The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Looking For a Church

Well it's been a fun ride until recently, now I find myself in search of a new church. Up 'til now I have taken church membership just about as seriously as the covenant of marriage! But no longer. In it's founding documents, the PCA describes "membership" as stictly voluntary (perhaps owing to prior experience with the liberal PCUS), and advises that individuals and churches can leave the PCA whenever it seems good to them.

My PCA church has:

* Adopted an increasingly "Anglican / Orthodox" style of worship. This past Advent season the pastor even admitted to not knowing what the colored candles of the Advent Wreath represent (and it's hard to know really, since Googling it brings up several dozen possibilities), yet we light them anyway because it's a beautiful tradition.

* Ignored the very real threat posed by teachers of the Federal Vision by not "rocking the boat." Our delegation to the last General Assembly simply toured the beautiful city of Charlestown instead of participating in "that business stuff."

* Not dealt appropriately with a minister who has "covertly" led studies of N.T. Wright's theology (Anglican, FV) because he wasn't acting "in an official capacity" when doing so.

I have been a member of three Presbyterian churches. The first two were basically run by one family or one person in spite of the Presbyterian model. No "rules" were broken, but the intent of the Presbyterian form of government is to prevent this kind of thing. It obviously doesn't work as intended.

I'm not inclined to simply go to one of the other PCA churches in town. I'm rather disenchanted with the PCA entirely, and with Presbyterianism in general. The very specific and extremely detailed Westminster Confession of Faith is apparently not specific enough to prevent whole denominations that claim it as their doctrinal standard from going completely off the rails in both doctrine and practice.

I did manage to find a Reformed Baptist church locally, though, and am enjoying a friendly e-mail exchange with the pastor in which I bring all my "Presbyterian sensibilities" and compare them with Reformed Baptist ones. It has been cordial, helpful, and educational so far. I'm "almost persuaded" to become a Baptist! And I must admit to being much more open to their semi-congregational form of government as well.

Prayers for wisdom and purity of heart are needed and welcome!

~Robin

I sympathize with your dilemma Robin. One thing that comes to mind is the question of rebaptism. Will this new church require that you be rebaptized in their church before admitting you to membership or not?

Yes ma'am, that's a BIG issue for me. Baptism must be a one-time thing, since Christ died "once for all." Being rebaptized would be like putting Him on the cross a second time!

For me personally it wouldn't apply since I was baptized by immersion in a Baptist church as a preteen, but the theology of the question matters a great deal.

Robin

I am a Reformed Baptist myself; however I may be in the minority of those who are of Reformed Baptist persuasion.
In that I personally would not have a problem with a Reformed Paedo-Baptist being admitted into member-ship. However, that is provided they agree first that they respected the Church beliefs concerning Credo-Baptism. This to me is important because if they do not agree to this, unity in the body may be compromised.
If I remember correctly John Bunyan (Pilgrims Progress) had similar beliefs.
Basically the reason why I would allow someone like yourself into membership with that one caveat is because I have found that I have more in common with many Reformed Paedo-Baptist like yourself, than I do with Baptists of Arminian persuasion.
Unfortunately like I said earlier, I am probably in the minority with this view, so your discussion with the Baptist pastor could prove to be very valuable.
I actually have a Paedo-Baptist friend who attends the same Church I do. He told me that although he cannot become a member. He is ok with that mainly because he is very happy with the worship, sermons and the way the Church is going.
Tom

One of the crucial questions that needs to be addressed is: Since he is not a member, which is applicable to all who are non-members because they will not submit to the requirement of rebaptism by immersion, then in all likelihood admittance to the Lord's Supper is denied. This is the case in the majority of such cases. Is it true in your friend's situation, i.e., as a non-member, is he denied the sacraments. And if so, how could he be "ok with that"???

Of course, if like most Baptists he considers the Lord's Supper to be a simple "remembrance" (ordinance) and not an actual sacrament where grace is given to true believers, then I could understand if he has little concern.

The other issue, which we have discussed here is the sad reality that if a local church denies membership to someone who has given a credible confession of faith and recognized to be so by the elder(s) because of the requirement to be immersed in water even though the applicant has already been baptized, and even as an adult, then de facto, the church's position is that the person is relegated to the same status as one who has been excommunicated (non-communicato), aka: barred from fellowship with the saints and the sacraments instituted by God for the saints because of either unrepentant sin or errant in doctrine or both.

I should think that Reformed Baptists would have a higher view of the Lord's Supper than merely "a remembrance" as many non-Reformed might. Thanks for that, Jeff... It's a reminder to me to ask about "means of grace" in my discussion with this pastor.

Though your questions are certainly worth mentioning, I can only speak for the Church I attend.
Admittance to the Lords Table in the Church I attend is based on confession of faith, not on whether someone is baptized or not. The applicable Scriptural warning of taking the Lord's Supper in an inappropriate manner are read every time we celebrate the Lord's supper.
The elders of the Church are actively lovingly involved in the lives of all attenders, regardless of whether they are members or not. This is understood by all and is not optional, for anyone who attends.
Tom

Perhaps the following will be helpful.

http://www.spurgeon.org/catechis.htm#Q74

Tom

Most here know my story of how I became a Reformed Baptist this past year.The church I attend is a member of ARBCA. Most ,if not all of these member churches require baptism by immersion for membership, have "open communion", which allows Christians(those having made a profession of faith) and who have examined themselves per 1Cor.11:28 to partake. We also do see The Lord's Supper as more than an ordinance even though that is what it's called in the Baptist Confession of Faith.

I looked them up on the web... sadly, no ARBCA churches in Florida. But I wonder how many Founders-type churches in the SBC are members or would become members.

Don't know, but I have heard about another Reformed Baptist movement called F.I.R.E.
I am not sure you remember a former Baptist pastor member here, by the name of Brett Lovitze(sp?). I believe the Church he pastors is a member of F.I.R.E.

Tom

Yes, Bret Lovitz aka Brother Bret, belonged to FIRE for 9 to 10 years and left just last year.

What are your thoughts about St. Andrews ?

If it weren't 90 miles away from home I'd consider it. The closest (truly) Reformed church to me that Baptist church. I arrived a little early for Sunday school to find a group of men studying Calvin's Institutes!

So far, that sounds like a good Church.

Tom

In my search I've been asking myself - and now the few Reformed Baptist folk I know - about Reformed Baptist polity, doctrine, and theology. My caution drives me to these questions since I tend to view church membership as something almost as sacred as a marriage covenant.

I blogged about it a little (here), and included a link to a really nice presentation about how covenant theology differs between Presbyterians and Baptists, which I then summarized briefly.

This is not to start a new Presbyterian-versus-Baptist debate on any subject! This is just about making sure I properly understand the Baptist position on covenant theology. So I'm asking my Baptist bretheren here to follow the link, read the little presentation, and compare it with my summary. Input is welcome and encouraged, from all Reformed brethren and sistren!

Thanks,
Robin

Robin
If you view membership as very important, depending on the Reformed Baptist Church you are considering going to, membership may not be an option for you.
This is not always the case, but it is probably the majority position in Reformed Baptist circles that a candidate for membership must be baptized via emersion.
You previously said that seeing you were baptized via emersion years ago, it might not be a problem for you to become a member.
However, if I read you correctly it is more an issue for you.
Therefore, if you think the issue of Paedo is that important, I am not sure you would be happy going to a Reformed Baptist Church.
A few years back I did a fairly lengthily study on this issue and among the study material I read was John Owen on Covenant Theology. What I found quite surprising is that although Owen was definitely a Paedo-Baptist; it seemed to me that on many issues he was more in agreement with Reformed Baptists, than he was on Paedo-Baptists. I can’t think of any examples right off the top of my head (perhaps others might have some?), but I found that to be very interesting.
Another person I read was AW Pink; whom I found to be similar to Owen, yet he came out on the Credo side.
I also read a bit of John Bunyan, who was a Baptist, yet had no problem admitting Paedos into membership; provided their profession of faith was credible.
If there is one thing I regret about that particular study. It is I should have kept better care of all the notes from that study; because I have no idea where they are now. Sigh…
I guess I should end by saying, if you have not already done so, you should be very specific about what you view as essentials when you talk to the pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church in question.
Tom

Thanks, Tom...

But I wasn't asking for advice on what I might be comfortable with, and I'm not so attached to paedobaptism that I'm unwilling to reexamine it.

What I'm asking for is for the Baptist brothers here to read this presentation and compare it with my "interpretation of it" here and then tell me if I have understood it correctly. That's all.

It is simply a view of covenant theology that is unfamiliar to me. I've never heard of it before, but apparently it has been around for centuries.

When you read my summary of the presentation you'll find that I have some very positive thoughts about it, and it seems to me that the Baptist position is less susceptible to the kind of interpretation that has led some Presbyterians towards the FV heresy. I also find it more consistent than the Presbyterian position with regard to the Lord's Supper.

Please have a look, just to tell me if I got it right.

Then I'll decide what is true. I don't really care if it's not comfortable.

Hi Robin:

Forgive me for coming into this late and not having time to catch up on all the posts in this thread. I used to be a member of F.I.R.E. (Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals) until last year for about 10 years. I haven't been actually pastoring since April 2012 and haven't been able to make their meetings so I left the fellowship.

If you are interested in finding a Reformed Baptist Church, you can go to www.firefellowship.org (FIRE) or www.founders.org (Founders of the SBC) or http://www.farese.com/rbcd (Reformed Baptist Church Directory). On the Founders Church List you'll have to watch what confessions they use because some non-Reformed Baptist SBC Churches put their Church on their too. Blessings!

1. The view espoused in the article by the Renihans is based squarely upon a view of the covenant which is now in hot dispute in the OPC and made popular by Meridith Kline and is mainly taught at WTS California. It is popularly known by several names, e.g., "Republication", "Two Kingdom", etc.

2. One of the major issues with this view is that it attributes "merit" to the old covenant/kingdom whereby those within that covenant were given 'rewards' for obedience/works and grace is either greatly diminished or altogether rejected.

3. It is because of this bifurcation (large discontinuity) between the old covenant and new covenant, that the credo-Baptist justifies their position. Put simply, for the credo-baptist the New Covenant means something totally or mostly different from the Old Covenant. Whereas the historic paedobaptist view of the covenant of grace is that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant with its blessings having a new universality and spirituality.

4. Lastly, every truth has throughout history been distorted and used to formulate an error. FV, NPP, etc., take what I believe to be the truth concerning justification, sanctification, Reformed covenant theology and more and distort it and even deny it, yet as is typical of heretics, they confess to be consistent with those doctrines and that they are to be deemed "confessional". They love to quote from Calvin, Murray, and other notables in order to prove they are not teaching something different. But on close examination of those quotes, they are found to be taken out of context and that the quoted author(s) held to positions contrary to that which they are espousing. The point of this is that just because someone or a group of people have gone astray who profess to base their heretical view on orthodox theology is no reason to abandon or disparage the "faith once delivered unto the saints".

LOL I can't help but be a little amused by the fact that I asked Baptists to respond to my interpretation of Baptist covenant theology and the only answer to my question comes from a Presbyterian!

I'm grateful though, thanks Pilgrim, it's a lot to sort out for me. I grew up under Dispensationalism, came to completely reject that in favor of Refomed (and Covenant) theology, and now I'm in a position where I need to examine the Baptist take on covenant theology because of my church situation. This is a "third option" that is completely new and foreign to me, yet not as though it were an attempt at compromize between the other two.

Much to think about and consider before I consider membership in the Reformed Baptist church I've been attending for a couple of months.

Thank you my friend! I do hope to hear from some of the Baptist folks here ON THE QUESTION I ASKED. Otherwise I'll simply assume I have understood the Baptist theology properly and go from there.

Semper Reformanda,
Robin

Actually, I am a Congregationalist (Edwardian) and adhere to the "Savoy Declaration", which for those not familiar with this confession, is nearly a word-for-word copy of the Westminster Confession, contra the section on church polity.

Yes, I will be very interested in any and all comments by our Baptist brethren in regard to your question, but even more so on their assessment of the Renihan article which again is grounded on the covenant theology espoused by Merideth Kline and influenced by some things written by Geerhardus Vos.

Robin,
I may have been confused by the instructions you gave but I made my reply to your blog site.In short I said that you interpreted the article pretty much ,spot on. I then gave you my church's view, which is also my view, of the act of baptizing infants.
My only word of caution would be to ask the pastor for a specific answer as to how close the church adheres to the SBC's Baptist Faith and Message statement. The part I am speaking of here has to do with Original Sin.

Thanks, Sojourner.

Nice reply on my blog, and I appreciate it! Is it fair to say that the Baptist Faith and Message is "too non-specific" and open to all sorts of interpretation?

One reason I ask is that the big megachurch nearest my house is an SBC church that has a lot of money and pageants and concerts and such, but my former pastor grew upin that church and says he never heard the gospel in all the years he attended.

There are Dispensational SBC churches, Charismatic SBC churches, Reformed SBC churches - they seem to run the gamut yet they all claim the Baptist Faith and Message. Not to pick on the SBC, I'm just as quick to point out that even the apostate PCUSA claims the Westminster Confession of Faith! My question, I guess, is restricted to those Baptist churches that claim the London Baptist Confession as well as the Baptist Message.

Robin

I purposely didn't do what you asked, because I don't want to bite off more than I can chew.
Though part of me wants to answer it; another side of me said two things.
1. I don't have time to give the questions justice.
2. I am not even sure I can communicate what is on my mind effectively.

That might sound like a cop out, but I am being honest. I don't think I am the best person to answer your questions.
Sorry, if my last post wasn't helpful.

Tom

Not to worry, Tom! I'm not disappointed or anything and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. And I'm in your shoes more often than not, feeling over my head in deep theological waters. But I love it! Immersion (pun intended) in theology is just so much fun! I know, I must be a little twisted to think so.

I have heard from a few Reformed Baptists who assure me that I have correctly understood and summarized their position. I'm sure it varies all over the place just like it does among us Presbyterians, in spite of the pretty explicit language of the Confessions.

So on to the next question then: Do Reformed Baptists hold to one particular eschatology or are y'all like the Presbyterians where pretty much any eschatology is okay except Dispensationalism? And what to Reformed Baptists think of MacArthur's mixture of "Reformed" sotierology and Dispensational eschatology?

Thanks!
Still exploring (and always Reforming),
Robin

I've got a lot more reading to do it looks like!


If one considers progressive revelation I'm not sure that is an accurate description. The "obedience of faith" (Romans 16:26) was surely as applicable in the Old Covenant as it is in the New. The "merit" was never in the person but in the object of that faith and demonstrated by their obedience. It was an "already and not yet" kind of faith which drove those who never saw the fulfillment of the OT promises, except through the eyes of faith.


Is that really an accurate representation of Baptist belief? While they certainly do assert that the covenants are different from one another with respect to membership in the covenant community (the family of Abraham vs the family of faith) and application (physical descendants vs spiritual descendants, different signs and seals and covenantal conditions), the paper I linked to most certainly asserts that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old, and applies eternally and spiritually rather than temporally and phyisically. I know better than to charge you with misrepresenting the Baptist position, my friend, but please just elaborate on how you reached that conclusion from the presentation. Or from other sources, perhaps, which I'm not familiar with.


Completely agreed on that point of course. We think we're so smart because we've got our theology so neatly spelled out in great detail in our Confessions, yet we can still be carried off into error - even lethal error - while all the while claiming compatibility and continuity with our Confessions, Creeds, and Catechisms. That is why I love this article on the Highway so much! And it fits right in with our other comments about "ruling elders" deferring to the "experts" that lead whole denominations astray.

-Robin

Even though SBC churches are autonomous they are tied to the Convention through the Cooperative Program.It is the place where the churches tithe.That money then goes to support missions, seminaries, literature and many other programs.Churches are like people, some think their tithe is two percent, some five and some ten. This program caused me the most angst over the years.
It is fair to say that the Faith statement is non-specific in a lot of areas when compared to the LBCF or Westminster.To me ,at least, it is very specific when it speaks of "Man". It says that man fell from his original innocence and his posterity inherited a "nature" toward sin and as soon as he is capable of moral action he will become a transgressor. That is a denial of original sin, I believe.
If the church you are attending holds to the LBCF, no problem.
I have only met a couple of people in the Reformed circle who are Post Mill, all others are Amill.I have just come over to the Amill camp, having spent my entire adult life in total ignorance of any other end times view than Dispensationalism. I don't know anyone who agrees with John Mc Arthur.

Re: "Republication" [of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant]... I can supply you with relevant reading material.

I was referring to the "Republication/Two Kingdom" theory being taught at WTS Cal. and currently being investigated by the OPC. The Renihans are/were students there when they wrote the paper.

I do believe I have correctly represented the Baptist view. In no way would I consciously nor deliberately misrepresent it. IF I have, my sincerest apologies. I have publicly debated this baptist issue with some 'notables', e.g., John Reisenger (years ago) and written a major paper on the issue while at WTS (Philly) as well as being involved, much to my dismay, in debates here on the board on several occasions. So, I do think I have at least a reasonably good grasp of the subject.

Due to the time and space needed and my honest near total lack of interest any longer in debating this particular subject, I will not offer any further comments ... other than to say that the bottom line is:
1. Baptists insist that baptism belongs only to believers (an intenable positiion), which signifies the recipients faith and salvation.

2. Paedobaptists (me in particular) insist that baptism belongs to all who make a CREDIBLE confession of faith and their children, which sigifies how salvation is obtained from God, aka: the gospel, and is sealed to those who have been regenerated and believed upon Christ.

Summarizing, most all Baptists see baptism as being primarily a personal thing, e.g., "An outward sign of an inward reality" vs. Paedobaptists see baptism objectively and primarily as an outward declaration of the gospel.

If you are interested in listening to a debate between Dr. Robert B. Strimple vs. Dr. Fred Malone - WSC March 10, 1999, which I think fairly represents both sides, you can access them HERE, under the "Sacraments" heading.

Thanks! I'll be digging into this deeply for a few days I think. Thank you for the links!

-Robin

Robin
The question of eschatology for Reformed Baptists is a little easier for me to answer because they are all over the map.
I hold to the A-mill position, yet I know others who are Historical Premillenialism, which is something they hold in common with CH Spurgeon at least when he was alive (he now holds to A-mill position .
I know others who hold to Post-Millennialism and a still a few that are Dispensationalists; who have yet to see that it isn't consistent with Reformed Theology. That isn't all that surprising seeing how many came out of denominations that were rampant Dispensationalists.

By the way, I love talking theology; and it has sometimes got me in trouble.
Tom


Tom

HaHa, me too. I get in trouble when I:

spout off a bunch of stuff to appear knowledgeable and wise when I really have no idea what I'm talking about, or

my juvenile need to "win" an argument overcomes the deeper and greater need to seek and obey the truth,

-AND-

when my opponent claims that "doctrine doesn't matter" and "can't you just luuuuuuuv Jeeeeeesus?" It sets me off like a bomb. Or

when my opponent has a hidden agenda and I get distracted from the argument and take aim at that hidden agenda instead, lol. Or

The implications of an argument undermine the sovereignty, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, limitlessness, eternality, or love of my God. Semi-Pelagian arguments, for example, that reduce the Almighty to a frustrated deity that can only hope that someone on Earth will "let him have his way," just tick me off to the point where reason gets buried under offense: "You don't talk about my Father that way!"

It's all good,
Robin

Okay...

I have tried to read and follow this very tedious and overworked paper on republication and I find that while it is arguing for "two covenants," it does so by taking a lot of stuff out of context, by claiming that the Westminster divines didn't properly understand the covenant of works with Adam (and "proving" the point by citing that the WCF's proof-texts are taken from later works than Genesis - that's like saying the Apostle John didn't properly interpret the creation account in the first chapter of his gospel), and by mixing the two Testaments into a particular eschatological scheme that doesn't quite fit, and it contrasts "Law and Gospel" (like Lutheranism) rather than "shadow and substance" or "type and antitype." To be honest I couldn't even finish reading 157 pages of this protracted tedium. So, question:

Does the Renihan presentation represent "republication?" It never uses that word, and I don't think Renihan has suggested anything like it. The fact of two "kingdoms" (one earthly /geographical / racial / political, and the other eternal, universal, spiritual) is obvious even to a casual reader of the bible. As is the fact that there are the two Testaments (covenants), one prefiguring the other.

I think Renihan and Republication are "apples and oranges." Am I correct or is there a connection between them that I'm not aware of?

Thanks,
Robin

Still exploring, reading, praying, considering. I listened intently to the WCF debate you referenced, Pilgrim, and have been struck by several points of difference. Among them is the idea that baptism is the "sign and seal" of the New Covenant replacing Old Testament circumcision. I have up to now always accepted that.

Reexaminining it now, though, if baptism "replaces" circumcision and signifies the same thing, and if the two covenants are one and the same, then:

Why were the Jews in Acts 2:41 baptized? If they already had the "sign of the covenant," why did they need another? If they were already "sharers in the covenant" and members in the "community of faith," why did they need to be brought in again?

In all the difficulties that the early Church had with the Judaisers, why didn't this simple argument ever come up at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? For example, why did no one explain that the Gentile Christians had received the "covenantal sign" when they were baptized and that that was the reason they didn’t need "second sign and seal?" Paul could have explained the matter very simply in his Galatian epistle by saying, “These men who are telling you to be circumcised are simply doubling up the covenant signs; you already have the new circumcision in your baptism so you don't need a duplicate 'sign and seal.'”

These are sincere questions, not to be argumentative. I must confess to a certain sense of "urgency" on my part since I am between churches and need to join myself to a local body. I am unwilling, however, to hurry through these things to a hasty decision.

If you would rather not "rehash" this old argument yourself, Pilgrim, I respect that, but perhaps another will step up or you can point me to some more resources.

Always reforming,
Robin

Robin

Looks like we have a lot in common.
One of the things I am really working on is remembering that my strength lies in the Lord, not me. I cannot love, argue, or do anything worthwhile if my motivation isn't grounded in Christ Jesus, to the glory of God.

Forgetting this has caused me a lot of headache. Unfortunately I have had to learn this the hard way on many occasions. For instance not remembering this almost got me fired from work, when someone who has (how can I put this politely) no people skills started on me one day when I was feeling a bit ill.
Instead of taking a moment and putting my mind on the Lord and His Word, I reacted out of the way I was feeling. Let’s just say before I knew it, the results blew up in my face.

Tom

Their paper is on 'baptism' specifically and is not a defense of "Republication/Two Kingdom" theology. I am sure I didn't imply they did. However, what I did at least try to suggest is part of their underlying view of the covenant is at best influenced by what Kline taught and what is being taught openly at WSC. They hold, for example, that circumcision was a 'national' sign and had basically nothing to do with a spiritual sign of the covenant of grace. This is one of the major points of contention between credobaptists and paedobaptists. It smacks of a dispensational hermeneutic.

Again, I never suggested that the Renihan's paper was overtly a defense of "Republicaiton". To iterate, the Klinian view of the covenant is at least in part what undergirds their view of baptism; a clear, and I believe unwarranted, discontinuity between the nation of Israel and the Church and the old covenant and the new covenant. I repeat once again... the major division between credos and paedos is the matter of continuity vs. discontinuity. I hold that there are NOT "two covenants" but only ONE; the Covenant of Grace, which was revealed progressively under different administrations throughout biblical history. There is an unbroken relationship (continuity) of God's eternal decree and covenant with the Son, applied in time through Christ, and revealed to man from Genesis through Revelation.

They give lip-service to some continuity but at the end of the line, they and most Baptists hold that the "Old Covenant" is just that... OLD. And the "New Covenant" is mostly if not all NEW with little if any association with the old.