Featured Reformed Church services

That's not true. Please don't misrepresent these brothers. Those on the Presbyterian side see the WCF as a commentary on Scripture and a statement of faith. They do not consider their confession to be on par with the Word of God. The same with the Reformed Baptists who subscribe to the 1689 LBCF.

The burden is on you to prove such accusations.

 

Herald,

We are called to do both,,,study to show ourself approved,and win the lost,and do Kingdom service. No one suggests otherwise.
I think it is very proud and presumptuous to suggest that because some are given to study that means they are not "in the trenches".
When you get in the trench....they better have a firm grasp on the teaching of the word of God. Study tools are just that tools. You can cut down more trees with a functioning chain saw,then a kitchen knife.

Some who speak against the "tools'...are left to offer only what they think they know.others have become dis-affected by some things they have experienced, then go off like lone rangers with the Elijah syndrome....only I am left.....

 

If you are offended then please accept my appology but I place Biblical authority above the 1689 Baptist Confessions (which I have read btw). I personally don't understand why you bring up that confession into this discussion.

First of all my friend and fellow taxpayer with respect to singling out the "reformed", I think I'm quite consistant on this board in my criticism of covenant theology but I've had exchanges with you and others here where I have been critical of IFBC practices to the point that I commute 26 miles each way to avoid a Baptist church 1 mile from my house. But we were not talking about fundamentalist dispensational independent Baptist churches, we are discussing the PB with basically is Presbyterian Covenant theology which to my thinking is not Baptist. So what is your point?

 

Can't argue Presbyterian in general but on the PB the WCF carries much weight and is used to settle disputes all the time.

 

My point brother is exactly what Herald is saying below.

"Those on the Presbyterian side see the WCF as a commentary on Scripture and a statement of faith. They do not consider their confession to be on par with the Word of God. The same with the Reformed Baptists who subscribe to the 1689 LBCF."

 

Baptist Individual Soul Liberty allows you to not believe the obvious. This is your right.

 

Im sorry.....dont understand. What do you mean by obvious?

 

No SolaSaint...... They do not, not if they have a firm grasp on Scripture.

 

Are you a member Sola? I assumed you had to be a Reformed believer & accepting of Doctrines of Grace & either Westminster or Baptistic 1644 or 1689. Maybe thats a misconception but why havent you called them on it. There is one Administrator there who is an Aussie & very good at explaining in full detail.

I was a Presbyterian who had some problems with WCF regarding the salvation of infants who die before being baptized....it became extremely caustic & I finally left. I was happy to learn that Baptists dont think the same.....so after my conversion I revisited the Particular Baptists. I still do not agree with Covenant Theology nor do I agree with the Dispys., which leaves me free to evaluate & criticize.

So Ive learned both Confessions & even took courses on Confessional differences. All my teachers/instructors have commented that while the men who crafted both confessions were sincerely using scripture to hammer it out (& these were brilliant people) the the student would have use scripture (written by the Holy Spirit) to prove out all things. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Probably the highly nuanced but no doubt very nice Rev. Winzer. Still at the end of the day it comes down to the confessions and the historical teaching of the reformers.

 

I think it is self-explanatory

 

Pastor Winzer is a greatly gifted person.He labours in the word and doctrine. I have been both helped ,and corrected by Matthew Winzer on several occasions. Even the few times we were not in agreement I still learned and was edified by the exchange.
The fact that as you say...the end of the day...it comes down to the confessions and reformers should indicate to you the bible centered approach of the most gifted people went towards confessions and catechisms...not away from them dumbing down the truth.
A person like pastor Winzer is not infallable, but i guarantee you ,that you will get more than enough scripture along with several quotes of scripture from the reformers.

many grace persons see past saints and brethren as wise men who left for us a legacy of knowledge to build upon.We use them and try to understand much of what they already saw in scripture before we were born.:wavey::thumbsup:

 

some advice brother...... You either know something or you dont know. Thinking indicates uncertainty & that could get you into trouble. I in turn asked because I do not wish to misinterpret you & jump to a conclusion I was not sure of.

Have a good evening & Merry Christmas.

 

Thats the guy!

 

So what do these silly arses have against christmas trees & a rock band? :laugh:

 

Interesting observations, brother, and not surprising that those arguments would leave you and many others puzzled. I'm a former member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and a former moderator on the PB. I still post there every now and then.

(I'll preface this by noting that I have yet to delve into the dozens of posts on this thread.)

What you're running into is the "Regulative Principle of Worship" (RPW) In brief, those espousing this priniciple teach that only what is commanded in the NT is allowed. The opposite principle, the normative principle, is that whatever is not forbidden is allowed. Among Protestants, the latter principle historically has been practiced by Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists.

The Regulative principle is a reaction against the abuses of Romanism. In the British context it was also a reaction against perceived vestiges of Romanism in the Church of England. The most strict interpretation bans everything but a cappella Exclusive Psalmody. But they blatantly contradict themselves with their practice of sprinkling and infant baptism! Indeed, the old Baptists rejected infant baptism using what were essentially RPW arguments, namely that there is no explicit warrant for the practice. More recent Baptists appear to me to place heavier emphasis on the nature of the New Covenant. I think both are valid arguments.

In general I tend to agree with the RPW but don't take it to the lengths that some do e.g. arguing that "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" really means "Psalms, Psalms and Psalms." But I do think that most of us who are not exclusive Psalmodists err by basically never singing any Psalms. If Paul said we should sing Psalms, shouldn't we do that?

(Note that the Campbellite refrain of "Command, example, inference" when it comes to worship has its roots in the RPW. Campbell was originally a Presbyterian before turning Baptist and eventually splitting Baptist churches left and right with his teaching.)

Also note that what you see on the Puritanboard is basically the strictest form of Presbyterianism you'll find today, and they even have strong arguments amongst themselves. Many conservative and evangelical Presbyterian churches have "praise teams," Christmas trees, etc. and for all practical purposes follow the normative principle. For example, there's a big fight in the PCA now over intinction, which is dipping the bread into the cup instead of taking the elements of the Lord's Supper separately they way that appears to be seen in Scripture. If someone is looking for the kind of church that is advocated on the PB and happens to drop into a random PCA church, he is likely to be disappointed. The OPC will be more like what is described in the first post with old hymns. And it won't be "In the Garden" or Stamps-Baxter gospel songs either, which is what comes to mind when many Baptists think of "old-time hymns." IMO a lot of the lyrics in those kinds of songs are no better than the shallow repetitive "7-11" or "Jesus is my boyfriend" praise choruses that many of us deride.

In general I tend to agree with the RPW. Admittedly, some of it has to do with personal preference on my part, although I am prepared to argue on the rightness of some of my views (at least with regard to what is better or worse) when it comes to certain things that many Baptists and evangelicals do in worship. (IMO, unless you hold to something like the RPW, you basically have no grounds to keep things like drama and puppet teams and whatever else out of the worship service.) However, I do tend to find that some of the stricter RPW brethren arguably erect a somewhat artificial or arbitrary barrier, being strict in between the call to worship and the benediction and looser outside of that when gathered in the assembly. I really don't see it being that cut and dried in the NT with regard to the start and end of formal worship.

I'm not even going to touch the beer reference because IMO it's a totally different issue as it is not related to worship services. That is, unless one were to argue that the Lord's Supper is not valid unless "real" wine is used. And some outliers here and there basically do argue that.

 

SolaSaint posted (not sure why it didn't quote when I hit quote):

While SolaSaint's statement is simplistic and technically untrue, some of our strict Reformed brethren do actually tend to refer to the Westminster Standards practically as much as they do to Scripture when discussing theology in forums like the PB. Some of that is no doubt due to that board basically being a forum for intramural discussion, with some directing others to the standards that teach what they are supposed to believe as Presbyterians, etc. And some do think the Westminster Standards are 100% true to Scripture, at least as far as they can tell. (One prominent member has said that in so many words.) That's basically the position of anyone who affirms them without exception.

I have found that some of them, including pastors, are not that capable (and/or willing) of reasoning from the Scriptures on some issues when someone challenges the confessional perspective. That was the case when I abandoned infant baptism and abandoned Presbyterianism. I'm not referring to men on the PB, who argued at some length, but am referring to some Presbyterian Pastors from a couple of denominations whom I know "in real life" and with whom I had developed close relationships with. They had a few things to say at best and then dropped it even though according to their standards rejection of infant baptism is a "great sin." Perhaps they thought I could not be dissuaded regardless, but I nevertheless found it to be somewhat disappointing. (No doubt they were likewise disappointed by my decision.)

Other statements made in this thread are blatantly false in their boadbrushing. As we will have to answer for every idle word, such men will have to "deal with God" over impugning a whole class of believers who they don't know. That's the case even if the ivory tower mentality is true about 75% of them. No doubt, the irony of someone who has made 18,000+ posts to this board making that kind of statement about people being stuck in front of a screen will not be lost on many of the readers here.

 

Lest some think that the strict Reformed are too strict or rigid (especially) with their worship, consider this--Get rid of "special music," the howdy time (when the service is interrupted so everyone can shake hands, which oftens keeps on going halfway into the next song) and the "altar" call in a "traditional" Baptist church and see what happens.

Mess with the Babdist liturgy at your own risk!