Ask a Presbyterian

[Willtor]

Thank you.

Welcome.

 

[mdseverin]

Hi, I was brought up Lutheran (ELCA) and as I explore my faith I am find that this church is too liberal for me. However, the other Lutheran branch (Missouri Synod) is too conservative. I have been looking at other denominations and it seems like Presbyterian churches have similar beliefs. I was wondering if anyone could point out any main differences for me.

I would also like to know more about the differences between the PCA and the EPC.

 

[mdseverin]

One more thing. If I attend a PCA or EPC church service, will I be denied communion since I am Lutheran?

 

[Anoetos]

One more thing. If I attend a PCA or EPC church service, will I be denied communion since I am Lutheran?

No. Presbyterians do not practice closed communion, but rather merely restrict communion to baptized members of Christian churches.

Also, you should probably know that, in many ways, the PCA is just as conservative as the LCMS (I was LCMS for years). On the other hand, it's not as "liturgical", so maybe you could tell us when you say that the LCMS is too conservative.

 

[mdseverin]

No. Presbyterians do not practice closed communion, but rather merely restrict communion to baptized members of Christian churches.

Also, you should probably know that, in many ways, the PCA is just as conservative as the LCMS (I was LCMS for years). On the other hand, it's not as "liturgical", so maybe you could tell us when you say that the LCMS is too conservative.

The LCMS is dead set against open communion. That is my biggest issue with them. I just don't agree with it. I think the Bible's intent is that as long as you have faith in Christ and understand what the Eucharist is (or represents), you should be free to commune.

I could go either way with female pastors. At the time of the post it was just another reason why they seemed conservative for me. I know the PCA does not ordain woman. I have been praying about the issue lately, and while I still think there is nothing wrong with a female pastor, I accept that perhaps God only intended men to be in that role.

As far as liturgical, I actually kind of like it. That's a reason why I consider myself Lutheran.

 

[ratchet30]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around predestination. I see that God predestines some to salvation. But does God predetermine when I sneeze, where every piece of dust settles, etc? Could God predetermine that I think I'm saved?

 

[Anoetos]

Well, you're not talking about "open communion". Open Communion is the belief that anyone, even unbelievers, should be invited to commune.

What you're talking about is sometimes called "restrictive" communion. Its what we do in my (PCA) church: if you're baptized, confess faith in Christ and are a member in good standing of an Evangelical (using the old meaning of Gospel-believing) Church, you are welcome.

 

[Glorious Sunlight]

I was reading a post above about communion and baptized members of a Christian church. I don't consider myself a Catholic anymore, just a Christian, but I haven't been baptized according to the Bible, so would I be able to take communion?

 

[hedrick]

I was reading a post above about communion and baptized members of a Christian church. I don't consider myself a Catholic anymore, just a Christian, but I haven't been baptized according to the Bible, so would I be able to take communion?

The rules say no, at least in the PCUSA. We assume that any Christian will be baptized, since Jesus tells us to be. That doesn't mean that everyone who is unbaptized is damned: God certainly makes allowances for unusual cases, and people who are followers of Jesus but for some reason didn't get baptized. But still, public things like communion should be done by people who are publicly Christian.

However, having said that, I can say that churches with open communion, such as the PCUSA don't actually enforce this. We do consider communion a sign of faith in Christ, so we want you to be a Christian, but I'm fairly sure that most PCUSA congregations don't make any attempt to enforce requirements such as baptism.

The most likely situation where this would come up within the church is a child who wasn't baptized as an infant but hasn't gone through confirmation class yet. Typically older children who aren't baptized hold off baptism until confirmation. Even though I disagree with holding baptism in such a situation, I wouldn't excommunicate the child because of it. I've had this situation in a junior high Sunday School class. We have communion with the class occasionally. We've now and then had someone who is active in the Church but isn't baptized. They've still been included in the service.

The more conservative Presbyterian churches will do more checking on visitors who want to take communion. I'd imagine that they would expect you to be a member in good standard of a church with a compatible understanding of the sacraments. That would mean baptism.

Still, baptism is a means which God uses to help us. Even though I oppose legalistic or superstitious approaches to baptism, I can't imagine why any Christian wouldn't use it. If you're in the process of arranging for baptism, I'd probably hold communion until you're baptized.

 

[Anoetos]

First of all: what do you mean by "baptized according to the Bible"?

We're you baptized at all? Was it in a Catholic church? In most cases that would be sufficient to not warrant doing it again.

The main point though, is really about being connected organically with the body of Christ by membership in a Christian Church.

 

[Glorious Sunlight]

I said baptized according to the Bible because the Christians I have talked to said that to take communion or participate in the service I need to be immersed in water. They don't hold infant baptism as true.
Do Presbyterians not take the Bible literally whenever it comes to baptism?
I was baptized in the Catholic Church yes as an infant.

 

[Albion]

I said baptized according to the Bible because the Christians I have talked to said that to take communion or participate in the service I need to be immersed in water. They don't hold infant baptism as true.
Do Presbyterians not take the Bible literally whenever it comes to baptism?
I was baptized in the Catholic Church yes as an infant.

Presbyterians baptise infants with water but do not require immersion, if that's what you mean.

 

[Anoetos]

In short: if you wanted to join a Presbyterian Church, you would probably not be required to undergo another baptism. On the other hand, whether you are a "member in good standing of a bible believing church" would probably need to be looked into by the session of that church.

 

[Anoetos]

And THAT said, joining a Presbyterian church, while not something to be entered into lightly, is not normally an arduous or particularly time consuming process. At my church it requires about 6-8 hours in a class and then an interview with a couple elders.

The class takes place over a couple evenings and its purpose is to outline some theological basics and let you know what the church expects from its members.

 

[hedrick]

As you may know, the Bible does not actually say whether infants can be baptized or not. This has led to two major approaches. Some groups have convinced themselves that the Bible unambiguously supports their position, but I'm convinced they are wrong. The two traditions understand the meaning of baptism differently. Arminians understand it as indicating our decision for Christ. Reformed Christians understand it is symbolizing Christ's decision for us, i.e. his dying for us before we were capable of responding to him.

If you're interested in the Presbyterian tradition, as you seem to be, be aware that it emphasizes God's grace, believing that God chooses us before we are in any position to respond to him, grafts us into Christ, and we then respond in faith, with repentance and a Christian life. Because we see faith as a response to God's initiative, we tend to give credit to God for our faith, and don't emphasize the human decision as much as typical evangelicals do.

Thus we baptize children of believing parents, believing that they are a real part of the Church (1 Cor 7:14), although of course as they become older we ask them to responsibility for their faith. We read Acts as saying that entire families were baptized.

However we accept all baptisms with water in the name of the Trinity. As far as I know the only groups whose baptisms we wouldn't accept are non-Trinitarians, because they either don't baptize as Jesus instructs (in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit), or they mean something very different by those words than Trinitarians do. Thus Presbyterians would accept "believer's baptism" done by most groups, and certainly Catholic baptism. The only issue I've heard of has been with Mormon baptism.

 

[Vicomte13]

Got a question about Presbyterianism? Ask away and I am confident someone here will have the answer for you. As we start to populate this forum with discussion topics some answers will probably be pointers to other discussion threads in this forum.
AMR

What is the final highest authority in Presbyterianism?

 

[Albion]

.

 

[hedrick]

What is the final highest authority in Presbyterianism?

God.

Scripture.

Leadership, and in some denominations, members, promise to be guided by Confessions is interpreting Scripture. For the conservative denominations, it is expected that this means very little departure from the Westminster Confession. In the PCUSA guidance by the confessions is looser.

In terms of our organization, Presbyterian groups generally have a national council, the General Assembly. Individual churches have a Session. On a roughly State level there's a Presbytery. Depending upon denomination there may be an intermediate level. In general larger units can review lower levels. However much legal control they have depends upon denomination.

There are also two world bodies, one for conservative churches and the other liberal churches. They have no legal authority over the churches, acting primarily as a way to facilitate cooperation. The liberal body did conduct a heresy trial of the South African Dutch Reformed Church during the apartheid period, but I'm not aware of any other event like that.

 

[Doulos 7]

Got a question about Presbyterianism? Ask away and I am confident someone here will have the answer for you. As we start to populate this forum with discussion topics some answers will probably be pointers to other discussion threads in this forum.

AMR

What is your biblical authority for sprinkling?

 

[AMR]

What is your biblical authority for sprinkling?

Heb. 10:22
Ezek. 36:25
Nu. 8:7; 19:9, 12-13, 18-21; 31:23; cf. Heb. 9:13
Heb. 9:10, "divers washings" lit. baptisms
Ex. 24:8; Lev. 14:1-7; Heb. 9:19-22

Scripture does not clearly teach immersion. The meaning of baptism points more to our union with Christ and any debates about the "true mode" of baptism makes the focus not Christ but a quantity of water.

"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.19).​

Reformed Westminster Standards supports both sprinkling and pouring.

The Reformed believe sprinkling to be either the or a proper mode of baptism from scripture; we understand the picture of the covenant people being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, even as Israel was sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices when her covenant was established; and of which the Old Testament washings were symbolic, etc. We can demonstrate this exegetically. Whether the baptist agrees with our paedo exegesis is one thing, but I am quite certain that most sober-minded baptists will acknowledge the consistency and legitimacy of paedobaptist, covenantal exegesis.