Brothers in Christ: On Confessional Charity, Baptist Identity, and the Unbecoming Condescension Toward Dispensational Brethren

Brothers in Christ: On Confessional Charity, Baptist Identity, and the Unbecoming Condescension Toward Dispensational Brethren

One of the most encouraging sights in contemporary Reformed life is the warm fellowship that often exists between Paedobaptist Presbyterians who hold the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and Credobaptist brothers who subscribe to the nearly identical Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). Though real differences separate them—chiefly over the proper subjects and mode of baptism, the structure of covenant theology, the role of the civil magistrate, and aspects of Sabbath observance—both sides typically treat one another as mature, thoughtful, gospel-believing Christians who simply read certain texts differently. Disagreement is acknowledged, but contempt is not.

Yet a strikingly different tone sometimes emerges when the subject turns to eschatology—specifically, when Reformed believers who hold a dispensational (or dispensational-leaning) premillennial viewpoint enter the room. What is extended as charitable disagreement toward 1689 Baptists can quickly morph into eye-rolling dismissal, sarcastic memes, and the unmistakable implication that dispensationalists are the simple-minded little brothers of the Reformed world—enthusiastic, perhaps, but not quite ready for the “big boy table” of serious biblical and theological understanding.

This condescending posture is both theologically inconsistent and pastorally unbecoming.

Consider the objective doctrinal distance involved.

From the Westminster Confession to the Second London Confession (1689), the Baptists introduced numerous weighty changes:

1. A reworking of the covenant of grace itself (ch. 7)
2. A different doctrine of the visible church and its ordinances
3. Rejection of infant baptism and paedocommunion
4. Removal of the establishment principle and the magistrate’s role in religion
5. Adjustments to the Christian Sabbath

These are not minor tweaks. They affect ecclesiology, sacramentology, soteriology, and political theology in profound ways. Yet today one regularly sees Westminster Presbyterians and 1689 Baptists praying together, planting churches together, and commending one another’s books and sermons without the slightest hint that the other side is theologically immature or unworthy of serious engagement.

By comparison, the primary differences between a confessional 1689 Baptist (or Westminster Presbyterian) and many Calvinistic, Reformed-leaning dispensationalists center on:

1. The future role of ethnic/national Israel in God’s plan
2. The degree of continuity/discontinuity between Israel and the church
3. The timing and sequence of events surrounding Christ’s return (pre-tribulational premillennialism vs. the amillennial lean of the confessions)

That is, in most cases, the main point of divergence. These brethren typically affirm the same five solas, the same doctrines of grace, the same high view of Scripture, the same rejection of the progressive covenant/dispensationalism of classic Dallas Seminary theology, and even the ongoing validity of the moral law. In short, they stand far closer to the 1689 Confession on soteriology, ecclesiology, and hermeneutics than the 1689 itself stood to the original Westminster Confession on baptism and covenant theology.

If charitable, adult-minded fellowship can span the wider gulf of baptism and covenant structure, why do some treat the narrower gulf of eschatological timing and Israel’s future with such scorn? Why is the credobaptist brother invited to the table as an equal, while the dispensational brother—often holding nearly everything else in common—is mocked as a dispensationalist “with a few good insights despite his eschatology”?

Such contempt is not merely inconsistent; it is sinfully proud. It assumes a level of interpretive certainty about unfulfilled prophecy that the humble student of Scripture dare not claim. The same hermeneutical humility that says, “My paedo/credo brother reads the covenant signs differently than I do, but he loves the same Christ and submits to the same Word,” ought to say, “My dispensational brother reads the prophetic timeline differently than I do, but he loves the same Christ and submits to the same Word.” Mockery has no place in either case.

The 1689 divines themselves lived with diversity and charity on a number of issues. They did not sneer at those who disagreed with them on the magistrate or the Sabbath. If they could extend grace across those divides, surely we can refrain from sneering at a brother who expects a future conversion of ethnic Israel or believes the church will be raptured before a great tribulation.

Christian maturity is not measured by one’s ability to caricature another believer’s position with late-night Twitter memes. It is measured by the ability to disagree with firmness where Scripture demands it, and with humility and love where it grants liberty.

So let the Westminster Presbyterian continue to love his 1689 Baptist brother as a fellow heir of the Reformed tradition.

Let the postmillennial optimist labor alongside his premillennial dispensational friend without a hint of condescension.

And let all of us repent of any pride that would mock a fellow blood-bought sinner for seeing the details of the consummation differently.

After all, we will spend eternity worshiping the Lamb together—Paedobaptists, Credobaptists, amillennialists, historic premillennialists, and yes, even our dispensational brethren. We might as well start practicing the charity now that we will one day enjoy perfectly.

Grace and peace in the same risen Christ—the One whose return we all await, whenever and however He chooses to come.