# Reformation Bible Church



## Ivan (Jul 21, 2006)

I was surfing the Net and found this little church in Wisconsin that has an interesting approach to the credo/paedo issue. This is an link to their "About" page:

http://www.rbchurch.net/about.html

Tell me what you think. 

I've been in contact with the Teaching Elder about another topic I saw on the website.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 21, 2006)

Sounds like the PB. It does seem that they are trying to conduct themselves according to the exhortations of Romans 14.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 21, 2006)

Is this a viable option? Is it biblical? Would any of you consider being part of such a church?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 21, 2006)

The discussions awhile back on Bethleham Baptist Church's policy have a lot of expressed thoughts that relate to this issue. They can be read here, here and here in chronological order of the church's decisions being announced.

I would personally not join such a church. While one reason is that the issue of baptism is an important issue, perhaps even more significant is the implications their position has regarding confessionalism, ecclesiology and really any number of issues. Even in denominations like the PCA and OPC, which are not strict subscriptionist churches, exceptions ministers take to the confession nonetheless cannot be on any article or part that the church judges to be fundamental to that confession. Furthermore, such ministers are still not permitted to teach those views.

In this church being considered, the confessional standards of the session are inherently opposed. Furthermore, unless the church does not teach on doctrinal issues like baptism (or you name it) at all, there will inevitably be opposed teaching coming from the same session (be it in preaching, Sunday-school or catechism class). If that does not have rampant potential problems for the broader issues of subscription and discipline, I don't know what does.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> The discussions awhile back on Bethleham Baptist Church's policy have a lot of expressed thoughts that relate to this issue. They can be read here, here and here in chronological order of the church's decisions being announced.
> 
> I would personally not join such a church. While one reason is that the issue of baptism is an important issue, perhaps even more significant is the implications their position has regarding confessionalism, ecclesiology and really any number of issues. Even in denominations like the PCA and OPC, which are not strict subscriptionist churches, exceptions ministers take to the confession nonetheless cannot be on any article or part that the church judges to be fundamental to that confession. Furthermore, such ministers are still not permitted to teach those views.
> ...





And ironically amidst this diversity there appears at the top of their webpage the statement "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" which they seem to have adopted as a motto of sorts.


----------



## ServantOfKing (Jul 21, 2006)

> _In this church being considered, the confessional standards of the session are inherently opposed. Furthermore, unless the church does not teach on doctrinal issues like baptism (or you name it) at all, there will inevitably be opposed teaching coming from the same session (be it in preaching, Sunday-school or catechism class). If that does not have rampant potential problems for the broader issues of subscription and discipline, I don't know what does.  _


_

How would teaching go about on the issue of baptism? 
Would it be taught in a way where the teacher said "Some see it this way, some see it this way?" 
Also, how would they deal with a family seeking counsel on the subject?
And who would perform the baptisms? If the minister personally didn't agree with sprinkling a baby, would he sprinkle because that was the parent's will?
It seems like after a while that could get frustrating and everyone would just be going around in circles._


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jul 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ServantOfKing_
> 
> 
> > _In this church being considered, the confessional standards of the session are inherently opposed. Furthermore, unless the church does not teach on doctrinal issues like baptism (or you name it) at all, there will inevitably be opposed teaching coming from the same session (be it in preaching, Sunday-school or catechism class). If that does not have rampant potential problems for the broader issues of subscription and discipline, I don't know what does.  _
> ...


_

It makes unity in the church impossible. For what it's worth - Jay_


----------



## msortwell (Jul 23, 2006)

> . . . And ironically amidst this diversity there appears at the top of their webpage the statement "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" which they seem to have adopted as a motto of sorts.



Are you of the opinion that the "one baptism" refered to in Eph 4:5 is a ceremonial baptism? I suspect that the "motto" would be an attempt to declare an essential unity in the midst of diversity. O.K., I don't suspect, I know, since I am the teaching elder at RBC.

It seems that most that have voiced an opinion regarding what Reformation Bible Church is attempting to accomplish would require complete agreement as a prerequisite for fellowship? I trust that this is not the case. But where would the line be drawn?

Oddly enough what we are attempting to do is to allow diversity while maintaining an essential unity - in a manner very closely akin to the rules for this forum. Consider your own rules . . .



> Basic Puritan Board Rule #7
> 
> Officially, the Puritanboard is governed by the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Standards and will acquiesce to its standards in ultimate matters of any controversies on the Puritanboard. Some of our moderators are Baptist and hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Others hold to the Three Forms of Unity. Those who desire to join the Puritanboard must embrace an historic confession. All members of this board hold to the basic creeds of the church: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed, The Chalcedonian Creed, etc. However, one must hold to an orthodox confession of the church. This does not mean that the owners of the Puritanboard and the moderators see these confessions as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are documents that sufficiently comprise personal beliefs based on exegetical work taken from the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The owners of the Puritanboard believe the Westminster Confession of Faith to comprise the most accurate systematization of the Word of God. Some of our moderators believe the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith to do the same, and there is disagreement on certain points, though in love.



I understand that this is a somewhat radical approach for a church today. And yes it does introduce its own unique challenges. 

Blessings,

Mike Sortwell
Teaching Elder
Reformation Bible Church
Manitowoc, WI


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 23, 2006)

Hi Mike and welcome:
For the record, this board, as you know, is NOT a church; there are huge differences and the comparison, whether intentional or not, is a red herrring.

After looking at your site, I can see that your church functions as a credo church. I don't say this as an accusation but as an observation. 



> The Church
> 
> We believe that a church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers [a] associated by a covenant of faith and fellowship of the gospel; * observing the ordinances of Christ; [c] governed by His laws; and [d] exercising the gifts, rights and privileges invested in them by His Word [e] that its scripturally designated officers are elders and deacons, whose qualifications, claims and duties are clearly defined in the scriptures; [f] we believe the true mission of the church is found in the Great Commission: First, to make individual disciples; second, to baptize them as appropriate; third, to teach and instruct, as He has commanded. We hold that the local church has the responsibility of self-government, free from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations; and that the one and only superintendent is Christ, through the Holy Spirit; [h] that it is scriptural for true churches to cooperate with each other in contending for the faith and the furtherance of the gospel; that every church is the sole and only judge of the measure and method of its cooperation;  on all matters of membership, of policy, of government, of discipline, of benevolence, the will and judgment of the local church eldership is final.*


*


The thread that Chris posted above is a good read. One might consider why Bethlehem Baptist abandoned their similar idea.

[Edited on 7-23-2006 by Scott Bushey]*


----------



## Ivan (Jul 23, 2006)

Weicome, Mike!!


----------



## beej6 (Jul 23, 2006)

There's thread somewhere here on PB where we mentioned the FPC {Irish} which is a denomination that believes the same re: baptism - allows members and officers to hold to either credo or paedo.


----------



## msortwell (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> In this church being considered, the confessional standards of the session are inherently opposed. Furthermore, unless the church does not teach on doctrinal issues like baptism (or you name it) at all, there will inevitably be opposed teaching coming from the same session (be it in preaching, Sunday-school or catechism class). If that does not have rampant potential problems for the broader issues of subscription and discipline, I don't know what does.



Is RBC ripe for potential problems going forward? It would certainly seem so! Members of RBC are going to have to learn how to disagree amicably. We are going to have to learn to show respect to those who hold differing views. A key, in my judgment, to showing respect for those holding views different from our own is to seek to understand their view "“ and the biblical argument that they would offer supporting their view.

Baptism, in particular, was mentioned as an important matter. I would agree whole heartedly. Christians should understand WHY they hold to a particular view on baptism. If they are credo/immersion Baptists, they must be able to point to the Scriptures to demonstrate why they hold that view. If they are paedobaptist, they too must be capable of supporting their views from the inspired text. Better still would be those holding either position being able to articulate the biblical argument offered by proponents of the view that they would oppose. Best would be the condition where I (a Baptist) can defend my Presbyterian brothers against those who would falsely claim that the doctrine of baptism held by Presbyterians is devoid of biblical merit.

I have preached on baptism a few times at RBC. I am credo/immersion Baptist. Most who attend regularly are Baptists. However, I believed that it was important that they understand that there IS a biblical basis upon which paedobaptists derive their theology. I taught the paedobaptist view as espoused by Francis Schaeffer in his paper titled, "œBaptism." I hold what I consider to be a covenantal view of credobaptism. Therefore, most of what Schaeffer teaches aligns with what I hold true regarding baptism. I attempted to articulate to the congregation the great deal about which c orthodox credo and paedo baptists agree. I then identified the points at which credo and paedo baptistic interpretations part company "“ and how subtle differences in our presuppositions can affect our individual resolution of the question.

Relative to the variety of confessions cited in the RBC website . . .

The confessions/standards are: The Westminster Confession, The 1689 London Baptist Confession, and The NH Confession. These confessions have a great deal in common with one another. Perhaps it is not as clear as it should be in the Articles of Faith and Statement of Principles and Practices. A person seeking membership in RBC would have to subscribe to the principles of one of these confessions (not all three). Additionally, it is necessary that teaching (when related to a matter articulated within a confession) be consistent with one of the confessions.

Blessings,

Mike


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 24, 2006)

Mike,

Please understand that I am not for a moment making the claim that there are direct, tangible problems at your church right now, as if I would know such a thing. That is why I purposefully used the word _potential_ in my initial post; and as to whether your church's type of situation in itself is a very possible recipe for practical problems in dealing with the congregation, I would say yes. Now, if Scott's observation that the church functions essentially as a credo church is accurate, then much of those problems will likely not come up much if at all - certainly not to the extent that they likely would if there was a session that was truly divided on the issue, and if both views of baptism were implemented on a regular basis.

But if those factors (a balanced division on the session's views and the church's implementation) ever end up accurately describing how the church functions regularly, then I would say some of Ashley's questions get at what I have in mind.

For one thing, issues of the ministers' conscience would inevitably be raised as well. Concerning the administration of baptism, if there were at least two teaching elders at the church, one credo and one paedo, that issue of conscience would not really be that big a problem since the paedo elder could administer the paedo baptisms. But it is not that easy with the Lord's Supper: Would you as a minister of Word and sacrament be able in good conscience to willingly and repeatedly serve communion to a host of members whom neither you nor your confession believe to have been biblically brought into the visible church?

Also, the situation at large seems to distort the place and nature of discipline: It is the responsibility of any session to admonish and discipline anyone whom they agree is willingly remaining in perpetual sin of any kind. But with regard to baptism in the situation being considered, such a session would not be able to agree on which members of the congregation were in sin (the paedo's for not giving real baptism to their children and perhaps themselves, or the credo's for neglecting and withholding baptism from their children). Thus, since the session would by definition never be able to agree which group of members was continuing in perpetual sin, they would never be able to enact discipline on the matter. Hence, though it is certain that _one_ of the groups of people is involved in such sin, it is equally certain that whatever group it is will _never_ receive discipline with regard to it - yet that is the responsibility of every session, especially since the Word and the sacraments are the _primary_ means of grace that ministers are used by God to give.

In summary, I again am not claiming to know about anything that is specifically going on at your church at present. But I can't help but notice these inherent problems that its theoretical policy on baptism has with regard to spiritual authority, counsel and discipline among the flock and the session; for some of the ministers would be forced to regularly administer the Supper to unbaptized people (from their perspective), and secondly, the sin of neglecting baptism (regardless of which sense of neglicence is in view) would inevitably never be chastened or disciplined.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 24, 2006)

By the way, welcome to the board! Click on the Signature Requirements at the bottom of my sig.


----------

