# Question for PCAers about Baptism



## Marrow Man (Aug 29, 2009)

I received an email from a friend today who is considering joining a PCA church. He was formerly ARP (and Free Church of Scotland before that), but is now remarried and joining his wife's church.

He went through the membership class, but at the end the pastor made a comment that greatly distressed him. Someone in the class asked about baptism, and he said, "You don't have to be baptized to be a member of this church."

I sent a reply saying maybe it was just a misunderstanding -- perhaps he was just saying that the church did not re-baptize. But that was not it; the response was to a young lady who had never been baptized, and the context was something like, "We encourage it, but don't require it."

Can someone help me out here? He is freaking because he doesn't want to be a part of a church with such a view of the sacraments. Is there something I'm missing? I've already encouraged him to meet with the pastor to clarify this.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 29, 2009)

> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP 57-1
> ...



I have never heard of members in our denomination being admitted as members without being first baptized.

The above part of our Book of Church Order is constitutionally binding (as is the Westminster Confession, Catechisms and the Form of Government and Rules of Discipline sections, and three chapters only in the Directory of Public Worship- all in the Book of Church Order.)

Now regular attenders (not members) could continue being unbaptized.

One of the first things that is looked at for membership is baptism, especially whether a previous baptism (e.g. one from a mostly apostate mainline denomination, etc. is valid).


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 29, 2009)

PCA BCO 56-58 are constitutionally binding.



PCA BCO said:


> Temporary statement adopted by the Third General Assembly to preface the
> Directory for Worship: The Directory for Worship is an approved guide and
> should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the
> Standards. However, it does not have the force of law and is not to be
> ...



So in response to the OP: I would first go to the Session and ask about this before joining the Church. Second, I would hesitate greatly before joining this church, as by the description above they do have a serious slacking on the sacraments. If I were the person joining, I wouldn't. I'd go somewhere else.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 29, 2009)

Tim,

You cannot be a member of a PCA church without being baptized. It is a requirement.



> BCO 6-2. Communing members are those who have made a profession of faith in Christ, *have been baptized*, and have been admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table.



and



> BCO 6-4. *Those only *who have made a profession of faith in Christ, *have been baptized*, and admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table, are entitled to all the rights and privileges of the church. (emphasis added)



It is possible that the comment was a reference to not _having to have your children baptized as infants _(which would be true), or with respect to the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.

Feel free to PM me.


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 29, 2009)

Could the pastor have thought she was talking about infant baptism?

The reason I ask is that I had a conversation with a PCA elder about baptism and this response "We encourage it, but don't require it." was exactly what he said to me about infant baptism. I just wonder if there could have been a misunderstanding about the type of baptism that was being asked about/required.

-----Added 8/29/2009 at 07:37:16 EST-----

Oops. I cross posted with Pastor Greco.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 29, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Could the pastor have thought she was talking about infant baptism?
> 
> The reason I ask is that I had a conversation with a PCA elder about baptism and this response "We encourage it, but don't require it." was exactly what he said to me about infant baptism. I just wonder if there could have been a misunderstanding about the type of baptism that was being asked about/required.



I thought about this too, but he says no. He said the person asking said she had never been baptized, to which the pastor said it wasn't a requirement.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 29, 2009)

Perhaps he meant baptism wasn't a requirement before an interview. In any event, the pastor should be questioned about it for clarity.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Aug 29, 2009)

No that's not right. I was baptized as an adult at a PCA church, and it was made clear to me that first being baptized first was a requirement for church membership. Both happened at the same Sunday service, but the baptism preceded being welcomed as a member.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 29, 2009)

ericfromcowtown said:


> No that's not right. I was baptized as an adult at a PCA church, and it was made clear to me that first being baptized first was a requirement for church membership. Both happened at the same Sunday service, but the baptism preceded being welcomed as a member.




What if they baptized you and then asked you the vows to be a member of the church and you said no to some of the questions? Then what do they do?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 29, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> > No that's not right. I was baptized as an adult at a PCA church, and it was made clear to me that first being baptized first was a requirement for church membership. Both happened at the same Sunday service, but the baptism preceded being welcomed as a member.
> ...



The appropriate form would be:


Interview by the Session, hearing of the credible profession of faith
Answering the vows (5 questions of membership)
Becoming a member of the church, pending baptism
Baptism
Being asked the questions publicly as a testimony
In any event, the asking of the questions in 5 above does not affect membership. In the unlikely event that someone was admitted as a member, baptized, and then repudiated the vows, it would be a matter for Church discipline.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 29, 2009)

So upon #4 baptism, they are 'officially' a member.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 29, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > Could the pastor have thought she was talking about infant baptism?
> ...



This needs clarification right away, as has already been stated. If this is the practice of that congregation, they are out of accord with the standards and their practice needs to be rectified.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 29, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> So upon #4 baptism, they are 'officially' a member.



Yes.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 29, 2009)

Makes sense to me.


----------



## lynnie (Aug 29, 2009)

I am in the PCA.

Almost all of what I hear now and then about PCA churches is fine. But there is one I've heard about several times from very reliable people that is so wacked out you'd never guess it was PCA. According to credible reports everybody there is fine with the garbage and not one person in the church will complain to the session or the Presbytery, so nothing changes. (none of their elders ever go to presbytery meetings either, I was told). The WCF is not held in high esteem ( it isn't seeker friendly....I am not making this up, really).

Point is, not to burst anybody's rosy bubble and be a cynic, but entire churches can go off within an OK denomination. Anything is possible, certainly a low view of baptism included. Welcome to the wonderful world of deception. Depressing, isn't it.....


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 29, 2009)

What kind of ship are you guys running over there in the PCA?





Just kidding.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 30, 2009)

As we are all sinners, with tendency to be blind to sin, knowing some in the visible church prove out apostate, the presbyterian system recognizes individuals, churches, even whole presbyteries can go off.

Thankfully, that's why there are so many checks and balances in presbyterianism- a binding confession, vows, petition, appeal, a division of courts, etc.

They all reflect God acting out His purposes amidst an imperfect world, among an imperfect people. Good churches go "bad," and bad churches go "good." That's all for His Honor and His Glory too.


----------



## Archlute (Aug 30, 2009)

That's a nice "pie in the sky" view of the system, Scott, but at least some of us will testify otherwise. 

Checks and balances are atrocious when the powers that be in some presbyteries know how to manipulate them for reasons of self protection, and personal advancement. A confession is worthless when you can confront a session with their violation of it, and they ignore your complaint. Vows are meaningless when the elders who have sworn to them don't take them with any seriousness, even when the importance of upholding their vows is brought to their attention. 

I could go on, but suffice it to say that Presbyterianism is by far a perfect system of government, and at this point, with all of the corruption I have seen from within my own presbytery, I am not even sure that it is preferable once corruption and/or liberalism has gained enough of a foothold. There is a reason that the OPC and PCA are where they are as denominations separate from the mainline, and it's certainly not because they found the polity of Presbyterianism successful in correcting the errors residing within the Presbyterianism of their own day. 

Let's not make an idol of sorts out of a very imperfect system. I've seen more dirt coming out of our polity than I have beauty.


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 30, 2009)

Hey guys,
A) I was kidding, and 
B) I'm Presbyterian, too.


----------



## Archlute (Aug 30, 2009)

That's fine brother. I'm just a little short with our polity right now, and so people speaking of it as being such a great thing will rub me just a little bit the wrong way. It has not fixed the wickedness in the hearts of men in our current situation as quickly as had an Independent set up, and if it weren't for grudges being held that can affect the system in a way that would be unthinkable in a congregational/associational system I would still be on my way to the Sept. 13th Chaplains course. But that is a discussion for a different time and place.

I'll just say this much: backlash from my opinions regarding our FV supporting presbytery, backlash from my family's opposition to the pastor's institution of women leading in worship (they refuse even to talk about it with us), a session ignoring points of the confession, points of the BCO, and basic issues of pastoral integrity, untrained ruling elders unwilling to put their money where their mouth is when they have admitted in private that there are a number of problems going on, etc, etc. But I will stop now.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 30, 2009)

Archlute said:


> That's a nice "pie in the sky" view of the system, Scott, but at least some of us will testify otherwise.
> 
> Checks and balances are atrocious when the powers that be in some presbyteries know how to manipulate them for reasons of self protection, and personal advancement. A confession is worthless when you can confront a session with their violation of it, and they ignore your complaint. Vows are meaningless when the elders who have sworn to them don't take them with any seriousness, even when the importance of upholding their vows is brought to their attention.
> 
> ...





-----Added 8/30/2009 at 10:27:32 EST-----



Archlute said:


> That's fine brother. I'm just a little short with our polity right now, and so people speaking of it as being such a great thing will rub me just a little bit the wrong way. It has not fixed the wickedness in the hearts of men in our current situation as quickly as had an Independent set up, and if it weren't for grudges being held that can affect the system in a way that would be unthinkable in a congregational/associational system I would still be on my way to the Sept. 13th Chaplains course. But that is a discussion for a different time and place.
> 
> I'll just say this much: backlash from my opinions regarding our FV supporting presbytery, backlash from my family's opposition to the pastor's institution of women leading in worship (they refuse even to talk about it with us), a session ignoring points of the confession, points of the BCO, and basic issues of pastoral integrity, untrained ruling elders unwilling to put their money where their mouth is when they have admitted in private that there are a number of problems going on, etc, etc. But I will stop now.



Praying Adam...


----------



## chbrooking (Aug 30, 2009)

Sorry to hear of your frustrations, my friend. Do remember, though, that God is working this together for your good, and for the good of the soldiers among whom you will minister. Undoubtedly sin is behind the delay . . . but then, so is the secret counsel of God. 

The problem isn't the polity. It's the sinners operating under it (or refusing to).


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 30, 2009)

Do hope it's all a misunderstanding will be praying that it is!


----------



## Mark Hettler (Aug 30, 2009)

Archlute said:


> There is a reason that the OPC and PCA are where they are as denominations separate from the mainline, and it's certainly not because they found the polity of Presbyterianism successful in correcting the errors residing within the Presbyterianism of their own day.



Valid point, often overlooked.


----------



## Dao (Sep 2, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> . . . You cannot be a member of a PCA church without being baptized. It is a requirement.



I was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church. Later in my young days, my wife and I went to a General Baptist Church and liked the preaching style of Nelson Price, a popular pastor in Atlanta. We were baptized at that church via immersion. At that time, we had a different understanding of Baptism. After reading documents on Baptism, I would have been fine with baptism by sprinkle. I believe I only need to be baptized once regardless of which mainline church I attended too. Although, I have been going to my PCA church, regularly, I haven't really signed up membership to that church but looking forward to. What are the requirements of membership when one was baptized by immersion in a general Baptist Church?


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 2, 2009)

Archlute said:


> That's fine brother. I'm just a little short with our polity right now, and so people speaking of it as being such a great thing will rub me just a little bit the wrong way. It has not fixed the wickedness in the hearts of men in our current situation as quickly as had an Independent set up, and if it weren't for grudges being held that can affect the system in a way that would be unthinkable in a congregational/associational system I would still be on my way to the Sept. 13th Chaplains course. But that is a discussion for a different time and place.
> 
> I'll just say this much: backlash from my opinions regarding our FV supporting presbytery, backlash from my family's opposition to the pastor's institution of women leading in worship (they refuse even to talk about it with us), a session ignoring points of the confession, points of the BCO, and basic issues of pastoral integrity, untrained ruling elders unwilling to put their money where their mouth is when they have admitted in private that there are a number of problems going on, etc, etc. But I will stop now.



According to the BCO, you can do something about such actions of your session, presbytery...

"43-1. A complaint is a written representation made against some act or
decision of a court of the Church. It is the right of any communing member
of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a
court to whose jurisdiction he is subject, except that no complaint is
allowable in a judicial case in which an appeal is pending."


----------



## he beholds (Sep 2, 2009)

Archlute said:


> *I've seen more dirt coming out of our polity than I have beauty.*



I am sorry that you've been involved in a lot of bad things, but most of us would probably say that we've seen dirt, but far more beauty.


Dao said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > . . . You cannot be a member of a PCA church without being baptized. It is a requirement.
> ...



I am pretty sure that they would accept either of your baptisms. My husband was baptized Baptist and he did not need to be re-baptized. Plus, you were already baptized at that point, so I am sure the PCA would just say that your second baptism was redundant.


----------



## Curt (Sep 2, 2009)

Romans922 said:


> According to the BCO, you can do something about such actions of your session, presbytery...
> 
> "43-1. A complaint is a written representation made against some act or
> decision of a court of the Church. It is the right of any communing member
> ...



Some folks are aware that just because it's written down, that does not mean it will happen.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Sep 2, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> I thought about this too, but he says no. He said the person asking said she had never been baptized, to which the pastor said it wasn't a requirement.



Only baptized people can join a Church. If one has never been baptized in the Trinitarian formula then they must be baptized to join the visible Church.

There is no way around it.

Second baptisms are not necessary unless the original wasn't done in a trinitarian way.

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 12:20:44 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Montanablue said:
> ...



I have heard there are some PCA churches who have a lot of Baptist members because Calvinistic soteriology isn't normally taught in baptist churches anymore. Instead they are steeped in finneyism. So there may be an influence away from the standards here.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 2, 2009)

Dao said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > . . . You cannot be a member of a PCA church without being baptized. It is a requirement.
> ...



I am a PCA pastor who was immersed in a Southern Baptist church.


----------



## Dao (Sep 2, 2009)

he beholds said:


> . . . I am pretty sure that they would accept either of your baptisms. My husband was baptized Baptist and he did not need to be re-baptized. Plus, you were already baptized at that point, so I am sure the PCA would just say that your second baptism was redundant.





DD2009 said:


> Second baptisms are not necessary unless the original wasn't done in a trinitarian way.



Oh! So I had a re-baptism or a second baptism? I didn't think of that. Gee, I almost drowned. I've forgotten the rules of baptism and please refresh my mind on this. Question: If you're baptized as a infant at a presbyterian church, then you don't need to be baptized again as an adult, right? If you're baptized as an infant, you get lifetime membership at the presbyterian church. How does that work?


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 2, 2009)

> Psalm 34:19
> 
> 19Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all.



Sorry to hear about all your frustrations.

It's easy to say have faith to someone who has been through all you have experienced. But, be encouraged, God will work these things out toward the end of His own Glory. It will happen.



Archlute said:


> That's a nice "pie in the sky" view of the system, Scott, but at least some of us will testify otherwise.
> 
> Checks and balances are atrocious when the powers that be in some presbyteries know how to manipulate them for reasons of self protection, and personal advancement.
> 
> ...



Pray that God will help you discern the dirt... and the beauty. Both are there. There has been much of the latter.


----------



## he beholds (Sep 2, 2009)

Dao said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > . . . I am pretty sure that they would accept either of your baptisms. My husband was baptized Baptist and he did not need to be re-baptized. Plus, you were already baptized at that point, so I am sure the PCA would just say that your second baptism was redundant.
> ...



A pastor could better handle this question, but you are correct that Presbyterians do not require adults who were baptized as children to be re-baptized. They also would not require adults who were baptized as adults, but through Baptist churches, to be baptized at a Presbyterian church. I was baptized in a Catholic church and have not been made to even redo that (though opinions vary on this issue). 

Also, baptism doesn't equal lifetime membership in a church. A child who was baptized as an infant needs to make a profession of faith to become a communicant member. If he never does that, he will never become a communicant member and at some point (probably late teens/early adult) be questioned (maybe disciplined??) if he refuses to do so.
Also, just because a person is baptized does not mean (in Baptist or Presbyterian churches) that he is really a Christian and if a person showed that he wasn't, he would fall under discipline and possibly be ex-communicated, thus becoming a non-member.

Hope what I wrote makes sense AND was truthful...


----------

