# Should Paedo churches allow Baptist members to not baptize infants?



## he beholds

This type of hypothetical scenario came up in discussion at a family picnic (my two brother-in-laws are RP pastors). This is simply for my own curiosity, as I am Paedo and belong to a Paedo church and baptize my children. But I was wondering what would happen if a Baptist wanted to become a member at your Presbyterian church (maybe because there were no other faithful churches in the area or the preaching was just too good to ignore, etc.). I don't believe I was asked when I joined the PCA if I believed in Covenant baptizing, and I am sure I was not asked what I would do if I ever had children, so I feel like I could have become a member with the credo conviction. 
SO:
Would a Baptist be allowed to join?
If so, when he had children, would he be disciplined for not baptizing them?

What about if a member changed his mind following membership and decided that he was credo? Would he be under discipline? Would he be disciplined if refused to baptize his children?

For what it is worth, I personally believe that the Baptist brother should be allowed to remain a member and should be free to not baptize his children, though I do believe that the benefits and reasons for baptizing infants would need to be shared with him.


----------



## Tripel

My church allows it, so that means it must be correct.


----------



## KMK

I am confused... Isn't there some kind of confessional subscription required in Presbyterian churches that would preclude credobaptist membership?


----------



## he beholds

KMK said:


> I am confused... Isn't there some kind of confessional subscription required in Presbyterian churches that would preclude credobaptist membership?



We don't have to subscribe to the confession to become members.


----------



## Skyler

No. No church should ever allow anyone to become a member unless they agree without reservation to every nuance of that church's doctrine.


----------



## larryjf

He would be able to become a member, but wouldn't be considered for any office in the church as that would require him to adhere to the Confession.

Children are under the direct oversight of the parents, not of the church...so i think the parents have the right to not baptize their children and continue in membership. However, the issue of baptism would be taught, preached, exhorted, etc...from a paedo view, not from a credo view.

By washing them in the Word of God regarding the sacrament, and praying for God to give understanding, He may very well bring them over to the paedo side of things.


----------



## Knoxienne

I agree that they can and should be allowed membership - what if the only solid, biblical Calvinistic church within a 100 mile radius is a paedo church? That said, I agree that credobaptist men shouldn't be allowed to be elders in paedo churches. However the same would go if the situation were reversed. Although we're brethren in Christ, those distinctives need to be pronounced and there need to be boundaries, which is why we have our confessions. 

I think paedo churches are missing out on many blessings that come from fellowship and support from our credo brethren if we don't allow them to be members at all. The timing of baptism is something that shouldn't divide us membership-wise. Sooner or later it all boils down to a profession of faith before God and men anyway. Either way, we are called to remember what was done for us when Christ washed away our sins with His precious Blood.


----------



## larryjf

Knoxienne said:


> Sooner or later it all boils down to a profession of faith before God and men anyway.



I liked what you said except for this snippet....as it implies that those who die in infancy can't be elect because they were never able to make a profession.

The PCA doesn't allow credos to become officers, but that's because the debate on that exception went all the way to the General Assembly. There's at least one Presbyterian church that allows for exceptions on this point...the one Ian Paisley is part of...if i'm not mistaken.


----------



## strangecharm

I'm actually in a close situation to this. I'm very much a baptist, but the only church near where I go to college that preaches the Doctrines of Grace is a United Reformed Church. I'm quite sure that I could not even become a member there, as this is the form of the profession of faith used (CRC Psalter Hymnal):



> The Questions:
> 
> Q. Whom do you trust as the Savior from your sin and the Lord of your life?
> 
> A. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord.
> 
> Q. *Do you know that you belong to the family of God through your baptism.
> *
> A. I do.
> 
> Q. Will you continue to learn more about God and his Word, and will you continue to serve him with us in your life and worship?
> 
> A. I will.
> 
> Q. Will you allow us, your church family, to encourage you in your faith and hold you responsible to your commitment to Jesus and His church?
> 
> A. I will.
> 
> Welcome:
> 
> _____, *because you have responded to your baptism by telling us of your personal faith in Jesus Christ,* we now welcome you to join the family of God at the table of the Lord. Strengthened by this heavenly food and drink, we will travel together on the journey of faith that brings us to the promised land of God’s kingdom.
> 
> Prayer:
> 
> Our covenant God, we thank you for leading ______, your children, to the faith they expressed today. May the fellowship of the Lord’s table strengthen them in faith and service to you. Help them to continue to learn more about you through your word and grow in faith and love with all your people. Bring us all, one day, to that great wedding feast, where, clothed in the white robes of Christ’s righteousness, we will eat and drink with him in the heavenly kingdom forever. Amen.



I was baptized in response to faith (my baptism and confirmation as a United Methodist don't count  ).

Nevertheless, I thank God for that congregation.


----------



## lynnie

I am in my second PCA church, used to be in Philly Presbyterian and now in NY Metro.

In both, credos can be members but not hold office.

If somebody is a member of the body of Christ, with evidence of conversion/regeneration, I don't think any church has the right to deny them membership as long as they will honor and respect the leadership and not go making trouble with differing doctrine. I mean, let's face it, among the Reformed paedos there is endless debate on all sorts of other things. You'll never get a church full of members that agree on every doctrine.


----------



## Repre5entYHWH

I'm also in a similar situation... kinda 
I WAS a credo and started going to the only reformed church around for miles, the pastor knew i wasn't paedo and gave me some reading materials  and said i can still join the church even if i remained credo. but I now am paedo and helping my wife understand the complicated process.


----------



## jogri17

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.


----------



## Herald

jogri17 said:


> My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.



Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> No. No church should ever allow anyone to become a member unless they agree without reservation to every nuance of that church's doctrine.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

No. They shouldn't have creedo-baptist members.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?
Click to expand...




Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


Agreed. If there was no credo church in town, and I had to attend a paedo church, I would not join the church if I was told I would be disciplined for not baptizing my child. I would simply be a permanent visitor.


----------



## jogri17

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...


That is kind of the point. It is also a policy deceided on by the elders for our particular context. What we have done is sort of have a system where the Lord's supper is given to all those who can give a credible profession of faith but the rest of the benefits of full membership (voting, marriage in the church, discipline, etc...) are for members only. We actually just welcomed into membership a young family who just had their first kid (little girl) and the mother, who was a devout baptist, after a long time came to the point where she saw the covenantal argument and agreed finally to become a member. And she was welcomed into membership (of course her husband too... He was waiting and praying for her) the same day as her little girl was baptized! Of course she became a member first in the order of the service.


----------



## matt01

We attended a PCA church for three years, and were told that we would have to baptize our children if we became members. It would be a matter of dicsipline if we did not baptize our daughter.

It made sense to us. Why allow members to hold different beliefs on central things?


----------



## Knoxienne

larryjf said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooner or later it all boils down to a profession of faith before God and men anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked what you said except for this snippet....as it implies that those who die in infancy can't be elect because they were never able to make a profession.
> 
> The PCA doesn't allow credos to become officers, but that's because the debate on that exception went all the way to the General Assembly. There's at least one Presbyterian church that allows for exceptions on this point...the one Ian Paisley is part of...if i'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Larry - I don't believe that infants who die in infancy can't be elect and I did not intend to imply that. The only reason I mentioned a profession of faith is because first, we're talking about communicant membership, and infants aren't given communicant membership in either credo or paedo churches; and second, because usually credobaptist youths get baptized around the same age that many paedobaptist youths make a profession of faith. 

God saves us, and our baptism is a sign of that salvation, whether one receives it in infancy or any other time.


----------



## jogri17

Herald said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?
Click to expand...


Our Church is not baptistic nor a free church. We are a confessionally reformed church. If you want to be a member then we act that you abide by our doctrine if not you are welcome to sit along side with us and we even permit the taking of the Lord's supper (which many in our denomination DO NOT LIKE which on this issue puts us at odds with the more conservative persons...), but if you have children under your care and they are not baptized or you have another one and you are a member you are out side of the visible covenant. Ruth may have had saving faith before her official entrance into the nation of Israel (probably did when you read the narrative) but until her marriage into the visible covenant she did not have the rights to the benefits of them even though she was chosen to be apart of the covenant of grace. So if any member of a reformed church did not baptize their children we surely would not act in the same manner as though they were sleeping around but by joining our covenant fully by profession of faith (all new members are required to make a profession of faith before the congregation unless there are extreme circumstances like language or age) maintaining that they have been baptized and have exercised faith in Jesus Christ and want to continue to walk with Him all the days of their lives. Then we has a congregation make a pledge to look out for them. By not baptizing their children (this is already after making our doctrinal beliefs CRYSTAL CLEAR) this is in essence a massive lie and deception to the body of Christ. And in my mind can be compared to Annias and Sapharia.

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 06:40:47 EST-----

Bottom line: if credo baptists are so offended plant a credo baptist church. 

And the same goes for reformed and prebyterian folk in credo churches, plant a Biblical church. 

We do not agree on the nature of the covenant and the status of children of the those who had made a profession of faith. Fine. I have my 3fu and west.standards and you can have your philiy confession and 1689 and we can have separate churches. I can read grudem and piper and you can read Duncan and Keller but we are not from the same historical heritage at the end of the day. We can work together in many good things and come together for common causes, but at the end of the day when all is said and done: we both ought to protect the doctrine that we confess and it is the job of the elders to do that despite the fact there may be other sincere believers with different theology. But membership ought to be taken seriously by both and if I was at a baptist church (and even despite the fact I was baptized by immersion after faith around 18 years of age) I would not partake in the Lord Supper if that was a requirement because I consider my baptism in the Roman Catholic Church my true baptism despite its stance as a false church (my great grandma begged the priest to baptize me and give me a private baptism becuase my mom and dad were both non faithfuls... this happened in a location where catholics still cared about theology more than money before all the scandals about priests and boys). Why? I respect there right to be wrong.


----------



## KMK

jogri17 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Church is not baptistic nor a free church. We are a confessionally reformed church. If you want to be a member then we act that you abide by our doctrine if not you are welcome to sit along side with us and we even permit the taking of the Lord's supper (which many in our denomination DO NOT LIKE which on this issue puts us at odds with the more conservative persons...), but if you have children under your care and they are not baptized or you have another one and you are a member you are out side of the visible covenant. Ruth may have had saving faith before her official entrance into the nation of Israel (probably did when you read the narrative) but until her marriage into the visible covenant she did not have the rights to the benefits of them even though she was chosen to be apart of the covenant of grace. So if any member of a reformed church did not baptize their children we surely would not act in the same manner as though they were sleeping around but by joining our covenant fully by profession of faith (all new members are required to make a profession of faith before the congregation unless there are extreme circumstances like language or age) maintaining that they have been baptized and have exercised faith in Jesus Christ and want to continue to walk with Him all the days of their lives. Then we has a congregation make a pledge to look out for them. By not baptizing their children (this is already after making our doctrinal beliefs CRYSTAL CLEAR) this is in essence a massive lie and deception to the body of Christ. And in my mind can be compared to Annias and Sapharia.
> 
> -----Added 9/2/2009 at 06:40:47 EST-----
> 
> Bottom line: if credo baptists are so offended plant a credo baptist church.
> 
> And the same goes for reformed and prebyterian folk in credo churches, plant a Biblical church.
Click to expand...


Bill is not offended, believe me. What he is saying is that if you want to welcome credobaptists into your membership then you are going to have to have to bear with them when they don't allow you to baptize their infants.

I have heard of both Presbyterian and Baptist churches that have a two-fold membership. One that is allowed the LS, and the other which is allowed to also vote and hold office. It sounds problematic but I can understand the desire to do so.


----------



## Herald

jogri17 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Church is not baptistic nor a free church. We are a confessionally reformed church. If you want to be a member then we act that you abide by our doctrine if not you are welcome to sit along side with us and we even permit the taking of the Lord's supper (which many in our denomination DO NOT LIKE which on this issue puts us at odds with the more conservative persons...), but if you have children under your care and they are not baptized or you have another one and you are a member you are out side of the visible covenant. Ruth may have had saving faith before her official entrance into the nation of Israel (probably did when you read the narrative) but until her marriage into the visible covenant she did not have the rights to the benefits of them even though she was chosen to be apart of the covenant of grace. So if any member of a reformed church did not baptize their children we surely would not act in the same manner as though they were sleeping around but by joining our covenant fully by profession of faith (all new members are required to make a profession of faith before the congregation unless there are extreme circumstances like language or age) maintaining that they have been baptized and have exercised faith in Jesus Christ and want to continue to walk with Him all the days of their lives. Then we has a congregation make a pledge to look out for them. By not baptizing their children (this is already after making our doctrinal beliefs CRYSTAL CLEAR) this is in essence a massive lie and deception to the body of Christ. And in my mind can be compared to Annias and Sapharia.
> 
> -----Added 9/2/2009 at 06:40:47 EST-----
> 
> Bottom line: if credo baptists are so offended plant a credo baptist church.
> 
> And the same goes for reformed and prebyterian folk in credo churches, plant a Biblical church.
> 
> We do not agree on the nature of the covenant and the status of children of the those who had made a profession of faith. Fine. I have my 3fu and west.standards and you can have your philiy confession and 1689 and we can have separate churches. I can read grudem and piper and you can read Duncan and Keller but we are not from the same historical heritage at the end of the day. We can work together in many good things and come together for common causes, but at the end of the day when all is said and done: we both ought to protect the doctrine that we confess and it is the job of the elders to do that despite the fact there may be other sincere believers with different theology. But membership ought to be taken seriously by both and if I was at a baptist church (and even despite the fact I was baptized by immersion after faith around 18 years of age) I would not partake in the Lord Supper if that was a requirement because I consider my baptism in the Roman Catholic Church my true baptism despite its stance as a false church (my great grandma begged the priest to baptize me and give me a private baptism becuase my mom and dad were both non faithfuls... this happened in a location where catholics still cared about theology more than money before all the scandals about priests and boys). Why? I respect there right to be wrong.
Click to expand...


Whoa. Cool your jets. I was postulating a hypothetical situation (which is not so hypothetical in some areas). If my choices were between a non-Calvinistic, dispensational, fundamentalist Baptist church, and a paedo-Reformed church, I would choose the paedo-Reformed church. Now, if those elders told me that I would face church discipline for not submitting my children for baptism, I would attend the church but not join it. My attitude would be good, and I would seek to serve in the church as much as they elders would allow.


----------



## jogri17

Not to say this and I may get in trouble for bringing this up because it sounds like I'm questioning the moderators but by looking at the name of the churches in the signatures (and the signatures in general) of those who would have a problem with deny membership or disciplining those who would not baptize covenant children, all seem to be of non-reformed baptistic or non-presbyterian or non-reformed backgrounds. They all seem to be maybe TULIPers or maybe could affirm a confession personally but when it comes to the churches in which they serve they could never consistently put these believes into practice and want to find a way out. This is the problem with revivalistic calvinism right here. Bible Churches, Community Churches, SBC Churches are all mixed (I guess in theory any one of these could make this a membership issue because of the autonomy of the local church but very few do in my experience and I think I am right on this one) and they could never break away from these revivalistic/evangelicical traditions.


----------



## matt01

KMK said:


> Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.



Agreed. We were happy for a church with sound teaching, but not willing to change on the issue of baptism. As the pastor said, we should just get over it and join, not so easy.


----------



## Herald

jogri17 said:


> Not to say this and I may get in trouble for bringing this up because it sounds like I'm questioning the moderators but by looking at the name of the churches in the signatures (and the signatures in general) of those who would have a problem with deny membership or disciplining those who would not baptize covenant children, all seem to be of non-reformed baptistic or non-presbyterian or non-reformed backgrounds. They all seem to be maybe TULIPers or maybe could affirm a confession personally but when it comes to the churches in which they serve they could never consistently put these believes into practice and want to find a way out. This is the problem with revivalistic calvinism right here. Bible Churches, Community Churches, SBC Churches are all mixed (I guess in theory any one of these could make this a membership issue because of the autonomy of the local church but very few do in my experience and I think I am right on this one) and they could never break away from these revivalistic/evangelicical traditions.



J.P.,

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know the Baptist mods on this board and the degree to which they hold to the 1689 LBC. You're best served by muting your opinion in that area until you speak with some knowledge.

Secondly, the OP had to do with whether paedo churches should allow Baptists to join who will not submit their children to baptism. Your added commentary isn't helpful. I brought up a hypothetical situation that is a very real scenario in some locales. If you moved to an area where there were no paedo churches, would you attend a Reformed Baptist church? I hope you would. You may decide not to join out of conscience sake, but why would you not want to worship and fellowship with God's people? That's really what my hypothetical was about.


----------



## Montanablue

jogri17 said:


> Not to say this and I may get in trouble for bringing this up because it sounds like I'm questioning the moderators but by looking at the name of the churches in the signatures (and the signatures in general) of those who would have a problem with deny membership or disciplining those who would not baptize covenant children, all seem to be of non-reformed baptistic or non-presbyterian or non-reformed backgrounds. They all seem to be maybe TULIPers or maybe could affirm a confession personally but when it comes to the churches in which they serve they could never consistently put these believes into practice and want to find a way out. This is the problem with revivalistic calvinism right here. Bible Churches, Community Churches, SBC Churches are all mixed (I guess in theory any one of these could make this a membership issue because of the autonomy of the local church but very few do in my experience and I think I am right on this one) and they could never break away from these revivalistic/evangelicical traditions.



I don't think this is actually the case. I think the concern is more with people who may be unable to find a credo-Baptist church within a reasonable distance. Right now I attend a church that is not reformed (although I do think the pastor is a Calvinist in many senses). It is the only church preaching the gospel within a 75 mile radius. If it was a paedo-Baptist church (I'm credo), I would still want to become a member because I believe its very important to put oneself under the guidance of a church and its elders. But, I probably wouldn't be willing to change my credo-Baptist convictions to do so - especially if I had children.

And you can say , "well then, plant a church," but its not always that easy. (Especially if you are a young single woman).

Cross posted with Bill - Sorry!


----------



## Brian Withnell

It would seem to me that eventually, it would come to the parents failing to fulfill their membership vows. While subscription is not required, the WCF states:


> Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.


And while that is not in itself a violation of the membership vows, one of the vows is:


> Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?


So while technically, I suppose a session might think not subscribing to covenant baptism would not be restrictive of membership as long as it is not an issue. Though if a person has a child, the session should be working to instruct them as they are delinquent in doctrine. If then, after a long period of time of attempting to convince them of their error, they still do not "heed its discipline" the parents would be contumaciously holding to sin in disregard of their membership vows.

Those that are not baptized are not necessarily lost, but those that neglect the baptism of their children are in "great sin". When they are instructed in that error, and continue in such great sin, it is not only that sin they commit, but rebellion and violation of their vows. Should they be held to discipline for such action? I believe they should, and so if I were a credo baptist, I would either find a credo church, or start one. Joining a "good church" would mean joining one that would exercise loving discipline over the flock, and that would include not allowing the parents of a child to so neglect the baptism of their own children that they should not allow them to remain in fellowship.

This is no different than a credo church insisting that a person who being paedo and was baptized as an infant be baptized as an adult in order to join the church. I no of no baptist church that would allow a person baptized as an infant to join the church as an adult without submitting to baptism yet again, even though from a Presbyterian point of view, that is sin.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have been in Confessional Churches for most of my 28 years. I have been a member of a RPCNA church, a PCA Church, and 1689 churches. Also a few others. I have always been a credobaptist. I have always defended my position while living at peace with the leadership of the Church. I was always respectful and promised to seek the unity of the Church. If baptism ever came up I would defer to the Pastor / Elders. They are the ones responsible for the congregation. I did not come out of revivalistic church background. My first Church was a Reformed Baptist Church without altar calls. I did share the gospel quite effectively with those around me. 

The PCA allows credo's to be in membership. Not all Covenant Theologians are paedo.


----------



## Herald

Herald said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. If there was no credo church in town, and I had to attend a paedo church, I would not join the church if I was told I would be disciplined for not baptizing my child. I would simply be a permanent visitor.
Click to expand...


If I may comment on my own post... If a paedo were to visit our church and not join because of our stand on baptism, I would still welcome them into our fellowship with the love of Christ. I would minister to them in the same manner as a member. They would not be able to vote, preach or teach, but I would consider them an integral part of the family of God.


----------



## matt01

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The PCA allows credo's to be in membership.



Unfortunately, with qualifications.


----------



## jogri17

Herald said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to say this and I may get in trouble for bringing this up because it sounds like I'm questioning the moderators but by looking at the name of the churches in the signatures (and the signatures in general) of those who would have a problem with deny membership or disciplining those who would not baptize covenant children, all seem to be of non-reformed baptistic or non-presbyterian or non-reformed backgrounds. They all seem to be maybe TULIPers or maybe could affirm a confession personally but when it comes to the churches in which they serve they could never consistently put these believes into practice and want to find a way out. This is the problem with revivalistic calvinism right here. Bible Churches, Community Churches, SBC Churches are all mixed (I guess in theory any one of these could make this a membership issue because of the autonomy of the local church but very few do in my experience and I think I am right on this one) and they could never break away from these revivalistic/evangelicical traditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J.P.,
> 
> You really have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know the Baptist mods on this board and the degree to which they hold to the 1689 LBC. You're best served by muting your opinion in that area until you speak with some knowledge.
> 
> Secondly, the OP had to do with whether paedo churches should allow Baptists to join who will not submit their children to baptism. Your added commentary isn't helpful. I brought up a hypothetical situation that is a very real scenario in some locales. If you moved to an area where there were no paedo churches, would you attend a Reformed Baptist church? I hope you would. You may decide not to join out of conscience sake, but why would you not want to worship and fellowship with God's people? That's really what my hypothetical was about.
Click to expand...


I am just saying that this is supposed to be a confessionally reformed forum and all teh confessions that are historically reforemd (and I would put the 1689 LBC there) and if you look at the practice have made it clear on this issue. The only reason there would be controversey is because of revivalistic evangelisicism infecting in the Reformed Churches. But many persons who do not go to Reformed Baptist Churches call themselves Reformed Baptists when historically they are not. Believing in TULIP and credo baptism and intellectually asserting to the 1689 does not make u a reformed baptist. If that was teh case you would have to call Piper, Grudem, Mohler, Lawson, MacArthur (maybe) all reformed baptists when they are not. ARBCA is an association of Reformed baptistist churches and there are many independent ones of that. But there is a difference between historic reformed baptists and Baptists who hold to calvinistic solteriology


----------



## Herald

*Montana Blue said:*


> And you can say , "well then, plant a church," but its not always that easy. (Especially if you are a young single woman).



Kathleen, yeah...I'd prefer that you don't go starting your own church just yet.


----------



## jogri17

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have been in Confessional Churches for most of my 28 years. I have been a member of a RPCNA church, a PCA Church, and 1689 churches. Also a few others. I have always been a credobaptist. I have always defended my position while living at peace with the leadership of the Church. I was always respectful and promised to seek the unity of the Church. If baptism ever came up I would defer to the Pastor / Elders. They are the ones responsible for the congregation. I did not come out of revivalistic church background. My first Church was a Reformed Baptist Church without altar calls. I did share the gospel quite effectively with those around me.
> 
> The PCA allows credo's to be in membership. Not all Covenant Theologians are paedo.



All theology has to deal with covenants in some sort or another. Even dispensationalist have a place for covenant in their systems the question is what are the covenants and what are the implications. To be Reformed or prebyterian is to say there at at least 2 (works and grace- redemption was developed a bit after) and the promise of the cov. of grace is to their children though that is no guarentee of election.


----------



## Herald

Brian Withnell said:


> It would seem to me that eventually, it would come to the parents failing to fulfill their membership vows. While subscription is not required, the WCF states:
> 
> 
> 
> Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> And while that is not in itself a violation of the membership vows, one of the vows is:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So while technically, I suppose a session might think not subscribing to covenant baptism would not be restrictive of membership as long as it is not an issue. Though if a person has a child, the session should be working to instruct them as they are delinquent in doctrine. If then, after a long period of time of attempting to convince them of their error, they still do not "heed its discipline" the parents would be contumaciously holding to sin in disregard of their membership vows.
> 
> Those that are not baptized are not necessarily lost, but those that neglect the baptism of their children are in "great sin". When they are instructed in that error, and continue in such great sin, it is not only that sin they commit, but rebellion and violation of their vows. Should they be held to discipline for such action? I believe they should, and so if I were a credo baptist, I would either find a credo church, or start one. Joining a "good church" would mean joining one that would exercise loving discipline over the flock, and that would include not allowing the parents of a child to so neglect the baptism of their own children that they should not allow them to remain in fellowship.
> 
> This is no different than a credo church insisting that a person who being paedo and was baptized as an infant be baptized as an adult in order to join the church. I no of no baptist church that would allow a person baptized as an infant to join the church as an adult without submitting to baptism yet again, even though from a Presbyterian point of view, that is sin.
Click to expand...


Brian,

See what our dear sister Kathleen wrote. If the ONLY church in town is a paedo church, and you're a credo, you should attend the paedo church. I've said about three times so far, but it keep getting skipped, that if the elders indicate they will discipline me for not baptizing my children then I won't officially join the church. Would you expect a single young woman, like Kathleen, to start her own church? I would expect that the paedo church would warmly welcome the credo who would want to join/visit.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

sans nom said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA allows credo's to be in membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, with qualifications.
Click to expand...


Unfortunate? Not necessarily. It should be with qualifications for the sake of unity.

This is an old post that might be somewhat insightful here. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I wrote this when Piper and Grudem started discussing their views of Church membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I am not being disrespectful to Dr. Piper but I do believe he is responding to this issue emotionally instead of intellectually in light of the differences in our theologies. I mean no disrespect to that great man of God. I am prone to the same problems also. And I also desire for our Union in Christ to be more solidified in each other. But our views between Presbyterian and Baptist Covenant membership are very opposed to each other. The Presbyterian's promote an unregenerate membership because of earthly familial relationships while the Covenantal Baptist see the membership based upon New Covenant Principles which are based upon the reception of those who confess Christ and His atoning work on their behalf.
> 
> That is no small place of difference in my opinion.
> 
> Your brother in Christ,
> Randy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use to hold to Pipers view. I had great admiration for he Free Presbyterian Church Worldwide. They hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit. I hold a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity in both places is very important but our Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion.
> 
> Union seems to have more of a connection to something more than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity has to do with two walking side by side. We all have Union with Christ as a body but as a body has parts we are to walk in unity as members.
> 
> In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other in our individual Churches. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is conviciton and confession that binds them. At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out. One is congregationalism and the other is baptism. I do know of Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presbyterian's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presbyterian's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptized as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presbyterian is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant.
> 
> There are major differences that do not promote a Union but would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common with the beliefs we hold in common. For instance the Person and Work of Christ, the Five Sola's, most of our views on Covenant Theology. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God.
> 
> I have been a PCA member. I joined with a promise not to cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherance to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presbyterian in a Baptist Church membership or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictons in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders. And I would expect to hear the Word of God proclaimed by them in a goodly way.
> 
> The differences are to great in my estimation for such a mixed union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-bunyan-baptist-churchmanship-mark-dever-31238/#post383949
Click to expand...


MODERATOR NOTE... This was not to start a baptism debate so please do not do it.


----------



## matt01

PuritanCovenanter said:


> sans nom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PCA allows credo's to be in membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, with qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunate? Not necessarily. It should be with qualifications for the sake of unity.
Click to expand...


With qualifications, in that not all PCA churches allow credos to become members, without giving up their beliefs on baptism. I am all for paedo churches not allowing credo members, but would prefer it to be uniform.


----------



## Montanablue

Herald said:


> *Montana Blue said:*
> 
> 
> 
> And you can say , "well then, plant a church," but its not always that easy. (Especially if you are a young single woman).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kathleen, yeah...I'd prefer that you don't go starting your own church just yet.
Click to expand...


No worries... I'll try to hold myself back!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

sans nom said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sans nom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, with qualifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunate? Not necessarily. It should be with qualifications for the sake of unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With qualifications, in that not all PCA churches allow credos to become members, without giving up their beliefs on baptism. I am all for paedo churches not allowing credo members, but would prefer it to be uniform.
Click to expand...


I don't blame them if they do not allow membership of credo's. Especially if they believe it is a sin. Some are more gracious than others maybe. A credo would make someone be confessionally baptized if they wanted to become a member in a Reformed Baptist Church. It would be sin for them to not have a confessional baptism since that is what they believe. 

I do agree with membeship of paedo's and credo's with qualifications set in place concerning Church office and voting.


----------



## he beholds

Brian Withnell said:


> It would seem to me that eventually, it would come to the parents failing to fulfill their membership vows. While subscription is not required, the WCF states:
> 
> 
> 
> Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> And while that is not in itself a violation of the membership vows, one of the vows is:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So while technically, I suppose a session might think not subscribing to covenant baptism would not be restrictive of membership as long as it is not an issue. Though if a person has a child, the session should be working to instruct them as they are delinquent in doctrine. If then, after a long period of time of attempting to convince them of their error, they still do not "heed its discipline" the parents would be contumaciously holding to sin in disregard of their membership vows.
> 
> Those that are not baptized are not necessarily lost, but those that neglect the baptism of their children are in "great sin". When they are instructed in that error, and continue in such great sin, it is not only that sin they commit, but rebellion and violation of their vows. Should they be held to discipline for such action? I believe they should, and so if I were a credo baptist, I would either find a credo church, or start one. Joining a "good church" would mean joining one that would exercise loving discipline over the flock, and that would include not allowing the parents of a child to so neglect the baptism of their own children that they should not allow them to remain in fellowship.
> 
> *This is no different than a credo church insisting that a person who being paedo and was baptized as an infant be baptized as an adult in order to join the church. I no of no baptist church that would allow a person baptized as an infant to join the church as an adult without submitting to baptism yet again, even though from a Presbyterian point of view, that is sin.*
Click to expand...


I do see that this would be a contradiction, but I think it would be impossible for a Baptist church to allow what they see as unbaptized adults to join their church, BUT I do think Paedos could allow the parents of unbaptized babies to be members. I do think that it is correct to baptize babies and include them in the visible church, however, I think to exclude parents because of their contrary understanding is too harsh. Especially if the church states (as most Presbyterian ones do) that you have to be a member for communion. Then the parents are left without the sacrament based on an issue that does not, in my opinion, separate them from Christ's love.


----------



## Edward

Montanablue said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Montana Blue said:*
> 
> 
> 
> And you can say , "well then, plant a church," but its not always that easy. (Especially if you are a young single woman).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kathleen, yeah...I'd prefer that you don't go starting your own church just yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries... I'll try to hold myself back!
Click to expand...


If you do start one, make it seeker sensitive so it will grow more quickly.


----------



## Wannabee

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this does seem to be more of a complication for paedo churches than credo. While not all credo churches hold to the same standards for membership, I think that to be consistent membership should require believer's baptism. To fail to do so is disobedient and subjects one to church discipline. And to allow those baptized as infants is to allow, from a credo perspective, unbaptized members; i.e. those to become members who must be disciplined. 
For a peado to be consistent in their understanding, though I disagree with their position, it seems that they must discipline any parent who refuses to baptize their child. Failure to do so would denigrate their understanding of the covenant.
I would, however, welcome a paedo to worship with us and welcome them as brethren, if not members of our church. I would hope the same consideration would be extended me if I were in a town with no sound alternative, and I would expect no more.


----------



## Montanablue

Edward said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Montana Blue said:*
> 
> Kathleen, yeah...I'd prefer that you don't go starting your own church just yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries... I'll try to hold myself back!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do start one, make it seeker sensitive so it will grow more quickly.
Click to expand...


I will keep all of this in mind when I found The Church of Kathleen.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Joe,
A baptist can join our church. What if he gets married after he joins? Are we going to discipline him if he has children? What if he has only grown and previously baptized children?

The issue for me (and most sessions): *willingness to be taught*, to serious consider the teaching, not to "absent oneself" from the gathering if we are going to teach on that topic or witness an infant baptism.

Might as well say, "Hey, I'll come 90% of the time, except when you teach on eschatology. Nope, you can't teach me anything on that..."

That, It seems to me, is the whole issue. If someone wants membership and the Lord's Supper, then he is going to have to submit himself to the teaching of that church, without a "special reservation or exception." The Continentals go a bit farther, and give their members the Confession to sign and make their own. So it behooves them to know what they are confessing prior.


----------



## Wannabee

Bruce,
That's the decision your leadership has to make, and you will answer to God for it. I am not "teachable" if that means can I be swayed to the paedo view. And, though I mean absolutely no disrespect, I find the position that allows a family with unbaptized infants to be members of a paedo church a bit inconsistent. If it is God's mandate, then the parents are sinning. Can the church wink at such sin? Isn't that what allowing disobedient membership is? Still, I would rather go to a good Presbyterian church than a bad bapt one any day, even if I could not become a member.


----------



## Herald

Wannabee said:


> Bruce,
> That's the decision your leadership has to make, and you will answer to God for it. I am not "teachable" if that means can I be swayed to the paedo view. And, though I mean absolutely no disrespect, I find the position that allows a family with unbaptized infants to be members of a paedo church a bit inconsistent. If it is God's mandate, then the parents are sinning. Can the church wink at such sin? Isn't that what allowing disobedient membership is? Still, I would rather go to a good Presbyterian church than a bad bapt one any day, even if I could not become a member.



Joe,

I understand where you're coming from. It would seem a clean cut policy to exclude credos from membership. In the paedo mind are we in sin or not? Are we to categorize sin as to which sin is worthy of discipline and which sin is not? 

There is a couple in our church that is moving to a sparsely populated area of central New York. Based on my research on their behalf there are no Calvinistic credo churches within 150 miles of their new home. However, there a few Presbyterian churches nearby. I know the husband is quite resolved in his credo position, and that is not likely to change. They have a young son who is preschool age. What should they do? Do they join a local fundamentalist Baptist church even though the husband disagrees with much of the teaching, or do they attend a Presbyterian church even if they are denied membership? This is a real life decision that needs to be made, not a hypothetical. If it were my decision to make I would attend the Presbyterian church as long as my family was able to partake of the Lord's Supper. If entrance to the table was denied, I would join the Baptist church and make the best of it. I would attempt to "undo" the deficiency in the church's teaching during family worship.


----------



## Scott1

> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> Chapter 57
> The Admission of Persons to Sealing Ordinances
> 
> 
> 1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
> God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save
> in His sovereign mercy?
> 
> 2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God,
> and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him
> alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
> 
> 3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon
> the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as
> becomes the followers of Christ?
> 
> 4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
> work to the best of your ability?
> 
> 5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
> of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?



The vows are to God, witnessed by the visible church, including her lawful authority (governance through elders and deacons).

They require:

1) an examined and credible profession of faith
2) a confession of that faith
3) a vow to walk an orderly Christian life
4) a vow to support the church (time, prayers, finances)
5) a vow to submit to the governance and discipline of the church
6) a vow to peaceably study her doctrine

Some presbyterian and reformed denominations require more, e.g. to "confess" the church's doctrine by taking a promise of agreement with it, but the PCA and OPC do not.

In the PCA, officers must subscribe to "every proposition or statement" of the Westminster Standards unless granted a peer-reviewed exception. I can't imagine covenant baptism being an exception because it is so central to the covenant theology confessed.

So, what is the application of the vows to someone who is convinced infant baptism is not biblical?

First, a willingness to be taught as has been mentioned. The vow is to peaceably learn the church's doctrine, and in that way to submit to it. Someone who is unwilling to do that from the start cannot really in good faith take that vow.

It would seem to me someone who is trying to understand it, but not convinced of it could.

I would think that someone interviewing for membership who has infant children would need to be at least open to learning and peaceably studying the central church doctrine on that point. If they are a confirmed and outspoken in their belief against infant baptism, they ought not take the vows or be received in membership. 

Remember God judges vows from both the external and the heart. He enforces them. Sometimes, He chooses to use the church visible in enforcing them, sometimes He uses other means for chastisement (for disobeying or carelessly taking vows). 

It would seem to me that a church that does not believe in infant baptism ought hold to the same- for sake of the vows and integrity of the confession. It is better to be consistent. There is a biblical case that can be made for infant baptism and one that can be made for believers only baptism. But that would not seem to be a "flexible" doctrine to be consistent with a church's confession (that is a confessional church).

In practical fact, under the PCA system someone could be admitted for membership not being convinced of infant baptism and not agreeing to have their infant child baptized...

but over time, it would become inconsistent with their vows and profession and eventually, after much grace I would think, could become an issue for church discipline.

A person could also remain a "regular attender" indefinitely without taking those vows.

Remember too, "church discipline" takes many forms. In the PCA that is at least:

1) informal admonishment
2) formal admonishment
3) suspension from Lord's Supper
4) excommunication

Even a "regular attender" (not a member) can be informally admonished as part of general protection of the flock. They cannot be excommunicated but the lesser forms could be applied and they could leave without breaking the vows must take on that point. My understanding is discipline can in some cases be done in absense of the person for a member, but not for a non-member (e.g. regular attender).



> Ecclesiastes 5
> 
> 2Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.
> 
> 3For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.
> 
> 4When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
> 
> 5Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.
> 
> 6Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
> 
> 7For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.



We live in a generation perhaps that has less consciousness of vows. God has not forgotten.

The focus here is on the vows, what the covenant community confesses and your responsibility before God in that- not what one can "get away with" and not technically violate a vow in the context of new profession.


----------



## Herald

Scott, well said. In a sense it is a sad thing to have credos and paedos existing within, but also outside the church at the same time. Within, as visitors. Outside, as being excluded from membership. I can't help but think that elders should consider each case individually and extend grace were appropriate.


----------



## he beholds

But what we're left with when we accept brethren as regular attenders but not members is their inability to participate in the Lord's Supper. 
I'm ok with not allowing them to vote, etc, but not refusing them the table. 

Maybe if you were allowed to take the Lord's Supper just as being a member of the INVISIBLE church, this problem would be solved.


----------



## CharlieJ

he beholds said:


> But what we're left with when we accept brethren as regular attenders but not members is their inability to participate in the Lord's Supper.
> I'm ok with not allowing them to vote, etc, but not refusing them the table.
> 
> Maybe if you were allowed to take the Lord's Supper just as being a member of the INVISIBLE church, this problem would be solved.



My church allows any baptized, professing believer to come to the table. All the Presbyterian churches that I've been to do that. Is that unusual?


----------



## Scott1

he beholds said:


> But what we're left with when we accept brethren as regular attenders but not members is their inability to participate in the Lord's Supper.
> I'm ok with not allowing them to vote, etc, but not refusing them the table.
> 
> Maybe if you were allowed to take the Lord's Supper just as being a member of the INVISIBLE church, this problem would be solved.



You've got me thinking about this point.

My understanding is, the Lord's Table is visibly fenced by warning unbelievers not to partake, warning those walking a disobedient Christian life (e.g. under discipline, not regularly attending church, in major unrepentant sin) but allowing...

"any member in good standing of a church where this Gospel is preached"- that phrase does seem to require membership though- not necessarily that church but another evangelical church, whatever membership there might entail.

Your post has me considering whether a regular attender, who is not still a member of an evangelical church elsewhere can partake of the Lord's Supper

Practically, this can be complex in that other churches often have little or no formal membership requirements or process for dismissal or transfer. E.g. someone leaves a Baptist Church, is in good standing there but has been regularly attending a reformed presbyterian church (and getting excited about the doctrines of grace) for a year.

In my thinking, this situation would still allow the believer to partake. We would want to interpret as generously as possible to not deny access to this means of grace, but at the same time to protect it. Biblically, I don't see how membership, technically is quite at the heart of it.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce,
> That's the decision your leadership has to make, and you will answer to God for it. I am not "teachable" if that means can I be swayed to the paedo view. And, though I mean absolutely no disrespect, I find the position that allows a family with unbaptized infants to be members of a paedo church a bit inconsistent. If it is God's mandate, then the parents are sinning. Can the church wink at such sin? Isn't that what allowing disobedient membership is? Still, I would rather go to a good Presbyterian church than a bad bapt one any day, even if I could not become a member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I understand where you're coming from. It would seem a clean cut policy to exclude credos from membership. In the paedo mind are we in sin or not? Are we to categorize sin as to which sin is worthy of discipline and which sin is not?
> 
> There is a couple in our church that is moving to a sparsely populated area of central New York. Based on my research on their behalf there are no Calvinistic credo churches within 150 miles of their new home. However, there a few Presbyterian churches nearby. I know the husband is quite resolved in his credo position, and that is not likely to change. They have a young son who is preschool age. What should they do? Do they join a local fundamentalist Baptist church even though the husband disagrees with much of the teaching, or do they attend a Presbyterian church even if they are denied membership? This is a real life decision that needs to be made, not a hypothetical. If it were my decision to make I would attend the Presbyterian church *as long as my family was able to partake of the Lord's Supper*. If entrance to the table was denied, I would join the Baptist church and make the best of it. I would attempt to "undo" the deficiency in the church's teaching during family worship.
Click to expand...


I think the preaching of the Word would trump the LS. In other words,, I would go where the preaching is even if it means being barred from the LS.


----------



## KMK

Scott1 said:


> Remember too, "church discipline" takes many forms. In the PCA that is at least:
> 
> 1) informal admonishment
> 2) formal admonishment
> 3) suspension from Lord's Supper
> 4) excommunication
> 
> Even a "regular attender" (not a member) can be informally admonished as part of general protection of the flock. They cannot be excommunicated but *the lesser forms* could be applied and they could leave without breaking the vows must take on that point. My understanding is discipline can in some cases be done in absense of the person for a member, but not for a non-member (e.g. regular attender).



Just for clarification, attenders could be disciplined under 1,2 and 3 correct? Is that what you mean by 'lesser forms'? If so, this would be an argument in favor of allowing non-members to partake of the LS! One more avenue for church discipline.


----------



## Zenas

In my church, credos can be members and even become deacons, but cannot become elders.


----------



## KMK

CharlieJ said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what we're left with when we accept brethren as regular attenders but not members is their inability to participate in the Lord's Supper.
> I'm ok with not allowing them to vote, etc, but not refusing them the table.
> 
> Maybe if you were allowed to take the Lord's Supper just as being a member of the INVISIBLE church, this problem would be solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My church allows any baptized, professing believer to come to the table. All the Presbyterian churches that I've been to do that. Is that unusual?
Click to expand...


I think the URC only allows members in good standing of Reformed churches. This is from the bulletin at Oceanside URC where Danny Hyde serves.



> For this reason, our elders have the responsibility to oversee those who partake; therefore we welcome...
> 
> Those who are not members of one of the above, but who:
> 1. Believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
> 2. Have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 3. Are communicant members, not presently under church discipline, of a confessional Reformed or
> Presbyterian congregation.


 
Maybe Rev Hyde could weigh in on how they handle this. (BTW, I visited once but during an evening service. It was a wonderful service and you wouldn't believe the view! Location, location, location!)


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce,
> That's the decision your leadership has to make, and you will answer to God for it. I am not "teachable" if that means can I be swayed to the paedo view. And, though I mean absolutely no disrespect, I find the position that allows a family with unbaptized infants to be members of a paedo church a bit inconsistent. If it is God's mandate, then the parents are sinning. Can the church wink at such sin? Isn't that what allowing disobedient membership is? Still, I would rather go to a good Presbyterian church than a bad bapt one any day, even if I could not become a member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I understand where you're coming from. It would seem a clean cut policy to exclude credos from membership. In the paedo mind are we in sin or not? Are we to categorize sin as to which sin is worthy of discipline and which sin is not?
> 
> There is a couple in our church that is moving to a sparsely populated area of central New York. Based on my research on their behalf there are no Calvinistic credo churches within 150 miles of their new home. However, there a few Presbyterian churches nearby. I know the husband is quite resolved in his credo position, and that is not likely to change. They have a young son who is preschool age. What should they do? Do they join a local fundamentalist Baptist church even though the husband disagrees with much of the teaching, or do they attend a Presbyterian church even if they are denied membership? This is a real life decision that needs to be made, not a hypothetical. If it were my decision to make I would attend the Presbyterian church *as long as my family was able to partake of the Lord's Supper*. If entrance to the table was denied, I would join the Baptist church and make the best of it. I would attempt to "undo" the deficiency in the church's teaching during family worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the preaching of the Word would trump the LS. In other words,, I would go where the preaching is even if it means being barred from the LS.
Click to expand...


Ken,

In worship I do not believe there is any separation between the Word and sacrament since sacraments are commanded unto obedience in the Word. If other believing members of my household were prohibited from the Table, that would be an egregious offense to me. I would have to worship elsewhere unless there was no other option.


----------



## Marrow Man

> In my church, credos can be members and even become deacons, but cannot become elders.



Technically, according to the Form of Gov't, this is incorrect, Andrew. I know you may have men currently serving that capacity (I believe you have stated such before), but deacons take same ordination vows (with the exception of the obvious word change) as elders. If a Session permits a man to become a deacon who is credo, it is doing so in violation of the Standards. If a man answers the vow in the affirmative but disagrees with it, there is obviously another problem.

Here is what the FoG says with regard to the ordination of elders/deacons:



> D. ORDINATION AND INSTALLATION
> 1. The session shall meet before the service of ordination and installation to confer with the officers-elect and to hear any objections to the ordination and installation of such officers-elect.
> 2. The pastor of the congregation shall preside over the service of ordination and installation of ruling elders and deacons. If the congregation is without a pastor, the session shall invite some minister to preside.
> 3. At the time of the ordination and installation service, the officers-elect shall present themselves before the congregation, and shall solemnly promise, according to the annexed formula, to maintain the doctrine, government, discipline, and worship of the Church.
> 
> FORMULA FOR ORDINATION AND INSTALLATION
> (1) Do you believe in one God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—and do you confess anew the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord, and acknowledge Him Head
> over all things for the Church, which is His Body?
> (2) Do you reaffirm your belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
> as the Word of the living God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice, to which nothing is to be added and from which nothing is to be taken at any time or upon any pretext?
> *(3) Do you accept the doctrines of this Church, contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as founded on the Word of God and as the expression of your own faith and do you resolve to adhere thereto?*
> (4) Do you accept the government, discipline, and worship of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church?
> (5) Do you accept the office of ruling elder (deacon) in this congregation; and do you promise to perform faithfully all the duties of the office; and do you promise to
> endeavor by the grace of God to live your life in Christian witness before the church and in the world?
> (6) Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the session and to the higher courts of the Church?
> (7) Do you promise in all things to promote the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the church?



This is obviously a problem, and my advice is that you should speak to the Session of your church about it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

People who aren't members (someplace!) aren't technically subject to ANY discipline, if by discipline we understand the recognition of authority and submission to it's force.

That's the entire point, summarized. Folks who will not belong to a church, are saying that THEY will be in charge of their spiritual lot, from beginning to end.


As far as _negative_ church discipline goes, as in those 4 points above, a *non-member* isn't subject to ANY of them, not: "yes" to the first three, excepting excommunication.

"Discipline" is both a _positive_ and a _negative_ reality. _Positively_ the church disciplines through teaching (nurture) and by permissions to do things like "take the Lord's Supper."

I'm sorry, but no professing Christian has a RIGHT to the Lord's Supper. Hear me? NO RIGHT to it.

You don't even have a RIGHT to preaching, or to baptism--if by "right" you mean *access* on your own terms. That's the definition of "right," and rights are typically granted by a higher authority--unless there is NO higher authority.


The family analogy is perfectly apt. My children do not have "rights" to the privileges of my house. They do not have a "right" to the refrigerator, a "right" to the car keys, a "right" to education.

There is a just argument that they have some "rights" granted them by God, which their Mother and I are supposed to respect and in some cases provide for (according to our wisdom and judgment). Those "rights" are supposed to *mediated* to those children through the authority structure of this house. They enjoy those "rights" through the parents.

The principle of "appeal" (to higher authority) is the mechanism by which lesser authority is held accountable for its activity in mediating the rights of subordinates. But anyone who thinks that he's ONLY accountable to God will be disturbed to find that God is displeased with wholesale disregard for the forms He established. There is such thing as "abuse of authority," but such abuse is no license to disparage authority.

I exercise *discipline* in my house by FEEDING my children: "Come and eat, NOW." By EDUCATING my children: "2+2=4, memorize it" "i before e except after c, your answer is wrong" "did you read your history assignment? good job." By TAKING THEM to church, to grandma's, to the eye doctor, AND to the woodshed.


Discipline is not merely PUNISHMENT! It is the LIFE of the church. Receiving Baptism and the Lord's Supper are BENEFITS of belonging to Christ. So is sitting under Gospel ministry. All the blessings of discipline are just as much a free gift of God as a new heart.

No sensible church will turn away people from hearing the gospel, from hearing the Bible preached in fullness. Because that is the DOOR to heart-submission to God in every area. They should open that venue to ALL, and not just to members.

And they should be sensible about admitting members of the church-universal to their own table, but they may set their own rules as to the manner they will allow it. But it is out of the question that someone who CANNOT BE EXCOMMUNICATED (by any body) should be IN-COMMUNICATED, that is, permitted to the Table.

A half-moment's reflection should be sufficient to make this perfectly clear. That man is his OWN BOSS. his own authority. OK fine, then he can get his own Lord's Supper from himself, or from Christ himself. After all, he doesn't need anything mediated to him, so he can just find a church without any standards, or one that has no idea they will be held accountable by Christ for the care they exercised in these matters.


The point, as far as an unpersuaded Baptist holding membership in a Presbyterian church goes--he is a sinner, and his mind (to our way of thinking) needs sanctification in this area. Shall we punitively discipline a member who tells us "I am having trouble getting my head around the idea of Limited Atonement"?

Admonish him? Scold him? Keep him from the Table? Why?! He needs to keep coming, and have a teachable spirit. He needs to "believe that he may understand."

Obviously, if a man cannot be persuaded of a church's doctrine or practice, if he's hardened to it, then he cannot become a member. Or he needs to find another church, to which authority he can honestly submit. But a man in error should listen in the congregation. He should be submissive to the loving, patient, parent-like care of a church's minister and elders.


----------



## Montanablue

> The point, as far as an unpersuaded Baptist holding membership in a Presbyterian church goes--he is a sinner, and his mind (to our way of thinking) needs sanctification in this area. Shall we punitively discipline a member who tells us "I am having trouble getting my head around the idea of Limited Atonement"?
> 
> Admonish him? Scold him? Keep him from the Table? Why?! He needs to keep coming, and have a teachable spirit. He needs to "believe that he may understand."
> 
> Obviously, if a man cannot be persuaded of a church's doctrine or practice, if he's hardened to it, then he cannot become a member. Or he needs to find another church, to which authority he can honestly submit. But a man in error should listen in the congregation. He should be submissive to the loving, patient, parent-like care of a church's minister and elders.



Perhaps I am being thick-headed, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here. Could you clarify? Are you saying you would allow a credo-Baptist to become a member as long as they had a teachable spirit? Or are you saying that allowing membership of a Credo-Baptist into a paedo-Baptist church is unwise?


----------



## Scott1

KMK said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember too, "church discipline" takes many forms. In the PCA that is at least:
> 
> 1) informal admonishment
> 2) formal admonishment
> 3) suspension from Lord's Supper
> 4) excommunication
> 
> Even a "regular attender" (not a member) can be informally admonished as part of general protection of the flock. They cannot be excommunicated but *the lesser forms* could be applied and they could leave without breaking the vows must take on that point. My understanding is discipline can in some cases be done in absense of the person for a member, but not for a non-member (e.g. regular attender).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for clarification, attenders could be disciplined under 1,2 and 3 correct? Is that what you mean by 'lesser forms'? If so, this would be an argument in favor of allowing non-members to partake of the LS! One more avenue for church discipline.
Click to expand...


In practical effect, probably only #1 for a regular attender.

Formal admonishment involves more process (remember, presbyterians are (often for good biblical reason) big on process, appeal, etc.) 

When verbally fencing the Lord's Supper (e.g. for the Pastor to say that someone who is "a member in good standing of a church where this gospel is preached"), is a generalized instruction, not really particularized to a person. Discipline is always particularized to the alleged offender.

It's not a "suspension" in the sense of a step of discipline.


----------



## he beholds

CharlieJ said:


> My church allows any baptized, professing believer to come to the table. All the Presbyterian churches that I've been to do that. Is that unusual?



My church only allows "members in good standing of an Evangelical church."

My former church (also PCA) worded it differently and I took communion even though I was not a member anywhere. The pastor said, "members of Christ's church in good standing." Even though I had no membership anywhere, I considered myself a member of Christ's church and was not in gross sin, so I took the bread and wine. I eventually became a member there so this became a non-issue, but I could have been wrong in my interpretation of the pastor's statement. I think that is the correct view, though. I think anyone who is in Christ should be allowed the table. I think membership has practical and spiritual benefits, but I don't think it equals unity with Christ.


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> That's the entire point, summarized. Folks who will not belong to a church, are saying that THEY will be in charge of their spiritual lot, from beginning to end.



Bruce, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If you moved into an area where the only church available had serious doctrinal issues that precluded you from joining (either by your choice or the choice of the church), you would be making a statement that you are in charge of your spiritual lot, from beginning to end? If your conviction on baptism would cause you to face eventual church discipline, wouldn't you compound your sin of supposed erroneous doctrine by taking vows you cannot fulfill? Would it not be better to be a faithful attender and pray that God will lead you to a church you would be able to join? In this situation, which the couple moving from our area is about the face, I would not accuse them of neglecting spiritual authority. In fact, I would commend them for their acknowledging the authority of scripture in their life and having the principle not to take a rash vow.


----------



## KMK

Scott1 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember too, "church discipline" takes many forms. In the PCA that is at least:
> 
> 1) informal admonishment
> 2) formal admonishment
> 3) suspension from Lord's Supper
> 4) excommunication
> 
> Even a "regular attender" (not a member) can be informally admonished as part of general protection of the flock. They cannot be excommunicated but *the lesser forms* could be applied and they could leave without breaking the vows must take on that point. My understanding is discipline can in some cases be done in absense of the person for a member, but not for a non-member (e.g. regular attender).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for clarification, attenders could be disciplined under 1,2 and 3 correct? Is that what you mean by 'lesser forms'? If so, this would be an argument in favor of allowing non-members to partake of the LS! One more avenue for church discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In practical effect, probably only #1 for a regular attender.
> 
> Formal admonishment involves more process (remember, presbyterians are (often for good biblical reason) big on process, appeal, etc.)
> 
> When verbally fencing the Lord's Supper (e.g. for the Pastor to say that someone who is "a member in good standing of a church where this gospel is preached"), is a generalized instruction, not really particularized to a person. Discipline is always particularized to the alleged offender.
> 
> It's not a "suspension" in the sense of a step of discipline.
Click to expand...


So, what does 'formal admonition' look like?


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm sorry, but no professing Christian has a RIGHT to the Lord's Supper. Hear me? NO RIGHT to it.
> 
> You don't even have a RIGHT to preaching, or to baptism--if by "right" you mean *access* on your own terms. That's the definition of "right," and rights are typically granted by a higher authority--unless there is NO higher authority.
> 
> 
> The family analogy is perfectly apt. My children do not have "rights" to the privileges of my house. They do not have a "right" to the refrigerator, a "right" to the car keys, a "right" to education.
> 
> There is a just argument that they have some "rights" granted them by God, which their Mother and I are supposed to respect and in some cases provide for (according to our wisdom and judgment). Those "rights" are supposed to *mediated* to those children through the authority structure of this house. They enjoy those "rights" through the parents.
> 
> The principle of "appeal" (to higher authority) is the mechanism by which lesser authority is held accountable for its activity in mediating the rights of subordinates. But anyone who thinks that he's ONLY accountable to God will be disturbed to find that God is displeased with wholesale disregard for the forms He established. There is such thing as "abuse of authority," but such abuse is no license to disparage authority.
> 
> I exercise *discipline* in my house by FEEDING my children: "Come and eat, NOW." By EDUCATING my children: "2+2=4, memorize it" "i before e except after c, your answer is wrong" "did you read your history assignment? good job." By TAKING THEM to church, to grandma's, to the eye doctor, AND to the woodshed.
> 
> 
> Discipline is not merely PUNISHMENT! It is the LIFE of the church. Receiving Baptism and the Lord's Supper are BENEFITS of belonging to Christ. So is sitting under Gospel ministry. All the blessings of discipline are just as much a free gift of God as a new heart.
> 
> No sensible church will turn away people from hearing the gospel, from hearing the Bible preached in fullness. Because that is the DOOR to heart-submission to God in every area. They should open that venue to ALL, and not just to members.
> 
> And they should be sensible about admitting members of the church-universal to their own table, but they may set their own rules as to the manner they will allow it. But it is out of the question that someone who CANNOT BE EXCOMMUNICATED (by any body) should be IN-COMMUNICATED, that is, permitted to the Table.
> 
> A half-moment's reflection should be sufficient to make this perfectly clear. That man is his OWN BOSS. his own authority. OK fine, then he can get his own Lord's Supper from himself, or from Christ himself. After all, he doesn't need anything mediated to him, so he can just find a church without any standards, or one that has no idea they will be held accountable by Christ for the care they exercised in these matters.
> 
> 
> The point, as far as an unpersuaded Baptist holding membership in a Presbyterian church goes--he is a sinner, and his mind (to our way of thinking) needs sanctification in this area. Shall we punitively discipline a member who tells us "I am having trouble getting my head around the idea of Limited Atonement"?
> 
> Admonish him? Scold him? Keep him from the Table? Why?! He needs to keep coming, and have a teachable spirit. He needs to "believe that he may understand."
> 
> Obviously, if a man cannot be persuaded of a church's doctrine or practice, if he's hardened to it, then he cannot become a member. Or he needs to find another church, to which authority he can honestly submit. But a man in error should listen in the congregation. He should be submissive to the loving, patient, parent-like care of a church's minister and elders.



Bruce, so is a Christian then forced to believe a doctrine that they do not agree with in order for them to be a member and enjoy the blessing of church discipline, preaching and the sacraments? Wouldn't I be guilty of hypocrisy if I joined a church that required my assent to a doctrine, even if I don't believe it? I'm not talking about the neophyte or the ignorant; I'm referring to a person who has studied the doctrine, in this case, baptism. Is that person to be cast outside of the gathered body of believers and treated as though they are schismatic?


----------



## Wannabee

A couple of thoughts come up through this discussion.
One, it is difficult. Souls are held in the balance according to our decisions. We cannot wink at sin. We have an eternal charge.
Two, one should not move their family lightly. It is rare that one must move their family to an area where there is no likeminded church that they can plug into. Survival is necessary, but it is rarely a matter of survival. Often it is a matter of increased income or comfort. If these are our motives then we err and put ourselves in a spiritually compromising position. A church that we can embrace and that can embrace us must be at the top of our list in considering a move.

I appreciate the views of various perspectives here. They reveal the struggle and hearts that desire to glorify God and edify their brethren in Christ.


----------



## Herald

Wannabee said:


> A couple of thoughts come up through this discussion.
> One, it is difficult. Souls are held in the balance according to our decisions. We cannot wink at sin. We have an eternal charge.
> Two, one should not move their family lightly. It is rare that one must move their family to an area where there is no likeminded church that they can plug into. Survival is necessary, but it is rarely a matter of survival. Often it is a matter of increased income or comfort. If these are our motives then we err and put ourselves in a spiritually compromising position. A church that we can embrace and that can embrace us must be at the top of our list in considering a move.
> 
> I appreciate the views of various perspectives here. They reveal the struggle and hearts that desire to glorify God and edify their brethren in Christ.



Joe, I generally agree with you, but be careful in ascribing motives. People move for different reasons. Yes, a job may transfer someone, but if your skill is specialized, and you need to support your family, you do what you must. None of us live in a perfect world. On the PB we can often present sanitized versions of what should be; but they are not often based in reality. Often times we must minister to people where they are.


----------



## Scott1

> *KMK *
> Moderator
> 
> So, what does 'formal admonition' look like?





> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> Rules of Discipline
> Chapter 30
> 
> Church Censures
> 
> 30-2. Admonition is the formal reproof of an offender by a church court,
> warning him of his guilt and danger, and exhorting him to be more
> circumspect and watchful in the future.



An action on behalf of the court (session, presbytery, general assembly- 3 levels of courts [that's why general assembly is a spiritual court in presbyterianism], attaches process, and even a right of appeal. 

This does not mean formal admonition is public in the sense of announcing it to the congregation. Ordinarily, steps 1-3 are private, but the level of private engagement widens progressively.


----------



## Wannabee

Herald said:


> Joe, I generally agree with you, but be careful in ascribing motives. People move for different reasons. Yes, a job may transfer someone, but if your skill is specialized, and you need to support your family, you do what you must. None of us live in a perfect world. On the PB we can often present sanitized versions of what should be; but they are not often based in reality. Often times we must minister to people where they are.



I'm not aware that I ascribed motives or said any differently.


----------



## Herald

Wannabee said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, I generally agree with you, but be careful in ascribing motives. People move for different reasons. Yes, a job may transfer someone, but if your skill is specialized, and you need to support your family, you do what you must. None of us live in a perfect world. On the PB we can often present sanitized versions of what should be; but they are not often based in reality. Often times we must minister to people where they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware that I ascribed motives or said any differently.
Click to expand...


Joe, I may have read your post wrong. Sometimes I'm a quick-draw McGraw when it comes to reading posts. Bad habit. I apologize.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Montanablue said:


> The point, as far as an unpersuaded Baptist holding membership in a Presbyterian church goes--he is a sinner, and his mind (to our way of thinking) needs sanctification in this area. Shall we punitively discipline a member who tells us "I am having trouble getting my head around the idea of Limited Atonement"?
> 
> Admonish him? Scold him? Keep him from the Table? Why?! He needs to keep coming, and have a teachable spirit. He needs to "believe that he may understand."
> 
> Obviously, if a man cannot be persuaded of a church's doctrine or practice, if he's hardened to it, then he cannot become a member. Or he needs to find another church, to which authority he can honestly submit. But a man in error should listen in the congregation. He should be submissive to the loving, patient, parent-like care of a church's minister and elders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I am being thick-headed, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here. Could you clarify? Are you saying you would allow a credo-Baptist to become a member as long as they had a teachable spirit? Or are you saying that allowing membership of a Credo-Baptist into a paedo-Baptist church is unwise?
Click to expand...

Montana,
Yes, completely yes to your initial understanding. It is as simple as the membership vow. If a person cannot, will not listen to preaching of God's Word with a minimum of an open mind--on whatever comes out of the pulpit--SOMEONE needs correction.

Perhaps it is the Pastor! The pew-sitter takes his concerns to the appropriate supervision. Otherwise, it is an ungodly bristling at the preached Word; it is resistance to Christ speaking.

It seems so obvious on other points, doesn't it? Sister Arminian sitting there, beet-red with anger at that "horrible" doctrine of election that preacher is spouting. But she comes back and sits to that Word, and one day a few weeks later, she is in tears of gratitude. Her mind was softened by her submission. And now she not only receives such election teaching, she rejoices in it.


What I'm saying is: a Baptist who is so unalterably convinced of his point that he will not even listen to contrary preaching on the subject, or will "forsake the assembling together" on the day of an infant member's baptism--he should not be a member in that church. If the session knows he is obdurate past persuasion when he is thinking about possibly joining, they should refuse him for his conscience' sake.

In that case, I would call it "unwise". He is reserving to himself an area which he will not be in submission, going in he knows it. What if that area was "how to treat your wife"? No controversy, right? He can't say "No, I won't listen if you try to tell me I should NEVER beat my wife! What about when...?!? Seems a pastor ought to recognize that situation its OK." Sorry, I'm not taking this guy in voluntarily, until he changes his tune.

If its a no-brainer, that guy shouldn't be getting a membership (over a matter of practice related to his faith), then why is "baptism" (a matter of practice borne of theology borne of faith) a kind of "gray area" for us?

Historically, this disagreement is WHY there are Baptist churches. "Can't submit; OK, we've got to make our own church where we get it right."


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point, as far as an unpersuaded Baptist holding membership in a Presbyterian church goes--he is a sinner, and his mind (to our way of thinking) needs sanctification in this area. Shall we punitively discipline a member who tells us "I am having trouble getting my head around the idea of Limited Atonement"?
> 
> Admonish him? Scold him? Keep him from the Table? Why?! He needs to keep coming, and have a teachable spirit. He needs to "believe that he may understand."
> 
> Obviously, if a man cannot be persuaded of a church's doctrine or practice, if he's hardened to it, then he cannot become a member. Or he needs to find another church, to which authority he can honestly submit. But a man in error should listen in the congregation. He should be submissive to the loving, patient, parent-like care of a church's minister and elders.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I am being thick-headed, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here. Could you clarify? Are you saying you would allow a credo-Baptist to become a member as long as they had a teachable spirit? Or are you saying that allowing membership of a Credo-Baptist into a paedo-Baptist church is unwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Montana,
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is: a Baptist who is so unalterably convinced of his point that he will not even listen to contrary preaching on the subject, or will "forsake the assembling together" on the day of an infant member's baptism--he should not be a member in that church. If the session knows he is obdurate past persuasion when he is thinking about possibly joining, they should refuse him for his conscience' sake.
Click to expand...


Bruce, is a person obdurate if they are studied on a point of doctrine and have a well formed conviction? As with this couple from our church who is relocating; could they not sit under the teaching of a Presbyterian church, with a good heart attitude, but not be swayed by the teaching on baptism? Their lack of acquiescence to the teaching they are receiving is not because of a hardened heart, but because they are convinced by other scriptural arguments.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Herald said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the entire point, summarized. Folks who will not belong to a church, are saying that THEY will be in charge of their spiritual lot, from beginning to end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If you moved into an area where the only church available had serious doctrinal issues that precluded you from joining (either by your choice or the choice of the church), you would be making a statement that you are in charge of your spiritual lot, from beginning to end? If your conviction on baptism would cause you to face eventual church discipline, wouldn't you compound your sin of supposed erroneous doctrine by taking vows you cannot fulfill? Would it not be better to be a faithful attender and pray that God will lead you to a church you would be able to join? In this situation, which the couple moving from our area is about the face, I would not accuse them of neglecting spiritual authority. In fact, I would commend them for their acknowledging the authority of scripture in their life and having the principle not to take a rash vow.
Click to expand...

Bill,
Honestly, it would be a form of "taking charge" of my own spiritual lot. And either myself, or that church, will have to answer to God for that choice. I'm not afraid to say that. But I would also hesitate to move to a place where I could not join a church.

I can tell you now, today I cannot imagine what kind of shattering experience would be required to take me out of my mind on baptism, and likewise yourself I suppose. So, I am "unbaptized" to most baptists, I am not able to join their church without a second "baptism" (as far as they are concerned), and some of them anyway will follow that up by refusing an unbaptized person communion.

*How can I join that church?* I would not put myself in a position of compounding my sin through insubordination.

A baptist could at least know his baptism was recognized by that Presbyterian church. And he could be a communicant, provided he sat for the teaching on whatever the text for Sunday was. He might be STILL be unpersuaded, at the end of it. But he came, he listened, he compared the lesson to his conscience. He got _something_ out of the Word. And he is not held back from communion.

If the church taught the Word, preached Christ, was the best choice from a less-than-ideal selection, I would come and come back again and again--for the Word. I would play "lone ranger" Christian, and ask God for an improvement by whatever means of my situation. But I would not consider my situation tolerable.

I would probably move away from there if I could. I would make a church-home my principal driving conviction concerning where I should go.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Herald said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is no different than a credo church insisting that a person who being paedo and was baptized as an infant be baptized as an adult in order to join the church. I no of no baptist church that would allow a person baptized as an infant to join the church as an adult without submitting to baptism yet again, even though from a Presbyterian point of view, that is sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> See what our dear sister Kathleen wrote. If the ONLY church in town is a paedo church, and you're a credo, you should attend the paedo church. I've said about three times so far, but it keep getting skipped, that if the elders indicate they will discipline me for not baptizing my children then I won't officially join the church. Would you expect a single young woman, like Kathleen, to start her own church? I would expect that the paedo church would warmly welcome the credo who would want to join/visit.
Click to expand...


Of course they would welcome someone to visit ... there are no vows being taken. Of course it could become difficult if the person of the "opposite" belief tries to vocally maintain their belief (we recently had that problem at our church with a credo that wanted to always challenge that position in our Sunday School program, at Sunday evening Bible study, and the women's study). It is one thing to attend and be charitable with the difference and not try to continually bring up that difference at every opportunity, and to continually be argumentative on the subject.

But I also presume that the last part of my statement is being missed. No credo church I know would allow a paedo to become a member without being re-baptized (from the paedo perspective) as a believer. All of the credo churches I've seen require believer's baptism in order to become a member ... please correct me if I'm wrong on that. The paedo would certainly be welcome to visit, but I'm sure the same would be true there ... it would not be "okay" for a paedo to visit and try to "win converts" to paedo beliefs.

I believe the OP was about "membership" not just visiting.


----------



## Brian Withnell

he beholds said:


> I do see that this would be a contradiction, but I think it would be impossible for a Baptist church to allow what they see as unbaptized adults to join their church, BUT I do think Paedos could allow the parents of unbaptized babies to be members. I do think that it is correct to baptize babies and include them in the visible church, however, I think to exclude parents because of their contrary understanding is too harsh. Especially if the church states (as most Presbyterian ones do) that you have to be a member for communion. Then the parents are left without the sacrament based on an issue that does not, in my opinion, separate them from Christ's love.



It is essentially the same thing. I baptist would not allow a believer to join without baptism in the way they view baptism, but that would be *sinful* for someone that was baptized as an infant (it would call into question *the efficacy of God* in the original baptism the person was submitted to in infancy). So someone already baptized, should not be baptized again to join a church (even baptists would reject the idea of re-baptizing someone that they recognized the baptism of once ... one faith, one Lord, one baptism is a requirement of scripture).

As a side note, I do not believe that the OPC nor the PCA fence the table to only those who have membership in the local church, or even in their own denomination. I know that we include a warning that only those that are members in good standing of a Bible believing church, and not in some sin that would prohibit them from the table should partake, but very rarely do we have anyone that has not been under discipline in our own church (or known to be under discipline from their church) whom we would not allow at the table. I know some churches do a much more narrow fencing of the table, but I do not want to speak for them (and I cannot speak with authority in any case, I only speak to what I have experience with in my own church and those of which I have previously been a member ... I am deacon, not presbyter.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

If one wants to really study the original situation from the historical context I would look at John Bunyan's opinion and the way the Particular Baptist's held to Church membership. I believe the Particular Baptist of the late 1600's were a bit more lax than than modern day guys are. I referrenced this before in three places. One was concerning rebaptism and the other was about self baptism, but I will direct you to this one. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Baptists shared with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, their protest against the totalitarianism of the papacy and their zeal to recover the spirituality of the Church. They were Calvinists standing within the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster (putting aside paedo baptism). On the other hand, the General Baptist (which were mostly pelagian) were originally English separatists or Puritans who broke with the Church of England, which they regarded as a false church, perverted by error. Their sectarian spirit and point of view was carried over into their church life. On the other hand the Particular Baptists arose out of a non-Separatist independency. They were Congregational in polity but more ecumenical in spirit. They did not renounce the Church of England as being entirely corrupt. T*hey sought to maintain some bond of unity between themselves and Christians of other Communions. Among these Particular Baptists were those who were willing to admit into its membership, without rebaptism, those of other communions.*
> 
> p.22 A History of the Baptists By Robert G. Torbet
> Kenneth Scott Latourette did the forward to the book.
> 
> 
> 
> The above is taken from Torbets History of the Baptists.
Click to expand...


I would have problem's keeping anyone who believed and lived the Gospel from the table despite their view of covenant baptism.


----------



## Brian Withnell

I've heard this from both sides, and I will add my own voice as well. It is NOT okay for a person who has any choice to decide to move a family to a place that has no faithful church which to attend.

I faced such a decision about 8 years ago, and while it meant taking a pay cut to about 20 - 25% of my former salary, I would not move my family to a place where the job paid the same, but we would have not had a reasonably good assurance of a good church. Eventually, I stopped looking anywhere else, and accepted that God was calling me to a different lifestyle (from an economic point of view).

If someone moves because of work to an area without a good church when it is _possible_ to stay put, they have only themselves to blame.


----------



## Herald

Brian Withnell said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is no different than a credo church insisting that a person who being paedo and was baptized as an infant be baptized as an adult in order to join the church. I no of no baptist church that would allow a person baptized as an infant to join the church as an adult without submitting to baptism yet again, even though from a Presbyterian point of view, that is sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> See what our dear sister Kathleen wrote. If the ONLY church in town is a paedo church, and you're a credo, you should attend the paedo church. I've said about three times so far, but it keep getting skipped, that if the elders indicate they will discipline me for not baptizing my children then I won't officially join the church. Would you expect a single young woman, like Kathleen, to start her own church? I would expect that the paedo church would warmly welcome the credo who would want to join/visit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would welcome someone to visit ... there are no vows being taken. Of course it could become difficult if the person of the "opposite" belief tries to vocally maintain their belief (we recently had that problem at our church with a credo that wanted to always challenge that position in our Sunday School program, at Sunday evening Bible study, and the women's study). It is one thing to attend and be charitable with the difference and not try to continually bring up that difference at every opportunity, and to continually be argumentative on the subject.
> 
> But I also presume that the last part of my statement is being missed. No credo church I know would allow a paedo to become a member without being re-baptized (from the paedo perspective) as a believer. All of the credo churches I've seen require believer's baptism in order to become a member ... please correct me if I'm wrong on that. The paedo would certainly be welcome to visit, but I'm sure the same would be true there ... it would not be "okay" for a paedo to visit and try to "win converts" to paedo beliefs.
> 
> I believe the OP was about "membership" not just visiting.
Click to expand...


Brian, you're right, the same goes for a paedo at a Baptist church. And while the OP was about membership, I was taking it to the next step, "What do you do if you won't be accepted as a member?" If providence places you in such a situation you attend with a charitable attitude.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Herald said:


> Brian, you're right, the same goes for a paedo at a Baptist church. And while the OP was about membership, I was taking it to the next step, "What do you do if you won't be accepted as a member?" If providence places you in such a situation you attend with a charitable attitude.



It is my hope, that if a credo attends at my church with a charitable attitude (does not try to subvert our teaching on those areas where our confession differs from 1689er's) that they would be welcomed with open arms (and I don't mean firearms, unless that is "open and show clear"!  ). I love my baptist brethren, even if I do feel they are in error on this point. I even love my FB brethren, though I have a lot more bones to pick with them. (My 16-year-old son attends an indy baptist church's Christian school now, mostly so the wife can spend more time with the second son (six-year-old), who is on the high functioning side of the autism spectrum. I don't know of much more to show trust in someone than to trust one's son to their care!)

I know that we are to love one another ... and that unity of the body of Christ is not just for those that agree on every point of doctrine.

I would hope that we would be able to maintain a membership in a church from where I left until I could find a like minded church in where I was going ... though I would hope that my session would attempt to stop me from moving, unless it was necessary for life itself, into an area without a reformed presbyterian witness. About the only reason I could see me doing something like that would be to minister to my parents if something changed in their condition or situation.


----------



## OPC'n

We had a Baptist family who attended who with us and were not made to convert to paedo-baptism.....my pastor of course would have never changed his preaching on paedo-baptism!


----------



## Peairtach

How relevant is the passage about what happened to Moses when he didn't circumcise his son, to this? Or is it not relevant at all?

Is it too sensitive an issue to be throwing texts like that around at our baptist brethren?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Richard Tallach said:


> How relevant is the passage about what happened to Moses when he didn't circumcise his son, to this? Or is it not relevant at all?
> 
> Is it too sensitive an issue to be throwing texts like that around at our baptist brethren?



We could throw it both ways. I don't think it would be beneficial though. So let's not head there.

I do recommend that you read the sticky post of guidelines for this forum if you haven't already. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/new-guidelines-baptism-forum-24468/

Here are just a few comments in it. 



> 2. Treat your friend's position on the Scriptures with the same kind of care and concern that you want your own convictions treated.
> 
> 3. We allow the Confession of both Credo- and Paedo- Confessions of Faith. There will be no calls for repentance on this board for people who are confessing with their Church what the Scriptures teach.



Be Encouraged brother.


----------



## mvdm

KMK said:


> I think the URC only allows members in good standing of Reformed churches. This is from the bulletin at Oceanside URC where Danny Hyde serves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this reason, our elders have the responsibility to oversee those who partake; therefore we welcome...
> 
> Those who are not members of one of the above, but who:
> 1. Believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
> 2. Have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 3. Are communicant members, not presently under church discipline, of a confessional Reformed or
> Presbyterian congregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Rev Hyde could weigh in on how they handle this. (BTW, I visited once but during an evening service. It was a wonderful service and you wouldn't believe the view! Location, location, location!)
Click to expand...


Requiring a visitor to be a member of a Reformed/Presbyterian church in order to be welcomed to the table is not the uniform practice in the URC.


----------



## beej6

The OP was a hypothetical question but it is a real one. I know of several cases where a non-paedobaptist* is allowed to join a good Presbyterian church, but may not teach their 'opposing' view of baptism among the flock, nor hold office. Some stricter Reformed churches who not only require submission to the elders but also to hold to a catechism/confession as a membership requirement would tend to deny membership to non-paedobaptists.
In these cases there were available Baptist, even Reformed Baptist churches, but the folks involved decided to stay at the good Presbyterian churches since the preaching and discipleship were superior.

*Paedobaptists are credobaptists too! (smile)


----------



## Peairtach

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> How relevant is the passage about what happened to Moses when he didn't circumcise his son, to this? Or is it not relevant at all?
> 
> Is it too sensitive an issue to be throwing texts like that around at our baptist brethren?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could throw it both ways. I don't think it would be beneficial though. So let's not head there.
> 
> I do recommend that you read the sticky post of guidelines for this forum if you haven't already.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/new-guidelines-baptism-forum-24468/
> 
> Here are just a few comments in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Treat your friend's position on the Scriptures with the same kind of care and concern that you want your own convictions treated.
> 
> 3. We allow the Confession of both Credo- and Paedo- Confessions of Faith. There will be no calls for repentance on this board for people who are confessing with their Church what the Scriptures teach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be Encouraged brother.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reminder, brother.

*Quote from beej6*


> *Paedobaptists are credobaptists too! (smile)



We're credo-paedobaptists.


----------



## beej6

Richard Tallach said:


> We're credo-paedobaptists.



And that's cool!


----------



## greenbaggins

I don't have any problem whatsoever with allowing credo people to join my church. When they vow to submit to the governance and discipline of the church, that vow should not be interpreted as saying that if they refuse to become paedo, they will be expelled from the church. On this thread, I have seen a too-narrow definition of church discipline. Church discipline is not only negative. Bruce was getting at this a bit in terms of willingness to be taught. That is the key. The discipline involved with a credo brother or sister in Christ would involve long, careful, biblical exposition and teaching that could take place over years. To a paedo-baptist, the position of credo baptism should not be nearly the same thing as living in sin. Discipline is teaching. If after several years of patient instruction (and if often takes that long!), the credo is still unconvinced, then I would encourage them to seek another church, but I would never expel them. That is exercising church discipline, but it doesn't have to be on the road to excommunication. We need to broaden our definition of discipline. Of course, as has been mentioned, there are several Reformed churches that require confessional adherence in order to be a member. The PCA only requires that of office-bearers, and not of its members.


----------



## Herald

Lane,

There's only one fly in the ointment. You said:



> If after several years of patient instruction (and if often takes that long!), the credo is still unconvinced, then I would encourage them to seek another church, but I would never expel them.


A most reasonable pastoral position. But what if, after those several years, the couple is no longer in a position to baptize their child, or the children are already professed believers? At that point paedobaptism has passed them by so to speak. If they are still unconvinced, and no longer have children eligible for baptism, would the issue become moot?


----------



## greenbaggins

Herald said:


> Lane,
> 
> There's only one fly in the ointment. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If after several years of patient instruction (and if often takes that long!), the credo is still unconvinced, then I would encourage them to seek another church, but I would never expel them.
> 
> 
> 
> A most reasonable pastoral position. But what if, after those several years, the couple is no longer in a position to baptize their child, or the children are already professed believers? At that point paedobaptism has passed them by so to speak. If they are still unconvinced, and no longer have children eligible for baptism, would the issue become moot?
Click to expand...


In my opinion, it would become moot, and they wouldn't have to leave. Of course, I would not allow them to teach the credo position in the church.


----------



## Brian Withnell

greenbaggins said:


> I don't have any problem whatsoever with allowing credo people to join my church. When they vow to submit to the governance and discipline of the church, that vow should not be interpreted as saying that if they refuse to become paedo, they will be expelled from the church. On this thread, I have seen a too-narrow definition of church discipline. Church discipline is not only negative. Bruce was getting at this a bit in terms of willingness to be taught. That is the key. The discipline involved with a credo brother or sister in Christ would involve long, careful, biblical exposition and teaching that could take place over years. To a paedo-baptist, the position of credo baptism should not be nearly the same thing as living in sin. Discipline is teaching. If after several years of patient instruction (and if often takes that long!), the credo is still unconvinced, then I would encourage them to seek another church, but I would never expel them. That is exercising church discipline, but it doesn't have to be on the road to excommunication. We need to broaden our definition of discipline. Of course, as has been mentioned, there are several Reformed churches that require confessional adherence in order to be a member. The PCA only requires that of office-bearers, and not of its members.



For the most part I would agree, but the confession calls neglecting baptism is a great sin. Would you withhold membership from an adult professing believer if they did not submit to baptism? If so, what is so different between that and withholding baptism from their children? Would you allow membership and then go through a long process of instruction in order to bring them to the point of understanding baptism is required?

What I am not saying is that those that are credo cannot be admitted to membership, and that the process of instruction should not be gentle, persistent, and long in duration. But it would seem to me that not eventually going to more and more severe as it becomes evident that the parents are not just not convinced, but are unwilling to submit to authority over them in their indecision.

Ultimately, the position of the WCF is that those who neglect baptism are in great sin. For a believer, this negligence would be their own baptism, and it is unlikely the person so neglecting baptism would be allowed to become a member. For parents of children, the neglecting of baptism would be for their children's baptism (as the parents would already be baptized if they were members) and it would still be, in the words of the confession, great sin.

Should any member of the church be living in a state of great sin and be allowed to the Lord's Supper? This is continuous, and in a paedo church, I think ought to be dealt with as any member in any flagrant public sin. Certainly it requires gentle, correction, teaching and guidance, but when does the church exercise the marks of the true church and exercise Biblical discipline in order to bring the erring sheep into the fold?

If great sin is not worthy of correction, then what do we call sins that are worthy of correction.


----------



## Herald

This thread is a perfect example of why different denominations are a good thing, and why we should *not *seek to blur the lines of distinction between us. There is a reason why a credo is a credo and a paedo is a paedo. We should be charitable to all, even those who believe differently (so long as they are in the faith), but we should not seek accommodation on our convictions. The PB is a different animal. We are able to co-exist here, namely because we do not require each other to acquiesce to our different positions.


----------



## greenbaggins

Brian Withnell said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any problem whatsoever with allowing credo people to join my church. When they vow to submit to the governance and discipline of the church, that vow should not be interpreted as saying that if they refuse to become paedo, they will be expelled from the church. On this thread, I have seen a too-narrow definition of church discipline. Church discipline is not only negative. Bruce was getting at this a bit in terms of willingness to be taught. That is the key. The discipline involved with a credo brother or sister in Christ would involve long, careful, biblical exposition and teaching that could take place over years. To a paedo-baptist, the position of credo baptism should not be nearly the same thing as living in sin. Discipline is teaching. If after several years of patient instruction (and if often takes that long!), the credo is still unconvinced, then I would encourage them to seek another church, but I would never expel them. That is exercising church discipline, but it doesn't have to be on the road to excommunication. We need to broaden our definition of discipline. Of course, as has been mentioned, there are several Reformed churches that require confessional adherence in order to be a member. The PCA only requires that of office-bearers, and not of its members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part I would agree, but the confession calls neglecting baptism is a great sin. Would you withhold membership from an adult professing believer if they did not submit to baptism? If so, what is so different between that and withholding baptism from their children? Would you allow membership and then go through a long process of instruction in order to bring them to the point of understanding baptism is required?
> 
> What I am not saying is that those that are credo cannot be admitted to membership, and that the process of instruction should not be gentle, persistent, and long in duration. But it would seem to me that not eventually going to more and more severe as it becomes evident that the parents are not just not convinced, but are unwilling to submit to authority over them in their indecision.
> 
> Ultimately, the position of the WCF is that those who neglect baptism are in great sin. For a believer, this negligence would be their own baptism, and it is unlikely the person so neglecting baptism would be allowed to become a member. For parents of children, the neglecting of baptism would be for their children's baptism (as the parents would already be baptized if they were members) and it would still be, in the words of the confession, great sin.
> 
> Should any member of the church be living in a state of great sin and be allowed to the Lord's Supper? This is continuous, and in a paedo church, I think ought to be dealt with as any member in any flagrant public sin. Certainly it requires gentle, correction, teaching and guidance, but when does the church exercise the marks of the true church and exercise Biblical discipline in order to bring the erring sheep into the fold?
> 
> If great sin is not worthy of correction, then what do we call sins that are worthy of correction.
Click to expand...


You raise good points here, Brian. I agree that neglecting baptism is a great sin, even infant baptism. But I do not believe that all sins should be dealt with in the same way. I guess what I look for is whether or not a person is willing to be taught, as Bruce mentioned. If that teachable spirit is there, then we can go a long ways. If the person came in under false pretences, saying that they are teachable, when in fact they're not, then we have a serious problem. And we should discipline for wrong opinions just as surely as for wrong practice. There should be no divorce between the two. I'm hearing agreement on this point in your post. But to me, the issue comes down to this: how do we define the visible church? If a person professes faith in Jesus Christ, is that not the most important requirement to belong to the visible church? The tightness of the circle for membership concerns me here. Would we be saying, for instance, that a credo cannot be part of the visible church, if we make paedo-baptism a membership requirement? Should the entrance requirements for a church be the same as the requirements of belonging to the visible church anywhere, at least in terms of correct doctrine? I think this issue deserves more thought and care.


----------



## Scott1

> *greenbaggins*
> But to me, the issue comes down to this: how do we define the visible church? If a person professes faith in Jesus Christ, is that not the most important requirement to belong to the visible church? The tightness of the circle for membership concerns me here. Would we be saying, for instance, that a credo cannot be part of the visible church, if we make paedo-baptism a membership requirement?



Good discussion, all.

Perhaps what we are discussing is a couple of different aspects of membership- one is "de facto" membership in the visible church, the other is membership in a confessional church.

Some denominations in the reformed tradition confess doctrine by requiring members to receive it rather completely, that is to confess it as members. In that context, it might be said membership is being a Christian and professing (confessing) a comprehensive doctrinal system.

So, there is the aspect of the vows in a denomination that requires doctrinal subscription by its members.

While there are some good biblical reasons for that, such as a unified confession and profession, this view of membership seems to go beyond the biblical model. Another aspect of that I view positively is that the standards might tend to be more proactively taught and exemplified in the life of the church.

For example, I don't see where in Scripture a comprehensive understanding of biblical doctrines, far less complete agreement with each one is needed to acknowledge what God has done... redeeming a sinner and adopting him into the Body of Christ. For officers, yes, who are qualified for their doctrinal understanding and example, but I don't see it biblically for membership generally.

One potential difficulty we might have here is in the fact we have a "high" view of the church and understand that someone can only "leave" a church by dismissal, transfer, excommunication or death. A church that doesn't require doctrinal subscription vows by members would more easily be able to dismiss a member to a church with a different view (e.g. a church that believes infant baptism dismissing to a believer's only church). It would be very difficult to dismiss someone from a church requiring member doctrinal subscription to do that, but the member likely would have been already persuaded of the view in the case of required member doctrinal subscription.

It seems to me reformed theology is deep. It is profound. I haven't understood every doctrine at once, nor does that seem to ordinarily be the pattern of others. It seems growing in those doctrines, and learning to do it peaceable, respecting ecclesiastical authority is part of what membership in the visible church is all about.


----------



## Brian Withnell

greenbaggins said:


> You raise good points here, Brian. I agree that neglecting baptism is a great sin, even infant baptism. But I do not believe that all sins should be dealt with in the same way. I guess what I look for is whether or not a person is willing to be taught, as Bruce mentioned. If that teachable spirit is there, then we can go a long ways. If the person came in under false pretences, saying that they are teachable, when in fact they're not, then we have a serious problem. And we should discipline for wrong opinions just as surely as for wrong practice. There should be no divorce between the two. I'm hearing agreement on this point in your post. But to me, the issue comes down to this: how do we define the visible church? If a person professes faith in Jesus Christ, is that not the most important requirement to belong to the visible church? The tightness of the circle for membership concerns me here. Would we be saying, for instance, that a credo cannot be part of the visible church, if we make paedo-baptism a membership requirement? Should the entrance requirements for a church be the same as the requirements of belonging to the visible church anywhere, at least in terms of correct doctrine? I think this issue deserves more thought and care.



You also raise an excellent point on what is the definition of the visible church. I take the visible church to be all those who can agree to one of the historic creeds (Apostles' Creed, Nicaean Creed, or even the Athanasian Creed). But just because a person is part of the visible church, does not mean they should be members of a particular church unless they feel they are truly teachable. For instance, while I can understand someone that is a tea-totaler being a member of our church, they are going to have to be teachable in order to join the the LS (we use wine). If someone wanted to practice paedo communion, they would have to refrain and be willing to be taught. Someone that had not been baptized would have to submit to baptism to join, and be willing to be taught regarding paedo baptism. Someone that was a pacifist would need to be willing to be taught (our church has an active, though not mandatory, self-defense training for children ... we would not want someone saying it was wrong to teach children not to defend themselves from being abducted). If someone were an abortionist, I would hope they would be quickly required to stop killing children.

Not all of those are the same ... the WLC says that not all sins are equally heinous in themselves. The love of the body does cover over much sin, but it is not always against the body that a sin is committed. Any sin, for which a person is unrepentant becomes heinous more so because of the aggravation of contumacy. So nearly anything for which a person, when it is pointed out in love and concern could escalate to greater levels. If admonition is ignored, and the sin is practiced, eventually the issue is no longer what might otherwise be a less heinous sin.

But I think we generally agree ... if a credo were to join, and they were teachable, then it would not rise to the point of asking them to remove themselves. It might rise to that level if after years of council, they refused to have the sacrament given to their children. In a sense, I would be looking at the time as something less than what would be expected for a child to stand before the session on their own. If a couple had a 2 year-old, and did not have them baptized by the time the child was 10, that is eight long years of living in "great sin" from a WCF standpoint.

If it were some other area of life in which a person was trapped in "great sin" would we be so lacking in our care of the purity of the church to let someone continue unrepentant in that sin? Suppose someone was a drunkard? Or they never came to the Lord's Supper (or even came to church). Would we not in a period less than 8 years require some outward show of repentance?

Of course the only real outward show of repentance of neglecting the baptism of children would be to have the children baptized.

I would hope that my session would exercise care over my spiritual life to now allow me to have such a great sin for years without working with me to cause repentance. If we really hold to the confession, should we not expect the same for baptism?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Brian Withnell said:


> I would hope that my session would exercise care over my spiritual life to now allow me to have such a great sin for years without working with me to cause repentance. If we really hold to the confession, should we not expect the same for baptism?



Oops, that was supposed to be "NOT allow me to have such a great sin..."

-----Added 9/6/2009 at 11:12:28 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> One potential difficulty we might have here is in the fact we have a "high" view of the church and understand that someone can only "leave" a church by dismissal, transfer, excommunication or death. A church that doesn't require doctrinal subscription vows by members would more easily be able to dismiss a member to a church with a different view (e.g. a church that believes infant baptism dismissing to a believer's only church). It would be very difficult to dismiss someone from a church requiring member doctrinal subscription to do that, but the member likely would have been already persuaded of the view in the case of required member doctrinal subscription.



Death is not an option to leave a church ... the member transfers to the church of the redeemed in glory in the presence of the savior and rest until the resurrection on the last day. 



Scott1 said:


> It seems to me reformed theology is deep. It is profound. I haven't understood every doctrine at once, nor does that seem to ordinarily be the pattern of others. It seems growing in those doctrines, and learning to do it peaceable, respecting ecclesiastical authority is part of what membership in the visible church is all about.



I especially appreciate what you said here. It is very much my desire to respect authority, and a live peaceable life within the church. I would say that is a duty for all Christians everywhere ... some pursue it with more vigor than others.


----------



## Scott1

> *Brian Withnell*
> the member transfers to the church of the redeemed in glory in the presence of the savior



Brian, that's an interesting understanding of what it means to "transfer."

Sounds like a great church you mention- do they have a web site?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Scott1 said:


> *Brian Withnell*
> the member transfers to the church of the redeemed in glory in the presence of the savior
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, that's an interesting understanding of what it means to "transfer."
> 
> Sounds like a great church you mention- do they have a web site?
Click to expand...


They do, but it isn't reachable with IPv4 or IPv6.


----------



## dannyhyde

mvdm said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the URC only allows members in good standing of Reformed churches. This is from the bulletin at Oceanside URC where Danny Hyde serves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For this reason, our elders have the responsibility to oversee those who partake; therefore we welcome...
> 
> Those who are not members of one of the above, but who:
> 1. Believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
> 2. Have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 3. Are communicant members, not presently under church discipline, of a confessional Reformed or
> Presbyterian congregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Rev Hyde could weigh in on how they handle this. (BTW, I visited once but during an evening service. It was a wonderful service and you wouldn't believe the view! Location, location, location!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Requiring a visitor to be a member of a Reformed/Presbyterian church in order to be welcomed to the table is not the uniform practice in the URC.
Click to expand...


Hi Ken,

We came to our position after 4–5 years of study as a consistory. Our conclusion was the the historic practice of the Dutch Reformed churches is "close" communion, meaning, communion is administered to those in the congregation and its sister congregations, and those who are members of a church with a common profession of the faith (i.e, other Reformed churches). This was the position of the Church Order of the Synod of Dort as well as the Christian Reformed Church's historic Church Order (art. 61), which was changed in recent decades. Many of those changes were adopted in our circles as if they were the traditional practice, when in fact they were novel.


----------



## johnowen

I have a friend who is a pastor in a non-Reformed church. He is very Reformed and he is well-accepted by the other pastor and elders and congregation. There is only one thing; he cannot change the credo-baptism into paedo-baptism. Instead of paedo-baptism, the church does paedo-dedication (no water involved), just the public commitment of the parents, and church certificate is issued as a preparation for adult-baptism later. 

Now:
1. My friend is not in the position to change the practice; if he does, he will either have to quit or split the church. Is this desireable for a Reformed Christian?
2. His congregation becomes more and more Reformed as years pass by, and they will not mind of changing credo into paedo baptism. The problem is they mind offending the synod of that church.

My friend's approach is: keep reforming the church along Reformed confessions and put the paedo/credo baptism in the back burner until the Lord permits the time without threatening the unity of the church and the peace of the congregational life. To me, this is the wisest and biblical choice.

I raise this issue because some of the tones in this topic is so absolute. As if, unless you do paedo-baptism, you are NOT a reformed brother. 
In the light of this friend's situation, I would like to hear from you who require paedo-baptism as absolute mark of Reformed Christian.

Your thoughts are eagerly awaited.


----------



## Turtle

*"Wherefore receive ye one another..*

..as Christ also received us to the glory of God." Rom. 15:7

I find it interesting that Paul expected even the Jews and Gentiles to receive one another. This despite the fact that Jews were naturally inclined to go absolutely bananas at the thought of Gentiles getting any of the promises that were "made unto the fathers" (It was the Jews who naturally revolted at Paul's use of the word "gentile", tore their clothes, tossed dust in the air, and yelled that Paul was not fit to live. Act 22:22). Yet he expected that gulf to be bridged.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Brian Withnell

johnowen said:


> I raise this issue because some of the tones in this topic is so absolute. As if, unless you do paedo-baptism, you are NOT a reformed brother.
> In the light of this friend's situation, I would like to hear from you who require paedo-baptism as absolute mark of Reformed Christian.
> 
> Your thoughts are eagerly awaited.



I don't know as very many people hold to paedo-baptism as an absolute mark of Reformed Christianity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Turtle said:


> ..as Christ also received us to the glory of God." Rom. 15:7
> 
> I find it interesting that Paul expected even the Jews and Gentiles to receive one another. This despite the fact that Jews were naturally inclined to go absolutely bananas at the thought of Gentiles getting any of the promises that were "made unto the fathers" (It was the Jews who naturally revolted at Paul's use of the word "gentile", tore their clothes, tossed dust in the air, and yelled that Paul was not fit to live. Act 22:22). Yet he expected that gulf to be bridged.
> .



We are not crying anathemas at one another here. We are only trying to define what is Reformed and what is not necessarilly considered Reformed in the historical context of our confessions. No one here is declaring that another man is beyond the grace and forgiveness of God as the passage you are sighting. That is a gross overstatement. 

Please read through the thread again or take a look at my blog post which follows this paragraph. I am a Reformed Baptist who loves the Reformed faith and holds it in high reguard. At the same time I still let the definitions stand. This is about Church membership and discipline concerning ones confession of faith. Not whether a person is in Christ or not. 

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology - The PuritanBoard

BTW, some have changed postions after only studying it for 4 or 5 years. I have been a Reformed or Particluar Baptist for over 27 years now. Some people change. Some do not. Some even change to only change back. We have seen that on this discussion board. I have been a member of two Presbyterian Church denominations, PCA and RPCNA. We each have our disciplines and beliefs. I believe the distinctives are good and are helpful.

I posted this earlier in the thread. I recommed a relook at it. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/should-paedo-churches-allow-baptist-members-not-baptize-infants-52866/#post683381


----------



## KMK

Well said, Randy. And with that, this thread has definitely run its course.


----------

