I think I'm turning from Baptist To Presbyterian

[Setfree2day]

I've been told that because I'm holding more to the Presbyterian belief system. I should become Presbyterian (this would freak my husband out I think). So tell me..list the differences here..so I can ponder and make a decision.

 

[kenrapoza]

Hi Setfree2day,

My wife and I recently made a similar journey. Another person you might want to talk to on this forum is "NRB." He just moved from a Baptist church into the PCA and had a lot to think about during the transition. What you're asking can be a difficult question because there are so many different types of Baptists (Confessional vs, Non-Creedal, Arminian vs Calvinist, Dispensational vs Covenant/NCT, etc...). But anyways, some general differences between the two:

Baptism - The most obvious difference

Presbyterian: Paedobaptist - Presbyterians baptize both adult converts and covenant children while strictly denying baptismal regeneration.

Baptist: Credobaptists - Baptists only baptize adults/adolescents who have already made a profession of faith

Reformed Theology

Presbyterian: Presbyterians generally hold to a fully-orbed reformed theology which is not limited to the "5 Points of Calvinism"

Baptist: While there are reformed Baptists, they generally are only "Calvinistic" or may hold to some modified form of Covenant Theology (such as the 1689 London Baptist Confession) but generally do not fully hold to reformed theology.

The Sacraments

Presbyterian: Presbyterians believe that the sacraments are a means of Grace and believe that (for example) in the Lord's Supper Christ actually ministers to us spiritually. Not that he is physically present in the elements because he is seated at the right hand of the Father, but that he confirms his gospel to us in the sacrament and by faith we believe the gospel and receive the benefits of Christ.

Baptist: Baptists believe that the sacraments are ordinances and are memorials, but they have no efficacy in and of themselves; i.e., God isn't really "doing anything" through them, it is all about us and our convictions.

The Regulative Principle of Worship

Presbyterian: When the church gathers together in the solemn assembly of the public worship of God, our activities are to be regulated by Scripture. We are not to approach God in any other way other than that which he has provided. Therefore, our church services should only contain those elements that are specified in Scripture. We are not to invent.

Baptist: Baptists generally hold to a form of the "Normative Principle of Worship" which states that we are free to do anything in the worship service that Scripture does not specifically prohibit. Of course different congregations will practice this to varying extents .

There are other things that should be mentioned also, but this is a beginning list of basic differences. I hope this helps get the ball rolling for you!

 

[Setfree2day]

Presbyterian: Paedo baptist - Presbyterians baptize both adult converts and covenant children while strictly denying baptismal regeneration.

I seem to agree to this statement, Because from what I have learned its a covenant thing, The babies got circumcised without them professing anything..so babies can get baptized under the new covenant in the without them professing anything as well. <~~very brief summery.


I Got into a debate with some people, because he believed that the when the parents are truly saved....means that their children are of the elect, therefore, we can stand on the promises that they will be saved. If thier children do not end up being saved..then the parents need to be questioned if they were truly saved.


I had a real problem with this. when we baptize our babies, that doesn't mean they are regenerated at that moment. Though its a nice idea, but salvation is of Christ Alone, not through a baptism.But by no means can one depend on that! But I think they are more likely to be of the elect,therefore in the end saved.

The Sacraments.. hmm I haven't studied this out yet, but I see no problem at all with the way the Presbyterian hold to their beliefs. Matter of fact it seems more meaningful and correct. But then again..it doesn't matter what it seems, I need to study this out.


Thank you for taking your time and responding to me. I really appreciate it.

Christina

 

[kenrapoza]

Presbyterian: Paedo baptist - Presbyterians baptize both adult converts and covenant children while strictly denying baptismal regeneration.

I seem to agree to this statement, Because from what I have learned its a covenant thing, The babies got circumcised without them professing anything..so babies can get baptized under the new covenant in the without them professing anything as well. <~~very brief summery.

Well said. Presbyterians baptize babies not unto salvation, but unto incorporation into the covenant community. This is to say that covenant children have a "status" in the church, they are part of the visible church (an important distinction from the invisible church). However, they do not partake of communion until they make a credible profession of faith. In this sense, baptism is the rite of covenant initiation and communion is the rite of covenant renewal. Therefore, our children are not outsiders, but are set apart by God's promise to be a God unto us and to our children (c.f., Ex. 20:5-6; Deut. 7:9; 29:29). They are a part of our community where God's grace is active in a special and visible way, and therefore are set apart in a certain sense (1 Cor. 7:14). They have been brought near to the promises of God and the work of His grace.

As you mentioned, the Reformed tradition links the circumcision of the Old Covenant with baptism in the New Covenant. There is another underlying theological point here that illustrates another typical difference between Baptists and Presbyterians. The Reformed tend to see continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, but the Baptists tend to see discontinuity between these two administrations. The Reformed believe that the Old Covenant points forward to Christ through means of type and shadow, in this way even the Old Testament saints had the very same gospel preached unto them and were therefore save by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. The New Covenant reveals Christ to us in a much fuller way. Now that the reality is here, there is no more need for type and shadow. In this sense, the Reformed (Presbyterians) believe in a unity of purpose between the two Covenants (i.e., they're both all about Jesus!!).

Got into a debate with some people, because he believed that the when the parents are truly saved....means that their children are of the elect, therefore, we can stand on the promises that they will be saved. If thier children do not end up being saved..then the parents need to be questioned if they were truly saved.


I had a real problem with this. when we baptize our babies, that doesn't mean they are regenerated at that moment. Though its a nice idea, but salvation is of Christ Alone, not through a baptism.But by no means can one depend on that! But I think they are more likely to be of the elect,therefore in the end saved.

Again, you are correct to be concerned about such a position. Baptism is like preaching the gospel. Just because you give someone the gospel doesn't mean they will believe, just as baptizing a person doesn't guarantee they will believe. Remember that God's word always accomplishes its purpose (Is. 55:11). The puritans used to say that "the same sun that melts the ice hardens the clay". The preaching of the gospel will be an occasion of faith and conversion in some, and an occasion of hardening in others. However, those to whom the gospel has been preached are rejecting greater light than those who are more vague in their understanding. In the same way, baptism places one into the visible church and confirms covenant promises while at the same time confirming covenant sanctions. Here people shown a great light and are being brought face to face with the gospel.

The Sacraments.. hmm I haven't studied this out yet, but I see no problem at all with the way the Presbyterian hold to their beliefs. Matter of fact it seems more meaningful and correct. But then again..it doesn't matter what it seems, I need to study this out.

I can tell you personally that taking the Lord's Supper is much more meaningful to me now. Whenever the focus is taken off of us and our piety, and put back on how great Christ is, that's when we truly find meaning and significance.

Thank you for taking your time and responding to me. I really appreciate it.

Christina

You're most certainly welcome!

 

[green wolverine]

.
I Got into a debate with some people, because he believed that the when the parents are truly saved....means that their children are of the elect, therefore, we can stand on the promises that they will be saved. If thier children do not end up being saved..then the parents need to be questioned if they were truly saved.

Maybe I misread this, but are you saying that you don't believe this??? I would hope you don't as it's got to be one of the most extreme statements I've ever come across right up there with people thinking God withdraws the Holy Spirit when you sin.

I can think of numerous Scriptures that would disprove such a statement but it's late and I'm tired.

 

[JM]

Two books I'd recommend to anyone considering such things:

Christ of the Covenants: Amazon.ca: O. Palmer Robertson: Books

The Divine Covenants by A. W. Pink Feileadh Mor

 

[Tangible]

Thread title made me do it.

YouTube - The Vapors - Turning Japanese

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Any followup from the OP on this? Very curious about it.

 

[heymikey80]

Maybe I misread this, but are you saying that you don't believe this??? I would hope you don't as it's got to be one of the most extreme statements I've ever come across right up there with people thinking God withdraws the Holy Spirit when you sin.

I can think of numerous Scriptures that would disprove such a statement but it's late and I'm tired.

I think it can be an issue of whether we've done justice to God in our lives as parents, more than a rejection of the "promise to you and your children".

Ultimately Dordt leads us to assume beforehand that our children are the subjects of that promise. Afterward I think we need to do more than assign the unbelieving child to the heap of the reprobate, as well. We hold some accountability here as secondary agents of God's grace.

 

[Judson]

The 1689 LBC is Calvinistic and essentially Reformed (except for paedobaptism). It confesses the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacraments, so no, it's not just a memorial.

Only "convert" if you believe that the Bible commands us to baptize infants.

I have yet to hear a cognent answer to the question of the relationship between covenant membership and personal salvation. From what I gather, the new covenant members are not necessarily elected persons. I have a problem with this.. just my two cents.

 

[heymikey80]

Turning Japanese -- funny! Hey, maybe we can come up with a parody.

I'm turning Presbyterian // I'm turning Presbyterian
I think, so I'm turning Presbyterian // I'm turning Presbyterian
I think, so ...

Hm, maybe too much of the actual lyrics work well for it to be a parody:

"No sex, no drugs, no wine, no women
No fun, no sin, no you, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger
Everyone avoids me like a cyclone ranger"

 

[AMR]

I have yet to hear a cognent answer to the question of the relationship between covenant membership and personal salvation. From what I gather, the new covenant members are not necessarily elected persons. I have a problem with this.. just my two cents.

This may get you started into digging deeper:

Westminster Seminary California clark

AMR

 

[kenrapoza]

This may get you started into digging deeper:

Westminster Seminary California clark

AMR

Great link! Clark is very prolific on this subject.

 

[JohnKnox87]

A while back I had a similar thought whether or not to become presbyterian. I'm about 95% in agreement with presbyterians anyway. After thinking through all the issues I found there were two major beliefs which marked me out as being Baptist - The strong conviction that only believers should be baptised and the principle of congregational autonomy of which I'm a firm believer. I do hold some non-baptist views (eg. that pouring and sprinkling is also valid methods of baptism etc) but primarily I'm Baptist. Apart from these two points I'm in complete agreement with presbyterians.

 

[mannysee]

This may get you started into digging deeper:

Westminster Seminary California clark

AMR

I enjoyed that. Pretty much sold on it.Convinces me once again that baptizing children is the right thing to do.(been thinking about this for a couple of years).As for the congregational autonomy thing, I will have to consider this a bit more.

 

[heymikey80]

Sorry if I'm repeating this.

Romans 4 is an interesting discussion, because few people look at how it turns out. Most Baptists validly point out that Abraham's circumcision was after belief. But Paul's projection onto the circumcised in Romans 4:12 is uniformly affirmative toward those who are infant-circumcised and who walk in Abraham's faith. There's no need for another circumcision (whatever that would be).

 

[kenrapoza]

Sorry if I'm repeating this.

Romans 4 is an interesting discussion, because few people look at how it turns out. Most Baptists validly point out that Abraham's circumcision was after belief. But Paul's projection onto the circumcised in Romans 4:12 is uniformly affirmative toward those who are infant-circumcised and who walk in Abraham's faith. There's no need for another circumcision (whatever that would be).

There's another good point made in Rom. 4 that goes along with yours. Some folks object to the Reformed Christian stating that circumcision was also a sign of personal faith, and that it wasn't just a sign of external blessings. But Paul says in Rom. 4:11 that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." We can see that in Paul's mind, circumcision did point to personal faith, which is why we read such language of a "circumcised heart" pertaining to those who truly believe in the God of the Bible. This is significant because we see then that at least in some point in salvation history, God required His covenant people to administer the sign and seal of personal faith to infants who did not yet understand the Biblical faith.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I think I'm turning Presbyterian

Happens to the best of us!

 

[Inkfingers]

Sorry what on earth is "full orbed"?

 

[faroukfarouk]

On of my big questions in all this is: are we talking about Jews in the Old Testament, the New Testament church?

Many of the Reformed persuasion get very vague about these distinctions, and some will even deny there is any difference.

We have been studying not long ago the Acts of the Apostles, which is often described as transitional.

This begs the question, transitional from what? to what?

I have heard people of the Reformed persuasion argue that the church is an extension of the synagogue; which presumably begs the question: what about Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came to indwell the church of Christ?