No need to apologize,

I think it's discussions like this which can liven up a forum. As long as we remain irenic in our discussion. So, allow me to let a few worms escape the can. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

What surprises me is that I rarely hear of stories where presbys consider themselves a true church based solely on the correct practice of the sacraments, but I will grant you that there are some "one true church" types within the presbyterian and reformed camp.

I see this within the federation of churches to which I belong (URCNA), which has been working with the Canadian Reformed churches toward unity of our federations. While I cannot speak of the experiences of all the URC churches on this matter, I have seen it in our local situation with our nearest CanRef (American Reformed) church with which we have had meetings, we saw a great reluctance on their part to participate in the discussion due to the fact that this particular congregation has always considered itself part of a "one true church", our meetings came to an impasse due to that very subject. I personally have problems with unifying with that federation for a whole host of other reasons, but that is a subject for another day. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

When it comes to sacraments, particularly baptism, Baptists certainly are more likely to be perceived as a "true church" type, based on that most of them, if not all, would not accept me into full membership unless first re-baptized, because I was baptized as an infant. Put the shoe on the other foot and the situation is a bit different. Many Presby and Reformed churches will accept trinitarian baptisms from other denoms as long as it is accompanied by a credible statement of faith on the part of the one asking membership.

I don't blame baptists for their policy on baptism, as wrong as I think they are on the subject, they are practicing what they believe.

[Linked Image]