How to think about those outside of the Reformed fold…

[Sebastian Heck]

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]

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

 

[Guido's Brother]

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.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

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]

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

 

[Zach]

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.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

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.

 

[Joshua]

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

 

[Phil D.]

Leftists, even.

As in synonomous with pinkos..?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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.

 

[Taylor]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

CHAPTER 25​

Of the Church​

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.)

 

[Joshua]

As in synonomous with pinkos..?

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

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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.]

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

Leftist...

 

[Taylor]

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.

 

[Joshua]

Leftist...

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

 

[Zach]

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

 

[Phil D.]

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)

 

[Phil D.]

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]

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."

 

[VictorBravo]

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]

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:

"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."

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.

 

[Andrew35]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.