Are Presbyterians Real Christians?

understand Baptist polity. For many of us, eligibility to participate is not only matter of salvation but also of obedience. We would hold baptism is the first step (or is one of the first steps) of obedience after salvation. Also, it depends on how a given church regulates participation in it’s Lord Supper service. Does the church practice:

• open
• close

or

• closed

In my opinion (putting of my Baptist rabbi’s yarmulke), I’d say the church made a mistake by having a Presbyterian minister preach a Lord’s Supper service when they knew he would not be able to partake of the elements. Further, many Presbyterians are Christians. I say many because it would be difficult to see a member of the apostate United Presbyterians as being saved.

[Rob Fall]

understand Baptist polity. For many of us, eligibility to participate is not only matter of salvation but also of obedience. We would hold baptism is the first step (or is one of the first steps) of obedience after salvation. Also, it depends on how a given church regulates participation in it’s Lord Supper service. Does the church practice:

• open
• close

or

• closed

In my opinion (putting of my Baptist rabbi’s yarmulke), I’d say the church made a mistake by having a Presbyterian minister preach a Lord’s Supper service when they knew he would not be able to partake of the elements. Further, many Presbyterians are Christians. I say many because it would be difficult to see a member of the apostate United Presbyterians as being saved.

Is the Presbyterian a disobedient brother from whom you should separate?

Isn’t the host pastor in sin because he’s sharing his pulpit with a disobedient brother?

Is God more pleased with Baptists than He is with Presbyterians?

Where will these two be at the Bridal Supper of the Lamb?

[Ron Bean]

Is the Presbyterian a disobedient brother from whom you should separate?

Isn’t the host pastor in sin because he’s sharing his pulpit with a disobedient brother?

Is God more pleased with Baptists than He is with Presbyterians?

Where will these two be at the Bridal Supper of the Lamb?

[Andrew K]

Ron Bean wrote:

Is the Presbyterian a disobedient brother from whom you should separate?

Isn’t the host pastor in sin because he’s sharing his pulpit with a disobedient brother?

Is God more pleased with Baptists than He is with Presbyterians?

Where will these two be at the Bridal Supper of the Lamb?

I consider the Presbyterian is a wrong (not strictly disobedient) brother, whose errors manifest themselves in the deliberate inclusion of unbelievers into the New Covenant body. This inclusion has the unfortunate effect of endorsing a mixed-congregation and linking family descent to New Covenant status, which may encourage false assurance, among other things.

Those errors will limit the extent of cooperation; but beyond that, regarding God’s pleasure, I think we can safely say that God is pleased with some Baptists more than some Presbyterians and he’s pleased with some Presbyterians more than some Baptists. ;)

I don’t really advocate closed communion for that matter, either. I’m more with Bunyan than Kiffin here.

What’s the difference between wrong and disobedient?

Quite a bit actually. If someone is obeying God to the best of their knowledge, but you believe their understanding is deficient or incorrect, you will consider them wrong, but they may not actually be disobedient when it can be your understanding that is wrong. At a minimum, it can mean completely unintentional sin vs. presumptuous sin. Unintentional sin is still sin, but that doesn’t necessarily make it refusal to obey.

That doesn’t mean we don’t draw lines and separate based on what we understand, but it will mean a difference in the way we treat those we are in disagreement with. Some don’t want to obey the bible, and are OK with disobeying God. Others are just as serious as you about obedience, but a different (maybe faulty, maybe not) interpretation leads them to different practices and conclusions than you. You can’t work together with them, but they may be no more disobedient than you are.

I suspect that in the end, we will all find out how deficient we were in our understanding, and that no group (baptists included) has all the right interpretations of scripture.

[dcbii]

Quote:

What’s the difference between wrong and disobedient?

Quite a bit actually. If someone is obeying God to the best of their knowledge, but you believe their understanding is deficient or incorrect, you will consider them wrong, but they may not actually be disobedient when it can be your understanding that is wrong. At a minimum, it can mean completely unintentional sin vs. presumptuous sin. Unintentional sin is still sin, but that doesn’t necessarily make it refusal to obey.

That doesn’t mean we don’t draw lines and separate based on what we understand, but it will mean a difference in the way we treat those we are in disagreement with. Some don’t want to obey the bible, and are OK with disobeying God. Others are just as serious as you about obedience, but a different (maybe faulty, maybe not) interpretation leads them to different practices and conclusions than you. You can’t work together with them, but they may be no more disobedient than you are.

I suspect that in the end, we will all find out how deficient we were in our understanding, and that no group (baptists included) has all the right interpretations of scripture.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

dcbii wrote:

Quote:

What’s the difference between wrong and disobedient?

Quite a bit actually. If someone is obeying God to the best of their knowledge, but you believe their understanding is deficient or incorrect, you will consider them wrong, but they may not actually be disobedient when it can be your understanding that is wrong. At a minimum, it can mean completely unintentional sin vs. presumptuous sin. Unintentional sin is still sin, but that doesn’t necessarily make it refusal to obey.

That doesn’t mean we don’t draw lines and separate based on what we understand, but it will mean a difference in the way we treat those we are in disagreement with. Some don’t want to obey the bible, and are OK with disobeying God. Others are just as serious as you about obedience, but a different (maybe faulty, maybe not) interpretation leads them to different practices and conclusions than you. You can’t work together with them, but they may be no more disobedient than you are.

I suspect that in the end, we will all find out how deficient we were in our understanding, and that no group (baptists included) has all the right interpretations of scripture.

So Dave, what’s the difference between the sincere Presby and the sincere Mormon. After all, many Mormons are just as serious (if not more so) about obedience, just faulty interpretation leads them to different practices and conclusions.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

So Dave, what’s the difference between the sincere Presby and the sincere Mormon. After all, many Mormons are just as serious (if not more so) about obedience, just faulty interpretation leads them to different practices and conclusions.

I don’t really have much to say here, as Andrew pretty much nailed it. I might add that Presbyterians do not have extra-biblical “scriptures” that are considered to be the same authority as (or higher than) the Bible, as the Mormons do.

I do have a question for you though. Are you saying that from your perspective Presbyterians and Mormons are guilty of the same level of error? Your question may have been completely hypothetical, but it sounds as if you put Mormons and Presbyterians in the same category, and thus are answering the question that constitutes the thread topic with “No.”

I will say this…I love the Nacho Libre picture at the beginning of the article! :)

Kudos to John Piper (“he who would valiant be”) for trying a while ago to allow Presbyterians into membership in the church where he ministered

Here was his proposal / It was no accepted

No, I don’t equate the two at all. However, I think we have created a false dichotomy between disobedient and wrong. On things where scripture is unclear, I can understand agreeing to disagree (like eschatology doctrinally speaking and many areas of praxis), but in areas where scripture is clear (like substitutionary atonement or mode of baptism) I don’t understand how we can say that disobedience is anything other than - well, disobedience. I was trying to show the fault that I think exists in that line of reasoning by substituting Mormons for Presbyterians. As it was described so far in this thread, it fits.

Even on a practical level, it’s easy to see that wrongness and disobedience are not the same thing. When you tell your child to do something, but you later have to tell them, no, you are doing it wrong, you will (or should, IMHO) see this as completely different from the child saying, no, I’m not going to do that. The same would apply to adults in a work situation that in spite of supposedly “clear” instruction, need to have further training to do something correctly, even when they had every intention of doing it the right way from the start. Equating wrongness to disobedience then is frankly unhelpful (and wrong — maybe I should be calling it disobedient!).

Most of us like to call the scriptures that are behind our thinking “clear,” but the differences that have given rise to various denominations over the years, even among those who claim “sola scriptura,” should tell us that clarity is maybe not all we claim it is in every situation. Again, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t stand and/or separate on what we believe, nor should we claim that all such differing beliefs are valid, but calling such differences disobedience, when it is abundantly obvious when talking with those that have such difference that that is often not the case, is just as bad as characterizing either end of the calvinism/arminianism debate as fatalism or pelagianism. It’s intentionally pejorative and often quite inaccurate.

Fuller never believed that he and his fellow Calvinistic Baptists were the only Christians in Britain–witness his love for men like John Newton, William Wilberforce and John Berridge. In such a context, his strong convictions regarding the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper bespeak a rich catholicity.

http://www.andrewfullercenter.org/blog/2014/09/once-more-baptism-and-co…

I’m a Presbyterian (PCA), and like most PCA leaders I know, I was raised a Baptist. I was immersed at about age 12, so I am not in the same situation as Mark Jones. But I do sympathize with his article. Conservative Presbyterians and conservative Baptists are similar in their veneration of scripture. In certain key areas such as sacraments and the covenant, the two groups have reached fundamentally different conclusions. Those differences are by no means insignificant. In fact, the doctrinal divide is profound. However, I have never encountered a Presbyterian elder who would even consider denying the precious means of grace to a fellow believer who happens to be Baptist even though he is well aware that the Baptist does not have the same theological view of the Lord’s Supper. And to be fair, most Baptist ministers I know do graciously invite my infant-baptized colleagues to the Table. I hope that is true of a majority of Baptist leaders, but I have no way of knowing. Andrew is correct when he referred to Presbyterianism as a “different culture.” As a Christian who has lived and experienced both worlds, I can attest to that fact. In heaven, those contradictory cultures will beautifully merge!