# How to think about those outside of the Reformed fold…



## Sebastian Heck (Nov 10, 2021)

Brothers, can you direct me to some reading resources concerning the question: How do we think about those outside the Reformed church(es) and confession? I.e. the distinction between true and false churches, more or less pure churches and resp. true/false, pure/impure Christians...
The issues connected with this questions are, of course, membership and admission to the Lord's Table. But I am looking especially for categories (and resources) to wrestle with the former question. Thanks in advance!


----------



## JH (Nov 10, 2021)

The Belgic Confession on what constitutes a true church I've found a succinct summary.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (Nov 10, 2021)

Hi Sebastian,

Check out resources on the Belgic Confession, especially the ecclesiological articles. Especially helpful in terms of detail is G. Van Rongen's The Church: Its Unity and Confession and History. There's also another book, less detailed and more popular, The Beautiful Bride of Christ.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Nov 11, 2021)

Thanks. Yes, let's see if these address my question. On a practical level, what I am wrestling with is the question: What do we say e.g. about Reformed Baptist churches. An "impure church"? A "false church"? What do we say about their members? "Impure members"? Not members of the true church? Etc.
I also found this treasure trove of searchable articles: https://vtls-crts-app.iii.com:7443/...t=Church+polity.&sort=dateBookAdded&theme=RPI


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Nov 11, 2021)

Clarence Stam's article series on "Denominationalism" hits the spot, as they say...


----------



## Zach (Nov 11, 2021)

I recently read and found Herman Bavinck helpful and charitable on issues related to questions like this in _Reformed Dogmatics _Vol. 4 in subparagraph 495 (the section heading is "The Real Church in History" in the English translation). While not addressing your exact question directly, I think he provides a good way to think about the question.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 11, 2021)

Sebastian Heck said:


> On a practical level, what I am wrestling with is the question: What do we say e.g. about Reformed Baptist churches. An "impure church"? A "false church"? What do we say about their members? "Impure members"? Not members of the true church?


Definitely impure. Most likely false. You really should have nothing to do with them.

Reactions: Edifying 1 | Funny 5


----------



## jw (Nov 11, 2021)

Peasants. People of the land. Unwashen. Leftists, even.

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 11, 2021)

jw said:


> Leftists, even.


As in synonomous with pinkos..?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 11, 2021)

Sebastian Heck said:


> Thanks. Yes, let's see if these address my question. On a practical level, what I am wrestling with is the question: What do we say e.g. about Reformed Baptist churches. An "impure church"? A "false church"? What do we say about their members? "Impure members"? Not members of the true church? Etc.
> I also found this treasure trove of searchable articles: https://vtls-crts-app.iii.com:7443/...t=Church+polity.&sort=dateBookAdded&theme=RPI


Brother, please tell me you're not serious. As a Presbyterian, I would call them saints, pure, Christians, brothers and sisters, and the Church. 

Think about what you are implying, and the consequences that belief has.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Nov 11, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Brother, please tell me you're not serious. As a Presbyterian, I would call them saints, pure, Christians, brothers and sisters, and the Church.
> 
> Think about what you are implying, and the consequences that belief has.


I think it was an honest question. And it is not out of order. Although I would gladly be corrected, it seems to me to be a well-known and accepted fact that historically, and even presently, Presbyterians believe Reformed Baptist churches are at least to some degree less pure, and I am sure Baptists believe the same about Presbyterians. This doesn't have anything to do, however, with how the two sides view the others as individual Christians. Remember, this is an ecclesiological question, not a soteriological one.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 11, 2021)

The judicious restraint of the Westminster divines on these questions is noteworthy. 

CHAPTER 25​Of the Church​
*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 fullness of Him that filleth all in all.
The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), *consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children*: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Unto this catholic and visible church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.
*This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. 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*: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to His will.
There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof. (Emphases added.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Nov 11, 2021)

Phil D. said:


> As in synonomous with pinkos..?


Who cares about accuracy, so long as it’s effective! Amirite? Am I right? Amorite?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 11, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I think it was an honest question. And it is not out of order. Although I would gladly be corrected, it seems to me to be a well-known and accepted fact that historically, and even presently, Presbyterians believe Reformed Baptist churches are at least to some degree less pure, and I am sure Baptists believe the same about Presbyterians. This doesn't have anything to do, however, with how the two sides view the others as individual Christians. Remember, this is an ecclesiological question, not a soteriological one.


I can understand that from what you just typed, but I was looking at the wording of that previous post. "False church" and "Not members of the true church" are in the line of thought.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 11, 2021)

jw said:


> Who cares about accuracy, so long as it’s effective! Amirite? Am I right? Amorite?


Leftist...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 11, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I can understand that from what you just typed, but I was looking at the wording of that previous post. "False church" and "Not members of the true church" are in the line of thought.


Yes, they are. However, I don't think that in using these terms he is implying that these are within the range of actual options. Judging by our brother's resume in his signature, I highly doubt he would make such an obvious blunder. I think it was merely rhetorical for the sake of inquiry. Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps we should let the OP clarify.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Nov 11, 2021)

Phil D. said:


> Leftist...


Based. Or -closer to Thanksgiving wherein turkey culinary prep is highly involved- Baste.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Zach (Nov 11, 2021)

Let's not forget it's the Baptists who won't receive us into their churches and not the other way around!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 11, 2021)

jw said:


> Amirite? Am I right? Amorite?


“The Amorite he is dressed in sheep skins: he lives in tents in wind and rain ...Armed vagabond in the steppes, he digs up truffles and is restless. He eats raw meat. Lives without a home; And when he dies, he is not buried according to proper rituals." (an ancient Sumerian account)

Reactions: Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 11, 2021)

Zach said:


> Let's not forget it's the Baptists who won't receive us into their churches and not the other way around!


Generally speaking, yes, but I can say firsthand that is not always the case.


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 11, 2021)

Phil D. said:


> Generally speaking, yes, but I can say firsthand that is not always the case.


True, actually. I've attended a Baptist church where there were a few Presbyterian members.

According to the church documents, they weren't supposed to be members there or take the Lord's Supper. But nobody seemed to notice, and I wasn't going to point it out:

"You must have a believers' baptism to be a member of our church."
"But Bill is Reformed, and he's a member!"
"Yes... But, ummm, that's different. I mean, it's _Bill_."

Reactions: Wow 1 | Sad 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 11, 2021)

Zach said:


> Let's not forget it's the Baptists who won't receive us into their churches and not the other way around!


Oy vey....

I guess not all "reformed baptists" are Baptists, then....


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 11, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> True, actually. I've attended a Baptist church where there were a few Presbyterian members.
> 
> According to the church documents, they weren't supposed to be there or take the Lord's Supper. But nobody seemed to notice, and I wasn't going to point it out:
> 
> ...


I beg your pardon? _"They weren't supposed to be there or take the Lord's Supper"?_ No one is barred from being present at the Supper in Baptist churches; and in the vast majority of RB churches, Presbyterians who are members in good standing in their own church are welcomed to participate in the ordinance. And if what you describe is from the garden variety of Baptist churches, then it really makes no sense given the fact that just about all of them practice _de facto_ open communion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 11, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I beg your pardon? _"They weren't supposed to be there or take the Lord's Supper"?_ No one is barred being present at the Supper in RB churches; and in the vast majority of RB churches, Presbyterians who are members in good standing in their own church are welcomed to participate in the ordinance. And if what you describe is the garden variety Baptist church, then it makes no sense given the fact that just about all of them practice _de facto_ open communion.


I never said it was an RB church.

This church had it as a requirement that in order to take the Lord's Supper, you had to be a Baptized believer. It was in the church's official documents. I think the real goal was guidance for children, tbh. But technically, it did call for people to have received a believers' baptism before partaking of the ordinance.

It was largely ignored.

**Update* *Just caught my error! Should read, "They weren't supposed to be *members* there..." not they weren't supposed to be there!

Sorry, busy morning.


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 11, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I beg your pardon? _"They weren't supposed to be there or take the Lord's Supper"?_ No one is barred from being present at the Supper in RB churches; and in the vast majority of RB churches, Presbyterians who are members in good standing in their own church are welcomed to participate in the ordinance. And if what you describe is from the garden variety of Baptist churches, then it really makes no sense given the fact that just about all of them practice _de facto_ open communion.


Oh, maybe I should have clarified that this was an overseas Baptist church, unaffiliated officially with any American bodies. Probably closest to SBC.

You sometimes find unexpected things in other cultures. For a variety of reasons, sometimes good ones.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 11, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> I never said it was an RB church.


It makes no difference. What group of Baptists bars Presbyterians from even being present at the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 11, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> It makes no difference. What group of Baptists bars Presbyterians from even being present at the Lord's Supper?


I mis-wrote and left out a word. It's fixed in the update. Of course they were allowed present.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 11, 2021)

Agreeing with Pastor Sheffield, but bringing up a different circumstance: Lutherans. Long ago my wife and I once attended a conservative Lutheran service while we were out of town. We appreciated the sermon and the sober use of hymns. When it came time for communion, however, the pastor fenced the table by requesting those who do not believe in the doctrine of consubstantiation to abstain.

We abstained, not being well-versed on Lutheran theology.


----------



## Zach (Nov 12, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Oy vey....
> 
> I guess not all "reformed baptists" are Baptists, then....


I was mostly being tongue in cheek, brother. I love my Reformed Baptist brothers and a particular joy of my ministry here has been filling the pulpit occasionally for a Reformed Baptist friend nearby.

Mainly and merely pointing out that, from my perspective, not accepting another church's baptism as an acceptable (even if incorrectly administered) baptism brings up questions about our how to view our catholicity that, as a Presbyterian, I don't think I have to deal with.

Similarly to closed communion in Lutheran and other churches (and maybe even the very, very strict fencing of the Table done in some Reformed churches): saying that another Christian may not come to the Lord's Table seems to imply, quite wrongly in my opinion, that they are outside the communion we share with one another in the Kingdom because of our union with Christ.

I guess I just come at the questions raised in the original post from the viewpoint that as Christians we must be as interested in maintaining our catholicity as we are in maintaining our distinctives and questions about what baptisms are and aren't valid and closed communion raise important issues to address in love as brothers.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Nov 12, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Agreeing with Pastor Sheffield, but bringing up a different circumstance: Lutherans. Long ago my wife and I once attended a conservative Lutheran service while we were out of town. We appreciated the sermon and the sober use of hymns. When it came time for communion, however, the pastor fenced the table by requesting those who do not believe in the doctrine of consubstantiation to abstain.
> 
> We abstained, not being well-versed on Lutheran theology.


Some WELS Lutherans won't even pray with you if you aren't also WELS.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 12, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Some WELS Lutherans won't even pray with you if you aren't also WELS.


It does make things easier if you just say, "If you're not one of us; you're not a Christian." Instead of inquiring into someone's experience and understanding of the gospel, you can just ask, "Are you WELS?" And if they say "No", you can turn your back and walk away leaving that unwashed Philistine where stands.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 12, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> This church had it as a requirement that in order to take the Lord's Supper, you had to be a Baptized believer.



That's the crux of the matter. Everyone believes that a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for receiving the supper is being baptized. If paedobaptist baptisms are illegitimate, then why would they be welcome to take the Supper? I'm not saying this is my personal view. I'm just drawing out the logic.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Nov 12, 2021)

From our very own @Guido's Brother





__





Baptists a False Church According to the Belgic Confession?


Brothers, I have a question that deals with the Belgic Confession's language of "false church/true church" as it relates to Baptists. In the Westminster tradition, we use the language of "more pure or less pure" when talking about the church. Chapter 25.4 of the Westminster Confession...




www.puritanboard.com





Now, my words:

This is a thorny issue and it cannot help but be so. That's the nature of it. Belgic Confession article 29 seems at first glance may seem to be fairly uncharitable. However, in the context it was pretty obviously distinguishing between the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformed Churches. Other groups, whether they be Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. I would agree are "sects", borrowing again from the language of article 29. They are not "false" churches, in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church is. That word "sect" may be viewed as pejorative but I don't intend in that way. One definition I find of a 'sect' is "a group that has separated from an established Church". In that sense, the Reformed are a "sect" if your baseline is Roman Catholicism. However, if your baseline is the reformed churches, then Methodists, Baptists, Brethren, etc. are sects. That doesn't mean that they're not Christian or that God isn't working among them. In fact, He quite obviously is. I think there is room, as reformed believers to both believe that these groups have left the truest and best form of the church AND that the Lord is still pleased to use them and their churches for His glory and for the conversion of sinners unto Him (and I would imagine that my Baptist brothers would say the same of our churches). In fact, these "sects" can often put us to shame in several categories, including zeal for reaching the lost, personal piety, etc.

I remember @Guido's Brother telling me to look into Belgic Confession Article 29 when determining whether I should stay in the Christian Reformed Church. For a variety of reasons, I left the CRC and joined the URC. Looking back, I see certain marks of the true church are marred or missing in the CRC. For example, the gospel is sometimes watered down, church discipline is often not undertaken, and the sacraments are often misused, whether by paedocommunion or by baptizing the children of people who really aren't even serious about their faith. I can't call it a true church because of that, but I also can't call it a false church or claim that God isn't working there at all. Neither would I say that there aren't many real Christians in those churches.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 12, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the crux of the matter. Everyone believes that a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for receiving the supper is being baptized. If paedobaptist baptisms are illegitimate, then why would they be welcome to take the Supper? I'm not saying this is my personal view. I'm just drawing out the logic.


I've noted this before in passing, I think in discussions with Matthew Winzer, that the LBCF looks deliberatively vague on the issue.

Chapter 26 has the church composed of invisible and visible saints. Visible saints are those "professing the faith of the gospel...."

Chapter 27 on the Communion of Saints references only saints, not method of baptism. It goes into various duties of fellowship and worship, and includes the phrase, "even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus;...."

I know there are Baptists who disagree (I have taken hits over it, BTW), but I take these statements as directives to welcome all who trust in Christ alone to the Lord's table. Baptism is important to us, yes, but one who professes faith here and now is a visible saint worthy to worship in communion with us.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Christopher Robin (Nov 13, 2021)

My "Reformed" Baptist church (LBC, Three Forms of Unity) does not fence the Lord's Table so severely as to exclude those who are not members of that particular church or those who have not been baptized by immersion. I really doubt that it's actually common among Baptists who hold to the doctrines of sovereign grace.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 13, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I think it was an honest question. And it is not out of order. Although I would gladly be corrected, it seems to me to be a well-known and accepted fact that historically, and even presently, Presbyterians believe Reformed Baptist churches are at least to some degree less pure, and I am sure Baptists believe the same about Presbyterians. This doesn't have anything to do, however, with how the two sides view the others as individual Christians. Remember, this is an ecclesiological question, not a soteriological one.


As Isaiah often does, he included himself in this indictment against all men.

Isaiah 64:6-7
But we are all as an unclean thing , and all our righteousnesses are as filthy [literally: a "menstruous cloth"] rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.

If at any time you find yourself acting differently than described in this verse, remember--It does not come from you alone. It is the seed (1 John 3:9) of God that was planted in you by the pure will and Grace of God.

I used to unconsciously think of the visible Church pretty much limited to the Reformed. But in my older years (I'll be 70 in a few days), I have consciously come to have a much broader view. Kind of like God treated Israel of old. I also think The Westminster Confession, chapter 25, section 2 would agree. It is that broader Church that is the house in which judgment must begin. (1 Peter 4:17) It is the Reformed branch of the Church that will be held to a higher standard. (Luke 12:4) Is it not a historical fact that many modern Presbyterian churches are found wanting when compared to some former times?

I am so thankful for the Reformed view of the Faith, but it makes me cry out daily for more Grace to live up to what I know.

In defense of my more _ecumenical_ view, let us all consider the Apostle Paul's opening address again to the very worst church in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 1:1-9.

Note: I'm sure this is the first time I ever wrote the word '_ecumenical,_' and I hope it's my last. _ _


----------

