Are Presbyterians Real Christians?

Thanks for chiming in Ted and welcome.

Ted, welcome. One of the issues that may impact this whole discussion is that many Baptists (at least the un-reformed variety) don’t view the sacraments (they’d prefer ordinances) as a means of grace, but rather pure memorial. If one’s faith is not strengthened and the spirit encouraged in the participation and observance, then it isn’t as big a deal to deny the elements.

[DavidO]

Ted, welcome. One of the issues that may impact this whole discussion is that many Baptists (at least the un-reformed variety) don’t view the sacraments (they’d prefer ordinances) as a means of grace, but rather pure memorial. If one’s faith is not strengthened and the spirit encouraged in the participation and observance, then it isn’t as big a deal to deny the elements.

This quarter at our church I am teaching a class on Wednesday nights called Exploring Other Faiths, where we learn about other religions/denominations by touring their places of worship, listening to a lecture about the faith by one of their religious leaders, and attending a religious service. Last week we met with the priest of one of the largest Catholic churches in the area. When one of our class members asked if we should partake of the Eucharist at Mass (I think our class member was asking if we were expected to partake, because of course we weren’t going to partake, but the priest misunderstood and thought he was wanting to partake), the priest kind of hemmed and hawed a bit but basically said no we shouldn’t because it is supposed to represent the union true believers already have in what they believe the Eucharist means. In other words, if you’re not Catholic and you don’t believe that it literally becomes the body and blood of Christ, then don’t partake.

So Baptists aren’t the only ones who deny the sacraments to others, and I don’t think the root cause of denying them is because we view it as merely symbolic. Plus, at our Baptistic church we practice open communion, and anyone who professes faith in Christ is welcome to partake, including (gasp) Presbyterians.

Sorry to take so long to catch up in this thread and thank you TedG for joining the conversation.

Let me give some background to this post:

My parents were/are BMM missionaries (father is with the Lord). I, a brother-in-law, and my son-in-law were ordained in SBC churches. My brother was ordained in the PCA (a much more difficult process - Baptists will ordain pretty much anybody!) and is the Executive Pastor at New City Fellowship in Chatt. TN, a multi-ethnic church. My 2nd daughter is the married Bapt. My 1st daughter is a single Pres., who worked at 1st Pres. in Columbia, SC for 7 years, and is now in grad school at Wheaton. She worked for both Sinclair Ferguson and Derek Thomas. For the few years we all lived in closer proximity we occasionally got together at Fuddruckers for good food and good theological conversation (what we referred to as #FuddTheo).

Recently my wife and I visited my brother’s church and observed covenant baptism (the 3rd time for me). As a Bapt. I understand the Pres. approach to the Covenant and have no problems with it. The 1st time I observed covenant baptism I thought it looked remarkably like the many baby dedications I had observed my father perform. My brother told me that Pres. refer to baby dedications as dry baptism!

During the service I wrote the following, intending to tweet it, but it was too long:

For only the third time in my life I observed covenant baptism this morning. Even tho a Baptist I commit today to pray a dedicatory prayer over each of the grandchildren the Lord grants to me the first time I hold them in my arms.

My 1st daughter asked me what I would do in the future if/when she marries and has children, were they to have them baptized as infants. I assured her that I would support them in that decision.

[Andrew K] 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.

I don’t consider the Pres. wrong on this issue, just different. I don’t see that they include unbelievers in the body anymore than Bapt. do, as there are countless folks in Bapt. churches who are “professing but not possessing” believers. If you were to ask a number of Bapt. about their salvation you might observe that they say more about their decision than about Christ. In my former church I had a deacon who stated that he had been a Christian all his life.

In the past year my current pastor decided to ordain a seminary grad who was leaving our church to take a high school teaching job. In my conversation with the young man I understood him to say that he would be willing to accept for membership someone who had a pre-conversion baptism without requiring post-conversion baptism. He thought such was not an expression of unity!

I told him it was fine for him to hold that view, but that he could not be ordained a Bapt. while holding that view. The 1st ord. council rejected him on that and the fact that he wasn’t heading to the pastorate. My pastor then called a 2nd council that did approve his ordination. I wrote a letter to my pastor explaining that I would absent myself from church on the Ord. Sunday so as not to be seen to endorse the ordination.

So while I empathize with the Pres. view of Covenant Baptism and would not withhold communion from a Pres., my Bapt. ordination demands post-conversion baptism for church membership.

Jim posted this sentence from the article above:

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.

It’s easier for a Bapt. to join a Pres. church than for a Covenant baptized Pres. to join a Bapt. church!

Greg, my point was that a low view may be a factor in play, not the key to the whole issue.

I don’t think that invoking Catholic practice in this case is an apples to apples either, as their official dogma is there is no salvation outside the church, period. So it’s no surprise they won’t let the Baptists eat their bread and drink their wine.

I don’t consider the Pres. wrong on this issue, just different. I don’t see that they include unbelievers in the body anymore than Bapt. do, as there are countless folks in Bapt. churches who are “professing but not possessing” believers. If you were to ask a number of Bapt. about their salvation you might observe that they say more about their decision than about Christ. In my former church I had a deacon who stated that he had been a Christian all his life.

Naturally I agree that Baptist churches have unregenerate members. That’s not really the issue, as only God knows the true identity of the elect.
The practice of Baptist is (should) be to admit members into the body only once they have made a credible profession of faith. That is, since the New Covenant is something God does, in regenerating and giving a new heart, we should not be admitting people into the body by giving them the New Covenant sign when they are unable to give evidence of belonging to such, since you are thereby certainly presuming to give unregenerate individuals New Covenant status.
Thus there is a real, theological difference between the two positions that goes beyond the superficial one of merely having a mixed church: that of seeing the New Covenant itself, which the body attempts as closely as possible to reflect, as mixed (Presby) or unmixed (Baptist).
I love my Presby brothers, being far closer to them in most areas than the majority of Baptists, but I disagree with them here. And this is a disagreement that my forebears and their forebears considered very important.

I love my Presby brothers, being far closer to them in most areas than the majority of Baptists, but I disagree with them here. And this is a disagreement that my forebears and their forebears considered very important.

I certainly don’t wish to launch a debate regarding infant baptism. This web site is operated by Baptists, so I feel very much like a guest in someone else’s home. Most of us have firm convictions on this matter, and a comments thread won’t persuade anyone of the merits of our respective positions. My goal in posting is just to give a glimpse into the Presbyterian mind set and to encourage close fellowship among Bible believing Christians. I live in a city where most evangelicals are doctrinally Baptistic and where there is little reformed presence. About 900 attend our worship services on Sunday morning, including more than 100 college students. The overwhelming majority of members and regular attendees do not have a Presbyterian background. Our liturgical worship and doctrinal positions are completely foreign. They are primarily attracted to the church because of its strong Bible teaching. Most struggle with our position on the sacraments when they first begin to attend. The leadership endeavors to be compassionate and understanding with them. Most of those who remain in the church for a period of time eventually switch positions, but we do not force the issue. We have a few wonderful families who have declined baptism for their children. Though we disagree, we accept and love them. They are active members—sing in the choir, teach children’s Sunday School, join small groups, etc. We are sad that they are missing important Biblical truths, but we accept where they are in their spiritual journey knowing that God has not revealed everything to any of us in this life.

On the surface, it may appear as if our baptismal practice is little more than a baby dedication, but we believe that there is something much deeper at work. As a result, many of us have lumps in our throats when an infant is baptized. I have watched crusty old elders wipe tears streaming down their faces as the minister proclaims the words of baptism. We share the convictions of men like Calvin and Luther who believed that salvation is often a process, not just a moment in time. The senior pastor of my church recently prayed this prayer when the one month old child of a friend was baptized: “Our Father….this baptism is a dramatic statement that this child belongs to You—not to the world….We pray that You will work in her heart. Even now as we pray as a congregation, give her a new heart. May she NEVER know a day that she does not love and serve Jesus Christ.”

The WCF actually demands infant baptism because of their faulty covenant views, and imply that those who don’t practice it are in sin.

Further, presbyterians add even more confusion to this discussion by denying children the right to the Lord’s supper.

Are they or are they not really children of promise?

Full covenantists don’t bother with consistent theology, the WCF divines figured it all out or it didn’t really matter too much.

Scripture demands baptism by immersion after (and not to bring about) salvation. Any position other than that is sinful and divisive.

[TedG]

The senior pastor of my church recently prayed this prayer when the one month old child of a friend was baptized: “Our Father….this baptism is a dramatic statement that this child belongs to You—not to the world….We pray that You will work in her heart. Even now as we pray as a congregation, give her a new heart. May she NEVER know a day that she does not love and serve Jesus Christ.”

How sad that your pastor doesn’t love obedience to Christ as much as he does his tradition. His prayer is false and should have been publicly rebuked as lacking merit.

Thoughts on Baptism, Communion, and Reformation21

I am fully aware of the logic of the closed communion position. It has a certain force of moral clarity to it. If we believe that baptism is only the immersion of believers, then let’s act like it! However, in this matter I choose to give clear expression to catholicity. If I believe that my Presbyterian friends are my brothers, united to the same Lord with me, than I ought to act like it.

Knowing that I’m accountable to God for my actions, I’d want a clear Biblical mandate for forbidding another member of the Body of Christ the joy of joining with me as we remember the Savior Who died for both of us!

[TylerR]

I was very disappointed to read this from Chantry, a Reformed Baptist:

Obviously “Baptists” are those who believe that true baptism is the immersion of those who have professed faith in Christ. Other baptism, whether of infants who can make no profession or by some other mode than immersion, is not regarded as pure baptism in the New Testament sense. That this is what it means to be “Baptist” is scarcely controversial.

This is absolutely, complete and totally wrong. One is not a Baptist because of one’s position on immersion. One is a Baptist because of his stance on the purity of the local church; namely, regenerate and immersed church membership and all that entails.

This goes far beyond mere, “you sprinkle babies, I immerse adults … meh” difference of opinion:

• Who can be a member of a local church?
• What does baptism actually do?
• When did the church begin? (no, this is not a dispensationalist thing)
• What is our only infallible guide for matters of church polity? The NT alone, or the OT too?

I love and respect Presbyterians. There are a lot of great Presbyterian folks out there. I bear them no ill-will. I just think they’re absolutely, completely wrong on this issue.

I am also disturbed by the repeated use of the phrase “closed communion.” In Baptist circles (perhaps non Reformed Baptist circles?) “closed communion” is a watered-down Landmark position, which holds that only (1) saved, (2) immersed, (3) members of a local Baptist church may participate in the Lord’s Supper. What men keep calling “closed communion” throughout this thread is actually “close communion.”

Furthermore, I worry about the critical ecclesiastical question which arises when good Christians of pedobaptist convictions find themselves not only visiting Baptist churches, but seeking to join them. Of course none of us believe in compulsory baptism, but do we really wish to say that the Christian people who have been providentially placed in our churches may never enjoy the full benefits of membership? I do not find the spirit of the New Testament in such a position, and I reject it. I would argue instead that we ought to receive those who disagree with us on the matter of baptism just as we ought to receive those who differ on other matters which are not, as our confession puts it, “errors everting the foundation.” (1689 Confession, XXVI:2)

I’m not sure I understand Chantry here.

If he is saying that we (as Baptists) should not withhold membership from those who have pre-conversion Baptism, but not post-conversion baptism, then I heartily disagree.

It is that very issue that Piper’s church dealt with a few years ago (see Jim’s link above) and which my church dealt with a few months ago in regard to ordaining a young man who held that view.

[in this thread on 09/30/14 at 12:17pm I] In the past year my current pastor decided to ordain a seminary grad who was leaving our church to take a high school teaching job. In my conversation with the young man I understood him to say that he would be willing to accept for membership someone who had a pre-conversion baptism without requiring post-conversion baptism. He thought such was not an expression of unity!

I told him it was fine for him to hold that view, but that he could not be ordained a Bapt. while holding that view.

[TylerR]

I am also disturbed by the repeated use of the phrase “closed communion.” In Baptist circles (perhaps non Reformed Baptist circles?) “closed communion” is a watered-down Landmark position, which holds that only (1) saved, (2) immersed, (3) members of a local Baptist church may participate in the Lord’s Supper. What men keep calling “closed communion” throughout this thread is actually “close communion.”

Tyler, at least in some cases, the way I have seen or heard about closed communion being exercised, even your point 3 would be insufficient, as the requirement was being a member in the local church serving the communion.

Interestingly, I was at the 9Marks Southeastern conference just last month, and when asked about communion, all 5 baptists and the single presbyterian speaker mentioned that they ask partakers to be saved, baptized, and a member in good standing with their own (not necessarily the one serving the communion) local church, but did not limit it to strictly their own denomination. The differing views on baptism would affect the ability to join their churches, but not to take the Lord’s supper. The conference was actually on church membership, which all 6 speakers believe is extremely important, but since many churches practice open or semi-open communion, this was the first time I can remember hearing that membership was a requirement (outside of the “closed” case) for taking communion.