Which better? Dispensational Baptist or emerging PCA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems like a false choice between the Baptist church and the PCA ones you describe since those are not the only choices available. Are you simply ruling out the URCNA and OPC churches because they currently do not have a pastor? If so that is a mistake unless you know something you haven't posted here.

I am simply ruling them out, for now, since they do not have a pastor. Plus I have become familiar with the PCA but maybe it is time to try something different.
 
My wife and I both really liked the URCNA church and the denomination but we are worried about the fact that they do not have a pastor how long that will take and who it may be.
 
It seems like a false choice between the Baptist church and the PCA ones you describe since those are not the only choices available. Are you simply ruling out the URCNA and OPC churches because they currently do not have a pastor? If so that is a mistake unless you know something you haven't posted here.

I am simply ruling them out, for now, since they do not have a pastor. Plus I have become familiar with the PCA but maybe it is time to try something different.

Perhaps it is. I doubt you would have posted the thread if you would have been comfortable with either of the choices you gave. I can tell you from experience that it is best to check out ALL of the options that you think may be viable and to communicate directly with the elders and others rather than making assumptions. Take it from one who learned the hard way :2cents:

The OPC holds to the exact same standards as the PCA. Typically though they tend to worship more in conformity with the RPW than the average PCA church, but there are of course exceptions either way, with more Old School leaning congregations in the PCA in some areas and a few OPC churches that have adopted more contemporary forms of worship. I believe this is because the Directory for Public Worship is binding in the OPC and it is not in the PCA, as noted previously.
 
My wife and I both really liked the URCNA church and the denomination but we are worried about the fact that they do not have a pastor how long that will take and who it may be.

It would be good to try to find out if they are actively looking and what kind of man and ministry they are looking for. Unfortunately some churches do go for long periods of time, even years, without a pastor, and some have had several pastors come and go over a period of just a few years. Sometimes that is the church's fault and sometimes it is not (i.e. the pastor of a Reformed church becomes convinced of "believer's baptism" and has to leave, etc.) But I wouldn't automatically assume the worst with this URCNA church or the OPC congregation. Why not check them out further? Maybe try to call or email one or more of the elders or have coffee or something for starters. It seems that y'all are worried about attending a Dispensational Baptist church or PCA churches that go overboard trying to be relevant as it is.
 
I really liked the pastor of the URCNA church he was nice, knowledgeable and willing to talk theology. He went back to his home church in Canada where his parents were, I can't blame him. My wife and I are worried about putting too much time into this chruch without knowing what kind of pastor they will get. I have seen churches change a lot with different pastors.

It is hard to find a pastor that knows or cares for theology and teaching most are concerned with making the chruch bigger. "Theology is of the DEVIL!!!" It divides people, that is not what people want, it does not help them with how to make their kids mind.
 
I am going to be contrary to what most have said so far and say go PCA.

Because church government matters, because the covenant matters, and because the sacraments matter.

As many friends as I have who are in great Reformed Baptist churches, and no matter the level of teaching (in SOME areas,remember they are still baptist:um:) they will still teach you (and more importantly your children) a false view of the covenant, the sacraments, & church government.

In my humble opinion the insistence of (almost all) Baptist on (heretical) rebabtism of covenant children would be a deal breaker.

Since I am convinced that for a covenant child to be re-baptised (sic) would be a denial of the faith, I could not in good conscience place my family in that setting long term.

:worms:

Could I barrow what you just said? That is why I am a closet Presbyterian.
 
Ergun Caner is the President of Liberty Theological Seminary and a very loud opponent of Calvinism.

He wrote an article recently that uses the "problem" of the Pentecostals as a template for understanding the "problem" of the Calvinists.

Thirty years ago, however, we could not blame all Pentecostals for the discord in our churches, and neither can we blame every Calvinist for the growing discord today. Those who instigated the fights that ultimately led to splits did not represent every Pentecostal. Neither do the most strident of the Reformed-leaning Baptists represent all Calvinists today.

In the article he delineates the marks of a "neo-calvinist" (aka hyper-calvinist).

They believe . . .
1. "Double Predesitination."
2. "Not all babies who die go to heaven.
3. "God's "love for mankind" must be redefined."
4. "Invitations are an insult to the sovereignty of God.
5. "Calvinism is the only Gospel."

Caner will be long remembered for his line in the article: "I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. I am a Baptist."

In reply to one of the most irenic Calvinists, Caner made a number of "interesting" comments:

Have any of your grown a soul-winning church like Woodstock?
Do you send out missionaries every two weeks?
Have any of you done ANYTHING accept kill your churches with sermons expounding the Westminster Confession?
Probably not.
I would guess that, unlike William Carey, most guys who are hyper about Calvinism use it to justify your laziness.

I BEG of you- PLEASE bring another name to the floor of the SBC. I would be thrilled to watch that person go down in flames, as we enjoy another conservative who has not adopted semi-Presbyterianism. On the positive side, you can always just "punt" and say it was predestined for you to lose.

And I DOUBT if Dr Akin would like too be joined in with the others listed. He wouldn't fit anyway. He still gives invitations, and attends a church with Baptist polity, instead of an oligarchy.

[Candidate for SBC presidency] is not "anti-Calvinistic." He is a soul-winner. You do the math. And just because you cannot answer the questions concerning your views of predetermined fatalism does not make his arguments "straw men."
 
Ergun Caner is the President of Liberty Theological Seminary and a very loud opponent of Calvinism.

He wrote an article recently that uses the "problem" of the Pentecostals as a template for understanding the "problem" of the Calvinists.

Thirty years ago, however, we could not blame all Pentecostals for the discord in our churches, and neither can we blame every Calvinist for the growing discord today. Those who instigated the fights that ultimately led to splits did not represent every Pentecostal. Neither do the most strident of the Reformed-leaning Baptists represent all Calvinists today.

In the article he delineates the marks of a "neo-calvinist" (aka hyper-calvinist).

They believe . . .
1. "Double Predesitination."
2. "Not all babies who die go to heaven.
3. "God's "love for mankind" must be redefined."
4. "Invitations are an insult to the sovereignty of God.
5. "Calvinism is the only Gospel."

Caner will be long remembered for his line in the article: "I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. I am a Baptist."

In reply to one of the most irenic Calvinists, Caner made a number of "interesting" comments:

Have any of your grown a soul-winning church like Woodstock?
Do you send out missionaries every two weeks?
Have any of you done ANYTHING accept kill your churches with sermons expounding the Westminster Confession?
Probably not.
I would guess that, unlike William Carey, most guys who are hyper about Calvinism use it to justify your laziness.

I BEG of you- PLEASE bring another name to the floor of the SBC. I would be thrilled to watch that person go down in flames, as we enjoy another conservative who has not adopted semi-Presbyterianism. On the positive side, you can always just "punt" and say it was predestined for you to lose.

And I DOUBT if Dr Akin would like too be joined in with the others listed. He wouldn't fit anyway. He still gives invitations, and attends a church with Baptist polity, instead of an oligarchy.

[Candidate for SBC presidency] is not "anti-Calvinistic." He is a soul-winner. You do the math. And just because you cannot answer the questions concerning your views of predetermined fatalism does not make his arguments "straw men."

Wow... I didn't know this kind of hostility existed in the SBC. I guess I am a 'naive Calvinist'
 
Ergun Caner is the President of Liberty Theological Seminary and a very loud opponent of Calvinism.

He wrote an article recently that uses the "problem" of the Pentecostals as a template for understanding the "problem" of the Calvinists.

Thirty years ago, however, we could not blame all Pentecostals for the discord in our churches, and neither can we blame every Calvinist for the growing discord today. Those who instigated the fights that ultimately led to splits did not represent every Pentecostal. Neither do the most strident of the Reformed-leaning Baptists represent all Calvinists today.

In the article he delineates the marks of a "neo-calvinist" (aka hyper-calvinist).

They believe . . .
1. "Double Predesitination."
2. "Not all babies who die go to heaven.
3. "God's "love for mankind" must be redefined."
4. "Invitations are an insult to the sovereignty of God.
5. "Calvinism is the only Gospel."

Caner will be long remembered for his line in the article: "I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. I am a Baptist."

In reply to one of the most irenic Calvinists, Caner made a number of "interesting" comments:

Have any of your grown a soul-winning church like Woodstock?
Do you send out missionaries every two weeks?
Have any of you done ANYTHING accept kill your churches with sermons expounding the Westminster Confession?
Probably not.
I would guess that, unlike William Carey, most guys who are hyper about Calvinism use it to justify your laziness.

I BEG of you- PLEASE bring another name to the floor of the SBC. I would be thrilled to watch that person go down in flames, as we enjoy another conservative who has not adopted semi-Presbyterianism. On the positive side, you can always just "punt" and say it was predestined for you to lose.

And I DOUBT if Dr Akin would like too be joined in with the others listed. He wouldn't fit anyway. He still gives invitations, and attends a church with Baptist polity, instead of an oligarchy.

[Candidate for SBC presidency] is not "anti-Calvinistic." He is a soul-winner. You do the math. And just because you cannot answer the questions concerning your views of predetermined fatalism does not make his arguments "straw men."

Wow... I didn't know this kind of hostility existed in the SBC. I guess I am a 'naive Calvinist'

Maybe so. I think that Caner is probably right that a lot more in the SBC agree with him than the Founders although most are not quite as vehement as him. The Caners are former Muslims and seem to equate Calvinism with Muslim fatalism. There is indeed a tremendous amount of hostility toward Calvinism in some quarters of the SBC. Free will is an article of the faith for many in the pews as well as the pulpit and the "altar call" or invitation is far more significant in many churches than is the Lord's Supper and for all practical purposes is a sacrament in many churches. It's not uncommon for it to go on for over 20 minutes, with the pastor haranguing the congregation for someone to come down to the "altar", although this certainly doesn't happen in every church and not necessarily every week with the same intensity. A few years ago, the late Adrian Rogers was reported to have said something like "we got rid of the liberals, now it's time to get rid of the Calvinists." The controversy is likely only to become more prominent as more and more Calvinistic ministers come out of places like SBTS.
 
Last edited:
Maybe so. I think that Caner is probably right that a lot more in the SBC agree with him than the Founders although most are not quite as vehement as him. The Caners are former Muslims and seem to equate Calvinism with Muslim fatalism. There is indeed a tremendous amount of hostility toward Calvinism in some quarters of the SBC. Free will is an article of the faith for many in the pews as well as the pulpit and the "altar call" or invitation is far more significant in many churches than is the Lord's Supper and for all practical purposes is a sacrament in many churches. It's not uncommon for it to go on for over 20 minutes, with the pastor haranguing the congregation for someone to come down to the "altar", although this certainly doesn't happen in every church and not necessarily every week with the same intensity. A few years ago, the late Adrian Rogers was reported to have said something like "we got rid of the liberals, now it's time to get rid of the Calvinists." The controversy is likely only to become more prominent as more and more Calvinistic ministers come out of places like SBTS.

Not being SBC, I trust your version of the situation, Chris. That is a helpful insight to see the connection to Muslim fatalism. You made me laugh on the point of the sacramental nature of the "altar call." Most baptists have a doctrine of the "real absence" in the Lord's Supper. A pastor would get fired quicker for skipping the altar call than for missing the Lord's Supper.

Considering the statistics out of SBTS, don't you think that the Founder's movement has the weight of numbers on its side? After all, the flagship of the denomination produces the highest number of grads and Mohler has been absolutely spectacular in reshaping the corporate culture from a fairly liberal one to a Calvinist school.
 
Question on the PCA church: Looking past the bagels and the non-formal clothing, what's the teaching like ?

The teaching is definitely a weak point as well. I think this follows from a complete lack of structure in the leadership and all the way down. Part of what my wife and I don't care for about it is the lack of structure which naturally flows to lack of any real good teaching, if they had one I think the other would follow.

I hesitate to say this but of out of all the PCA churches we have been to I think there is definitely a lack of mature leadership. In my area, it is all young guys, younger than me even, fresh out of school with no experience at leading or teaching (they don't even have much life experience, which is really annoying) they are just thrown in there and expected to know what to do. It seems like a mentorship program would be better. Send the young pastors in to learn from an older seasoned pastor then after a few years let them set out on there own. They also aren't very theologically astute, which is frustrating when you are fresh out of an arminian baptist chruch and need answers, guidance and direction.

The only real reason we are considering this chruch is because we know one of the deacons there.
 
I'd have to go with the PCA church as well. Church government and the sacraments matter much more than worship style.



If worship does not matter than why should sacraments and government matter? Worship like sacraments and government flow from our theology. If worship does not matter than why not bring in the U-2 band and let people just worship however they feel. This is the problem with some emergent PCA churches in introducing strange practices. The whole concept of emergent is that the church is to change with the times, which is in violation of our confessional standards.
 
I didn't say that worship doesn't matter but that worship style matters less than the sacraments and church government. I believe Scripture teaches infant baptism, the real presence, and presbyterian church government. I think it's harder to show from Scripture that wearing casual clothes or eating a bagel during service is inappropriate.
 
Question on the PCA church: Looking past the bagels and the non-formal clothing, what's the teaching like ?

The teaching is definitely a weak point as well. I think this follows from a complete lack of structure in the leadership and all the way down. Part of what my wife and I don't care for about it is the lack of structure which naturally flows to lack of any real good teaching, if they had one I think the other would follow.

I hesitate to say this but of out of all the PCA churches we have been to I think there is definitely a lack of mature leadership. In my area, it is all young guys, younger than me even, fresh out of school with no experience at leading or teaching (they don't even have much life experience, which is really annoying) they are just thrown in there and expected to know what to do. It seems like a mentorship program would be better. Send the young pastors in to learn from an older seasoned pastor then after a few years let them set out on there own. They also aren't very theologically astute, which is frustrating when you are fresh out of an arminian baptist chruch and need answers, guidance and direction.

The only real reason we are considering this chruch is because we know one of the deacons there.

This may be true, and it may be due in part to the rapid rate of growth of the PCA in recent years. I can't remember where I saw it, but last year I saw a list that shows the PCA as one of the top 5 fastest growing denominations in America, when you separate it from the giant "Prebyterian" label (which is actually shrinking overall). From 2002 to 2006, the number of PCA churches increased by 100 and the number of members increased by nearly 30,000. Maybe the supply of the pastors can't keep up with the demand, hence the proliferation of very inexperienced pastors in the pulpit. Just a theory...
 
Why not just meet with the Lord's people in the church that is already there?


Brilliant suggestion. Why plant a church if there is already a church.

Precisely. There are enough divisions in the body of Christ as it is. Why multiply them unnecessarily.

Well, I was simply giving what I would do. If I had a choice between a emerging PCA and dispensational/calvinistic baptist church, I would probably try planting a church. Theologically, I have problems with both. Baptism for me is a issue is worth dividing over, and emerging/seeker sensitive type of churches is something that I would divide over as well.

If I were to have a family, I would want them to be covenant members of a church, and I also likewise to be raised in church that is not only Reformed in name, but in practice and doctrine.

However, if you have other choices like a URC, OPC, or another PCA, I would probably try checking those out first. However, if those were my only two choices, I would try finding a like minded group of people and plant a church.
 
The original question did not give a third option, that only these two churches were available. Certainly if there are more solid reformed churches than the choice is obvious.
 
However, if those were my only two choices, I would try finding a like minded group of people and plant a church.
Under whose authority?

I think the idea would be finding a like minded group of people and then coming under the authority of a presbytery and working with a denomination's home mission board, etc. Sometimes it may also be useful to contact the presbytery or nearest church first (even if it is too far to drive to worship regularly) as they may be aware of others in the area who might be interested in being part of a church plant.
 
Church Planting Lesson Learned

As someone who has been involved in several church plants in the past: Be watchful as far as who indicates interest in starting a work, especially as far as their commitment level. Learn to accurately assess their interest. People can sound very "gung ho" who are in fact, malcontents as far as where they are. A work that begins on a basis of discontentment is not very promising.
 
Under presbyterian standards how is one who is not ordained, nor outwardly called to the ministry supposed to plant a church? My impression was that presbyterian standards are a lot stricter than this. Not just anyone can go start a presbyterian chruch. Especially when there are other churches in the presbytery how is one to get permission to start a new church plant in this or another presbytery?
 
Under presbyterian standards how is one who is not ordained, nor outwardly called to the ministry supposed to plant a church? My impression was that presbyterian standards are a lot stricter than this. Not just anyone can go start a presbyterian chruch. Especially when there are other churches in the presbytery how is one to get permission to start a new church plant in this or another presbytery?



You cannot plant a church if you are not called to a work. Only a qualified ordained man can do that.
 
You cannot plant a church if you are not called to a work. Only a qualified ordained man can do that.

It's not quite as simple as that, although if you are trying to get others to look at it from a cut-and-dry, high-church presbyterian model you may attempt to persuade others that it is so.

It would be better said that if you are working from within the bounds of a presbyterian body, and you have not been so outwardly called, it is less than likely that you will be able to accomplish your goals.

You could be called to a work outside of the bounds of the PCA by an independent group, and decide to minister there (but you'd have to give up membership in the PCA and relocate it within a congregational polity). You could leave the PCA, declare yourself independent (or affiliate with another church planting denomination) and begin a work. Etc.

I get a little tired of individuals who would throw out a statement, such as the one quoted above, and make it sound as if this was from the mouth of God. Nobody who studies the history of polity in the church with any amount of historical integrity can make such assertions without qualification. It is fine to speak this way from within the presbyterian understanding, but one should at least acknowledge that from within the history of the church, and even within the history of Reformed churches, there have been differing opinions on this matter. That is a fact.

John Owen (unless he's now not really reformed), and the Savoy Platform of Polity (which is congregational) are clear that where Christians have gathered, they have a right to constitute and recognize their own officers. Cotton's Keys of the Kingdom also assigns this authority to gathered Christians apart from the "authorized and duly recognized ordained oligarchy" etc. etc. These were all men who affirmed the WCF (although changing the section on polity, of course), and who were truly Reformed ministers. To ignore their testimony and their theological acumen is to do them a disservice.

If you really want to get high-church, then go read Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology on the matter. He is clear, and I constantly try to remind my Reformed brethren of this, that any view that would seek to limit the validity of the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments to a "properly ordained clergy" is saying nothing other than Roman Catholicism on the position, which he says the Reformed reject.

Turretin, Perkins, and Owen all allow for the gathering/building up of churches by formally unordained men, where there is a lack of true churches or the church is in a state of disrepair. They do this by recognizing that Christ is the One who calls and ordains (appoints) a man to the work of the ministry by His Spirit, and that church bodies merely recognize this. If a church body fails to recognize this due to sloth, sinful politics, etc, or if there is no nearby authority available to the work, then these men would all give the go ahead to a formally unrecognized man laboring in the work of the ministry out of Christian duty and love.

Whether or not your situation falls under any portion of that umbrella, I will not presume to judge. However, basic historical integrity cannot so clearly limit the work of church planting and ministry in such black and white terms as is often done by those wanting to say otherwise.
 
As someone who has been involved in several church plants in the past: Be watchful as far as who indicates interest in starting a work, especially as far as their commitment level. Learn to accurately assess their interest. People can sound very "gung ho" who are in fact, malcontents as far as where they are. A work that begins on a basis of discontentment is not very promising.

:ditto::ditto::ditto:

They can destroy a work before it has even come close to taking off.
 
I am going to be contrary to what most have said so far and say go PCA.

Because church government matters, because the covenant matters, and because the sacraments matter.

As many friends as I have who are in great Reformed Baptist churches, and no matter the level of teaching (in SOME areas,remember they are still baptist:um:) they will still teach you (and more importantly your children) a false view of the covenant, the sacraments, & church government.

In my humble opinion the insistence of (almost all) Baptist on (heretical) rebabtism of covenant children would be a deal breaker.

Since I am convinced that for a covenant child to be re-baptised (sic) would be a denial of the faith, I could not in good conscience place my family in that setting long term.

:worms:

My first choice would be to drive the hour to the more solid church (I thought I remember you saying there was one). I have to agree with Kevin on this one. The sacraments, covenant and church government matter. Both options are definately less than ideal, but I hesitantly say the PCA would be the better of the two.

I drive 50 minutes to my church while there is a reformed baptist church about five minutes away. At the baptist church, you have to be a member to partake in the Lord's Supper and they would most certainly insist on re-baptism and an affirmation of the credo position to place membership. So, we couldn't really fully fellowship there under those circumstances anyway. Kind of a bummer, some of my dear brothers attend there.
 
Under presbyterian standards how is one who is not ordained, nor outwardly called to the ministry supposed to plant a church? My impression was that presbyterian standards are a lot stricter than this. Not just anyone can go start a presbyterian chruch. Especially when there are other churches in the presbytery how is one to get permission to start a new church plant in this or another presbytery?

In your case in my opinion the church planting idea really doesn't apply since there are already many congregations in the area. In addition to the ones already mentioned, there is also an RPCNA congregation in Shawnee, KS and an RCUS congregation in KC, MO. Even assuming for the sake of argument that none of the PCA churches there are viable options, with OPC, URCNA, RCUS and RPCNA congregations (the latter two DO have pastors) in the area, (not to mention that, if you want to look at Baptist options (not recommended given the above if you are convinced of Presbyterianism) a simple web search turns up at least a half dozen Calvinistic Baptist churches in the KC metro, some of which just might not be Dispensational!) it is an embarrassment of riches that most wouldn't dream of. :2cents:
 
I am not completely sold out on Presbyterianism, I like reformed theology but not necessarily that strict form of government. To be honest it reminds me of a home owners association, someone else is constantly telling you what you can and can't do with your stuff. (A presbytery, another church, is policing the activities in someone else's church). It makes me think, "Mind your own business, you worry about your chruch and I will worry about mine!" So maybe in that sense I am not cut out to be Pres. I was just trying to make a point when told to "plant a chruch," that is not kosher under pres. government.

I have been to all those churches listed above and was not very fond of the attitude of the people or pastors there, they can be very mean, arrogant and hateful, Calvinism tends to do that to some people. The two churches listed in the original post were listed for a reason, I had tried everything else and out of frustration was considering those two. I think I am learning, after two years of studying and attending different reformed and Pres. churches, that a milder form of reformed theology might be better. To me, method and form of baptism are not worth dividing over. How much water is used is inconsequential. I think good arguments can be made for both infant and believers baptism a lot of anger and strife exists on both sides. I do however love covenant theology and if infant baptism goes along with that it is fine.

Pilgrim, I had not seen all those "Reformed Baptist" churches you have found, half a dozen you said, I know of one and it went out of business at the beginning of this year. Maybe you could show me where you found those. There is no way I could be RPCNA. I could live with the no music, psalms only I think, but there is just a certain attitude that goes along with it that I do not like. I would have to say it is that certain attitude that rubs me the wrong way and makes me uncomfortable at churches with a strictly reformed emphasis (both with Baptist, Pres. and Dutch reformed). I am sure most people on this board would love at least five churches that are in this area. But like I stated above, I want the truth preached in love and that is what is hard to find. So my wife and I were trying to decide which of the things we did not like could we live with, hence the original post. This thread has helped me think through my decision and what I want out of a church and I think you all for that.
 
I am not completely sold out on Presbyterianism, I like reformed theology but not necessarily that strict form of government. To be honest it reminds me of a home owners association, someone else is constantly telling you what you can and can't do with your stuff. (A presbytery, another church, is policing the activities in someone else's church). It makes me think, "Mind your own business, you worry about your chruch and I will worry about mine!" So maybe in that sense I am not cut out to be Pres. I was just trying to make a point when told to "plant a chruch," that is not kosher under pres. government.

I have been to all those churches listed above and was not very fond of the attitude of the people or pastors there, they can be very mean, arrogant and hateful, Calvinism tends to do that to some people. The two churches listed in the original post were listed for a reason, I had tried everything else and out of frustration was considering those two. I think I am learning, after two years of studying and attending different reformed and Pres. churches, that a milder form of reformed theology might be better. To me, method and form of baptism are not worth dividing over. How much water is used is inconsequential. I think good arguments can be made for both infant and believers baptism a lot of anger and strife exists on both sides. I do however love covenant theology and if infant baptism goes along with that it is fine.

Pilgrim, I had not seen all those "Reformed Baptist" churches you have found, five you said, I know of one and it went out of business at the beginning of this year. Maybe you could show me where you found those. This thread has helped me think through my decision and what I want out of a church and I think you all for that.

It is too bad that you didn't have a good experience in some of the churches.

I think most here will agree that of all the problems in Reformed churches today, the Presbytery coming in and telling churches what to do is very low on the list if not practically non existent. That's the reason for the red sneakers, etc. unless the presbytery as a whole endorses that and they very well may. Those PCA churches have appear to have adopted a "milder form of reformed theology" but it doesn't seem to be a form that is palatable to you (nor am I saying it should be).

With the Baptist churches, I was going by what was listed in the Founders directory. Maybe you are aware of all of them, maybe not. It appeared that there were a good number of churches in the KC area in both KS and MO. Some of these may be Dispensational but at least one said that it subscribed to the 1689, which is usually a sign that they are not. But what is there may not be totally up to date. Most if not all of them however aren't going to see mode and subjects of baptism as being of little consequence (they are Baptists after all) so you may end up at an impasse there as well until you come to a final decision which way to go on that issue. It sometimes isn't easy and took me a few years.
 
However, if those were my only two choices, I would try finding a like minded group of people and plant a church.
Under whose authority?

I think the idea would be finding a like minded group of people and then coming under the authority of a presbytery and working with a denomination's home mission board, etc. Sometimes it may also be useful to contact the presbytery or nearest church first (even if it is too far to drive to worship regularly) as they may be aware of others in the area who might be interested in being part of a church plant.

This is what I had in mind
 
Pilgrim, thanks. From what I have found on internet over the past two years a lot of those churches listed are either, out of existence or are a group of about 5 that meet in someone's house and have kind of a loose set of standards (I am speaking strictly of my area). There are a lot of little inbred churches with just the pastor, his family and maybe one or two other families. They are usually small because no one could stand them. These churches tend to be like small business, some take off, some just barely survive then eventually die after a year but their names are still found on the internet.

I by nature have never been big on laws, rules and regulations but I think there should be order and not complete autonomy. There is one church in the area who makes it a habit of going after the other churches, even chasing one of to the EPC, that is what I was referring to. I have to admit I have not read enough about the issue of the sacraments yet to make a dogmatic claim one way or the other, and yes baptists are just as dogmatic about believer's only baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top