11 comments

1. Thank you guys for the thoughtful response and discussion. My only follow-up would be that Belgic 29 says, “makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments
   *as Christ instituted them*.”

   I understand that Baptists *do* baptize and administer the Supper (though most use grape juice instead of wine. But that’s a different question altogether.), but they don’t do so as Christ instituted them. So, if an essential mark of the church is administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them, then wouldn’t it be the case that a church must administer only the two sacraments and do so as Christ instituted them (which I’d say would include infant baptism)?

   It seems to me that the more or less pure application wouldn’t include denying one of the sacraments to those who are due it.

   Thanks in advance for any response!

   Reply ↓

   • Jared,

     I agree with you that Baptist congregations lack the marks of a true church precisely because they don’t practice the “pure administration” of the sacraments. Setting aside the substitution of elements (which we discuss in an upcoming episode) their refusal to acknowledge the children of believers as members of the covenant of grace is denounced by the Reformed churches:

     For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children. And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ” (Belgic Confession art. 24)

     This is why I say that Particular Baptist congregations are, at best, irregular.

     My case is that the “more or less pure” language of the WCF isn’t really answering the question about whether the Baptists are true churches. It’s answering the question, where was your church before the Reformation?

     A congregation must be a church before it can be “more or less pure” and the question is whether Baptist congregations can be seen as churches and not sects. The Reformed regularly denounced the Anabaptist congregations as sects and fanatics precisely for doing what all Baptist churches do: denying baptism to the children of believers.

     Reply ↓

     • So then how should we understand Baptist churches? Should we recognize them as true churches or false churches? Or do you think it’s best to leave at them being at best irregular at worst false?

       Reply ↓

       • Jared,

         I think we should distinguish between kinds of Baptists. The Particular Baptists are closer to us and confess the same gospel we confess, which is not always true of General Baptists or non-confessional Baptistic churches.

         The Reformed churches have never spoken to the status of Baptist churches. It’s an inference but I think it’s a good and necessary consequence of our confession that all Baptists lack one of the three marks of the true church.

         Yet, in view of the fact that they are with us on so many other issues, it seems charitable to call them irregular or something like that, as we discussed in the episode.

         When the Belgic says “false,” it’s principally referring to Rome. The Anabaptists were routinely described as sects. The Particular Baptist still have sect-like qualities because they reject historic understanding of the Old Testament and the continuity of the covenant of grace.

         It’s a messy situation.

         Reply ↓

         • Messy it is! Much of my family and some of my best friends are particular Baptist. I believe PBs are genuine Christians so it’d be hard to call their churches false. I think calling them irregular (because of their differences with the Anabaptists and papists, and because of the historical context of the confession) is an acceptable, though tense, middle ground.

           Thanks, Dr. Clark!

         • Now, if only they would recognize me as a Baptized person! LOL.

         • Haha! Good luck with that!

2. By the way, there is now a ESV 2025!! Check out: https://www.crossway.org/articles/esv-bible-translation-update/
   God bless you’ll 🙂

   Reply ↓

3. Hello Dr. Clark and all the HRA staff, Dr. Perkins and Dr. McDermand, I hope you all are doing very well.

   Could you please link the reference to the claim that the Westminster Assembly or that the English Reformers called the 2LC baptists (or PB) anabaptists? I would really appreciate that. Thank you very much. I couldn’t find that on the HB. I would like to say again that I really appreciate all the Heidelcontent that you guys work so hard to deliver in a non-profit manner.

   God bless all the good work, and you all,

   Bests,

   João de Sousa Luz

   Reply ↓

   • I documented it in the series on Featley.

     It wasn’t just Featley. This was the shared response by most of the orthodox Reformed to the Baptist movement generally. This judgment didn’t necessarily prevent friendship or even fellowship in every case. E.g., Owen was friendly with the Particular Baptists (as I am!) and even helped to evaluate their ministers (at their request) but there’s no evidence that he regarded as Reformed.

     See also this essay

     Reply ↓

     • Thank you very much Dr. I will surely look that up. I did read the last two essays you recommended.

       In Christ,

       João de Sousa Luz

       Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.