13 Responses to Selecting a Church Home

1. Patrick Chan
   September 8th, 2006 at 2:29 am | Permalink

   Hey Jessica,

   Sorry, I’ve been out of the loop of late. My PC had problems, and long story short, I had to reinstall everything! Ugh. But I’m almost through with the entire ordeal now.

   Anyway, I can’t believe you’re leaning Presby here! Unbelieveable! I say in my best “exasperated James White” tone.

   But seriously now…

   Unfortunately, I don’t know a thing about East Bay area churches. Even though I lived up there for quite a while. But most of that was before I was a Christian.

   The Reformed Baptist church would be my first pick, um, obviously. But judging by their website, it don’t look like it gots too many Asian folk — which might make it tough to “fit in” and thus feel at home.

   The only other comment I wanted to make at the moment is: watch out for those Mosaic churches! Although usually ethnically diverse, they also tend to play a little too loose-goosey on doctrine. At least in my experience. (I’ve been to one in the LA area.)

   I really need to get to bed now. Gotta get up for work in a few hours. Hope all is well.

2. Jessica
   September 8th, 2006 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

   Patrick, thanks for your feedback! I’m actually still in the process of learning more on credo vs. paedo so I can make a more informed decision on it.

   You wrote:
   [quote post=\"23\"]The only other comment I wanted to make at the moment is: watch out for those Mosaic churches! Although usually ethnically diverse, they also tend to play a little too loose-goosey on doctrine.[/quote]

   What is a “Mosaic” church or what does that term imply? I’m unfamiliar with “Mosaic churches.” And what are some their distinctives?

   Oh, you mentioned how none of the churches listed above has many Asian folks… Actually if you click on the Eastbay Baptist Church of Berkeley, you can see from the photos it’s predominantly Korean. Interestingly their intern pastor and elder both graduated from UC Berkeley just like you.

3. Patrick Chan
   September 10th, 2006 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

   Hey Jessica,

   Re: Mosaic. Here’s a link to their church website. And here’s a link to the founder of Mosaic, Erwin McManus. They are evangelical, so I don’t want to denigrate that or anything. And even though I’m more old school (as in 1689 old school ), I can appreciate some aspects of their more contemporary worship service. But for me, on the few occasions I attended a Mosaic church (a couple of years ago, too), I remember not being terribly impressed with the sermons. A little too “hip” and “trendy” for a sermon, I thought. Also the atmosphere of the church…well, there was a little bit of the Rick Warren-Saddleback church thing going on, with a strong emphasis on being seeker-friendly, etc.

   Anyway, I guess I can talk to more about it later, if you like.

4. Jessica
   September 10th, 2006 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

   Hi Patrick, thanks for the helpful links! You said you’re old school? Of course you are! heh-heh… I mean that as a compliment actually! I’m very old school, too (but not sure yet about the 1689 as I could turn paedo anytime, ya know). I do prefer a church that has a more traditional atmosphere to it, don’t try to be “hip,” and more reverent in worship … going to such church is totally awesome! (pardon the 80’s expression ) Anyhoo, thanks again for your feedback, Patrick.

5. Charles Sebold
   September 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

   I can’t keep my nose out of this, sorry.

   I’m not in CA so I can’t help you find a church (obviously Patrick is better suited for that under any circumstances). But I do want to give some unasked-for comment on the whole “leaning on the fence” bit about credo vs. paedo.

   You probably already know all this, but in case you (or one of your readers) doesn’t, I’m going to share anyway. Presbyterians, of course, believe in Covenant Theology; it is enshrined, although not as explicitly as it could have been, in the Westminster Confession. (I seem to recall that the catechisms do a bit more fleshing out, though.) Confessional Reformed Baptists also believe in Covenant Theology. CT is one of the overaching hermeneutics that we believe is revealed by a plain reading of Scripture, but is also a key to understanding themes and more difficult passages in Scripture. (Dispensationalism is of course more common in evangelicalism in this day and age, but it is another of those overarching hermeneutics.)

   The question is really this: what is the nature of the New and Old Covenants, as opposed to CT’s categories of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, and more specifically, where do we draw the line in recognition of who participates in the New Covenant? Is it possible to be a covenant breaker in the New Covenant? Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews (particularly 8-10, but I could argue that the whole book is germane to the discussion) are the key passages from which we embark to answer these questions. If the Mosaic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace, and the covenant sign is passed via the human familial bond, then children can be part of the New Covenant and then leave it later to become covenant breakers, and it may make sense that baptism follows circumcision as the sign of covenant membership.

   However, if one of the differences between the Old and New Covenants is that the covenant is passed solely through the preaching of the gospel and its taking root in the heart of one who is given ears to hear the effectual call… then there are no actual covenant breakers in the NC, only people we may have mislabeled because we believed their profession of faith, and we do not assume that our children are part of the covenant because they are related to us.

   I think the key here is to really grasp both the “federal” part of CT, and the Old/New Covenants and their relationship to post-Sinai Israel and the Church, and come to grips with that as best you can, before making the call on whether you are going to end up paedo or not.

   Also remember that Presbyterians have a unique church government form with which you may or may not agree; you could be a paedo who doesn’t believe that the Church is actually to be run by a semi-democratic Assembly or Sessions and so on (that is, a Congregationalist, like Owen and Edwards). And that may imply some, er, “apostolic succession” issues that need to be thought out.

   OK, I’ll stop. I just hate to see somebody on the fence about this. Challies drives me nuts too. *smiles*

   That said, plenty of good Reformed-and-Baptistic people have had to go to OPC and PCA churches just because there wasn’t anything else close by.

   I’d be curious about the last comment, that you’re “not sure yet about the 1689.” Since apparently becoming a Presbyterian is a possibility for you, can I assume that your uncertainty about it stems from its differences from the WCF?

6. Josh
   September 12th, 2006 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

   If the Mosaic Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace, and the covenant sign is passed via the human familial bond, then children can be part of the New Covenant and then leave it later to become covenant breakers, and it may make sense that baptism follows circumcision as the sign of covenant membership.

   Hi, Mr. Sebold. I hope you don’t mind me mentioning something here, but I don’t think that Paedobaptists would point to the Sinaitic (Mosaic) Covenant as proof for their position, but rather the Abrahamic Covenant. That being the one God made with Abraham which would be “everlasting.” So they wouldn’t appeal to the practice of Moses as being the beginning of such a thing, but would point to Abraham’s initial obedience to God’s command. If I have misunderstood what you were trying to get across, then please forgive my lack of perception.

   However, if one of the differences between the Old and New Covenants is that the covenant is passed solely through the preaching of the gospel and its taking root in the heart of one who is given ears to hear the effectual call… then there are no actual covenant breakers in the NC, only people we may have mislabeled because we believed their profession of faith, and we do not assume that our children are part of the covenant because they are related to us.

   I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the covenant being “passed”. Salvation would certainly be passed by the preaching and hearing and obeying the gospel, as it first began in Genesis 3:15. But concerning covenant breakers, I think the Paedobaptist would say that there have always been those who profess to be in Christ, but do not possess Him. Thus, by a command (Gen 17) given to Abraham, the Paedobaptist sees a continuity in the New Testament by the sacrament of baptism. And, as you have already noted, that is the question. Does circumcision in the Old Testament equal baptism in the New. I myself am trying to “figure it all out” as well. Grace and Peace to you.

7. Jessica
   September 12th, 2006 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

   Hi Charlie! Hope all is well on your side. (Btw, I read your blog entry “Little Known Facts About James White” a while back and, being a fan of Dr. White, just wanted to say I found them entertaining including the one about Dr. White’s hair being 4-pointers ).

   Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment on my blog. I really appreciate your feedback. Since Josh already addressed some (and more articulately than I would’ve), I thought I’ll try to share some of my thoughts on other things you mentioned.

   You wrote:
   [quote post="23"]Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews (particularly 8-10, but I could argue that the whole book is germane to the discussion) are the key passages from which we embark to answer these questions. [/quote]

   I heard Dr. White’s lecture on those passages a while back especially Hebrews 8. And it was one of the passages I wrestled with in regards to the Old and New Covenant. I’m learning that the baptism issue revolves around a lot more than simply those verses where the word “baptism” is found. It truly does involve hermeneutics as well as one’s redemptive-theological outlook. And I think the main difference between the credobaptist and paedobaptist position in this comes down to different hermeneutical approach (though I know both can’t be right). The credobaptists see “God’s people” in Heb. 8 as those who’re the elect, who know God (v. 11), whose sins receive mercy, and whose iniquities encounter grace (v. 12).

   However, as I’m learning the paedobaptist position and talking to another paedobaptist, I can see the different hermeneutics: Jeremiah promises a New Covenant that is superior to the old; however, the promises of the New Covenant are what Reformed theologians call “Now and Not Yet.” That is, the promises of the New Covenant have been inaugurated with the coming of Christ, but remain yet to be consummated until the Kingdom of Christ’s Glory comes in full. Thus, the promise that all will know the Lord, for example (v.11), finds its final fulfillment in Christ’s consummated kingdom, where all men universally will know the Lord and need not say to their neighbor ‘know the Lord.’ Presently, in churches everywhere, we have teachers for the purpose of instructing people in the knowledge of the Lord. Certainly, the New Covenant believer’s knowledge (v.10) is superior to the best of saints in the old (Christ said, he who is least in the Kingdom is greater than John the Baptist). Yet, all believers this side of glory still await the final fulfillment of Jeremiah’s promise, which is finally realized in Christ’s Kingdom of Glory.

   So with regard to the matter of baptism, the paedobaptist position would not see any advantage to the credobaptist position by Hebrews 8.

   [quote post="23"]I’d be curious about the last comment, that you’re “not sure yet about the 1689.” Since apparently becoming a Presbyterian is a possibility for you, can I assume that your uncertainty about it stems from its differences from the WCF?[/quote]

   Actually I was just teasing Patrick with the comment. But yes, it stems from the difference on the issue of baptism from the WCF.

   [quote post="23"]I just hate to see somebody on the fence about this. Challies drives me nuts too. *smiles*[/quote]

   Heh-heh … me, too! I mean, I’d love for myself to not be on the fence about this also. I can see many good points raised by both sides that seem valid, which is why this subject is not so clear cut yet with me, at least for now. So I’m still trying to learn and sort it out.

   Thanks again for sharing your thoughts! Glad to know you visited my blog.

8. Charles Sebold
   September 13th, 2006 at 7:17 am | Permalink

   Josh:

   Oops, you’re right, Abrahamic not Mosaic in this case (although sometimes it depends on who you read, as to how they connect all these things). Different writers press their cases in different ways but generally it does start with Abrahamic. The inconsistencies (in my opinion) start when they start tracing the Covenant of Grace from Abrahamic through Mosaic and onward — and even then they often end up being presuppositional differences on both sides, at least on the surface of the debate.

   Oh, and “Charlie” is fine — “Mr. Sebold” is for the polite kids at church who never use somebody’s first name. *smiles*

   What I mean by “passed” (sorry, I was in a hurry, and one should probably never talk about CT when in a hurry) is, how does it pass from one person to another? Presbyterianism does not suggest that every child should be baptized, only the children of professing believers; therefore covenant membership (in the “now” not the “not yet”) is passed through the bloodline, or assumed to be (to the point that some have even argued that salvation does run in family lines (Bahnsen was headed this way). Baptists on the other hand see no virtue in assuming that their children are or will be saved, and no virtue in treating them as such. My own daughters are essentially regular visitors in our church; they attend everything they can, they do not partake in the sacraments, and it is made clear to them on a regular basis that God, their parents, and the church expect them to repent and believe, and make profession of that faith at some future time. (Assumed) membership in the covenant will be passed to them when they make a credible profession of faith.

   I know that most Presbyterian churches baptize babies and then treat their children the way I treat mine for the most part. But it’s interesting that within their camp, the Federal Vision people are calling them inconsistent for not treating their children like Christians. I tend to think that in this day and age, a consistent paedo-CT will tend toward the Federal Vision rather than away from it.

9. Charles Sebold
   September 13th, 2006 at 7:34 am | Permalink

   Jessica:

   The question, as always in cases like this, is what is “already” and what is “not yet.” Exegetically the few verses that are used to suggest that the apostles baptized whole families on the basis of professing adults are precarious at best. Given all of this, I think it’s better and safer, and more in line with preaching the gospel and not proliferating false professors, to be credo.

   I am really looking forward to White’s up and coming debate with Bill Shishko regarding this topic on Long Island next month; that should be a real clash of the theological titans (if one can say that without assuming any sort of bad feelings or unChristian behavior), and be of great benefit to those that hear.

   And I’m glad to see that you are studying this carefully and know what you’re getting into. I only jumped in because I don’t know you, but I know a fair number of people who jumped ship one way or the other on this without understanding the real issues — people who became Presbyterian for emotional reasons related to their children, without knowing what CT or Presbyterian church government actually was, and people who left Presbyterian churches for Baptist ones without having struggled with the matter in the right way (and who, in so doing, gave up more than they should have). So, clearly you know what you’re doing, and my work here is done. *smiles*

10. Josh
    September 13th, 2006 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    Hi, Charlie, *fighting off the strong urge to address you as Mr. Sebold*, you said:

    Presbyterianism does not suggest that every child should be baptized, only the children of professing believers; therefore covenant membership (in the “now” not the “not yet”) is passed through the bloodline, or assumed to be (to the point that some have even argued that salvation does run in family lines (Bahnsen was headed this way).

    1. Indeed, one way covenant membership is passed is through familial lines, but it’s not the only way. All who profess repentance and belief on Christ alone by faith alone, etc. are introduced into the Covenant Community by baptism as well. That is, as we see in the New Testament, adult converts are baptized after their profession.

    Baptists on the other hand see no virtue in assuming that their children are or will be saved, and no virtue in treating them as such. My own daughters are essentially regular visitors in our church; they attend everything they can, they do not partake in the sacraments, and it is made clear to them on a regular basis that God, their parents, and the church expect them to repent and believe, and make profession of that faith at some future time. (Assumed) membership in the covenant will be passed to them when they make a credible profession of faith.

    It’s not so much a virtue, as much as it is believing God’s promise: “I will be your God and your children’s God”, etc. Most Paedobaptists I know still tell their kids the need for repentance and faith (heck, just look at the Children’s Catechism), etc. And usually, a profession of faith is made, when one is converted. At this point, the professing one who has bore the fruit of a Christian will then be able to partake in communion.

    I know that most Presbyterian churches baptize babies and then treat their children the way I treat mine for the most part. But it’s interesting that within their camp, the Federal Vision people are calling them inconsistent for not treating their children like Christians. I tend to think that in this day and age, a consistent paedo-CT will tend toward the Federal Vision rather than away from it.

    I think that’s somewhat of a genetic fallacy. I mean, I certainly agree that a Paedobaptist is much more likely to get tangled up in FV than a Credo-only Baptist, but I don’t think “most” consistent Paedos will tend toward that theology, because there have been multiple in the past (and many currently) who actively defend historical/biblical CT against these guys who want to muddy the doctrine on which the Church “stands or falls”: Sola Fide. I’m certainly, thought, not one who is capable of arguing the Paedo’s position, since I, myself, am still searching it through and through. Thanks for your thoughts. Grace, Peace, and Godspeed to you.

11. Josh
    September 13th, 2006 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    Charlie, you wrote:

    The question, as always in cases like this, is what is “already” and what is “not yet.” Exegetically the few verses that are used to suggest that the apostles baptized whole families on the basis of professing adults are precarious at best. Given all of this, I think it’s better and safer, and more in line with preaching the gospel and not proliferating false professors, to be credo.

    But then we must go back and find out at what point was the everlasting Covenant that God made with Abraham (Gen 17) abrogated or rescinded? You see, with Credos, there are false professors. But from the Paedo perspective, these folks are just covenant-breakers, proving that though they were a part of the Visible Covenant Community, they were never a part of God’s Covenant made with Christ and the Holy Spirit.

    …but I know a fair number of people who jumped ship one way or the other on this without understanding the real issues — people who became Presbyterian for emotional reasons related to their children, without knowing what CT or Presbyterian church government actually was, and people who left Presbyterian churches for Baptist ones without having struggled with the matter in the right way (and who, in so doing, gave up more than they should have).

    I wholeheartedly agree with this, and commend you for your admonitin of caution, Sir.

12. Jessica
    September 13th, 2006 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    Hi Charlie, I agree with you about not coming to premature decision based on emotional attachment for one side or the other. So thanks again for your kind thoughts in leaving a comment.

    I, too, am looking forward to hear Dr. White’s debate on this topic! I was in his chatroom two weeks ago when I asked for the exact date of the debate. If I remember correctly, he said October 19. Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend, but I’d probably download the mp3 version of it later on. It’ll be so interesting!

13. Charles Sebold
    September 14th, 2006 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Josh:

    I think that’s somewhat of a genetic fallacy. I mean, I certainly agree that a Paedobaptist is much more likely to get tangled up in FV than a Credo-only Baptist, but I don’t think “most” consistent Paedos will tend toward that theology, because there have been multiple in the past (and many currently) who actively defend historical/biblical CT against these guys who want to muddy the doctrine on which the Church “stands or falls”: Sola Fide.

    I don’t think I implied that “because FV is bad, therefore the Presbyterian view of baptism is bad, because FV came from that view,” which is how I would see the genetic fallacy playing out. I didn’t say that most consistent paedos will tend toward FV, because then we’d see people in Witsius’ and the Westminster Divines’ days fighting it (although I’m tempted to press the point as far as Witsius’ audience goes, but I don’t know enough to speak with authority yet). I qualified it with “in this day and age” because it’s a confluence of a few theological issues that really only had the chance to come together in the last few decades. I qualified the statement with “will tend toward” because I am aware that there are plenty of Presbyterians who are fighting for justification by faith tooth and nail against those who would reduce it to an oversimplified covenant membership scenario, and I applaud them and wish them well, and I’d rather have one of them on my side than a metric ton of Baptists who are wishy-washy on their view of covenant theology in general, given most things we face in the Christian life and the real implications of Biblical theology.

    I’m certainly, thought, not one who is capable of arguing the Paedo’s position, since I, myself, am still searching it through and through.

    For all that, you (and Jessica) have done a great job of clarifying and defending them from my oversimplifications. I wish you well on your own journey to confidence in a view of baptism.

Leave a Reply