Baptists & Presbyterians Together?

[nnatew24]

Count me as one who would love to see it happen, but who is realistic in that such an attempt would only hinder true unity.

To give an example: have you ever seen a church with separate Lord's Day services, one 'traditional' and one 'contemporary'? It certainly sounds like a compromise that would lead to peace, but it ends up splitting the church into little cliques. The 'traditional' folks drift towards respecting/loving/caring/spending time with other 'traditionals', and vise-versa.

With issues as important as these, it is critical to unity/love/no partiality that the entire church is in agreement.

 

[Grillsy]

I find it interesting that the Baptists on this thread seem to be very much in favor of such a thing (with a couple exceptions) while us Presbyterians seem against it.
Just an observation.

 

[Herald]

I believe there is a macro and micro answer to the question posed in the OP. In an area where there are both Baptist and Presbyterian choices regarding Reformed churches then the answer would be "no." No compelling reason would exist to temper the doctrinal distinctives of both groups. However, in a "last church in Mecca" type of environment a compelling reason for unity exists. Both groups should labor, out of brotherly love, to respect each other's views and focus on the Gospel. To be sure doctrinal distinctive will cause some theological chaffing, but the greatest of all commandments should be followed in the latter scenario.

 

[Curt]

With the two exceptions in the 1980s (one of which, at least seems to be deteriorating), Presbyterians don't join, they divide.

 

[Jeffriesw]

I have only been a Christian for less than 2 years and still am very new to the Reformed view, But I don't believe it could work well on a large scale.
Presbyterian seem to be more focused and tighter of there confessions, what they do and do not hold to, whereas Baptist seem to be a little more all over the board as a whole.

Just my very new and uneducated opinion though...

 

[Reformed Baptist]

I guess I just don't like at all what divides us. While we can make our stands on truths we feel are worth dividing over, I have yet to see how a single crum from the Lord's Table or one drop from a baptismal font to impart or confer the salvation which exists in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.

Concerning government, I see movements like ARBCA a step in the direction of a Presbyterian form of government.

 

[Dearly Bought]

In the words of Samuel Waldron, prominent Reformed Baptist pastor-theologian, "there is one gospel preached by their lips and another by their water." Waldron would say this of Presbyterians such as myself. I would say this of Baptists such as Waldron. Baptism alone is enough to keep us separate.

 

[Marrow Man]

With the two exceptions in the 1980s (one of which, at least seems to be deteriorating), Presbyterians don't join, they divide.

Actually, in 1782, the Seceder and Covenanter churches in the U.S. came together and formed the Associate Reformed (later, Associated Reformed Presbyterian) Church.

 

[rbcbob]

I find it interesting that the Baptists on this thread seem to be very much in favor of such a thing (with a couple exceptions) while us Presbyterians seem against it.
Just an observation.

This Baptist is shaking his head in disbelief that any Baptist would set at nought Ecclesiology. The Baptist doctrine of the Church is the sine qua non of what it is to be Baptist!

 

[Particular Baptist]

I find it interesting that the Baptists on this thread seem to be very much in favor of such a thing (with a couple exceptions) while us Presbyterians seem against it.
Just an observation.

This Baptist is shaking his head in disbelief that any Baptist would set at nought Ecclesiology. The Baptist doctrine of the Church is the sine qua non of what it is to be Baptist!

So then John Tombes was not a Baptist?

 

[Curt]

With the two exceptions in the 1980s (one of which, at least seems to be deteriorating), Presbyterians don't join, they divide.

Actually, in 1782, the Seceder and Covenanter churches in the U.S. came together and formed the Associate Reformed (later, Associated Reformed Presbyterian) Church.

Thanks, Tim.

 

[rbcbob]

I find it interesting that the Baptists on this thread seem to be very much in favor of such a thing (with a couple exceptions) while us Presbyterians seem against it.
Just an observation.

This Baptist is shaking his head in disbelief that any Baptist would set at nought Ecclesiology. The Baptist doctrine of the Church is the sine qua non of what it is to be Baptist!

So then John Tombes was not a Baptist?

I do not know what his ecclesiology was. What was John Tombes' doctrine of the Church?

 

[Edward]

With the two exceptions in the 1980s (one of which, at least seems to be deteriorating), Presbyterians don't join, they divide.

The United Presbyterians merged with the (then, not to be confused with the current) PCUSA to form the UPUSA (pronounced roughly YOOP Use-a) in 1958.

 

[Particular Baptist]

Tombes was baptistic, but he communed as an Anglican till the end of his life and believed in a national church.

 

[rbcbob]

Tombes was baptistic, but he communed as an Anglican till the end of his life and believed in a national church.

Well then, taking your description of his ecclesiology, I will grant that in some sense or other he may have been, as you say, baptistic but his ecclesiology is not Baptist as set forth in the LBC chapter 26, and hence he cannot truly be considered a Baptist by definitions subsequent to the 17th century. Essential to the definition of Baptist in the past 350 years are (1) Credobaptism, (2) Regenerate Church membership, and (3) the autonomy of the local church under the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ.

 

[(^^)Regin]

Our Church is Baptist but not reformed but Our pastor is, and we do have presbyterians join us every now and then. Some stay and serve others leave its hit and miss

 

[Herald]

This thread reinforces my previously held conviction. There is a reason why both camps hold on dearly to our doctrinal distinctives. We hold on to them because we believe they are right. More than that, we believe they are biblical. To willingly compromise our convictions is unthinkable to most within the Reformed camp. I have some wonderful Presbyterian friends. I can fellowship with them, discuss the things of the Lord with them, and even worship with them. However, I will maintain a willful separation in the choice of my church membership because of my biblical convictions. Now, all of this well and good when there are choices available. But as I indicated in a previous post, what happens when there are no choices available? I believe the greater sin would be to exclude oneself from the body of Christ. For that reason I believe our dogmatism needs to be tempered by grace in certain circumstances.

 

[rbcbob]

This thread reinforces my previously held conviction. There is a reason why both camps hold on dearly to our doctrinal distinctives. We hold on to them because we believe they are right. More than that, we believe they are biblical. To willingly compromise our convictions is unthinkable to most within the Reformed camp. I have some wonderful Presbyterian friends. I can fellowship with them, discuss the things of the Lord with them, and even worship with them. However, I will maintain a willful separation in the choice of my church membership because of my biblical convictions. Now, all of this well and good when there are choices available. But as I indicated in a previous post, what happens when there are no choices available? I believe the greater sin would be to exclude oneself from the body of Christ. For that reason I believe our dogmatism needs to be tempered by grace in certain circumstances.

 

[Particular Baptist]

In the end, you're probably correct, Bill.

 

[Robert Truelove]

The problem I see with a Reformed Baptist/Presbyterian denomination is not in the area of baptism. Each church would have their own position.

The problem I see is with their differing ecclesiologies. Even with more Reformed Baptist churches being elder governed versus congregational, the matter of the authority of "higher courts" is insurmountable.

Either the Baptists would have to adopt Presbyterian church government or the Presbyterians would have to cease being Presbyterian.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

One thing that has occurred to me is that this question assumes that a high degree of visible Christian unity is highly desirable. And this would already skew it toward presbyterian. The underlying sentiment is the heart of presbyterianism. On the other hand the Baptists don't perceive a need for full ecclesiastical unity to begin with, due to their doctrine of congregational autonomy.

 

[Jared]

It's not quite a denomination, but Acts 29 has SBC and PCA churches in its network. They also have other denominations as well, I think Mark Driscoll said that it was around 20 or so.

Also, while they may not be entirely Reformed, some Anglican churches in England are a cooperation between the Anglican communion and a Baptist denomination.

 

[DAW]

If one is discussing the subject of baptism, there is already such a denomination. It is the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, the 4C's, www,ccccusa.com. In it a church can hold to the strictest Reformed theology of our Pilgrim/English Separatist forefathers and practice covenant baptism. On the other hand, one can also practice the baptistic view of baptism.

I hold to the historic practice of Congregationalism which is Reformed and in favor of covenant baptism.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

If one is discussing the subject of baptism, there is already such a denomination. It is the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, the 4C's, www,ccccusa.com. In it a church can hold to the strictest Reformed theology of our Pilgrim/English Separatist forefathers and practice covenant baptism. On the other hand, one can also practice the baptistic view of baptism.

I hold to the historic practice of Congregationalism which is Reformed and in favor of covenant baptism.

David,

They call themselves "Conservative" while at the same time recognizing the ordinations of women as teaching elders.

The CCCC Statement Regarding the Ministerial Standing of Women

A significant amount of study has been done by evangelicals on this subject in recent years. It appears evident to us that Christians, equally committed to the authority of Holy Scripture, may disagree on whether or not the Scriptures allow for the ordination of women. We recognize that some defenders of women’s ordination do so upon principles which sacrifice Biblical authority. We in no way support such efforts. We affirm that persons who are firmly committed to the authority of God’s Word, though they differ in their interpretations of the Word on this subject, are welcome to hold their convictions with clear conscience within our fellowship.

No church, within our Conference, is required to teach and practice a viewpoint, with regard to ordaining women, which is against the conviction of that particular assembly. Each congregation ordains whom it freely chooses, thus preserving its own autonomy. Whoever is duly ordained in a local church, whether male or female, may apply to the CCCC Credentials Committee and, if qualified, be recognized as ordained. This should not be understood as Conference approval nor disapproval of the ordination of women, but rather as recognition of the conscientious action of an autonomous congregation.

I my opinion, they use the autonomy of the local church as an excuse for not taking a position on the mater. But Southern Baptists are just as autonomous and have no problem stating that the office of pastor is reserved to men as qualified by Scripture.

This is an old tactic employed by liberals in congregational bodies throughout the centuries. But I ask, if taking a definitive stand on women in the ministry does violence to the autonomy of the local church, then how can they make statements on any other matter without doing the same (e.g. homosexuality, diety of Christ, His virgin birth, &c.)? Well, by that reasoning, they could not.

But they do. Why? Because they know that making these kinds of statements doesn't in any way compromise the autonomy of the local church and that its only a ploy for liberals in advancing their error.

Which makes the CCCC only nominally "conservative."

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Union would be great. The problem is that our theologies result in very practical and public consequences. We could appreciate each other's preaching, singing, and praying. But the church must be governed and baptisms must be performed. These are not optional practices. Until presbyterians and baptists can come to a common theological understanding, there is no foundation for a common practice.

 

[Kaalvenist]

If individuals transferring membership from one congregation to another could not participate in the Lord's Supper "as is" (without rebaptism), then regardless of what is claimed, the congregations are of different "communions," and therefore are de facto of different denominations.

Besides, the unity to which we are exhorted in Scripture is not a mere organizational unity (which seems to be the object of such a proposal), but unity in the faith professed both by the congregations and members. This would therefore set aside Scriptural principles of unity, rather than embrace such through having both Baptist and Presbyterian churches in one "denomination."

 

[Kaalvenist]

With the two exceptions in the 1980s (one of which, at least seems to be deteriorating), Presbyterians don't join, they divide.

Actually, in 1782, the Seceder and Covenanter churches in the U.S. came together and formed the Associate Reformed (later, Associated Reformed Presbyterian) Church.

Actually, some Seceders and Covenanters stayed out of the merger; and a new denomination (the Reformed Dissenting Presbyterian Church, now defunct) arose out of this occasion as well; so that an attempted merger of two denominations resulted in four denominations. Not exactly the point you were trying to make.

 

[Kiffin]

I'm still torn on this issue as well.

Should we seek for unity or should we seek to convert Presybeterians to Baptists (and vice versa)?

 

[Curt]

I, personally, don't think that our energies should be dedicated to "converting" our Reformed brothers and sisters. I still, however, don't believe that the form of unity in question is likely.

 

[Herald]

Should we seek for unity or should we seek to convert Presybeterians to Baptists (and vice versa)?

Absolutely not. Invest your time ministering to the brothers and sisters within your local church. If you have friends on the other side of the Reformed spectrum, sure, engage them as the Lord provides opportunity. However, don't spend your time being your own personal Reformed evangelist. Not only will you become odious in the eyes of those Reformed of the other persuasion, but you'll be robbing from your true service to Christ in loving your fellow saints.