# The case for unity between Presbyterians and Baptists



## Herald (Oct 2, 2005)

This is the result of another thread, "My credobaptistic Bible church has made its first stride towards accepting infant baptism!"

Passions have run high on that topic. In fact, passions run high whenever that topic is raised. But as I perused through the posts in that thread, one thought kept ringing in my head, "How often do we stand for and celebrate the doctrinal unity that exists between us?" Has this topic ever been addressed before? I am fairly new to the board, so it is possible that it has and I have overlooked it. 

I was looking for a place to start this tread and I chose Church History. Seeing as our unity exists in our history, I thought it would be appropriate.

So I turn this over to all of you. Where is our unity? How can we stand together for the truth of scripture even though there are areas of disagreement? I do not have all the answers...I am just asking the question.


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 2, 2005)

I have nothing else to say on the matter discussed in that other thread.


----------



## Herald (Oct 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I have nothing else to say on the matter discussed in that other thread.



Ryan, that is okay my brother. That is why I started this thread. Our divisions are legendary. Is our unity? That is what I am unscientifically trying to determine.

Peace, my brother.


----------



## kceaster (Oct 3, 2005)

*Bill...*

I think our unity boils down to authority. The authority of the Scriptures, and the authority of the Church of God. Naturally this all leads to presuppositions and held positions. But really we're only strong together as our weakest link. In this, I think both sides cling to the authority of the Scriptures, but that may not be enough.

In the end, as I have argued in another thread, our hermeneutic is the determining factor in our unity. We may both believe the same thing, but the way we come at that thing, and where we go from that thing may indeed take us in opposite directions.

In the end, our unity will be based upon our submission to one another's hermeneutic, framework, etc.

But as one of my elders once pointed out to me, "Submission is only submission when there is disagreement." We do not truly submit to one another when we agree, we're on the same level playing field. But I submit to you only when I defer to your interpretation and application. Likewise, you submit to me when you do the same.

But our positions and worldviews and presuppositions are not coming from the same place, so someone is going to have to submit in order for us to be unified.

In my humble opinion, we cannot have true unity as long as our hermeneutics differ. It is out of our interpretation of the Scriptures that our whole life and practice comes. As long as we do not interpret the Bible the same, we may come to the same conclusions, much as we would come to a four way stop at the same time, but we're not on the same roads. Only until we travel on the same road can true unity take place. And that road may not exist here on earth, but only when the many are made one.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 3, 2005)

Unity between baptists/presbyterians/episcopals,etc. lies/(will lie) solely in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Herald (Oct 3, 2005)

Kevin -

There is no doubt that our hermeneutic telegraphs the direction we travel in relation to scripture. But I do not concur that our hermeneutic must preclude our unity. Allow me the liberty to share some areas where Calvinistic Baptists and Presbyterians are in agreement.

*The Five Solas*

Grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, scripture alone, all glory to God alone...these are essential areas of agreement for both of us. I doubt we could exhaust our unity in this great confession of the sovereignty of God. Calvinistic (Reformed) Baptists affirm the five solas without reservation. We embrace them. We may not hold to the WCF as our creedal affirmation, but that is small matter. We confess unashamedly, the sovereignty of God.

*The second coming*

Christ is coming again. Period. We don't need to debate covenant theology with Presbyterians. Baptists are too busy eating their own!  Baptists are all over the spectrum of eschatology. But it is enough that we all agree that our Lord Jesus Christ is coming again. 

*The ministry of the Holy Spirit*

This is another area we were are in close communion. The majority of Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are cessationists. Not all of us, but the majority. We believe all saints are sealed with the "Holy Spirit of promise." 

It seems our major area of disagreement is in the covenant vs. dispensational debate. New covenant theology and progressive dispensationalism have attempted to bridge the divide between us. But in my narrow world, this is the main issue that divides some of our unity. 

But even with polarized theologic systems, we still agree on much. I am not willing to allow my hermeneutic to separate our love for the Savior. Maybe I sound like Polly Anna. I certainly don't mean to.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 3, 2005)

one quick glimpse at the Scriptures that give us instructions regarding fellowship reveals long lists of things to do for one another and to one another to the glory of God. And a quick glimpse of all the times we are told to withhold fellowship proves that the only reasons for breaking fellowship between believers is unrepentant sin (a brother under discipline) and false doctrine (doctrine that does not lead to godliness, denies the gospel, or causes the ruin of another's faith).

Long list on one side. Short list on the other. Why do we spend all our time trying to force extra issues into that short list?

I have been preaching on fellowship as an element of worship in spirit and truth and I am more and more convicted that we are so anemic in the area of fellowship both in and out of our local congregations, we are so quick to judge another's servant, we are so eager to find differences that we simply cannot be obedient to the "one anothers" and esteem others as better than ourselves......

Phillip


----------



## Herald (Oct 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> one quick glimpse at the Scriptures that give us instructions regarding fellowship reveals long lists of things to do for one another and to one another to the glory of God. And a quick glimpse of all the times we are told to withhold fellowship proves that the only reasons for breaking fellowship between believers is unrepentant sin (a brother under discipline) and false doctrine (doctrine that does not lead to godliness, denies the gospel, or causes the ruin of another's faith).
> 
> Long list on one side. Short list on the other. Why do we spend all our time trying to force extra issues into that short list?
> ...



Phil, I think you are on to something. Fellowship is more than just having a good time. It includes all our social interaction with the body of Christ. In our fellowship we should seek opportunities to be servants. We should seek out the welfare of others instead of our own. On all that I concur with you.

But beyond our fellowship is the sorry state of unity between the brethren of different denominations. Since this board champions the Reformed faith, most in here should have much to agree on. Now please don't get me wrong. Healthy debate on matters of weight are not bad. In fact, they should be encouraged. But what is our standard? At all times it is *sola scriptura.* Often the rhetoric becomes caustic when our debates stray from scriptures. At that time personal preferences and opinions creep in and underscore our differences. 

Now the funny thing about all this is, that in my church, I am known as a man with definite opinions on almost everything! I have never been known to shy away from a debate. My convictions on scripture are usually rooted deep and anchored by cement. To the extent that my views are biblical, I believe my position(s) to be a good thing. But do I exemplify 1 Corinthians 13? Not all the time. I sometimes fail to do so within my family, church family and towards other fellowships of believers. 
I have been convicted in this area. I realize it is time for change. I attribute that to the work of the Spirit in my life. 

Last March I attended the Ligonier Conference in Orlando, Florida. I will be going again next Spring. It was thrilling to see a few thousand men from all over the theological grid, coming together in fellowship and worship. No one glosses over the theological differences between R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan vs. John MacArthur and Mark Dever. Yet there they were....sharing the lectern. Covies and Dispensationalists were sitting right next to one another, singing and giving glory to God. This was not the fiasco that is Promise Keepers. The speakers were teaching the truth of God's word and the men in attendance were joining together in true worship. Why does it take a special conference to engender this type of unity?

So I am going to risk being a broke record and keep asking the question: "How do we pursue unity for the cause of Christ?"

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## kceaster (Oct 3, 2005)

Look guys, I'm not saying we don't have unity or fellowship on a great many things, but you have to admit that separation still exists. At the end of the day, we do ride off separately to a different sunset. I'm not saying I want this to exist or even that it must exist. All I'm saying is that if you want to speak of true unity, not just on the surface, then you must admit that your own presuppositions, along with mine, force to divide us, instead of bring us together.

I'm not focusing on the differences. I'm just saying that the things upon which we agree were gotten to because they don't impinge upon our theologies.

Can an Arminian and a Calvinist agree on the 5 points? No. Why not? Because the system of one or the other impinges upon their own system. Can they both be cessationalists? Yes. Why? Because the difference does nothing to their systems.

Can an Anglican and a Catholic agree on church polity? Yes. Why? Because it doesn't impinge upon their systems.

Can a Presbyterian and a Baptist agree on eschatology? Yes. Why? Can they agree on the sacraments? No. Why? Because they impinge on each other's systems.

Guys, it is our *differences* that keep us apart and at arms length. We could have 100 things the same, but the 101st is where we get off the bus, so to speak. It's like two magnets repelling each other.

So while our sameness is indeed a place of joy, our differences will always be what is standing in our way of true unity. It's not just Baptists and Presbyterians, it's two men alone on an island. It's two women living in the same house. It's two kids sharing the same bedroom. As much in common as the PCA and the OPC have, what bars the unification of these two denominations? Views on the offices. As much in common as the OPC has with the RPCNA, what bars the unification of these two? Exclusive Psalmody.

You're right, Pastor Phillip, we should embrace and withhold fellowship in the lists you mentioned. But unfortunately, our hearts are still wicked and we still remain aloof. Because of our sameness? No, because of that one little itty bitty difference that is the bur under our collective saddles.

The only way to have true unity - true unity, a real oneness, no more parting of ways, no more talking down about each other's views, no more thumbing our nose when we're apart but hugging each other when we're together - to have true unity we must submit on the points with which we disagree.

It's rather like a marriage. We fight and we hurt each other, but we live in the same house and we sleep in the same bed, we protect each other's interests and we do things that are the most good for the family.

This is the mystery Paul's talking about in Eph 5. One day, there will only be one bride. But when that bride meets her Christ on that wedding day, there won't be any discussions over polity, or sacraments, or eschatology. Because when we fully know, even as we are fully known, our stupid hearts won't be arguing over points of disagreement. We will at that point have submitted ourselves to our Husband and we will be subject to His truth as we shall see Him as He is.

Until then, we have, at best, amicable relationships that part at the end of the day, each riding towards a different sunset in opposite directions. We didn't gun each other down in the streets, we may have had a beer together in the saloon, but we're not going home with each other.

That is the saddest thing about Christianity. It is the biggest travesty and ought to be the source of a most profound sorrow.

Does it mean we shouldn't seek as much unity as we can find, absolutely not! But unless I'm wrong, that unity goes as far as our sameness allows, but stops cold and short at the one difference that throws a rock through each other's windows; that makes us thumb our nose and stick out our tongue at one another.

That is sin, brothers. But it's also reality.

Until we can submit to one another and agree to live in the same house and sleep in the same bed, our unity goes as far as the first difference. I think this will always be the case and an exception cannot be found.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Herald (Oct 3, 2005)

> Look guys, I'm not saying we don't have unity or fellowship on a great many things, but



Kevin, I am not focusing on the "but." There will always be a "but" to confront us. Why not celebrate the unity and fellowship (that your quote says we have) on the "many things" you have indicated? That is all I am seeking to do. The differences are there. We all know what they are. So what? I am interested in hearing from you on this unity and fellowship that you eluded to. Can we celebrate these things at all?

[Edited on 10-3-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## kceaster (Oct 3, 2005)

*Bill...*

I was just being honest. We're like estranged brothers who come home for the major holidays, but really don't have a good relationship. When it comes down to brass tacks, I am concerned only for my little corner of the covenant. Sure we can have fellowship, but I don't call that unity. We aren't one. We're two or three or 22,000. I think you're coming at this from a fellowship standpoint.

Sure, we have plenty of fellowship. We're doing that right now. And is it not glorious? In this fallen world, perhaps it is as glorious and as full of joy as it gets.

But I want more, don't you? I despise surfacy relationships, yet they're about the only ones I maintain. Unless you're vastly different from me, you are in the same type of relationships.

Test one: When deciding what to do for recreation either just over the weekend or on vacation, do you:

a) want to do something with family or friends that may or may not have implications for your spiritual life.

b) want to do something with your church family that may or may not have implications for your spiritual life.

c) want to do something with your church family that definitely has implications for your spiritual life.

d) want to do anything with any unified body of believers that definitely has implications for your spiritual life.

I chose a), and not just for the purposes of my own argument. True I did take a vacation with my wife this summer for the purposes of spiritual renewal. We went to a conference in Pittsburgh for a day and a half, but the rest of the time (3 or 4 days) we spent just the two of us. Was it enriching? Yes. Was it rewarding? Definitely. Could we have gotten more out of it spiritually? Because we were so focused on ourselves and what we wanted to do, which was glorious for us as a couple, we did very little for the kingdom of God and the brotherhood of believers. We spent quite a bit of money on ourselves and I have to say it was selfish on my part.

But when it comes to planning my next trip, I'll think back to the great time we had and probably desire that more than true fellowship and unity with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I'll definitely choose things that have spiritual implications, but it won't be my strongest desire. My strongest desire will be for my wife.

But my next strongest desire will be for people of like beliefs. This is where the suggestion to put aside differences, while on paper (or the screen) looks good, but working its way out into reality, is not going to happen for the vast majority of us.

I go to the PCRT conferences and I know that Reformed Baptists are there. I don't go necessarily to seek out fellowship with them, but with others of Presbyterian denominations with which I am closer associated. Is the fellowship good and real, yes. Are we unified? Not really.

Perhaps I'm the guy with the problem, but I really don't think that I'm alone on this. I go to RSI luncheons as well, but I know that my conversations are more often with Presbyterians than with Baptists.

I spent some time in the service and I can tell you that around other Marines, I enjoy fellowship and unity. Around other people from other services, I am amiable, but I don't have any deeper camaraderie with them just because we were all in the US Armed Forces. It's a difference of philosophy, doctrine, worldview. We can certainly get together and have banquets and stuff. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, they're my brothers but they're of the estranged kind.

Why do we have ethnicity? Because people gravitate towards their differences? Why do we have boundaries? So that we can celebrate our oneness?

Unity goes beyond boundaries so that there seems as though there was never a separation. Unity is not getting together in the same room to have polite conversations so that we can go from there and talk about each other. And don't tell me you haven't done it. I have.

I'm sorry, but that is fellowship. It is not unity.

We may have unified fronts. When we're fighting the same enemy, we get down into the trenches and fight side by side. But when the end of that war comes, we remember our differences and each go back to his own place, taking up again our sentinals of uniqueness and isolation.

Fellowship is possible. Unity - true unity - only comes on the other side of formal, contractional, confessional, and submissional committments made between the parties. Why do you think the Holy Spirit calls the church Christ's bride? Why do you think the church is in a marriage relationship? Christ and His church must be one. That means that unity is the only option, there is no division in the house.

The best we can do is fellowship. But unity is only possible through the same kind of submission wives are to perform to their husbands. Therefore, true unity between Presbyterians and Baptists only comes when a formal, contractional, confessional, submissional relationship occurs.

As long as both sides are unwilling to submit, there will be no true unity, only fellowship. That brings me a certain amount of joy, but mostly sorrow. It is much like unrequited love.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## gwine (Oct 3, 2005)

> I spent some time in the service and I can tell you that around other Marines, I enjoy fellowship and unity. Around other people from other services, I am amiable, but I don't have any deeper camaraderie with them just because we were all in the US Armed Forces. It's a difference of philosophy, doctrine, worldview. We can certainly get together and have banquets and stuff. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, they're my brothers but they're of the estranged kind.



Of course none of the armed forces submits to any of the others. They are all (supposed to be) submissive to the Commander in Chief.

Likewise our differences in denominations.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_Therefore, true unity between Presbyterians and Baptists only comes when a formal, contractional, confessional, submissional relationship occurs.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 3, 2005)




----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 3, 2005)

Okay, here is my two cents. 

I have three boys. They have differences but there is a Unity when it comes to being family. There Unity is based on the fact that I am there Daddy. They have a commonallity that no one else can share with them. They are not neighborhood kids. They are more than neighbors. I am their Dad and they have a family bound unity. They are not the same nor do they believe exactly alike but I am their Daddy. When they come together they have a Unity in our family. There are levels of maturity that hinder some things but the Unity should be there.

If God is our Father we have a Unity. It is familiar Unity. It is based on the fact that God is our Father and has paid a great price to adopt us. To make distinctions upon secondary issues a cause to claim there is no unity is immature. We have a Unity because we are a familly. It saddens me that the claim to hermeneutical presup is the basis for unity. I believe that is incorrect and sin.


----------



## kceaster (Oct 3, 2005)

*Randy...*



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Okay, here is my two cents.
> 
> I have three boys. They have differences but there is a Unity when it comes to being family. There Unity is based on the fact that I am there Daddy. They have a commonallity that no one else can share with them. They are not neighborhood kids. They are more than neighbors. I am their Dad and they have a family bound unity. They are not the same nor do they believe exactly alike but I am their Daddy. When they come together they have a Unity in our family. There are levels of maturity that hinder some things but the Unity should be there.
> ...



You can't ignore history, though. God as Father was not enough during the Reformation to keep Protestant and Catholics together. Do you see my point? There are boundary lines and frameworks to both the family and true unity in the Church. Without these commonalities, true unity cannot take place. 

Agreement is fellowship, but submission to one another, that's unity. Deference, not indifference is what makes a Church unified.

That's all I'm saying.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



I said we had to have God as our Father first. I don't believe the Catholics had God as Father. It is enough if you treasure what Christ said about loving one another as he said in the Gospel of John.


----------



## kceaster (Oct 3, 2005)

*Randy...*



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I said we had to have God as our Father first. I don't believe the Catholics had God as Father. It is enough if you treasure what Christ said about loving one another as he said in the Gospel of John.



How about between the Reformers and the Radicals? Are you going to tell me that Presbyterians and Anabaptists do not both have God as their father? 

What about between Lutheran and Calvinist? Is God not the Father between these two brothers? Was there true unity then? Is there true unity now?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



First off it matters which Anabaptist you are referring to. Some where heretics. And yes, I do believe there ought to be a unity in the fact that God is father dispite what the children are doing. They are commanded to love one another based upon this fact that Jesus has died for them and they are the children of God. The command to love and hold each other in high esteem are not recommendations. Our heavenly father demands it.


----------



## Puritanhead (Oct 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> First off it matters which Anabaptist you are referring to. Some where heretics.





The British Baptist tradition is aloof from the problems that plagued the continental baptists, and it was free from the antinomian heresies. In the United states, most mainstream Baptist have English or British Baptist roots. Again, the heretic _Anabaptists_ were continentalist Europeans primarily in south-central Europe. Be careful before you lump us so called _anabaptists_ all in together and brand us heretics or radicals.


----------



## Herald (Oct 3, 2005)

> I was just being honest.



Kevin, I have no qualms about that. 




> When it comes down to brass tacks, I am concerned only for my little corner of the covenant.



The plight of American christianity.




> I think you're coming at this from a fellowship standpoint.



Partly. Fellowship is a form of worship. But I also have in mind doctrinal unity. I thought I was clear on that. If I wasn't, I apologize. 




> Sure, we have plenty of fellowship. We're doing that right now. And is it not glorious? In this fallen world, perhaps it is as glorious and as full of joy as it gets.



Ah Kevin, don't settle for table scraps my friend. Our joy will be made complete when we enter into glory. That is not even arguable. But there is so much more to the christian experience then just settling for a form of fellowship. I believe there is an intimacy between saints that transcends the popular definition of fellowship. Let me share with you a real life example...

One of my closest friends is a Plymouth Brethren. There is so much wrong with the PB that I could wax eloquent for hours. Darby's legacy has harmed the church up to this day. But there are many areas that my friend and I are in agreement. We agree on the person of Jesus Christ. We agree on the Trinity. We believe in the virgin birth. We believe in the second coming. We believe in the priesthood of believers. My friend is an avowed dispensationalist. I have lost the majority of my dispensational trappings (and more are falling off daily). We have discussed our differences many times. Neither of us has convinced the other. But we are both willing to stand up for the gospel in unity. Our unity is not in our ecclesiastical system. Our unity is in the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are certain basic facts that we confess. I will stand up next to my brother and be counted with him on these truths. That doesn't mean I water down my own theological position. I certainly do not! 




> But I want more, don't you? I despise surfacy relationships, yet they're about the only ones I maintain. Unless you're vastly different from me, you are in the same type of relationships.



Without sounding prideful, yes, I am vastly different from you. I have the "surfacy" relationships. But those relationships have a short shelf life. They come and go like the seasons. But I have a number of close, dear brothers. These brothers know me. They know me intimately. I am held accountable by these brothers. I know them. I hold them accountable. We have transcended the "surfacy." I consider myself to be a rich man in this area.

Kevin, there is too much to quote on your last point. Whether I choose to vacation with my family for spiritual renewal or just to enjoy ourselves...both have their place. God has given us all things to enjoy. 




> Perhaps I'm the guy with the problem, but I really don't think that I'm alone on this. I go to RSI luncheons as well, but I know that my conversations are more often with Presbyterians than with Baptists.



Apparently you are not alone on this (based on the "dittos" you have received). And you are missing the point. Unity does not mean we will not gravitate towards those we most often associate with. That is to be expected. Unity has more to do with the following attitude: 

"I am a (Presbyterian/Baptist....pick one). For God's glory, I celebrate the rich heritage of my faith as it is baed on the sacred scriptures. But I also realize that there are others who differ with me on various issues. It may be difficult, neigh impossible to enter into intimate ministry with these brothers. Our doctrinal differences woud make such partnership untenable . But we are not called to be in agreement with each jot and tittle. There is much we have in common. We agree on the complete sovereignty of God. We believe in the election of some to eternal life and the election of others to eternal damnation. We believe that salvation is by grace through faith plus nothing. We believe....." I could go on. There is so much we agree on. There is no need to shed our denominational distinctives. But I sense a general willingness to maintain the status quo or even to widen the divide between us. I find that to be intolerable.




> As long as both sides are unwilling to submit, there will be no true unity, only fellowship. That brings me a certain amount of joy, but mostly sorrow. It is much like unrequited love.



I feel sorrow also. To me, our submission is to Christ. It seems to me that your submission is to Christ via a mediator...the Presbytery. I will not debate that point. But someone else made the point (I believe it was Ryan) that submission only comes into play when there is cause for discipline. When we agree on the essentials of the faith, there is no need to submit to each other as we are already submitted to Christ.



[Edited on 10-3-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> When we agree on the essentials of the faith, *there is no need to submit to each other* as we are already submitted to Christ.



Hmmm. . . .

According to Scripture, here is a command for ALL Christians:

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> *I believe there is an intimacy between saints that transcends the popular definition of fellowship*. Let me share with you a real life example...
> 
> One of my closest friends is a Plymouth Brethren. There is so much wrong with the PB that I could wax eloquent for hours. Darby's legacy has harmed the church up to this day. But there are many areas that my friend and I are in agreement. We agree on the person of Jesus Christ. We agree on the Trinity. We believe in the virgin birth. We believe in the second coming. We believe in the priesthood of believers. My friend is an avowed dispensationalist. I have lost the majority of my dispensational trappings (and more are falling off daily). We have discussed our differences many times. Neither of us has convinced the other. But we are both willing to stand up for the gospel in unity. Our unity is not in our ecclesiastical system. *Our unity is in the gospel of Jesus Christ*. There are certain basic facts that we confess. *I will stand up next to my brother and be counted with him on these truths. That doesn't mean I water down my own theological position. I certainly do not! *



 Amen, brother!!! THAT is what true unity is all about! Only AFTER more people view unity as you do, with some of the other doctrinal differences really start being dealt with. As long as it's always a "me versus you" mentality, unity will never occur, either by practice or by doctrine. But once that unity IN Christ is fiercely defended, then truly meaningful conversation about various doctrinal points is much more likely to take place. 




> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> I sense a general willingness to maintain the status quo or even to widen the divide between us. I find that to be intolerable.



Again, AMEN!  Willingness to maintain the status quo, or willingness to widen the divide, is grievous sin.

Scripture treats unity in Christ as MORE important than most of the doctrinal issues we fight over. But the church at large, for hundreds of years, has treated unity as the LEAST important thing. "No unity without perfect doctrinal agreement" seems to be the creed of many churches. This is sin. 

Here are some recent examples:

I've seen some pretty crazy ideas flying around on this board lately. My church practices church discipline far more seriously and effectively than most churches out there. But since a number of people on here just _can't imagine_ that being possible without a formal membership roster, they are nacent enough to suggest that "any church with membership" automatically exercises discipline more effectively.

I spend more time in the baptism forum than about anywhere else on here. I have consistently argued strongly and sometimes vehemently against credobaptist arguments that I utterly disagree with and reject. And yet, since I love the baptistic church I attend, and won't turn my back on it because of this doctrinal difference, I have been called various names, such as a "credobaptist in paedobaptist clothing".

I might as well go ahead and toss in here the fact that my church has a Plymouth Brethren style 2nd half to every Sunday morning service. It will be interesting to see what types of harassment I receive because of that. You can be as Calvinistic as you want, but just don't you dare try to take 1 Corinthians 14 seriously now . . . we can't have more than one person standing up to speak in church, after all . . .


Do at least _some_ of you see what I'm talking about? A lot of people on this board don't just attack those who are utterly against them. Instead, they attack people who are predominantly ON THEIR SIDE! A lot of people seem to hardly care that I am a staunch paedobaptist. Rather, they are angry with me because I still love the church I go to, and I think it would be morally wrong to abandon it. Nobody seems to care a whit that my church practices Matthew 18 church discipline better than most. Rather, they can't fathom how an entire church body could submit to such authority without a written roster, so they denigrate my church, and suggest that it must be "disorderly" somehow. There are people on this board who are EP, and that is fine. But there are some who have _abandoned churches_ over it, and that is _ridiculous_. There are people who have been happy over my conversion to paedobaptism, but have then disdained me for _continuing to live in unity at my current church_. How ashamed Christ must be of such backwards-thinking accusations! 


Bottom line:
Unity in Christ is MORE IMPORTANT than our doctrines of baptism, church membership, psalmody, or even church government. The church at large is going to have to learn a powerful lesson in living according to 1 Corinthians 13, before God is going to grant them the doctrinal unity hoped for in Ephesians 4. 

A direct command in Scripture is to "remain where you are called". If this applies to sacred marriage, then it arguably applies to the church as well. Of course you shouldn't remain in a Mormon or JW church. But if your church _at least_ believes in the doctrines of grace, then it is already head and shoulders above most churches, regardless of it's church government, worship music, membership policy, or doctrine of baptism. Maybe the church as a whole will really start coming together more in unity on these issues, once people who change their minds STOP abandoning their churches immediately after such changes. If they would rather STAY where they are, then some helpful dialogue may actually become much more commonplace.


----------



## Herald (Oct 4, 2005)

> I might as well go ahead and toss in here the fact that my church has a Plymouth Brethren style 2nd half to every Sunday morning service. It will be interesting to see what types of harassment I receive because of that. You can be as Calvinistic as you want, but just don't you dare try to take 1 Corinthians 14 seriously now . . . we can't have more than one person standing up to speak in church, after all . . .



Joe - I am not exactly sure how your church has a "Plymouth Brethren style" in the second half of your service. Perhaps you mean that individuals can stand up and glorify God through testimony? If so, I have absolutely no problem with that. My comment regarding the Plymouth Brethren had more to do with their history of spreading dispensationalism and some other doctrinal positions. I find some of their worship practices to be refreshing. 




> Do at least some of you see what I'm talking about? A lot of people on this board don't just attack those who are utterly against them. Instead, they attack people who are predominantly ON THEIR SIDE!



Luke 9:50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."

We ARE on the same side! Yet we not only shoot or own, we torture them afterwards. We are guilty of hindering the work of Christ through those that we malign and marginalize. But we need to develop this thought a little further.

Are there any doctrinal disagreements that should cause us not to have unity with a brother? That is not an easy question to answer. We have to be wise and discerning. The attitude and motive of each individual needs to be taken into consideration. Selfish motives or hidden agendas certainly do not foster unity or agreement. There may also be some doctrinal areas that are inherently devisive. Joe brought up the topic of paedobaptism vs. credobaptism. For some, that is cause enough to separate. I will not debate whether that is right or wrong. But if a brother of mine is separate on the issue of baptism, does that mean we cannot have unity on those areas that we do agree on? My ability to have unity with a brother may be stunted if that brother were to beat me over the head with his doctrinal position. Sometimes were are going to have to agree to disagree. But so long as the different doctrinal positions do not negate the gospel, I can still have a degree of unity with my brother.

Do not confuse my call to unity with a lack of ecclesiastical oversight. I am one of three elders in my church. I would oppose any attempt to promote someone to church leadership who is not in complete agreement with our doctrinal statement. I would also support church discipline on any member who was trying to subvert official church teaching. 

Recently one of our elders resigned because he no longer could agree with our doctrinal statement. It was a sad time for all of us because we genuinely love this brother. It was a sad time for me because I genuinely love this brother. Can I still have unity with this brother? On the issues on which we agree, yes. But what if his doctrinal disagreements were to carry him to denying the deity of Jesus Christ or adding works to salvation? At that point I must separate from this "brother" and appeal to him as I would an unbeliever. 





> A direct command in Scripture is to "remain where you are called".



Joe, where do you get this from? I believe we should remain in our local church even though there may be some differences of opinion. But if our doctrinal position is vastly different from that of the church, it may be hard for us to remain unless we are able to submitt. If a person cannot willingly submit, then they should leave.

Joe made some great points. Good post.


[Edited on 10-4-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > I might as well go ahead and toss in here the fact that my church has a Plymouth Brethren style 2nd half to every Sunday morning service. It will be interesting to see what types of harassment I receive because of that. You can be as Calvinistic as you want, but just don't you dare try to take 1 Corinthians 14 seriously now . . . we can't have more than one person standing up to speak in church, after all . . .
> ...



Yes, I was referring to our weekly Lord's Supper meeting, during which individual men take turns standing a glorifying God, reading Scripture, praying, etc.

Like you, I have a big problem with dispensationalism. 



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > Do at least some of you see what I'm talking about? A lot of people on this board don't just attack those who are utterly against them. Instead, they attack people who are predominantly ON THEIR SIDE!
> ...



And this is certainly where the rubber meets the road. And instead of just immediately leaving my church, I chose a multi-step process:

1) Do not baptize my girls behind the elders' backs. Submit to them, let them know my doctrinal change, and let them know my desire to discuss the issue with them.

2) If I converted back to credo, or if they converted to paedo, then great.

3) If neither they nor I budged, then respectfully let them know that I must follow my conscience and get my kids baptized.

4) If they felt compelled to exercise church discipline against me at this point, then I *would* be forced to leave the church and join another one.

5) If they disagreed with me over baptism, but agreed with me that baptismal differences should not divide, then I would get my girls baptized elsewhere, but continue to worship with my brothers and sisters at MBC.


So, as you can see, I fully recognize that there are some cases where you *have* to leave a church over doctrinal differences (such as baptism). However, note that it would not be such a case of me *leaving*, as it would be a case of me being pretty much *thrown out*. I think this distinction is critical! 

Even regarding the much more important issues of the early 1500s, note that Martin Luther did not "leave" the Roman Catholic church. Rather, he tried to bring reform to the church. But then the RC church expelled *him*. So it wasn't so much a matter of Luther leaving the church as it was a case of him being *compelled* to leave the church.

However, thankfully, in my case, the elders of my church went route #5 rather than route #4. So I can still obey God according to my conscience regarding baptism, and my elders still remain convinced credobaptists, and we can still worship and fellowship together in unity in Christ.


I gave the above description of my thought process, not to revisit baptism itself, but just to show how I think a unity-driven approach might look. I'm not naive enough to think that unity can be preserved in all cases. I am just suggesting that Scripture compels us to seek unity whenever and wherever possible, and only to leave a church as a *last resort*.



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good point. Thankfully, in my case, I am able to believe differently from the elders on baptism, and yet still submit to them. Why is this possible in my case? It is possible because the elders are just as committed to unity as I am (in fact, probably moreso). The official word from the elders is:
"The Bible teaches the credo position. But if your conviction of Scripture is paedo, then you must obey God according to your conviction."
By taking this stance, they don't weaken any of their credo arguments. Rather, they simply make it clear that the official position of the elders is, "baptism should not be the source of division".
Thus, in my case, I am not in rebellion against the elders whatsoever. We have agreed to disagree on baptism, and to *continue working side by side for the Gospel.*



> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> Joe made some great points. Good post.



Thank you, my brother! You too made some good points. I am enjoying this discussion with you.


----------



## gwine (Oct 4, 2005)

> A direct command in Scripture is to "remain where you are called".



1Co 7:17 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 
1Co 7:18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 
1Co 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 
1Co 7:20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 
1Co 7:21 Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. 
1Co 7:22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. 
1Co 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 
1Co 7:24 So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 4, 2005)

Does my church show that Presbyterians and Baps can come together? Yep! But of course the Baps have to permit for paedobaptism at times and the Presbyterians are missing a certain form of government.


----------



## Herald (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > A direct command in Scripture is to "remain where you are called".
> ...



Excellent!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by gwine_
> ...



This has absolutely nothing to do with what church you are in................I guess I should have just stayed in Calvary Chapel then, huh?

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 4, 2005)

I'm not sure how much of this comes from Luke 9:49-50 where Jesus tells John not to forbid someone from ministering "for he who is not against us is on our side." This was part of the passage for the sermon I preached on Sunday where Bill is an elder along with me. I have really enjoyed this thread, because I, too, think we too often divide over things that are important, but not critical. I don't believe that we can throw away doctrine for the sake of ecumenicalism, but I do believe that we can have unity despite disagreements.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 5, 2005)

October 5, 2005

I would encourage that it is always the point of the Gospel to which we come together, draw strength from one another together, fight together and if so ordained be mocked and die together. By Gospel I mean true and pure Gospel through and through, justification and sanctification.

We part ways in disagreement where we see that this is not so, that is per the Gospel or if we detect the Gospel is being obscured by another´s activity what ever it is. We dare not separate upon Law. Thus, we can pray for each other and ourselves, "œRemove my beam so that I can be and encourage my brother to the Gospel and as such aid him with is speck and he can encourage me where I am weak." If we pray this in terms of Law, then we are arrogant, raising ourselves above God and brother and sister.

E.g., without starting a baptism argument issue my prayer is that the Gospel be seen in that ordinance with increased clarity among all be they Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist or otherwise. Not, "œmake my brother see how I´m doing baptism as a Law better than he is." To avoid a debate presently that should be taken from a neutral stance, the prayer for the Gospel revelation in baptism. That way one is praying for one´s own beam to be removed and one´s brother´s speck to be removed and one ultimately convinced by the Gospel what is correct according to the Word of God. Having said that, I am the first and king of those who in the past have not done that very well. And though I´ve turned from it, I still have to fight my flesh back on such issues. That´s a hard battle for all of us.

There is not one denomination out there or each one of us individually that has not and does not struggle with works righteousness in some fashion within ourselves at least implicitly and functionally no matter how we may well structure our statement of "œJustification by faith alone in Christ alone". It is far easier to formulate that statement to be written and read and repeated than to functionally live and walk by it. E.g.s: The formerly educated and seminary student struggles with the pietism of works righteousness via knowledge and increased knowledge. The formerly uneducated struggles with the pietism of works righteousness via the practical day to day stuff. And if you don´t think you struggle with works righteousness, pietism and legalism "“ more than likely you struggle more than most. 

There seems to be no end to how we can make ANYTHING a works righteousness; E.g., the Word itself, "œYou search the Scriptures and think that by them you have eternal life, but it is these that continually bear witness of Me", John 5. The Sacraments/Ordinances; obedience to an ordinance though necessary by design, does not make that same obedience the primary purpose of the ordinance. Or for e.g., a doctor says take this pill to cure your disease. You obey and are cured, but your obedience was not the primary point of taking the pill!

If we seek unity in the Gospel, that is THE Gospel, then I thoroughly believe our doctrines will become more clear to us and changes as they need will occur. The key is unity IN THE Gospel.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## Herald (Oct 5, 2005)

Larry - very well put. The gospel is what binds us together as saints. It transcends our differences. As I have said numerous times before, I am not trivializing our theological differences. They do exist. But the gospel truth remains constant. It is not open to endless debate. We should have unity on that. If we do not, I fear our error is of epic proportions.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



I'm totally with Scott here. There is a huge difference between co-operation for the gospel and respect and charity and abandoning Biblical principles in the name of organizational unity.

I love Phillip Way and would strap on my armor with him any day, but I would not join his church, nor expect him to join mine.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 5, 2005)

but you could join mine since we do not require baptism for membership.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> but you could join mine since we do not require baptism for membership.



Hey - I'm an easy Presbyterian - I was baptized in an SBC church 12 years ago.  

[Edited on 10/5/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 5, 2005)

Yes,

I would agree too with Scott and Fred and Phillip, I didn't mean to imply that one stays put but rather should move when one is convinced of a doctrinal shift to be scriptural. I should have made that more clear.

"remain where you are called" pertains to ones calling or vocation in life. In short if I'm called by the Gospel as a geologist, married and so forth - I don't have to abandone THAT calling now that I'm in the faith for some perceived "higher" calling (monkery) and works again. Rather work in that faith in that calling to the glory of God. Too many "celebraties" and in circles here in the south laymen think suddenly they are called into the "ministry" at the point of conversion. This causes a lot of damage to those not gifted and prepared for full time ministry (e.g. preaching).

Who else is going to feed and clothe and shelter my children, your children and so forth? Are children not the poor in the very sense of the word poor?

ldh


----------



## kceaster (Oct 6, 2005)

Here is the OPC statement on biblical unity.

Blessings,

KC


----------

