# Baptist churches not true churches?



## mvdm

Scott Clark wrote this on his blog:

_"We would discipline someone if they left OURC and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect. 

I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments. Arguably the best reading of WCF 25 is that that when it says that it is a “great sin” to “contemn” baptism to take it as a reference to the newly organized particular and slightly older regular baptist movements. The first London confession was in ‘44. _

Here's the link {Clark's quote found in 4th to last comment}:

How the CRC Looked to Machen in 1936 Heidelblog

Aside from the Protestant Reformed, does anyone here know if any Reformed/Presbyterian churches have held/hold to this position? This question is important for some pastoral/eldership situations I am presently involved in, so some feedback here would be appreciated.


----------



## lynnie

Oh my. Machens Warrior Children indeed. And it is Scott Clark and Mark Dever in the ring ready to duke it out 

My PCA in the Metro NY Presbyterian does not hold to this position at all. I know because of somebody thinking of leaving for a Grudemite Church. And we even have Baptists as members who take communion  Of course I realize the PCA is not considered truly Reformed in some camps. 

So you look at Colossians 2 and say baptism is circumcision, a sign of the covenant people. And the next guy looks at Romans 6 and says it is a sign of death and resurrection and union with Christ. I have NEVER NOT ONCE heard a paedo reference Romans 6- not once!!!! And I never in all my former years as a craedo NOT ONE SINGLE TIME heard reference to Colossians 2. Never. Both sides have some work to do.

Excommunication over this? I assume that is what the word discipline entails? May God have mercy on Clark and Dever and all the rest who seem to be doing great harm with this subject.


----------



## Guido's Brother

mvdm said:


> Aside from the Protestant Reformed, does anyone here know if any Reformed/Presbyterian churches have held/hold to this position? This question is important for some pastoral/eldership situations I am presently involved in, so some feedback here would be appreciated.



Mark,

The Canadian Reformed churches have often been said to hold to "Our church is the only true church." While there were some who definitely held that position, I think we've moved almost entirely away from that. 

But even in the high days of this way of thinking, as far as I know no one was ever placed under discipline for attending a Baptist church. In fact, when I was a youngster and my Dad was in the RCMP, we were stationed in the Yukon and NWT, where there are no Reformed churches. Our Canadian Reformed church (where we retained our membership) encouraged us to attend a Baptist church. This was in the late 1970s.

But I do know that in the history of the Reformed churches, the approach that Scott mentions has been found. See here.


----------



## Herald

Scott Clark's comments may be tanamount to closing the door after the horse has left the barn. If a member of his denomination flies the coup, discipline will be nothing more than an administrative exercise. Seems as though, with some, the spirit of the Reformation is akin to the spirit of partisanship. I'm not too worried by the esteemed doctor's comments as they are from a distinct minority position.


----------



## DMcFadden

Before I majored in Biblical Studies/Theology, my academic career began as a psych major. Sounds like someone who is now an esteemed professor in a Reformed school must have started out in a baptistic church and has undergone what the shrinks call "reaction formation." 

The logic of RSC's position would mean that none of us on the PB who hail from Baptist/ic churches are part of a valid church. If we are not part of a valid church we cannot qualify to be members of the PB which requires church membership. Oops! Administrators, you better get your pruning knives out now! There are some of us bad seeds even among the ranks of the mods!!!  "Grab the women and chill'ins." "We have a security breach in Sector 2. We have a security breach in Sector 2." "The Baptists are coming . . . the Baptists are coming!!!" 

Scott's logic is sound, based on his premises. There are others on the PB who disagree in principle with allowing the LBCF to qualify people for membership in this board for much the same reason. If one interprets the absence of baptism for infants as a grave sin, then how can one fellowship with those who not only practice such but teach it?

If I were to put on my moderator hat (not a good idea now that I have weighed in on this subject), it would be to urge the mods to keep an eye on this thread so that it does not spin out of control into name calling and the like. Differences over baptism are among the most contentious issues we face on the PB.


----------



## christianyouth

> *I* don’t *think* that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church.


 (emphasis added)

If proper administration of the sacraments is a sign of a true church, and Baptists are not properly administering the sacraments, then it follows that they aren't a true church. Dr. Clark's reasoning is solid there, even if we don't like it.

But I think it's impossible to establish that a church is false if it doesn't properly administer the sacraments. There are many other commands that are given to the NT church and I don't see why this particular one is an identifier of a true church whereas others are not.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

In some interviews that I listened to from some members of the founders ministries they said that Presbyterian chruches were 'irregular' churches.


----------



## Mayflower

christianyouth said:


> [If proper administration of the sacraments is a sign of a true church, and Baptists are not properly administering the sacraments, then it follows that they aren't a true church. Dr. Clark's reasoning is solid there, even if we don't like it.



If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?


----------



## Prufrock

Mayflower said:


> If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?



Without getting too involved -- The above statement would not follow, for the same reason that Roman Catholic baptisms were historically accepted by the Reformed churches. How much more the baptism of those who preach the true gospel!


----------



## OPC'n

We have Baptists attending our OPC because he, the pastor, was thrown out of his church because he was preaching reformed theology. We gladly accept him in our church and my pastor would never think of disciplining him on his credo beliefs. My pastor doesn't believe he is fully reformed, but that pastor and his family are fully accepted in our worship. Of course if the Baptist pastor wanted to become a member and hold office in our church, he would have to be paedo. Credo-baptists are our brothers and sisters in Christ not a sect.


----------



## CharlieJ

I agree with McFadden's diagnosis of "reaction formation." It seems to be a common thread among ex-Baptist ex-dispensational Reformed people. One would think that more moderate language is in order, especially since there are more gospel-preaching Baptists in Greenville, SC than in RSC's entire denomination. When a minority like that starts describing others in terms such as "not true churches," the word that comes to mind is "bluster." In some ways, he sounds more "fundamentalist" than the BJU students around here.


----------



## Marrow Man

If Baptists are not a "true church," then my own baptism is invalid since I was immersed in a Missionary Baptist church. But then, I'm not a Donatist.


----------



## Marrow Man

Guido's Brother said:


> The Canadian Reformed churches have often been said to hold to "Our church is the only true church." While there were some who definitely held that position, I think we've moved almost entirely away from that.



That is very good to hear. This issue actually came up, Wes, during the ARP's General Synod (mentioned by a Canadian minister). We were voting on whether to approve the CRC as a member of NAPARC (not that our voted would have mattered, as you have already secured the minimum number of votes), and someone asked about the "only true church" mentality. We were assure that the CRC had moved away from this -- obviously evidenced by the desire to be a part of NAPARC.

And, yes, we all voted "aye"!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Not CRC MM, CanRC...


----------



## toddpedlar

Blueridge Believer said:


> In some interviews that I listened to from some members of the founders ministries they said that Presbyterian chruches were 'irregular' churches.



Some of them certainly are


----------



## DMcFadden

Judging by anecdotal data, America is FULL of irregular churches!!!


----------



## ReformedChapin

Where's Dr Clark? I wanna hear some of his comments on this issue.


----------



## Mayflower

Prufrock said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> 
> If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without getting too involved -- The above statement would not follow, for the same reason that Roman Catholic baptisms were historically accepted by the Reformed churches. How much more the baptism of those who preach the true gospel!
Click to expand...


Most reformed churches accept the Roman Catholic baptisms, but not all reformed churches agreed with that. For me that is the most contradicted teaching of many presbyterian churches whom are accepting roman catholic baptism !!!!


----------



## Pergamum

blah blah blah..... all the same charges could be said by baptists towards Presbyterians.

You baby dunkers aren't true churches either it could be said.


But, who *REALLY* believes that? 

At least most baptists and Presbyterians alike are charitable enough to call the other one merely "irregular" instead of altogether "invalid."


----------



## Craig

DMcFadden said:


> Judging by anecdotal data, America is FULL of irregular churches!!!



There's only one solution:


----------



## Pergamum

We also need some EK-LAX (short for Ekklesia lax) for those with constipated ecclesiologies.


----------



## CDM

Prufrock said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> 
> If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without getting too involved -- The above statement would not follow, for the same reason that *Roman Catholic baptisms were historically accepted by the Reformed churches.* How much more the baptism of those who preach the true gospel!
Click to expand...


Not in U.S. South. It was quite the opposite. See Thornwell & Co.


----------



## Gator_Baptist

Wow. I didn't know that some Presbyterian Churches took that stance on Baptism. I know that many baptist churches only count a baptism as valid if it occurred after they got saved.

For those that believe in infant baptism, why is it such a big deal that infants get baptized? Is it because you hold the same view as Calvin on baptism or is it for other reasons?


----------



## Prufrock

Gator_Baptist said:


> For those that believe in infant baptism, why is it such a big deal that infants get baptized? Is it because you hold the same view as Calvin on baptism or is it for other reasons?



Why is it so important? Because we understand it is the command of God as a part of his instituted worship. A cursory reading of the fundamentals of Reformed or Covenant theology will explain the position. You might want to explore the Baptism forum here, or the PaedoBaptism Answers subforum. If after reading some of those threads, you would like to ask questions about the subject, please feel free to use the PaedoAnswers forum, where I am sure many will be more than happy to assist!


----------



## Gator_Baptist

Prufrock said:


> Gator_Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that believe in infant baptism, why is it such a big deal that infants get baptized? Is it because you hold the same view as Calvin on baptism or is it for other reasons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important? Because we understand it is the command of God as a part of his instituted worship. A cursory reading of the fundamentals of Reformed or Covenant theology will explain the position. You might want to explore the Baptism forum here, or the PaedoBaptism Answers subforum. If after reading some of those threads, you would like to ask questions about the subject, please feel free to use the PaedoAnswers forum, where I am sure many will be more than happy to assist!
Click to expand...


Thank you very much. I will check it out.


----------



## sastark

The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.

Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.
_
"Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."_


----------



## rbcbob

Prufrock said:


> Gator_Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those that believe in infant baptism, why is it such a big deal that infants get baptized? Is it because you hold the same view as Calvin on baptism or is it for other reasons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important? Because we understand it is the command of God as a part of his instituted worship. A cursory reading of the fundamentals of Reformed or Covenant theology will explain the position. You might want to explore the Baptism forum here, or the PaedoBaptism Answers subforum. If after reading some of those threads, you would like to ask questions about the subject, please feel free to use the PaedoAnswers forum, where I am sure many will be more than happy to assist!
Click to expand...


I have the highest respect for Paedobaptists who hold that baptizing their infants is a matter of significant importance. To follow one's conscience is an honorable thing and when I see that in my paedobaptist brethren it warms my heart.


----------



## Pergamum

sastark said:


> The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.
> 
> Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.
> _
> "Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."_



It is fine to call the wrong administration of an ordinance "irregular" but to call a church not a true church due to an irregular administration of a sacrament is over-the-top.


----------



## sastark

Pergamum said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.
> 
> Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.
> _
> "Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is fine to call the wrong administration of an ordinance "irregular" but to call a church not a true church due to an irregular administration of a sacrament is over-the-top.
Click to expand...


Unless I misunderstand, what you just said is in contradiction with most reformed theologians, as well as the WCF. The proper administration of the sacraments has long been regarded as a mark of the true church. I suppose the question is: do Baptists properly administer the sacrament of Baptism? Dr. Clark obviously thinks "no".


----------



## Pergamum

Then, again, both baptists and Presbyterians must charge the other with being a false church; which most would see as lacking in common sense.

I like the irregular versus invalid distinction.


----------



## galactic reformer

sastark said:


> The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.
> 
> Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.
> _
> "Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."_



Indeed, and thank you.


----------



## nasa30

Unless I misunderstand, what you just said is in contradiction with most reformed theologians, as well as the WCF. The proper administration of the sacraments has long been regarded as a mark of the true church. I suppose the question is: do Baptists properly administer the sacrament of Baptism? Dr. Clark obviously thinks "no".[/QUOTE]

This is why most Baptist hold to the 1689 LBCF and not the WCF.

Chapter 29: Of Baptism

1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. 
( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 ) 

2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. 
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 ) 

3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 
( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 ) 

4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )


----------



## Herald

sastark said:


> The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.
> 
> Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.
> _
> "Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."_



The difference being that most Baptist churches (at least of the Reformed variety) would not accuse Presbyterians of not being members of a true church.


----------



## KMK

Does one have to agree with Clark in order to hold office in the URC?


----------



## DMcFadden

Bill gets at the heart of the difference. According to the law of non-contradiction A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. While none of our eschatological views may be correct, it is obvious that they cannot ALL be correct. The incorrect ones are wrong . . . or false. The same would be true of baptism.

While Baptists and Presbyterians may BOTH be incorrect in their views of baptism, they canNOT both be right. At least one side is wrong. To label the wrong one an error or false is not beyond the pale. The dispute comes in what we do with that information. If we are so convinced that we are correct and that disagreement about such is not merely wrong but something that invalidates one's claim to be a church, then Dr. Clark's argument would follow quite reasonably. One could, I suppose, make the same claim about whether one was EP or not EP. Insofar as one MUST be "false," does that error impugn the validity of the church since it would be teaching "falsely"???

Personally, perhaps I'm letting my seminary-of-origin skirt show here, but I am not prepared to brand as that which makes a church "invalid" all things with which I am in disagreement, even strong disagreement.

During most of my ministry, the logic of infant baptism was lost on me. It just seemed like a superstitious hangover from tradition without any solid Biblical warrant. In more recent years, however, the inexorable logic of the covenant has been chipping away at my former position considerably. One of our PB brothers even called me an "erstwhile Baptist" en route to the paedo side. But, whether I am right or wrong on baptism, I do not believe that such difference can be made to invalidate a church, except by a very sectarian reading of "rightly administer." Due to the interconnectedness of all doctrine, one *could* also argue in the same vein that theological errors regarding eschatology invalidate one's claim to being in a true church since the Word is not being "faithfully" preached if it is admixed to errors, even in eschatology.

[Oh, and for the record (being in the minority obviously doesn't bother me *that* much), when I pastored in Baptist churches, we accepted Presbyterians upon profession of faith without requiring re-baptism.] And, we ALWAYS encouraged them to partake in communion whether they were members of a Baptist church or some other Christian church.


----------



## lynnie

I looked at the original RSC quote and it was one of several comments on a blog thread that perhaps may have been written in haste? The word discipline, assuming he means Matt 18 church discipline, implies that the end result is to treat the person as an unbeliever. Excommunication is a very solemn thing where hopefully the person realizes that he is being treated as an unsaved pagan due to his grievous sin, and must repent.

I find this whole thing to be so wierd.....I mean, would even the most far to the right Reformed paedo think a Baptist is an unsaved pagan? Spurgeon was a pagan? John Piper?


Between that and all the credo remarks recently from National leaders about not serving communion to a paedo, as if the paedo is not fit to partake of the Lord's supper, I do think the holy spirit must be grieved. 

DMc I appreciated your posts.


----------



## Prufrock

On subjects like this where emotions can run high, let's be careful not to impute meaning beyond authorial intent to people's statements and actions. For instance, withholding the supper from one (whether rightly or wrongly) does not mean the withholding church does not consider the denied recipient unsaved or a pagan. It simply means ecclesiastical and doctrinal matters prevent formal fellowship. It is similar to a church member being under discipline and not receiving the sacrament for a time.


----------



## py3ak

Here's the funny part. If Dr. Clark's church contacted the wandering member's new "church" and informed them that "so-and-so" was under discipline, and the baptist "church" was actually pretty good and took discipline seriously, it would be faced with an interesting set of choices:
1. Disband because OURC doesn't think well of them
2. Discipline someone for coming to their "church"
3. Congratulate the wandering member on a fortunate escape
4. Rebuke OURC for sectarianism


----------



## Herald

py3ak said:


> Here's the funny part. If Dr. Clark's church contacted the wandering member's new "church" and informed them that "so-and-so" was under discipline, and the baptist "church" was actually pretty good and took discipline seriously, it would be faced with an interesting set of choices:
> 1. Disband because OURC doesn't think well of them
> 2. Discipline someone for coming to their "church"
> 3. Congratulate the wandering member on a fortunate escape
> 4. Rebuke OURC for sectarianism



Ruben, make this a poll and we can have some fun with it!


----------



## IanAdams

Ouch. But, despite the views held by a very small minority I pray that Churches do not practice this type of 'discrimination'. And before the rest of my Baptist brethren jump up in arms, I have heard this type of criticism leveled at paedobaptists in the past. We have often hosted brothers and sisters in our church who were not Baptist and we have always welcomed them at the communion table and embraced them as fellow believers.


----------



## cih1355

According to what Dr. Clark says, would a Lutheran church be a false church? Lutheran churches baptize infants, but they believe in baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Theognome

Why don't we just say that there are no true churches anymore and be done with it?

Theognome


----------



## Guido's Brother

KMK said:


> Does one have to agree with Clark in order to hold office in the URC?



No. In fact, there are a variety of opinions on this question in the URCNA. I say that, not as someone who belongs to the URC, but who observes fairly closely.


----------



## Rangerus

twisted and absurd.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Next they'll be saying Baptists aren't proper Calvinists.


----------



## Edward

CDM said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> 
> If baptist churches are no true churches, than their baptism can also not be valid ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without getting too involved -- The above statement would not follow, for the same reason that *Roman Catholic baptisms were historically accepted by the Reformed churches.* How much more the baptism of those who preach the true gospel!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in U.S. South. It was quite the opposite. See Thornwell & Co.
Click to expand...


The validity of Roman baptisms was the subject of both a majority 

PCA Position Papers: Baptism - Appendix P - Report of the Study Committee on Question Relating to the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

and minority report 

PCA Position Papers: Minority Report from the Committee to Study the Validity of Certain Baptisms (1987)

to the 1987 PCA GA.


----------



## lynnie

Theognome.....



That has to be the best line I ever read here.


----------



## mvdm

Guido's Brother said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does one have to agree with Clark in order to hold office in the URC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. In fact, there are a variety of opinions on this question in the URCNA. I say that, not as someone who belongs to the URC, but who observes fairly closely.
Click to expand...


As a member of the URC, I can say that I've never heard of anyone taking that position until I read it from Clark. Doesn't mean others don't hold to it, but based on my experience, I would suspect it's a tiny minority. As an officebearer, I can say, no, one need not agree with Clark to hold office. I would think the reverse would be the norm--taking Clark's position would engender questions on an officebearer's grasp of the Belgic and/or the WCF.

An uncomfortable corrolary question arises from this as well: if Baptist churches are not true churches, could we even call Baptists "Christians"?


----------



## Wannabee

Theognome said:


> Why don't we just say that there are no true churches anymore and be done with it?
> 
> Theognome



Does that mean I'll have to get a real job and start working for a living?

-----Added 6/15/2009 at 07:52:28 EST-----

Actually, I find the position somewhat consistent. But, as has been stated, it's a moot point in some regard. If someone left for a Baptist church then they considered the Baptist church a more biblical model and shouldn't be affected. And many Baptist churches won't recognize any baptism other than believer's as acceptable for membership, which I consider consistent as well. Having said that, I'd much rather attend a good Presbyterian church than a bad Baptist one.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

mvdm said:


> An uncomfortable corrolary question arises from this as well: if Baptist churches are not true churches, could we even call Baptists "Christians"?



Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt whether Baptists are _human beings_.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> An uncomfortable corrolary question arises from this as well: if Baptist churches are not true churches, could we even call Baptists "Christians"?



Oh boy........[que scary music]

Somehow, I believe this has already been exhausted here on Puritan Bored [sic].

The issue would not be soteriologic. One can be a true believer even in a erring church. For the record, the Westminster divines acknowledged the baptism by Credo baptists as valid. 

~Note to self, when thinking theologically, beware the corners of the room.

*I am in no way agreeing w/ Dr. Clark


----------



## LawrenceU

Scott, I am right there with you, brother. We have been there and done that and both have the scars to prove it.


----------



## Dearly Bought

As someone who finds himself in basic agreement with Dr. Clark, I first want to plead with participants in this thread to speak with care and Christian kindness. As other wise PBers have already counseled, please refrain from making declarations about the character of those who hold to this position.

As to the actual doctrinal position itself, I believe that it is consistent with the teaching of the Scriptures and the Three Forms of Unity. If the pure administration of the sacraments is a mark of the true church, then Baptist congregations fail the test from the paedobaptist Reformed perspective. From our viewpoint, Baptist congregations attempt to exclude innumerable members of Christ's body from the sacraments and the body of Christ.

(I hate to have to make this kind of cliche statement but... some of my best friends are Baptists and my entire side of the family is Baptist. This is not a position I find myself naturally inclined to hold.)


----------



## KMK

Dearly Bought said:


> If the _pure_ administration of the sacraments is a mark of the true church...



If 'pure' administration is a mark of a true church, then indeed, there is no such thing.

Even the Divines admitted that there was the possibility of error without negating benefits of the sacraments. In the Directory of Public Worship, they encourage the pastor to pray this after the Lord's Supper:



> to entreat for pardon for the defects of the whole service,


----------



## Herald

Dearly Bought said:


> As someone who finds himself in basic agreement with Dr. Clark, I first want to plead with participants in this thread to speak with care and Christian kindness. As other wise PBers have already counseled, please refrain from making declarations about the character of those who hold to this position.
> 
> As to the actual doctrinal position itself, I believe that it is consistent with the teaching of the Scriptures and the Three Forms of Unity. If the pure administration of the sacraments is a mark of the true church, then Baptist congregations fail the test from the paedobaptist Reformed perspective. From our viewpoint, Baptist congregations attempt to exclude innumerable members of Christ's body from the sacraments and the body of Christ.
> 
> (I hate to have to make this kind of cliche statement but... some of my best friends are Baptists and my entire side of the family is Baptist. This is not a position I find myself naturally inclined to hold.)



Bryan, it's not personal; at least not for me. I happen to believe it's theology run amok. I mentioned this next comment of mine years ago in a similar thread. What do we get if Presbyterians consider Baptists not to be members of a true church and Baptists view Presbyterians the same way? Both sides pat each other on the back, convinced that they rightly administer the sacraments, and believe they are a true church. It's for this reason that the PB is an enigma among Reformed types. There are many PB'ers that would normally not interact with those who hold to opposing theological views; such as Baptists and Presbyterians. The PB is sort of a melting pot. Outside of this place we usually keep time with like minded folks.

I'm not all offended by Scott Clark's comments. I would rather this type of thing be said in the open for all to hear (or read). I dismiss the notion that either denomination fails at being a true church. As others have brought up previously, can anyone guarantee me that their church is without error in every point of doctrine? And if error exists, could it not negate that church's claim to be true? In my humble opinion it's a slippery slope that begins with the slightest of pushes and has no definite end. That Scott Clark threatens church discipline against any OURC member who leaves for a Baptist church is quite humorous. My dear brother, and fellow moderator, Ruben saw the comic value in that statement. 

My advice (to all) is to concentrate on those things that lead to personal holiness and service to the saints. In this way each of us will glorify God in our lives. If we become convicted as to our baptismal position, so be it. Act in accordance with conscience and extend liberty to your brother who disagrees.


----------



## Dearly Bought

KMK said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the _pure_ administration of the sacraments is a mark of the true church...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If 'pure' administration is a mark of a true church, then indeed, there is no such thing.
> 
> Even the Divines admitted that there was the possibility of error without negating benefits of the sacraments. In the Directory of Public Worship, they encourage the pastor to pray this after the Lord's Supper:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to entreat for pardon for the defects of the whole service,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I was directly quoting the Belgic Confession on the "pure" administration of the sacraments. I don't believe that "pure" in this context means that the administration is free from _all_ human error, just that it is substantively the true and proper administration of the sacraments.


----------



## KMK

What about Baptist churches that have no infants? Would they be considered a true church right up until that first baby is born?


----------



## LawrenceU

I was on my new little gadget when I posted above. (It is a pain to type on, but I like it ) And couldn't fully post what I wanted. Scott Bushey's comments are not something to be dismissed. Many of you weren't on the PB when this discussion came to full fruition. It was intense to say the least. It also was damaging. In some cases seriously damaging. Now, lest anyone say that I'm pulling a 'why can't we all just get along' let me say that I am a convinced credobaptist. I think it is error to baptise infants. I'm not wishy washy on that. That is not to start a debate. Just so you know that I do have standards of doctrine and practice.

Yes, the PB is an anomaly; and a good one. It exists with an underlying tension that occasionally becomes very visible. That tension can serve to sharpen us, but it can also damage us if it bursts forth unchecked.

The line of thinking in the OP, with all respect, is fundamentalism. It leads to a continual contraction of orthodoxy. Left unchecked you may well find yourself the only one left on the planet that is 'orthodox'. Don't laugh. I've seen it happen. And, I've seen it happen more than once. Fundamentalism takes many forms, and it is always dangerous and destructive. The Reformers knew this and took safeguards against it. But, as is often the case, their children and grandchildren did not.

Please hear my heart on this matter. Discuss orthodoxy, discuss sacraments / ordinances, discuss orthopraxy but, please, if someone holds to an historic confession that differs from yours do not make the step of saying that their faith is in vain, their church is not a true church, etc. It does no good. None at all.

If I've offended you by this post, it is not my intention. I've just seen too much blood shed on this issue, both on the net and in real life. I don't want to see it again.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Herald said:


> Bryan, it's not personal; at least not for me. I happen to believe it's theology run amok. I mentioned this next comment of mine years ago in a similar thread. What do we get if Presbyterians consider Baptists not to be members of a true church and Baptists view Presbyterians the same way? Both sides pat each other on the back, convinced that they rightly administer the sacraments, and believe they are a true church. It's for this reason that the PB is an enigma among Reformed types. There are many PB'ers that would normally not interact with those who hold to opposing theological views; such as Baptists and Presbyterians. The PB is sort of a melting pot. Outside of this place we usually keep time with like minded folks.


I am very happy to be part of the PuritanBoard, but I don't view my membership as an extension of ecclesiastical fellowship and recognition to all of its members. For me, it is a valuable discussion board, but not a congregation of Christ.


Herald said:


> I'm not all offended by Scott Clark's comments. I would rather this type of thing be said in the open for all to hear (or read). I dismiss the notion that either denomination fails at being a true church. As others have brought up previously, can anyone guarantee me that their church is without error in every point of doctrine? And if error exists, could it not negate that church's claim to be true? In my humble opinion it's a slippery slope that begins with the slightest of pushes and has no definite end. That Scott Clark threatens church discipline against any OURC member who leaves for a Baptist church is quite humorous. My dear brother, and fellow moderator, Ruben saw the comic value in that statement.


Do you agree that we have to distinguish the true church from the false church? I worry that this sort of slippery slope argument might also easily be used in reference to the egalitarian debate or any other number of such controversies.


Herald said:


> My advice (to all) is to concentrate on those things that lead to personal holiness and service to the saints. In this way each of us will glorify God in our lives. If we become convicted as to our baptismal position, so be it. Act in accordance with conscience and extend liberty to your brother who disagrees.



I believe that the administration of the sacraments is crucial to personal (and corporate) holiness and service to the saints. This is why I cannot extend liberty to others on this matter.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

In any case, the argument...

1. It is a mark of a true church that P;

2. Church Q does not P;

Therefore,

3. Church Q is not a true church

... is fallacious. Specifically, the argument is an instance of the _No true Scotsman_ logical fallacy. We can easily re-state the argument as follows...

1. All true churches practice paedobaptism;

Therefore,

2. Credobaptist churches are not true churches

OR...

A: "All _churches_ practice paedobaptism."

B: "Baptist churches do not practice paedobaptism."

A: "Well, no _true_ church would fail to practice paedobaptism."

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

The fallacy is in moving the boundaries of the category in question, so that what you want to say about this category becomes true _by definition_, and no evidence can ever prove you wrong. All true churches are paedobaptist, because no church that does not practice paedobaptism is allowed to count as a true church.


----------



## Dearly Bought

KMK said:


> What about Baptist churches that have no infants? Would they be considered a true church right up until that first baby is born?



They still exclude infants by their confession and deny the covenant membership of infants in other congregations of Christ.

-----Added 6/15/2009 at 10:05:46 EST-----



Reformed Thomist said:


> In any case, the argument...
> 
> 1. It is a mark of a true church that P;
> 
> 2. Church Q does not P;
> 
> Therefore,
> 
> 3. Church Q is not a true church
> 
> ... is fallacious. Specifically, the argument is an instance of the _No true Scotsman_ logical fallacy. We can easily re-state the argument as follows...
> 
> 1. All true churches practice paedobaptism;
> 
> Therefore,
> 
> 2. Credobaptist churches are not true churches
> 
> This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
> 
> The fallacy is in moving the boundaries of the category in question, so that what you want to say about this category becomes true _by definition_, and no evidence can ever prove you wrong. All true churches are paedobaptist, because no church that does not practice paedobaptism is allowed to count as a true church.



I'm not sure if I understand your reasoning here. Are you under the impression that I blindly assume that paedobaptism is a mark of the true church without Scriptural testimony? I assure you that I am so convinced by what I see as the firm testimony of the Scriptures.

-----Added 6/15/2009 at 10:08:33 EST-----



LawrenceU said:


> I was on my new little gadget when I posted above. (It is a pain to type on, but I like it ) And couldn't fully post what I wanted. Scott Bushey's comments are not something to be dismissed. Many of you weren't on the PB when this discussion came to full fruition. It was intense to say the least. It also was damaging. In some cases seriously damaging. Now, lest anyone say that I'm pulling a 'why can't we all just get along' let me say that I am a convinced credobaptist. I think it is error to baptise infants. I'm not wishy washy on that. That is not to start a debate. Just so you know that I do have standards of doctrine and practice.
> 
> Yes, the PB is an anomaly; and a good one. It exists with an underlying tension that occasionally becomes very visible. That tension can serve to sharpen us, but it can also damage us if it bursts forth unchecked.
> 
> The line of thinking in the OP, with all respect, is fundamentalism. It leads to a continual contraction of orthodoxy. Left unchecked you may well find yourself the only one left on the planet that is 'orthodox'. Don't laugh. I've seen it happen. And, I've seen it happen more than once. Fundamentalism takes many forms, and it is always dangerous and destructive. The Reformers knew this and took safeguards against it. But, as is often the case, their children and grandchildren did not.
> 
> Please hear my heart on this matter. Discuss orthodoxy, discuss sacraments / ordinances, discuss orthopraxy but, please, if someone holds to an historic confession that differs from yours do not make the step of saying that their faith is in vain, their church is not a true church, etc. It does no good. None at all.
> 
> If I've offended you by this post, it is not my intention. I've just seen too much blood shed on this issue, both on the net and in real life. I don't want to see it again.



I appreciate your position, but please refrain from judging the convictions mentioned in the OP as fundamentalism. Such criticism could be easily extended to all those who have stood their ground against the egalitarian tides of modern evangelicalism. Why are gender issues considered to be the breaking point and the sacraments secondary matters?


----------



## Herald

Dearly Bought said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bryan, it's not personal; at least not for me. I happen to believe it's theology run amok. I mentioned this next comment of mine years ago in a similar thread. What do we get if Presbyterians consider Baptists not to be members of a true church and Baptists view Presbyterians the same way? Both sides pat each other on the back, convinced that they rightly administer the sacraments, and believe they are a true church. It's for this reason that the PB is an enigma among Reformed types. There are many PB'ers that would normally not interact with those who hold to opposing theological views; such as Baptists and Presbyterians. The PB is sort of a melting pot. Outside of this place we usually keep time with like minded folks.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very happy to be part of the PuritanBoard, but I don't view my membership as an extension of ecclesiastical fellowship and recognition to all of its members. For me, it is a valuable discussion board, but not a congregation of Christ.
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not all offended by Scott Clark's comments. I would rather this type of thing be said in the open for all to hear (or read). I dismiss the notion that either denomination fails at being a true church. As others have brought up previously, can anyone guarantee me that their church is without error in every point of doctrine? And if error exists, could it not negate that church's claim to be true? In my humble opinion it's a slippery slope that begins with the slightest of pushes and has no definite end. That Scott Clark threatens church discipline against any OURC member who leaves for a Baptist church is quite humorous. My dear brother, and fellow moderator, Ruben saw the comic value in that statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you agree that we have to distinguish the true church from the false church? I worry that this sort of slippery slope argument might also easily be used in reference to the egalitarian debate or any other number of such controversies.
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice (to all) is to concentrate on those things that lead to personal holiness and service to the saints. In this way each of us will glorify God in our lives. If we become convicted as to our baptismal position, so be it. Act in accordance with conscience and extend liberty to your brother who disagrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that the administration of the sacraments is crucial to personal (and corporate) holiness and service to the saints. This is why I cannot extend liberty to others on this matter.
Click to expand...


Bryan,

I am narrowing my comments directly to the topic being discussed, namely the administration of baptism as defining a true church. I am sure we would be agreed on other doctrinal errors that call into question whether or not a church is true. But as far as the credo/paedo debate goes, I am not willing to call the other side "not" a true church. This does not mean that I approve of the other view. I certainly do not. I have actively taught against it, and will continue to do so. But disagreement in this area does not relegate the other side to paganism, or worse.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Dearly Bought said:


> I'm not sure if I understand your reasoning here. Are you under the impression that I blindly assume that paedobaptism is a mark of the true church without Scriptural testimony? I assure you that I am so convinced by what I see as the firm testimony of the Scriptures.



I'm under the impression that you are being _unrealistic_ by excluding, by definition, non-paedobaptist churches from 'true church'-dom. You are trying to preserve some unrealistic ideal of what a church is, which simply does not stand up to the facts.

Furthermore, Baptists aren't Baptists because they are _not_ "so convinced by what [they] see as the firm testimony of the Scriptures."


----------



## kalawine

sastark said:


> The interesting flip side to Dr. Clark's statement is that, if I, as a Presbyterian who was baptized as an infant, were to desire membership at a Baptist church, I would be required to undergo baptism a second time.
> 
> Dr. Clark's statement may be in the minority amongst Presbyterians, but the Baptist-exclusivist view regarding Presbyterians is certainly in the majority among credobaptists.
> _
> "Kettle? This is Pot. You're black."_



AMEN my brother! As an ex-Baptist I can say a hearty AMEN! In my experience (and realizing that my experience isn't everyone's experience) it is BAPTISTS that are much more concerned about the issue of Baptism than we are. My PCA friends and fellow Church members seem to be quite content with their own views without being concerned about other's views. But I have Baptists friends who seem to think that it is a major issue - even to the point of whether or not to fellowship with others.


----------



## KMK

Dearly Bought said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about Baptist churches that have no infants? Would they be considered a true church right up until that first baby is born?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They still exclude infants by their confession and deny the covenant membership of infants in other congregations of Christ.
Click to expand...


So, any church that does not agree your children are in the covenant, is not a true church. Does this mean that Presbyterian churches who deny RC baptism do not believe those that do accept RC baptism are true churches?


----------



## LawrenceU

Bryan,
I do not believe that the label of fundamentalism could be applied to 'all those who have stood their ground against the egalitarian tides of modern evangelicalism.' And, I neither stated nor implied that. Neither did I state nor imply that you, Dr. Clark, or others were fundamentalists. I stated that the type, or line, of thinking is fundamentalism. There is a difference there. Most likely all of us have areas in our rubric of belief in which we must battle fundamentalist tendencies. (And, there are far more issues in that battle than the roles of the sexes, btw.) I don't see how this little debate even falls within the realm of the 'egalitarian tides of modern evangelicalism'. Reformed / Particular Baptists are an historic fact of the church. They are not modern, they are not 'evangelical' in the popular sense of the word. 

Frankly, I find it amazing that men who each revere the Word of God, trust God completely for salvation, lean upon Him to guide him into the Truth and proper understanding, long to live a holy life, and yet come to differing conclusions regarding the mode and timing of baptism could on that one issue write off the other as unregenerate. That is were this thinking leads. And, no, I'm not overstating it. You may not believe that, but it does go there. 

I'm not in this to debate. I am just pleading for caution.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Reformed Thomist said:


> I'm under the impression that you are being _unrealistic_ by excluding, by definition, non-paedobaptist churches from 'true church'-dom. You are trying to preserve some unrealistic ideal of what a church is, which simply does not stand up to the facts.


"Realistic expectations" applied to the sinful covenant people of God as considered apart from the Spirit's work leave us with no hope at all. Let's keep the debate centered on the requirements of the Scriptures.


Reformed Thomist said:


> Furthermore, Baptists aren't Baptists because they are _not_ "so convinced by what [they] see as the firm testimony of the Scriptures."


I believe it. I used to be Baptist.


----------



## Edward

I have not read all of the posts, but I would say that flatly declaring that Baptists are not members of the true church are not in accord with the Westminster Confession. Of course, that does not bind those who hold to other confessional standards.

The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all... And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them...The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error....


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Dearly Bought said:


> I believe it. I used to be Baptist.



Somehow I am not surprised.


----------



## christianyouth

How about asking them to prove that improper administration of the sacrament makes a church false?

This should be interesting, lol.


----------



## KMK

LawrenceU said:


> The line of thinking in the OP, with all respect, is fundamentalism.



Could you define your use of 'fundamentalism' here?


----------



## Theognome

Wannabee said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we just say that there are no true churches anymore and be done with it?
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean I'll have to get a real job and start working for a living?
Click to expand...


Yeah... And get a haircut, too.

Theognome


----------



## Wannabee

KMK said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The line of thinking in the OP, with all respect, is fundamentalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you define your use of 'fundamentalism' here?
Click to expand...


He defined it pretty well in his earlier post, Ken. Also, note that he didn't say that fundamentalism is the verdict. He said that this "line of thinking" is fundamentalism, and admitted that we all have such tendencies in some aspect of our theology.


----------



## Dearly Bought

LawrenceU said:


> Bryan,
> I do not believe that the label of fundamentalism could be applied to 'all those who have stood their ground against the egalitarian tides of modern evangelicalism.' And, I neither state nor implied that. Neither did I state nor imply that your, Dr. Clark, or others were fundamentalists. I stated that the type, or line, of thinking is fundamentalism. There is a difference there. Most likely all of us have areas in our rubric of belief in which we must battle fundamentalist tendencies. (And, there are far more issues in that battle than the roles of the sexes, btw.) I don't see how this little debate even falls within the realm of the 'egalitarian tides of modern evangelicalism'. Reformed / Particular Baptists are an historic fact of the church. They are not modern, they are not 'evangelical' in the popular sense of the word.
> 
> Frankly, I find it amazing that men who each revere the Word of God, trust God completely for salvation, lean upon Him to guide him into the Truth and proper understanding, long to live a holy life, and yet come to differing conclusions regarding the mode and timing of baptism could on that one issue write off the other as unregenerate. That is were this thinking leads. And, no, I'm not overstating it. You may not believe that, but it does go there.
> 
> I'm not in this to debate. I am just pleading for caution.



I might perhaps be more comfortable if you cautioned that this line of thinking could _easily become_ fundamentalist in nature. I bring up debates such as gender issues because I know that there are men such as Roger Nicole who display many Christian virtues in their lives, godliness in their walk, and some great insights into God's Word in their writings but genuinely hold egalitarian views they believe are taught in the Scriptures (again, I have been there). From my viewpoint, I am confused why the gender issue appears to be a dividing line in conservative Reformed while the sacraments are made a subject of Christian liberty.


----------



## Wannabee

Part of the problem with that, Bryan, is that Scripture explicitly states that wives are to submit to their husbands and that an elder must rule his house well. Nowhere does Scripture explicitly state that infants should be baptized. You might argue that it's necessary and clear. But, regardless, it's not explicit. Regardless of whether one is credo or paedo, the comparison falls short of credibility.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Wannabee said:


> Part of the problem with that, Bryan, is that Scripture explicitly states that wives are to submit to their husbands and that an elder must rule his house well. Nowhere does Scripture explicitly state that infants should be baptized. You might argue that it's necessary and clear. But, regardless, it's not explicit. Regardless of whether one is credo or paedo, the comparison falls short of credibility.



Joe, I understand how you can argue this as a Baptist. However, I do not understand how a confessionally Reformed paedobaptist can endorse this reasoning. I believe that the Scriptures are as firmly clear concerning paedobaptism as they are concerning biblical gender roles. Furthermore, I believe that this is the historic Reformed paedobaptist position.


----------



## KMK

Wannabee said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> The line of thinking in the OP, with all respect, is fundamentalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you define your use of 'fundamentalism' here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He defined it pretty well in his earlier post, Ken. Also, note that he didn't say that fundamentalism is the verdict. He said that this "line of thinking" is fundamentalism, and admitted that we all have such tendencies in some aspect of our theology.
Click to expand...


I am not arguing with Lawrence at all. I, in all sincerity, have no idea what this word means anymore. This is what he wrote:




LawrenceU said:


> The line of thinking in the OP, with all respect, is fundamentalism. It leads to a continual contraction of orthodoxy. Left unchecked you may well find yourself the only one left on the planet that is 'orthodox'. Don't laugh. I've seen it happen. And, I've seen it happen more than once. Fundamentalism takes many forms, and it is always dangerous and destructive. The Reformers knew this and took safeguards against it. But, as is often the case, their children and grandchildren did not.



Is fundamentalism a 'continual contraction of orthodoxy'? That is not the way I usually hear the word used. Doesn't it have something to do with fundamental doctrines and Jerry Falwell and all that?


----------



## Craig

Dearly Bought said:


> From my viewpoint, I am confused why the gender issue appears to be a dividing line in conservative Reformed while the sacraments are made a subject of Christian liberty.



It just so happens that egalitarianism is the big idol that needs destroying within the Church today.


----------



## DMcFadden

Folks, I'm up for watching a bunch of frustrated light middleweight theologs spar a few rounds as much as anyone. HOWEVER, please note that much of the discussion in this thread is beside the point to the PB. I think that we can assume that both paedo and credo practioners can be members of valid churches (with respect to the requirements of this board at least) since the confessional requirements call for Christians who are members of valid churches who MUST hold to  *. . . either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. * Evidently the Presbyterian owners of the site (former Baptists as a matter of fact) can disagree STRONGLY with the refusal of Baptists to admit to covenant standing the children of believers and still consider them to be both believers and subscribers to a biblically defensible (albeit incorrect from their point of view) confession.

My comment earlier this morning, only partly tongue in cheek, about reaction formation helps explain why former adherents to a position are typically the most passionate about opposing it (cf. ex-alcoholics, ex-Mormons, ex-Catholics, ex-obese folks, ex-smokers, ex-bubble gum chewers, ex-whatever). Somebody probably needs to do a PhD on what it is in the "ex" that produces such strong feelings!

As a lifelong Baptist who has been reading lots of paedo books the last couple of years, my respect for both positions is pretty equivalent. Good orthodox, inerrantist, brethren can be found on both sides of this issue. I will not fuss at those who draw their lines differently than I do, but I cannot relegate them to the ranks of the unregenerate either. We share the doctrines of grace, an identical view of the authority of scripture, a heart-felt stand against the liberalism of the mainline denominations and the willy nilly experientialism of the Pentecostals, and much more. While I understand the logic of those who withhold communion from people in the other camp, it does not resonate with me at all. 

At this stage of my life, I'm more concerned about building bridges than burning them.


----------



## tellville

I think Presbyterian and Baptist churches which follow their respective confessions are both true churches. 

I find it funny how in the real world most people view me as a hardcore calvinistic conservative fundy but here on the Puritianboard I would be considered a flaming godless liberal


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> While I understand the logic of those who withhold communion from people in the other camp, it does not resonate with me at all.



Very well put and I heartily agree.


----------



## A.J.

DMcFadden said:


> Folks, I'm up for watching a bunch of frustrated light middleweight theologs spar a few rounds as much as anyone. HOWEVER, please note that much of the discussion in this thread is beside the point to the PB. I think that we can assume that both paedo and credo practioners can be members of valid churches (with respect to the requirements of this board at least) since the confessional requirements call for Christians who are members of valid churches who MUST hold to  *. . . either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. * Evidently the Presbyterian owners of the site (former Baptists as a matter of fact) can disagree STRONGLY with the refusal of Baptists to admit to covenant standing the children of believers and still consider them to be both believers and subscribers to a biblically defensible (albeit incorrect from their point of view) confession.
> 
> My comment earlier this morning, only partly tongue in cheek, about reaction formation helps explain why former adherents to a position are typically the most passionate about opposing it (cf. ex-alcoholics, ex-Mormons, ex-Catholics, ex-obese folks, ex-smokers, ex-bubble gum chewers, ex-whatever). Somebody probably needs to do a PhD on what it is in the "ex" that produces such strong feelings!
> 
> *As a lifelong Baptist who has been reading lots of paedo books the last couple of years, my respect for both positions is pretty equivalent.* Good orthodox, inerrantist, brethren can be found on both sides of this issue. I will not fuss at those who draw their lines differently than I do, but I cannot relegate them to the ranks of the unregenerate either. We share the doctrines of grace, an identical view of the authority of scripture, a shared stand against the liberalism of the mainline denominations and the willy nilly experientialism of the Pentecostals, and much more. While I understand the logic of those who withhold communion from people in the other camp, it does not resonate with me at all.
> 
> At this stage of my life, I'm more concerned about building bridges than burning them.



So when are you going to make the switch? 

Thanks for sharing. I know of a Reformed Baptist pastor who would classify the pure preaching of the Word as the *essential* mark of a true church, while the pure adminstration of the sacraments and church discipline as *maintaining* marks. In this view, orthodox paedobaptist/Presbyterian churches are true churches. But since they practice infant baptism, it is believed that paedoabaptists will compromise the purity of the church over time. The last statement of course presupposes the Baptist view of the church as a community of regenerate individuals only. Though many paedobaptist Christians will disagree with me, I still believe that gospel-preaching Baptist churches (especially 1689 LBCF Baptist ones) are true churches though they are not as Biblically ordered and governed as they ought to be.


----------



## DMcFadden

A.J. said:


> So when are you going to make the switch?



Lane Keister (Greenbaggins) keeps asking me the same question.  Honestly, I don't know if I will ever be able to "make the switch." The Baptist arguments for a regenerate membership and the absence of a clear biblical warrant for baptizing infants weighs on me heavily *as *does the seamless fabric of the covenant argument in favor of infant baptism and inclusion in the covenant community.

However, given the relative paucity of Reformed Baptist churches, I will probably be joining a PCA church during my retirement years. Enough broad evangelicalism for me!


----------



## rbcbob

DMcFadden said:


> A.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when are you going to make the switch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Keister (Greenbaggins) keeps asking me the same question.  Honestly, I don't know if I will ever be able to "make the switch." The Baptist arguments for a regenerate membership and the absence of a clear biblical warrant for baptizing infants weighs on me heavily *as *does the seamless fabric of the covenant argument in favor of infant baptism and inclusion in the covenant community.
> 
> However, given the relative paucity of Reformed Baptist churches, I will probably be joining a PCA church during my retirement years. Enough broad evangelicalism for me!
Click to expand...


Dennis,
As you seem to be still considering the matter may I ask if you have given a careful examination of Fred Malone's *the Baptism of Disciples Alone, A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism*? Dr. Malone a former Presbyterian minister is now a Baptist pastor.


----------



## DMcFadden

I have it but have not gotten into it yet.


----------



## Ivan

DMcFadden said:


> [Oh, and for the record (being in the minority obviously doesn't bother me *that* much), when I pastored in Baptist churches, we accepted Presbyterians upon profession of faith without requiring re-baptism.] And, we ALWAYS encouraged them to partake in communion whether they were members of a Baptist church or some other Christian church.



Amen, Dennis!

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 03:56:55 EST-----



Reformed Thomist said:


> Next they'll be saying Baptists aren't proper Calvinists.



Oh, I've already heard that here...from Dr. Clark.

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 03:58:46 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> I'd much rather attend a good Presbyterian church than a bad Baptist one.



Amen, brother!

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 04:12:53 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> At this stage of my life, I'm more concerned about building bridges than burning them.



And again I say AMEN, Dennis!

-----Added 6/16/2009 at 04:14:30 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> However, given the relative paucity of Reformed Baptist churches, I will probably be joining a PCA church during my retirement years. Enough broad evangelicalism for me!



I can understand that, Dennis. If necessary, I'll do the same thing.


----------



## nicnap

rbcbob said:


> Dennis,
> As you seem to be still considering the matter may I ask if you have given a careful examination of Fred Malone's *the Baptism of Disciples Alone, A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism*? Dr. Malone a former Presbyterian minister is now a Baptist pastor.



After he reads that, he'll definitely jump ship...it was among the worst baptistic argumentation I had read. It actually helped solidify my switch... Also, he was a Baptist who went Presbyterian., who returned to Baptist.


----------



## KMK

I think this thread has run its course. Thanks to everyone for their mature participation in what could have been a volatile topic.


----------

