# OPC to Bible Fellowship Question



## ServantofGod (Nov 6, 2009)

I am a member of the OPC(Orthodox Presbyterian Church), but have decided to join a Bible Fellowship church. There is a problem as I try to proceed towards membership, and that is that the BFC requires immersion baptism for membership. I was sprinkled as a teen and Presbyterian. The impasse I have reached is that I fully believe sprinkling is a Biblical form of baptism, whereas they would require me to be immersed. Rebaptised in my mind, baptised for the first time in theirs. I'm not quite sure what to do. I wish to place myself under the authority and discipline of this church, but I don't believe it is appropriate to be rebaptised. 

I am meeting with the pastor next week, and state my cause for sprinkling. It will be quite interesting, and the pastor is an awesome and godly man, so it should be quite refreshing. What are my options? 

1. Is it right to place myself under the church outside of membership?

2. Would it be appropriate for me to be rebaptised so as to honor the authority of the church?


NOTE: No need for a sprinkling vs. immersion debate, I've been reading through an earlier thread on the subject.


----------



## Bookmeister (Nov 6, 2009)

Why are you leaving the OPC?


----------



## carlgobelman (Nov 6, 2009)

ServantofGod said:


> I'm not quite sure what to do. I wish to place myself under the authority and discipline of this church, but I don't believe it is appropriate to be rebaptised.
> 
> I am meeting with the pastor next week, and state my cause for sprinkling. It will be quite interesting, and the pastor is an awesome and godly man, so it should be quite refreshing. What are my options?
> 
> ...



I don't think it's appropriate to be baptized again either. This requirement to be baptized by immersion, thereby renouncing your previous baptism, smacks of a sort of Anabaptism. To me it's one thing to differ between paedo and credo baptism, and quite another to claim that one's previous paedo-baptism is not a baptism and require re-baptism.

My first question is why you're changing from the OPC to the BFC church? My gut reaction (barring further details regarding your situation) is to answer "no" to both questions.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 6, 2009)

I would not counsel you to be rebaptized, especially since you don't believe it Biblical in your own conscience. For the church to demand that of you is tantamount to grabbing infants from credobaptists and baptizing them before allowing them to join.


----------



## ServantofGod (Nov 6, 2009)

I'm leaving the OPC:

Firstly, I reject the teaching of infant baptism after much thought, prayer, studying, and discussion with pastors from both my church, and others.

Secondly, the OPC I am with has failed to exercise any bit of shepherding to the younger members, fails to preach authoritatively, and has made decisions in the general life of the church that I disagree with and reject on the basis I find them unBiblical.

Thirdly, the BFC takes missions, shepherding, teaching, and exhorting far more seriously.


----------



## carlgobelman (Nov 6, 2009)

ServantofGod said:


> I'm leaving the OPC:
> 
> Firstly, I reject the teaching of infant baptism after much thought, prayer, studying, and discussion with pastors from both my church, and others.
> 
> ...



So is it safe to say that the debate isn't between paedo/credo baptism but between affusion/aspersion and full immersion?

I would still answer "no" to both questions. If you feel your baptism was a valid baptism, it's inappropriate for a church to require a re-baptism.


----------



## ServantofGod (Nov 6, 2009)

carlgobelman said:


> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> > I'm leaving the OPC:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## MMasztal (Nov 6, 2009)

ServantofGod said:


> I'm leaving the OPC:
> 
> Firstly, I reject the teaching of infant baptism after much thought, prayer, studying, and discussion with pastors from both my church, and others.
> 
> ...



I would also agree with the others that another baptism is not warranted, and it concerns me that you are considering a denomination with such requirements.

From the tone of your email, it would appear that you have conflict with your local congregation rather than the OPC. Also, your last comment is ill-informed and dismissive.


----------



## ServantofGod (Nov 6, 2009)

MMasztal said:


> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> > I'm leaving the OPC:
> ...



Yes, my conflict is with the local church, and other then infant baptism, not with the OPC as a whole. I apologize for not being more clear about that.

My last comment is a comparison between where I'm heading and where I've been, a comparison between churches not denominations. Once again, my apologies for lack of clarity.


----------



## P.F. (Nov 6, 2009)

Church hopping in the first place is a bad idea. But, if your elders in the OPC church are agreeable to your plan to leave, then ...

How does one place oneself under a modern-day church outside of membership? Is there another mechanism? If not, the first question seems moot.

As to the second question: no. It's not right to violate your conscience to honor a church.


----------



## Archlute (Nov 6, 2009)

I don't believe what he is describing is church hopping. It is a move based upon conviction (regardless of which side you take on the issues), which is quite different from randomly going from place to place for the smallest of reasons, or even no reason in particular.

Regarding the elders. Speaking with them is fine, but I know from having been in OPC circles for some years past that you will on occasion run into the self-styled "high church" session that could make something as simple as a transfer for reasons of conviction into a real hassle. It is not wrong to leave, even if the session were to say that they refuse to grant a transfer. He would just have to explain the situation to the new pastor, maybe have the pastor call up the session to try and straighten things out, and then move on with his life and worship. 

Remember that sessions are fallible, and cannot bind the conscience where the difference is over a principled point of conviction. Some sessions forget this, but the best are charitable in such circumstances, and will send you off with God's blessing.

At the same time, I would agree with the others that re-baptism may be an issue that could hang things up in a different way.


----------



## P.F. (Nov 6, 2009)

1) The OPC does not, in general, require its members to hold to infant baptism, so I don't buy that this is a departure based on conscience. 

2) I cannot see how seeking out new elders to hash things out with your present elders is showing proper respect for your present elders. There are always exceptions, but the general rule should be that the person seeks their elders' permission to transfer membership first. 

3) Those elders would also be the first place to get spiritual advice on things like rebaptism and non-membership that goes along with such a transfer of membership.

The OPC is not perfect church, and not every session is perfect. Nevertheless, elders ought to be respected for their office, just as husbands ought to be respected for their office. It's a different authority role, but it is not a trivial role.


----------



## Montanablue (Nov 6, 2009)

A few months ago, we had a thread in which several paedo-baptists (I don't recall whether any of them were OPC members) maintained that an individual who was a member of a paedo-baptist church who did not baptize their children as infants would be subject to church discipline. That seems like reason enough to leave paedo-baptist church if you had become credo-baptist.

In the same vein, I wouldn't expect a paedo-baptist to stay in a credo-baptist church where their infants would not be baptized.


----------



## P.F. (Nov 6, 2009)

Montana Blue:

Yes, of course, there can be reasons of conscience to leave a church. Among those could be an inability to submit to the authority of the elders in good conscience, such as if the elders were insisting that you must baptize your infants.

It doesn't sound like that's the case for SoG.


----------



## ServantofGod (Nov 6, 2009)

PCFLANAGAN said:


> 1) The OPC does not, in general, require its members to hold to infant baptism, so I don't buy that this is a departure based on conscience.
> 
> 2) I cannot see how seeking out new elders to hash things out with your present elders is showing proper respect for your present elders. There are always exceptions, but the general rule should be that the person seeks their elders' permission to transfer membership first.
> 
> ...





1. It is true. Only those who hold positions of leadership are required to adhere to it I believe. But I believe and observe the teaching has quite literally filled my specific church with the "frozen chosen", where some of the congregation find their security and their kids salvation in infant baptism which has led to quite an issue within the church, esp. the youth.

As for a departure based on conscience, I hope you will understand that I know and understand the issues, and for the sake of keeping criticizing to a minimum I don't wish to put specifics out for the public eye. 

2. I'm not sure we're on the same page.

3. The elders at my church are not in the least bit concerned with what I do. I've been absent for over 3 months and not one of them has approached me. 



No church is perfect. I'm not asking for perfection, only that the elders be elders. If there are too many people at my church for them to shepherd, then one less should ease the burden(and that is NOT a sarcastic remark).


----------



## Archlute (Nov 6, 2009)

PCF,

1) If you were to be a part of a church in which liturgical dance was used in public worship, would you require of yourself that you stay, since they do not require a believe in liturgical dance for membership, and therefore it could not be an issue of conscience? For those who do not hold to the baptism of infants the practice is often seen as a violation of the RPW, and thus of the conscience. As well, why would you stay in a church that practiced the sacraments in a manner you did not believe to be biblical? I doubt that you would require the same of yourself if your membership were currently in a Baptist congregation, and you came to paedo-baptist convictions.

2) Permission is something we give little children. Grown Christians who have theologically informed convictions need not ask permission (which implies the request could be denied), but only need to sit down with their brothers (elders are still brothers and servants, not lords, as Peter reminds us) to charitably discuss their reason to transfer, and to seek a unity of Christian charity in the matter. If the session says "no", that is not the Christian's problem where the matter is one of a difference of theological opinion. No session has authority to bind the conscience on a valid and recognized difference of biblical interpretation.

3) Again, while elders serve an important role in the body, not all are as open, charitable, or even as knowledgeable as we would desire regarding these issues. Some are fantastic, and you seek them out for their wisdom, and then there are others. No Christian should be faulted for seeking out others for advice, and there is no place in Scripture that would require one to go to their elders first and foremost over others. Where love and wisdom abound on a session, they will be the natural "go to" guys, but sometimes we must seek out others for advice and insight - that is why we encourage our people to be widely read in Scripture and theology, correct?

I say the above, because I have seen an unhealthy trend in a number of OPC churches regarding the move of their sessions toward conscience binding views of office that reflect a bit more of the Romanist position than the Protestant. I know of folk who have been chased down from church to church by some of these rogue sessions, in one case it was an elder who had changed his position on baptism and who had because of that desired to step down from his position and to change churches, in an attempt to ruin their credibility and future ministry. I know the men on several of those sessions, and 3/4 should never have been ordained as elders to begin with. 3/4 may actually be a charitable number in the case of one of the sessions. 

Give honor where honor is due, but nobody gets a pass card just because they hold an office. If anything, there is more accountability and scrutiny to be had for them, if we want to see it as the Scriptures lay it out.

Edited to add: Having just read Ian's post above, it sounds like the situation is a bit different. But much of the post still applies.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 6, 2009)

I would slow down a bit. I am not sure that I would attend that church even though I might. If you were baptized as a confessing believer why would you need to be baptized again is my other question other than they consider the mode incorrect. I know RB's that would accept your baptism if it was done based upon your confession of faith. 

Are there any other options such as a Reformed Baptist Church that holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith?


----------



## ServantofGod (Nov 6, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would slow down a bit. I am not sure that I would attend that church even though I might. If you were baptized as a confessing believer why would you need to be baptized again is my other question other than they consider the mode incorrect. I know RB's that would accept your baptism if it was done based upon your confession of faith.
> 
> Are there any other options such as a Reformed Baptist Church that holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith?




Not too many. Eastern Pennsylvania has the BFC that acts as sort of a RB church. This church is the home church of many of my closest friends and mentors, and having attended their youth group when I was younger, has played a close role in my spiritual growth and sanctification. Much more so then my home church, which has led me to consider membership here at the BFC.


----------



## P.F. (Nov 6, 2009)

1) As to matters of conscience, I hold to Exclusive Psalmody. My elders don't share my view, and the worship reflects their position, not mine. I haven't hopped to a new church over that.

2) Elders are overseers. They are not just like the other brethren. Accusations against elders require two or three witnesses for that reason.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 6, 2009)

Ian,

What is their view of Covenant Theology? I know most Bible Fellowships hold to some form of dispensational teaching that doesn't truly understand the Work of Christ and Historical redemption. 

What is the PCA like in your area? I have been a member of the PCA and really think that might be a better option.


----------



## Edward (Nov 6, 2009)

ServantofGod said:


> but have decided to join a Bible Fellowship church.



Have you carefully read their statement of faith? Around here, all of the Bible Churches and Bible Fellowships are Dispensational in theology.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 6, 2009)

Ian,
If you can submit to these men as your elders and teachers, then submit all the way. If they insist that you must be "rebaptized," as little truck as I have with that position, I think you should do so, even if you are unsure if that is the purely biblical position. The question confuses me a bit since you say you do not believe in the OPC's position. Is it the "manner" of your baptism that the new church would object to, the timing, or both?

As a pastor, I think you need the care of a good shepherd more than many other things. I sincerely hope that in the new situation, your minister preaches Christ to you, and teaches you the Bible plainly and without holding back. So, I have to trust you that you would never abandon those essentials. If those are fundamentally present, then submit to the leaders.

You may find yourself moving about in churches off and on as your circumstances change, and you move about the state or country. You may well find yourself in another OPC or other Reformed church. Better to have an uncluttered past.


----------



## ServantofGod (Nov 6, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ian,
> 
> What is their view of Covenant Theology? I know most Bible Fellowships hold to some form of dispensational teaching that doesn't truly understand the Work of Christ and Historical redemption.
> 
> What is the PCA like in your area? I have been a member of the PCA and really think that might be a better option.



They hold to the LBC as a church but not as denomination. The BFC is a fairly loose denomination with different churches holding to different confessions. For instance, Trinity, which is where I wish to join, holds firmly to the doctrines of grace, whereas the one 20 minutes down the street, claims them, but does not really take a side when teaching the congregation. It depends on the pastor and elder-ship.


Contra_Mundum:



> The question confuses me a bit since you say you do not believe in the OPC's position. Is it the "manner" of your baptism that the new church would object to, the timing, or both?



The manner. They hold to immersion only. My baptism was a believers baptism; we joined an OPC church when I was 13.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 04:31:58 EST-----



Edward said:


> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> > but have decided to join a Bible Fellowship church.
> ...



They are Reformed in their Theology. They aren't related to any Bible Churches South of Maryland. The denomination is based in Eastern PA, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, New York, and I believe one or two in New Mexico.


----------



## NRB (Nov 12, 2009)

This may have been covered, but how much of an official membership transfer will occur considering the denominations involved?

Also, I am against re-baptism.
I did it a long time ago (Catholic to SBC). I was ignorant of the reasons it should not be done at the time.


----------

