The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum True Churches

It is not my intention to open up a can of worms but it is my understanding that many Presbyterians believe that only a Church that administers the sacraments properly is a true Church. Logically speaking then, would they then believe that Baptist Churches are not true Churches? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

Tom

The question could easily be reversed, it is my understanding that many Baptists believe similarly.

RefDoc

RefDoc

I must apologize, what I said was a reaction to something I read. However, now that I have had a chance to think a while, I probably should not have posted that.
You are correct; both sides of this debate have their share of people who make claims like that.
My reaction certainly doesn't help matters, sorry.

Tom

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.

I agree with Rick that we can have a very fruitfull discussion on this topic.

The question that I want to ask is what role the idea of a covenant plays in Baptist theology? In Reformed theology the covenant plays a central role in justification of paedobaptism.

Johan

Johan

I think you will find the answer to that question here, but perhaps the best defence of Baptist CT that is out there was writen by AW Pink, in which you can find here
I will also say that the CT of John Owen although he was a Paedo-Baptist was (except his Paedo-Baptism) was very much the same as Baptist CT.

Tom

Tom,

Take it or leave it, but my understanding is that Baptist churches may be regarded as true churches, although less pure. In point of fact, Baptists don't wrongly administer the sacraments as a rule (except when they rebaptize...); but they do wrongly restrict the recipients (professing believers only) and modes (immersion only) of baptism.

Thanks. It will take some time to read it so do not expect a quick reply.

Johan