Advice needed

[Christopher Robin]

My letter, sent today to the leadership of my church:

As I continue my study of Covenant Theology, it seems to make more and more sense to think of all the covenants since the "Covenant of Works" (prior to the Fall in the garden) as "different administrations" of one single "Covenant of Grace" from Adam (after the Fall) to the New Covenant.

This was never adequately explained to me during my days as a Presbyterian. It was just, "We baptize babies because we're Presbyterians." Gimme a break, defend the practice from Scripture or else just shut up. Besides, the word Presbyterian is a reference to a church's polity, not it's doctrine. Covenant Baptist Church is "presbyterian" in that regard for goodnessakes.

But now...

I actually think I finally understand the doctrinal/biblical reasons for "covenant baptism" as well as believers' baptism. And it makes so much sense to me now that I can't dismiss it anymore as "some left-over relic of pre-Reformation Romanism." There are important theological reasons for the practice, it seems to me, and I may find myself at odds with the London Baptist Confession. I would choose the Westminster Confession over the LBC.

Is that a problem for me? Would it jeopardize my good-faith membership at Covenant Baptist Church? Even if not, should I consider a church that more fully embraces the doctrinal position my studies have led me to?

Thanks for a prayerful and plain reply,
Robin

I ask the same question now of my friends here at the Puritan Board. With thanks in advance for thoughtful replies. I'd rather stay put, but if they forbid me to teach anymore at that church, then it might be problem. What do y'all think?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

My question to you, what kind of study have you done on the Covenantal underpinnings of Believer's Baptism only?

I respect that you are studying the issue and not just saying "we did it because we were Presbyterian". To be fair, and even speaking as a Baptist, I'm sorry that your old Presbyterian church didn't inculcate you better into Reformed Covenant Theology. Even as a Reformed Baptist I can appreciate a lot of the work that Reformed Paedobaptists put into the topic of Covenant Theology. I just think that the Baptist Formulation (the one commonly called "1689 Federalism these days" is the more complete and therefore superior brand.

Please don't sell yourself short by not looking into both sides before making a doctrinal shift that puts you at odds with your church.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

According to your PB bio, you don't hold any formal church office. You have no ordination to demit.
You shouldn't teach the doctrine of classic Covenant Theology in a context where that doctrine is resisted.
Perhaps you shouldn't teach at your present church, period; but it would be the decision of church whether to allow someone to serve in that way who did not fully subscribe to the church's confession.

Unless you feel compelled to be a teacher, even without being called to ordained office, I don't know why you could not submit to being a simple member, as God has directed you. You would need to accept teaching, even on baptism, as someone whose position in the church demands teachability. Your church-home is likely a place where you have given and been given great comfort, so it is expected to be a place and people you recognize as a dear possession.

On the other hand, I should inquire: what would prevent you from seeking out a faithful Presbyterian church in your area? Such a church should be doctrinally consistent with your views, and be filled with accurate and faithful gospel preaching. It is a place where you might well find a new church-family, a new group to love and serve to, serve along side, and receive love. It could be a place that also valued your teaching contribution.

But suppose the Presbyterian church could not find you a place to teach, in Sunday School or Bible study, or the like? Is teaching a privilege, or a right? Is it a calling? If the latter, then God will open the door. It's possible to want to teach for the wrong, as well as for the right reasons. Does teaching promote pride in you? If so, God might desire your sanctification through deprivation, until or unless that tendency can be curbed.

You are an older man, who has been respected and honored with permission to *shine* in your current church. I do not know you well enough to say if pride is a danger in your case. You could benefit from a season in your present church where you simply practice submission. And, you could benefit from another season of quiet submission, and patient evaluation of your gifts--a "starting over" in another setting entirely.

I think you should pray for God's wisdom to show you an honorable path, and then take it; and let him direct your footsteps as you go.

 

[Christopher Robin]

Well, my goodness! I have taught at my current church, and I do most of my teaching in writing (articles and such, a few of them have gotten published in magazines and the like). I consider it a calling, and have served both as a Deacon and an Elder in a previous church before we moved up here from Florida. As an Elder I did a lot of teaching. There is a PCA church in town, and if need be I'll consider it. But the PCA's history in this town is very weird. One church split three ways, into three churches, two of which dissolved and the one remaining seems to be on life support. It rents it's current facilities from our church - which bought the building that used to be the original PCA church building! As long as they let me stay, I'll stay put. If the Lord calls me to teach, it seems less likely, but who knows.

The long answer is for Shawn Patrick Cornell:

Thanks for the question! I don't wish to have the thread turned into yet another debate, but I summarized why I became a Baptist a few years back in this blog post on a friend's blog. There I explain what I perceived at the time to be the differences between (Reformed) Baptists and Presbyterians.

• Different hermeneutics,
• different treatment of the Covenants, and
• different interpretations of the Regulative Principle of Worship.

I think you'll get a laugh out of the meme I used in that blog post, too.

1 - It seems to me that even the Apostle Paul used "good and necessary consequence" in reasoning out his arguments in his Epistles, as in 1 Cor 7:14, for example. He is writing to a Gentile church here, not a Jewish one, yet he applies covenant terms.

2 - I have come to see the covenants since the Fall as Presbyterians do: Different administrations of one single Covenant of Grace, culminating in the New Covenant. It is new with respect to Moses, not completely and totally new and foreign to the prior covenants. It changes the meaning of Jeremiah 31:31ff completely in my opinion. And lastly,

3 - If (since) the New Covenant is the final fulfillment and culmination of the Covenant with Moses (and David, and Abraham), so must the covenant signs. Yes, I arrive at that conclusion (that covenant baptism is commanded) by "good and necessary consequence."

This is just a li'l summary of how I ended up. Feel free to nitpick, but I truly don't want to turn this thread into a whole 'nother debate to add to the zillions of unending ones already ongoing.

 

[Christopher Robin]

The good news today is that I'm not on "double secret probation" or anything at my current "Reformed" SBC church, so for now there's no reason to look elsewhere.

I did visit two PCA churches near me. One was when we first moved to this little town 3 years ago. It was barely hanging on, more like a mission church than a particularized PCA church. Two or three people doing all the work, the rest pew-sitters (that according to an Elder there). Last weekend I visited another PCA church, slightly farther away but no big deal as far as distance goes, and found the same thing. One single family does literally all the work there. The teaching, preaching, song service, administration, building maintenance, Ev. Re. Thing. There is one other Elder ("Ruling" Elder") who does who knows what if anything.

In my mind, these are not truly churches at all. If the saints are not being equipped for the work of ministry so that only one or two people are doing everything and everyone else is along for the ride, it's not functioning as a church in any way. Except maybe the administration of the Sacraments.

I wonder how this gets to be the "norm" in churches. It shouldn't be! The harvest is ripe, and the workers few indeed.

 

[Grant]

In my mind, these are not truly churches at all. If the saints are not being equipped for the work of ministry so that only one or two people are doing everything and everyone else is along for the ride, it's not functioning as a church in any way. Except maybe the administration of the Sacraments.

Well to modify a quote from friend/retired PCA TE, if every visiting family who left because the church was “too” small just stayed, we would have a larger church body.

You may see the the glass as half empty in those congregations, but what if the Lord has given you Presbyterian convictions and equipped you with gifts to be used in those “dwindling” congregations vs. serving an SBC body that by your comparison would seem not to have those same issues. A church doesn’t need tons of volunteer programs and “sharing the load” of said programs to be a church. The essentials would be: administration of word and sacrament by a called & ordained TE, public worship on the Lord’s Day, and church discipline (including membership). And yes those duties most directly involve elders for execution. Those PCA congregations are still true churches so long as faithful attempts are being made at the above, regardless of the number of volunteers for the extra stuff. Sometimes it takes a season of visiting vs. the one and done (though there are likely many exceptions to that).

 

[B.L.]

The good news today is that I'm not on "double secret probation" or anything at my current "Reformed" SBC church, so for now there's no reason to look elsewhere.

I did visit two PCA churches near me. One was when we first moved to this little town 3 years ago. It was barely hanging on, more like a mission church than a particularized PCA church. Two or three people doing all the work, the rest pew-sitters (that according to an Elder there). Last weekend I visited another PCA church, slightly farther away but no big deal as far as distance goes, and found the same thing. One single family does literally all the work there. The teaching, preaching, song service, administration, building maintenance, Ev. Re. Thing. There is one other Elder ("Ruling" Elder") who does who knows what if anything.

In my mind, these are not truly churches at all. If the saints are not being equipped for the work of ministry so that only one or two people are doing everything and everyone else is along for the ride, it's not functioning as a church in any way. Except maybe the administration of the Sacraments.

Quite a sweeping indictment based on what I imagine was a brief visit...one that reads rather "snooty" in my opinion. Considering you seek to serve the Church in an elder-like capacity perhaps these little PCA congregations are exactly the right fit for you.

If a street sweeper lamented the fact that the roads were dirty and preferred to work in a part of town where the streets were already clean what would that say about the street sweeper? Something to ponder.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

My letter, sent today to the leadership of my church:




I ask the same question now of my friends here at the Puritan Board. With thanks in advance for thoughtful replies. I'd rather stay put, but if they forbid me to teach anymore at that church, then it might be problem. What do y'all think?

Hello Christopher,

I attended a Baptist church for 13 years and it wasn't until recently that I switched to a presbyterian church. The Covenant of Works won't be found in many dispensational baptist churches but you will find them in churches adhering to a form of Covenant Theology. In short, doctrinal reasons like this are good reasons to find a new church. I am not sure where all your research resided and if my comments are presumptuous forgive me,

. . .but you could checkout 1689 Federalism and Progressive Covenantalism to see if you agree with those perspectives. They both view a Covenant of Works in the garden but interpret the covenants differently from Genesis 3 up to the New Testament. They would say one covenant and one administration instead of two but force a discontinuity between Old and New Testaments that aligns with credobaptism.

After my long days and nights reading and studying I felt that the Progressive Covenantalism view made popular by Wellum/Gentry was flawed. 1689 Federalism is slightly different but very similar in their approach. I found that the traditional view was aligned more to what I believed. The issue you may discover is that if you agree with one of the below views you will be hard pressed to find churches that teach them. At least where I live I am only aware of 1 Progressive Covenantalism Church and no 1689 Federalist churches.

Here is their 1689 Federalism Website and their views are nicely summarized in this works.

Video that compares the two but its biased in that it was created by the 1689 Federalists-

1689 Federalism Works

1. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom, Samuel Renihan
2. The Distinctiveness of 17th Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology, Pascal Denault
3. Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, various

Progressive Covenantalism Works (Branch of New Covenant Theology)

1. Article by Gentry - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/progressive-covenantalism-and-new-covenant-theology/
2. Smaller work for Progressive Covenantalism - Progressive Covenantalism
3. The more detailed work is called Kingdom Through Covenant 2nd Edition

 

[Christopher Robin]

About being snooty, well... Both of the churches I visited have been around for many years. I did more than simply visit a single service, but corresponded with both pastors and met with them. The conclusion I reached - that neither functions as a true church should - are valid in my opinion, since no one is being equipped to do the work of ministry. Yes they are small churches (which I prefer, actually), but if no one but the pastor and his family is doing any of the work of ministry in all the years these churches have been around, then they are not equipping the saints for the work of ministry, and adding new "talent" is not going to solve that problem.

My SBC church is not dispensational by any means. I found it on the Founders web site and the Reformed doctrines of Sovereign Grace are clearly taught there (5 Solas, Five "points"). The only thing that has changed is that I finally understand covenant theology, having read a lot of Reformed literature, and have come to a better understanding of why ("fully") Reformed churches practice paedobaptism alongside believers' baptism. I have come to embrace that view of the Covenants, but I think that by itself is not sufficient biblical reason to leave my church.

 

[Pilgrim]

About being snooty, well... Both of the churches I visited have been around for many years. I did more than simply visit a single service, but corresponded with both pastors and met with them. The conclusion I reached - that neither functions as a true church should - are valid in my opinion, since no one is being equipped to do the work of ministry. Yes they are small churches (which I prefer, actually), but if no one but the pastor and his family is doing any of the work of ministry in all the years these churches have been around, then they are not equipping the saints for the work of ministry, and adding new "talent" is not going to solve that problem.

My SBC church is not dispensational by any means. I found it on the Founders web site and the Reformed doctrines of Sovereign Grace are clearly taught there (5 Solas, Five "points"). The only thing that has changed is that I finally understand covenant theology, having read a lot of Reformed literature, and have come to a better understanding of why ("fully") Reformed churches practice paedobaptism alongside believers' baptism. I have come to embrace that view of the Covenants, but I think that by itself is not sufficient biblical reason to leave my church.

I think you may have a good bit more to learn, with all due respect. Many Presbyterians, especially more confessional ones, believe that only ministers do the "work of the ministry." This older view is reflected in the punctuation of the verse in question in the KJV (and ASV, I think) in contrast to newer versions. The older ones say "Equipping the saints, for the work of the ministry..." instead of "Equipping the saints for the work of the ministry." In other words, the older understanding was that there were two things here, and not just one. I don't have time to look now but perhaps this is reflected in the Westminster Standards as well. The kind of democratic way of doing things that you've known among the Baptists is generally foreign to confessional Presbyterians. Now, that may be right or that may be wrong, but to some degree this is another difference between Baptists and Presbyterians. There is more to it than questions over the sacraments.

That being said, you may be right that there is some issue with these churches. But also know that historically Presbyterians have seen this differently than Baptists do. You normally can't be installed as the pastor of a Presbyterian church without having a M.Div. whereas there are Baptist pastors, even Calvinistic ones, that have a High School education at most.

Some would argue that having every Tom, Dick, and Harry "doing the work of the ministry" is how you end up with the likes of Beth Moore in pulpits. You will often hear that "a woman can do anything that an unordained man can do." That always elicits a chuckle out of me. In the OPC congregation I used to attend, no one but the Teaching Elder (i.e. the pastor) did anything in public worship unless he was absent and no other ordained minister was available to fill the pulpit. It wasn't due to a lack of gifting on the part of others either. The Ruling Elders were gifted teachers as well, and many people would have been able to do other things in worship. Somehow, we managed to sing hymns as a congregation without a song leader, much less a "Worship pastor." The pastor called out the hymn or Psalm and away we went. Evidently that is unimaginable to most contemporary churchgoers, whether high church or low.

Did you know that the Westminster standards say that only the minister is allowed to read the Scriptures in public worship?

 

[RobertPGH1981]

I have come to embrace that view of the Covenants, but I think that by itself is not sufficient biblical reason to leave my church.

I am assuming that you don't have children. Its true that you can remain since you wouldn't be faced with the question of having your children baptized. The dynamics change when you have children.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Did you know that the Westminster standards say that only the minister is allowed to read the Scriptures in public worship?

Where? I read WCF 21 before which says the scriptures are to be read in worship, but it does not specify that the minister alone reads the scriptures in public worship. Is this requirement in another standard?

 

[MChase]

Where? I read WCF 21 before which says the scriptures are to be read in worship, but it does not specify that the minister alone reads the scriptures in public worship. Is this requirement in another standard?

Not directly, but there is a limit on who may read in public worship. There is a fittingness to the minister reading, and in the absence of a minister a ruling elder.

Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?
A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.

The directory for worship, which hardly anyone in the US cares about anymore does address the issue directly.

READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God, (wherein we acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.

 

[Pilgrim]

Maybe. I remember it being a topic of discussion here in the past. I don’t know if it is maybe in the WLC or perhaps the Directory for Public Worship.

Regardless it’s an example of the kind of thing that is shocking to most evangelicals today, whether Baptist or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Not directly, but there is a limit on who may read in public worship. There is a fittingness to the minister reading, and in the absence of a minister a ruling elder.

Q. 156. Is the Word of God to be read by all?
A. Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.

The directory for worship, which hardly anyone in the US cares about anymore does address the issue directly.

READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God, (wherein we acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be performed by the pastors and teachers.

The scripture proof makes the case it is ecclesiastical but it is true you need the directory to tie it all nicely up. It's a shame folks have forgotten there was a package deal, and original intent cannot be divorced from the implications of all the documents the assembly drafted.

 

[Christopher Robin]

I do indeed have a lot to learn. And I must admit, I find the requirement of ordination as a teaching elder in order to read the Scriptures publicly to be befuddling and strange.

 

[MChase]

I do indeed have a lot to learn. And I must admit, I find the requirement of ordination as a teaching elder in order to read the Scriptures publicly to be befuddling and strange.

Think of it a bit differently. Instead of wondering where you see the reading of scriptures in public worship restricted to someone, find all the places in scripture where the reading of scriptures is done and note who does it. Our rule isn’t to look for explicit condemnation of certain things, but to follow the commands and examples. Then following the rule of worship, we can conclude ministers are to conduct public worship.

 

[Christopher Robin]

Thank you, MChase! That was very helpful!

 

[Andrew35]

Somehow, we managed to sing hymns as a congregation without a song leader, much less a "Worship pastor." The pastor called out the hymn or Psalm and away we went. Evidently that is unimaginable to most contemporary churchgoers, whether high church or low.

Psalms and hymns are easy to sing. But you ever hear a modern worship song that didn't have that awkward pause that only God and the worship leader know how long is supposed to go on?

 

[Christopher Robin]

I'm not suggesting that every church should have an orchestra and choir and professional full-time musicians and all the rest, but I'd sure like that better than a "praise band" of guitars, bass, and drums like we have in our church (and probably most churches now). Yet some of the sweetest and deepest times of worship for me have been in small groups, singing unaccompanied selections from a Psalter.

 

[B.L.]

I'm not suggesting that every church should have an orchestra and choir and professional full-time musicians and all the rest, but I'd sure like that better than a "praise band" of guitars, bass, and drums like we have in our church (and probably most churches now). Yet some of the sweetest and deepest times of worship for me have been in small groups, singing unaccompanied selections from a Psalter.

I feel the same way and while I agree I would say this is a form of emotion-driven pragmatism that is in itself also quite subjective. There really is no difference between a select group of singers wearing matching choir robes with hymnals in hand and a select group of singers scattered about the "stage" reading CCM lyrics off an electronic device. I suppose it's a matter of individual taste, which when you think of it shows just how infected we have become with consumerism in our churches. I digress.

 

[Ed Walsh]

And I must admit, I find the requirement of ordination as a teaching elder in order to read the Scriptures publicly to be befuddling and strange.

From the PCA Book of Church Order

CHAPTER 50​

The Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures​

​

50-1. The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is performed by the​

minister as God’s servant. Through it God speaks most directly to the​

congregation, even more directly than through the sermon. The reading of​

the Scriptures by the minister is to be distinguished from the responsive​

reading of certain portions of Scripture by the minister and the congregation.​

In the former God addresses His people; in the latter God’s people give​

expression in the words of Scripture to their contrition, adoration, gratitude​

and other holy sentiments.​

​

(but then they mess it up by adding a second paragraph)​

​

50-2. The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is a part of​

the public worship of God and should be done by the minister or some other​

person.​

From The Form of Presbyterial Church Government, by The Westminister Assembly

Pastors​

​

THE pastor is an ordinary and perpetual officer in the church,e prophesying of the time of the gospel.f​

First, it belongs to his office,​

To pray for and with his flock, as the mouth of the people unto God, [omitted]​

​

To read the scriptures publicly; for the proof of which,​

1. That the priests and Levites in the Jewish church were trusted with the public reading of the word, is proved.k​

2. That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the law, proved, Isa. 66:21. Mat. 23:34; where our Saviour entitleth the officers of the New Testament, whom he will send forth, by the same names of the teachers of the Old.l​

Which propositions prove, that therefore (the duty being of a moral nature) it followeth by just consequence, that the public reading of the scriptures belongeth to the pastor’s office.​

Westminster Assembly. (1851). The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (pp. 507–509). Philadelphia: William S. Young.

 

[C4MERON]

What about precenting or public prayer? Are there any directions regarding these blessed duties?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor]

Psalms and hymns are easy to sing. But you ever hear a modern worship song that didn't have that awkward pause that only God and the worship leader know how long is supposed to go on?

Not to mention many of the melodies are plain unsingable. When most of those songwriters write their songs they are thinking of one person only: themselves. Never the congregation. Who cares if the melody is heavily syncopated, has octave leaps everywhere, and is out of most men's vocal range? As long as the band leader can sing it, it’s all good.

 

[Edward]

Not to mention many of the melodies are plain unsingable. When most of those songwriters write their songs they are thinking of one person only: themselves.

I'd modify that a bit. Most are written for performance, not worship, and certainly not for group worship. Ever run across one where the timing changes several times within the verse? I usually don't even try to sing along with those.

From the PCA Book of Church Order

Most of which can be freely ignored. Didn't the recently go from two to three chapters that are supposed to be observed?

 

[Romans922]

I'm not suggesting that every church should have an orchestra and choir and professional full-time musicians and all the rest, but I'd sure like that better than a "praise band" of guitars, bass, and drums like we have in our church (and probably most churches now). Yet some of the sweetest and deepest times of worship for me have been in small groups, singing unaccompanied selections from a Psalter.

I’ll be very pointed. It doesn’t matter what you want or think is better or even what is the most sweetest/deepest times of spirituality. The question is what has the Lord commanded to be done in His worship (not your worship)? He determined what is the sweetest and deepest times of communion with Him

As to who may read Scripture in public worship…this is from my work.


Reading Of Scripture

1. Ezra (priest) read the Word of God to the congregation (Neh. 8:1-8; 13:1ff); priests read (Neh. 9:3-5). In those same passages, after the Word read, the Levites taught and expounded (to give the sense - e.g. Neh. 8:8). The priests were ordained ministers (Joel 1:9; Joel 2:17).
2. Jesus read the Scriptures in the Synagogue (Luke 4:16) with application (Luke 4:21).
3. Scriptures were read in the synagogues every Sabbath (Acts 15:21; 13:14-15, 27).
4. Scriptures were read and then preached (Acts 13:16ff).
5. Scriptures were read before the Church--so as to be taught (Acts 2:42).
6. Who is to read the Scriptures in worship? Ordained leaders.
   1. In extraordinary times - a king or prophet (2 Kings. 23:1-3; Jer. 36).
   2. Ordinarily, divinely appointed church leaders (Deut. 31:9; Neh. 8; Lev. 10:8-11; Mal. 2:7).
      1. Ministry of elders continues the ordinary ministry of the Levites (Lev. 10:11; Mal. 2:7; 1 Tim. 3:2, 5:17; Titus 1:9ff, Isa. 66:21).
      2. Elders focused on the Word (Acts 6:4).
      3. Timothy (Pastor) was charged with reading the Word as part of his ministry (1 Ti. 4:13-14).