# The "Free Presbyterian Church" on Baptism



## Mocha

I noticed that the Free Presbyterian Church's position on Baptism is as follows:



> Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.



I have a couple of questions about the Free Presbyterian Church:

1) Have any of you belonged to this denomination before? If so, do the paedo's and the credo's seem to get along?

2) Is this a conservative denomination? Whenever conservative Reformed denominations are mentioned, I don't recall ever seeing the Free Presbyterian Church. It's usually OPC, URC, PCA, and RCUS. 

If it is conservative and if the paedo's and credo's are getting along with each other, I wonder if it might be the model that could unite the Reformed Credo's and the Reformed Paedo's?

Just wondering!

Mike


----------



## py3ak

Mike,

In my experience the paedos and credos get along just fine (majority are actually credos, I believe). You would definitely call them conservative. They are a small denomination, at least as far as the US goes. 
I think there are some points (alcohol, headcovering) that would probably not be accepted as a model for the larger Reformed community. Not to mention that many people think that their position on baptism is reflective more of indifference to that great sacrament (not true, in my experience) than of a desire for unity.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Mike,
> 
> In my experience the paedos and credos get along just fine (majority are actually credos, I believe). You would definitely call them conservative. They are a small denomination, at least as far as the US goes.
> I think there are some points (alcohol, headcovering) that would probably not be accepted as a model for the larger Reformed community. Not to mention that many people think that their position on baptism is reflective more of indifference to that great sacrament (not true, in my experience) than of a desire for unity.



Thanks for the information!

Mike

PS - Do you mean that headcovering is expected and that alcohol is not tolerated?


----------



## brymaes

Mike,
It is my understanding that headcoverings in worship are required and that alchohol is totally forbidden.


----------



## Ivan

They have a program on our local Christian radio station. I think they're great.


----------



## py3ak

Mike & Bryan -yes, to members. Many people find the preaching to more than make up for these things (assuming they don't agree, which of course a lot do).


----------



## Cuirassier

Hello Mike et al,

I grew up attending a FPC--was a member during my late teens/early twenties, and visited various during my travels, so I have good familiarity with the denomination. 

Insofar as the form of baptism, they certainly give liberty on both forms of baptism--naturally, with the understanding that infant baptism does not equate baptismal regeneration. Theorretically, they are willing to perform either on request, but practically, paedobaptism is rare--at least in the North America FPC churches. 

I attended the Calgary church for almost twenty years--never ONCE saw an infant baptism. I believe that during that time, there was a couple in the Toronto church, and a few in the US churches. Conversely, back in N. Ireland - I would estimate that 25% or more are infant baptism. Coming from baptist roots, my parents and I always found the paedo baptism thing a bit too weird, but as I mentioned, it's rarity in our own particular church allowed us to to worship in peace.

Insofar as conservatism is concerned, yes and yes. Hymns only, KJV, hats, no to alcohol, etc. The latter was indeed a requirement for membership although not for serving in certain capacities--Sunday School teachers, etc. I say that because I recall a particular couple active in Sunday School work who were not members. When I enquired as to why, it apparently had to do with the issue of complete abstinence (of alcohol). 

I don't recall hats being "required" in the literal sense, but there was virtually no lady who did not wear one--so I'd call it a de facto requirement at least, if not a literal one.

Yes, the "Let the Bible Speak" radio broadcast network is quite extensive, and has spread the gospel to many areas for many years.

I trust that helps!

dl


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> Hello Mike et al,
> 
> I grew up attending a FPC--was a member during my late teens/early twenties, and visited various during my travels, so I have good familiarity with the denomination.
> 
> Insofar as the form of baptism, they certainly give liberty on both forms of baptism--naturally, with the understanding that infant baptism does not equate baptismal regeneration. Theorretically, they are willing to perform either on request, but practically, paedobaptism is rare--at least in the North America FPC churches.
> 
> I attended the Calgary church for almost twenty years--never ONCE saw an infant baptism. I believe that during that time, there was a couple in the Toronto church, and a few in the US churches. Conversely, back in N. Ireland - I would estimate that 25% or more are infant baptism. Coming from baptist roots, my parents and I always found the paedo baptism thing a bit too weird, but as I mentioned, it's rarity in our own particular church allowed us to to worship in peace.
> 
> Insofar as conservatism is concerned, yes and yes. Hymns only, KJV, hats, no to alcohol, etc. The latter was indeed a requirement for membership although not for serving in certain capacities--Sunday School teachers, etc. I say that because I recall a particular couple active in Sunday School work who were not members. When I enquired as to why, it apparently had to do with the issue of complete abstinence (of alcohol).
> 
> I don't recall hats being "required" in the literal sense, but there was virtually no lady who did not wear one--so I'd call it a de facto requirement at least, if not a literal one.
> 
> Yes, the "Let the Bible Speak" radio broadcast network is quite extensive, and has spread the gospel to many areas for many years.
> 
> I trust that helps!
> 
> dl



You have been a great help! Thank you very much!

Mike


----------



## Cuirassier

You're welcome Mike,

To my knowledge, the Ontario churches are Barrie, Port Hope, London, and Toronto. None are exactly close by, but at least you know what is in your rough vicinity. Here's a few listings that may help: 

http://www.freepres.org/churchlist.asp?loc=america

Mods, please note - just passing along info--not promoting .... 

dl


----------



## py3ak

I guess the Indianapolis church is a bit different; in the time I was there we had more infant baptisms than adult baptisms --actually way more. 
I would suspect that it has to do with the demographics of each congregation: what kind of a background are they coming from? If they come from a paedo-baptist background, then there will be infant baptisms. And so forth. I say that because the Indianapolis church has a significant percentage coming from convinced paedo-baptistic backgrounds. But never having been in the Canadian churches (or in Canadia for that matter), perhaps my impression is incorrect.


----------



## gravertom

Greetings!

I thought I would add some comments, as I am new here, but was a member of the FPC for 8 years.

Our church, in Winston-salem NC, was(is) pastored by a paedobaptist. The first four of my children were baptized there. generally, the paedo baptist ministers will travel to other churches with credobaptist ministers to baptize infants in those places.

We had a pretty even split in our congregation, but it was hard to tell. we had no controversies over baptism at all, and folks didn't talk about their own views much, but if they had small children, eventually you knew where most folks stood.

The preaching was excellent, very Christ centered, and fervent.

The services were simple. Our morning service went as follows, If I recall correctly:

Hymn
Prayer
Psalm
Prayer
Scripture reading
Sermon
Prayer
Hymn

very similar to a reformed baptist church I have visited on occasion recently.

head coverings were required of memebrs. Adherents were not pressured on this. Voluntary abstinence from alcohol was required for members.

Musical instruments were used, in our case, normally a piano. The FPC in Greenville SC had quite an array, including organ, as well as brass and strings.

The paedo baptist ministers were in the minority, but the disparity seemed to be shrinking. I got to know several young men trainng for the ministry in the FPC, and many of them were Paedo baptist in their convictions.

We left the FPC over the alcohol issue, as well as issues related to worship, and the so called leading of the Holy Spirit. (We ended up in the PRC in Charlotte NC, then the RPCNA after moving to NY>)

The practice of "seeking the mind of the Lord' before making an important decision was very common. We heard many testimonies of men relating their call to the ministry that had some element of "fleece" seeking, as a confirmation of their call. It was not universal, but more than one ministerial student related to me that many of the elders and ministers would not consider a man's call as legitimate, unless he could relate some circumstance showing that God really intended for him to pursue the ministry, apart from his qualifications and desires for that office.

In other words, without a confirming "sign", many would doubt a man's call to the ministry, before he even began his studies.

For me, this became quite a burden, and could be for the average person in the pew. Who wants to be out of God's will! Also, things might be left undone, that would have otherwise been good, unless there was a "leading" to do it. Personally, I was absolutely sure that I would somehow get God's secret will wrong, and therefore incur his fatherly displeasure, or worse!

To be fair, while I think this issue to be serious, they are far from being flaming charismatics. All of the ministers I knew were cessationists. 

Eventually, a friend helped me see how Deuteronomy 29:29, and SC question 39 dealt with that issue.

Most of the best preaching I ever heard was in the FPC. The folks are very kind and loving. In spite of my differences with the denomination, I too wonder if their model of toleration on baptism might not be a bad idea.

They are certainly very strong on the gospel, if off kilter on a few other things.

Overall, My family was greatly blessed in our time there, and we miss many of our friends there. I wish they were more involved in the larger reformed community. I think they have some great things to contribute, and some important things to learn. 

Take care,

Tom


----------

