainly relate to being glad school is over for a short season, and that I will be able to devote some more time to further devotional, doctrinal and pastoral study as well!


----------



## gregbed (May 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I looked into and studied Sovereign Grace Ministries (their emphases, leaders, materials and churches) a lot when first encountering Reformed theology - in fact, for several months I thought I was going to be a part of them. One pastor at Covenant Life was one of the first people to talk with me (over the phone) about some of my issues with the doctrines of grace. While I certainly could never fully recommend them to someone as an ideal church to join (due to size as well as charismatism, baptism, confessional subscription and ecclesiology), there is much sound teaching and good pastoral guidance there as well.
> 
> Greg, regarding their ecclesiology, and them not being "independent" as inquired by this thread, would you think it a fair assessment to classify them as essentially being largely congregational in theory, with a definite episcopal-like element on the informal level? I get that impression for several reasons: One is some of Jeff Purswell's comments in this interview, especially on page six. Also, I got the impression that they were in many ways congregational when I was studying them more closely a few years back, and I had also read an interview with Joshua Harris in which he described them as being "essentially Reformed," with some specifically-mentioned exceptions being that they reject cessationism, paedobaptism and (in Harris' words) "church government." At the same time, I've heard from a few people either in a Sovereign Grace church or else closely acquainted with them that there is, however, more of an episcopal element within the leadership structure than one would expect in most congregational church groups.


They are independent in the sense of legal institutional ties. But as you say there is an informal (but not insubstantial) episcopal function. They refer to the overseeing function as "apostolic" but are always quick to add that is with a little "a" and are not making any claims to new revelation. I guess they would say they avoid the use of bishop because this is a local office and they are referring to the continued oversite of a planted church by someone who is not a member of that church. They are very sound on the doctrines of grace and have done a lot to introduce AOG and Calvary Chapel people to the fullness of the gospel. Maybe, its the paucity of reformed churchs in So Jersey, but there are people who have come here from EPC (due to local problems) including a grad from WTS.
I see you are at a PCA (God has blessed me, my wife, and college freshman son greatly through the work of a PCA pastor). Were you searching for a Presbyterian or a Baptist church? If Baptist, did you change your views on paedobaptism or did you find Riveroaks the most faithful expression of God's church in your area?


> _Originally posted by beej6_So I have a selfish question to ask, then, re: SGM. Should I include them in my webpage? (see my sig below) If I did, it would be under the section where I include links to my Reformed Baptist brethren, as from examining the SGM website, that's the category where they fit my website best.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is I'm comfortable with saying that my Reformed Baptist brethren are "essentially Reformed," not dividing on the basis of sacramentology nor ecclesiology. However, is SGM's view on cessationism any different from, say, the EPC?


Looking at EPC site, I would same they share the same view on the gifts. I think it would be appropriate to list SGM; when I decided on Sovereign Grace Church I was specifically looking for a reformed baptist church.


----------



## beej6 (May 14, 2006)

I know there are EPC pastors who are non-cessationist in theory but cessationist in practice ;-) as they do not, for example, encourage speaking in tongues as some of our pentecostal brethren do.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by beej6_
> I know there are EPC pastors who are non-cessationist in theory but cessationist in practice ;-) as they do not, for example, encourage speaking in tongues as some of our pentecostal brethren do.



I know one EPC pastor who speaks in tongues and would encourage it, (but would not say it is for everyone like some charismatics would) but they don't get quite as out of hand in their services as many do and do not speak in tongues during the worship service. I attended that church off and on for more than a year and profited greatly from his ministry (his preaching is often quite powerful) and the writings on his website that he has on a wide number of issues. Prior to that, I had been in an independent church that basically had an anabaptist view of church history and was bitterly opposed to paedobaptism. In many ways this EPC pastor helped lead me to my current position. Ironically, it led me out of that church and into the OPC! 

I think there is a wide diversity in the EPC, with everything from more conventional Reformed churches to "seeker sensitive" Willow Creek megachurches to "Reformed-Charismatics" like my friend and others.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> Greetings all,
> In my small circle of credo baptist reformed friends we have been discussing ecclesiology for some time, I thought I might drop our current question here on the board as my first post:
> 
> Does anyone know of a credo-baptist, non-congregational ( synod or episcopal) reformed denomination? I inquired of Dr Riddlebarger and his reply was to give up on credo-baptism.  I can not quite do that  I am taking his secondary advice however and now that this semester is over will be working through his lecture notes on the subject and Dr. Horton's volume on the covenant



 to Dr. Riddlebarger's advice! I struggled with the baptism issue for almost 3 years, but have finally come down on the paedo side and actually joined the OPC today  

Other resources to look into include Jay Adams _Meaning and Mode of Baptism_, the baptism page at Monergism that I'm sure you're aware of, and this Schaeffer article which was helpful to me as well.


----------



## Hungus (May 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> to Dr. Riddlebarger's advice! I struggled with the baptism issue for almost 3 years, but have finally come down on the paedo side and actually joined the OPC today



If I come down Paedothen its going to be OPC, URCNA or Reformed Episcopal depending on how I come down on the APPLICATION of the regulative principle. Otherwise it looks like I am ARBCA bound. I have some time, as it stands I am looking at being in school another 11-12 years

Thats: 
UTA 2+ years BA INTS
WSCal MA.HT + M.Div (IRBS current thinking) = 6 years
U. Aberdeen S.T.D. = 3+ years
Cranmer House Houston S.T.L. if I go Reformed Episcopal.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by gregbed_
> I see you are at a PCA (God has blessed me, my wife, and college freshman son greatly through the work of a PCA pastor). Were you searching for a Presbyterian or a Baptist church? If Baptist, did you change your views on paedobaptism or did you find Riveroaks the most faithful expression of God's church in your area?



Shortly after having embraced the doctrines of grace and absolute providence, I began to also examine other areas of the theology under which I was raised (A/G), beginning with some basic Covenant Theology. I was already familiar with Joshua Harris for a few years through his relational books, and thus discovered Sovereign Grace Ministries (I can't remember if it was still PDI at the time or not) at avery opportune time, as they essentially held and practiced everything I did at that time: The doctrines of grace; a rejection of Dispensationalism with a belief in many of the basic tenets of the covenantal system of thought, yet with a retained belief in credobaptism (though I wasn't familiar with the precise term "Particular Baptist" at the time); and a rejection of the A/G doctrine of tongues being necessary for _every_ believer and of the Pentecostal emphases on faith-healing and prosperity, yet with a retained belief in the continuing function of the revelatory gifts themselves.

As I continued to study more on those topics from all sides, however, I found myself eventually beginning to fall out-of-step with some of the distinctives of SGM; most notable at the time were my being convinced of cessationism and paedobaptism. Regarding the former, I had become a great fan of Wayne Grudem's work on the subject, in his systematic (which had been recommended to me by the same pastor at Covenant Life who had helped me with the doctrines of grace) and elsewhere. They largely resembled those of Matt Slick and others closely associated with the movement. The bulk of what surprised me into abandoning those views was the material in O. Palmer Robertson's _The Final Word_, especially his specific examinations of Grudem's arguments. My acceptance of paedobaptism came through a longer and more multi-faceted study, through several works, chapters and articles on the subject from both sides, and unlike the revelatory gifts issue, I can't really say there was one author or set of arguments that primarily convinced me, as it just turned out to be the end of the various discussions and debates I read online (before I had joined here) beside my study of the Scriptures through written works.

Around that time (still attending my A/G), when I first realized I was not going to be able to join and commit my life's service to SGM, I was actually very sad and somewhat disillusioned. For although I ultimately trusted that God would lead me to serve and grow where He had, I did not know anyone in Presbyterian (or Continental Reformed) circles. Not only was I not familiar with any of their churches, pastors, seminaries or authors, I also did not really have any firsthand concept of their _vision_ or goals in today's world. By contrast, I had already made a personal connection with a pastor at SGM's central church, had been very familiar with the soon-to-be Senior Pastor of that same church (Harris), had gained a lot from C. J.'s work on the Cross, had benefitted from many of their materials ordered online, and had already made initial connections with an SGM church where I had thought at that time I would be attending college (Wheaton). Furthermore, in-line with several interviews regarding PDI, I had developed a passion for their specific vision, of merging historic doctrinal soundness with lost freshness and power. So even though I realized I no longer agreed with them on the true nature of the latter, I already missed having the future opportunity to serve with them in furthering it.

Following that, long story short, the same thing happened with the Presbyterian (and Reformed) churches that had previously happened to me with the Sovereign Grace churches. And while, as I said above, I knew from the beginning God would make a place for me to gladly serve _wherever_ I thought He was calling me to go, it was still hard for me to wait in-between the time of my departure from future SGM plans and the time of my involvement with the Presbyterian church. So now to technically answer your question , at the time I moved to Memphis, I was then searching for a Presbyterian church. John Schultz ("jfschultz" on this board) got me in-touch there, and the rest is history...

Well, Greg, now that I've almost certainly told you more than you were asking to know...how did you become acquainted with Sovereign Grace? Due to their small size (and thus the rarity of meeting members), as well as my quasi-history with them, I'm always genuinely interested in hearing about people's history in discovering them as well as the nature of people's current involvement with (and thought on) them.


----------



## gregbed (May 16, 2006)

[q]Well, Greg, now that I've almost certainly told you more than you were asking to know...how did you become acquainted with Sovereign Grace? Due to their small size (and thus the rarity of meeting members), as well as my quasi-history with them, I'm always genuinely interested in hearing about people's history in discovering them as well as the nature of people's current involvement with (and thought on) them.[/q]
That was actually quite succinct, it will be a challenge for me to do likewise.
I was in an independent, Bible church with a DTS grad pastor. I was an elder and an adult Sunday School teacher. A friend had given me a copy of Piper's "The Pleasures of God". Also, there was another man at my church who was my age (now 48) who was questioning all the assumptions of disp. and asking me for answers. It made me realize I didn't have good answers and started seeking them out myself. In July 2003, I attended a conference in Annapolis MD (put on by the Jonathan Edwards Institute) called "Beholding the Beauty of Christ:Revisiting the Religous Affections". I really had no idea what it was about but Piper was the keynote speaker and I wanted to see him. It was incredible. For a half-hour before each speaker we had a time of corporate worship led by someone from a large PCA church in the area. I had never heard the songs before, but they were incredibly theologically rich. So I hunted down the copyrights, one of which was PDI. While there, I heard Steve Childers, RTS, speak on "The Gospel:Good News for the Lost and Found" and I realized I had a very small limited understanding of the gospel. It was life changing. (also there if you are familiar with them was Richard Pratt, RTS and Scott Hafemann, Wheaton now Gordon-Conwell).
I was forever changed by that seminar (as was my wife) and it affected how I taught Sunday School (although my church was as disp. as one can be they never put it in their doctrinal stmnt, so I was a historical premil.). Also at that time, I read Rick Warren's "The Purpose Driven Church" and was (and still am) convinced that he is a source of great harm to sound theology. I was vocal about it, but noththeless the pastor started using PDL in studies even the church the whole acknowledging its shortcomings to me. It was pretty apparent that the situation couldn't last long and it ended in May 2004. When I had been looking for PDI/SGM music, I learned that they were a church planting group and had a church that was 5 miles from my house. I have going ever since. I joined last year, although at times I still feel like the odd man out. If I were ever to be part of another local church I would leave there with a better understanding of how local church ministry should function and what a Christian community and life looks like.
One of the most refreshing things about the church is the stress on humility in the leaders. The senior pastors that I have met, save one, were very good to excellent expositors of the Scriptures. Dave Harvey, who pastors an eastern Pa. church is tremendous.
The only thing that really gives me pause sometimes is the sense that some seem to believe physically exurberant worship is somehow more spiritual. I haven't heard from the pastoral staff at my local church, but I have heard it from at least one visiting senior pastor who did an abysmal job exegeting John 12.
Overall, the 2 years there has been a very good experience and God has used it to work changes in me and I am indebted to SG for that.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> Greetings all,
> In my small circle of credo baptist reformed friends we have been discussing ecclesiology for some time, I thought I might drop our current question here on the board as my first post:
> 
> Does anyone know of a credo-baptist, non-congregational ( synod or episcopal) reformed denomination? I inquired of Dr Riddlebarger and his reply was to give up on credo-baptism.  I can not quite do that  I am taking his secondary advice however and now that this semester is over will be working through his lecture notes on the subject and Dr. Horton's volume on the covenant


As others have mentioned, I think that the Free Presbyterian Church (Ulster) is the only church to maintain openness on the baptism issue while maintaining Presbyterian church government.

Of course, that's also a package deal, including women wearing headcoverings, exclusive use of the Authorized (King James) Version, a teetotaler position, a strongly anti-Romish position, a fundamentalist understanding of separatism, etc. etc. (Personally, I don't care for their hymn-singing, but that's just me.)

One good friend of mine began attending my church the same year that I came here. He held to Covenanter distinctives all down the line -- unaccompanied exclusive psalmody, _jure divino_ Presbyterianism, civil magistrate enforcing both tables, Christ's mediatorial kingship over church and state, etc. -- while holding to a Baptist understanding of baptism. It took him nearly a year of discussing the subject with several individuals in our church, but he finally came over to the paedobaptist position, and immediately became a communicant member of our church.

So I might just recommend that you attend Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed (Chris's church), in Mesquite, get your paedobaptism issues resolved, become a convinced divine right Presbyterian, sing Psalms, etc. etc.


----------

