# A Baptist in a Presbyterian church?



## Otávio Maziero (Jan 30, 2022)

Hello brothers,

I do not believe infant batism in biblical, even though I respect my brothers who believe so.

I am trying to find a biblical church, and was wondering if there is a problem in going to a Presbiterian church where they believe in paedobaptism.

Thank you


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 30, 2022)

I am a baptist, and for a time was a member of a presbyterian church. It depends on whether they'll insist that you baptize your children. The church I joined did not so insist.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 30, 2022)

Hello Otávio,

I'm pastoring a paedobaptist church, and you'd be most welcome, as long as you did not seek to undermine or contradict our paedo views. I've also pastored in a Baptist church (to help a pastor-friend for a while who was carrying too heavy a load), and I counseled Presbyterians who came to the church they were welcome if they did not promote contrary views to "our" Baptist standards.

It often happens that the only Reformed / Doctrines of Grace churches available to us – usually due to geographical situations – differ from what we believe re baptism. But even so, that the Doctrines of Grace are preached and lived retain the treasure of the Gospel is precious to our souls, especially amid the barren landscape of Arminianism and Charismatic practice, which do contradict Biblical teaching.

So I'd say you should have no problem if you respect their teachings (even if you disagree), and your children are not required to be baptized, as Ben said above.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 30, 2022)

Hi Otávio, 

hoping not to offend anyone but I think that a Reformed Church that lets Baptists become members has problems in their understanding of Church membership and the practical consequences of living out the Christian faith as laid out in the Reformed confessions. Also, I highly respect Baptist Churches that don't allow Paedobaptists to become members. It is just the right consequence. Otherwise, I don't really know how this should work. 

Best


----------



## Jake (Jan 30, 2022)

Catechised in Heidelberg said:


> Hi Otávio,
> 
> hoping not to offend anyone but I think that a Reformed Church that lets Baptists become members has problems in their understanding of Church membership and the practical consequences of living out the Christian faith as laid out in the Reformed confessions. Also, I highly respect Baptist Churches that don't allow Paedobaptists to become members. It is just the right consequence. Otherwise, I don't really know how this should work.
> 
> Best


Most Presbyterians and Baptists do not require confessional adherence to become members, unlike many continental Reformed churches.

I think the issue more often becomes in the practical outworkings of those doctrines. For example, from my experience Baptists will let me partake in the Lord's Supper because I was baptized in a Baptist church by profession of faith and immersion. If I had been baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church, most would not. And I suspect the same would apply to membership. For Presbyterians, many will not allow someone to join who has children they're not willing to submit to baptism, but someone without children in the home would not be an issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 30, 2022)

> Most Presbyterians and Baptists do not require confessional adherence to become members, unlike many continental Reformed churches.
> 
> I think the issue more often becomes in the practical outworkings of those doctrines. For example, from my experience Baptists will let me partake in the Lord's Supper because I was baptized in a Baptist church by profession of faith and immersion. If I had been baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church, most would not. And I suspect the same would apply to membership. For Presbyterians, many will not allow someone to join who has children they're not willing to submit to baptism, but someone without children in the home would not be an issue.


Yes, I get that point but still I think it is highly inconsistent. That seems to touch on the old _quia_ and _quatenus_ subscription problem. In my opinion, only the _quia_ subscription makes sense, although I recognise that this is hard to accomplish in North America due to structures and inner-denominational struggles. But the confessions only work and make sense if understood as a union. E.g. if a Baptist is a member in a Reformed Church, how could he participate in the Lord's Supper, if he does not acknowledge the baptisms of those baptised as infants? So you have an issue at the Lord's Table which should be a representation of the Church's union.


----------



## Edward (Jan 30, 2022)

The issues will certainly be smaller if you don't have infant children. Regular attendance instead of membership might be better in the circumstances. I'm not sure how one can submit to the authority of the elders if they refuse to be taught on a key point of doctrine.


----------



## Edward (Jan 30, 2022)

Jake said:


> Most Presbyterians and Baptists do not require confessional adherence to become members,



True, but in at least the PCA, a member must answer this in the affirmative: "Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to study its purity and peace?"


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 30, 2022)

Purity and peace generally means a morally upright person who does not stand up in every Bible study and denounce the church's beliefs and practices.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Jan 30, 2022)

@jwithnell But don't forget the "government and discipline" which should include teaching key doctrines of the faith. And if someone refuses to be taught, there is a problem.


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 30, 2022)

I still don't think that this is enough. All Church members should fully subscripe to the confessions!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Jan 30, 2022)

If the “Presbyterian” church permits you to join -and you have children who are not baptized- and does not require you to submit your children for baptism (and, especially if they require those who believe infant baptism to be God’s ordinance), then that is not a confessional Presbyterian church, since they would willingly suffer sin upon you (and your little ones) in such a way.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Andrew35 (Jan 31, 2022)

jw said:


> If the “Presbyterian” church permits you to join -and you have children who are not baptized- and does not require you to submit your children for baptism (and, especially if they require those who believe infant baptism to be God’s ordinance), then that is not a confessional Presbyterian church, since they would willingly suffer sin upon you (and your little ones) in such a way.


Believe you've just thrown most PCA and OPC churches out of the "confessional" box.

I was a member a member of churches in both of these at various times as a Baptist, and they did not require us to baptize our children. Rather they challenged and encouraged us to work through the issue, and eventually we did come to the understanding that infant baptism was Biblical.

If they had come down on us and excluded us from fellowship, we would probably still be Baptist today.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 31, 2022)

If clauses are never actually appropriate having in mind that God is still souverain. Good that you changed your view but still they made a false decision allowing you to become members. This is just creating all sorts of problems!


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 31, 2022)

Andrew35 said:


> Believe you've just thrown most PCA and OPC churches out of the "confessional" box.
> 
> I was a member a member of churches in both of these at various times as a Baptist, and they did not require us to baptize our children. Rather they challenged and encouraged us to work through the issue, and eventually we did come to the understanding that infant baptism was Biblical.
> 
> If they had come down on us and excluded us from fellowship, we would probably still be Baptist today.


Perhaps some OPCs, but for the one I attend, I could not have become a member without my child getting baptized. The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any. I can't speak to the PCA as I have never been in that denomination.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Jan 31, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Perhaps some OPCs, but for the one I attend, I could not have become a member without my child getting baptized. The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any. I can't speak to the PCA as I have never been in that denomination.


My understanding has always been there is a different standard for membership as opposed to office holding among members, and that Baptists could become members in the PCA and OPC, but not the latter.

I'll let officers speak to this, though, as I believe neither of us are. Perhaps my church experience was irregular. That was just how I understood the matter.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any.


The OPC BCO does not require members to subscribe to the WCF, and it certainly does not ask new members if they take any exceptions to it. If a church asks new members if they take exceptions, they are going far beyond what the BCO requires. Here is all the OPC BCO asks members received into the OPC to affirm (DPW IV.B.2):

Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?
Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## jw (Jan 31, 2022)

Andrew35 said:


> Believe you've just thrown most PCA and OPC churches out of the "confessional" box.
> 
> I was a member a member of churches in both of these at various times as a Baptist, and they did not require us to baptize our children. Rather they challenged and encouraged us to work through the issue, and eventually we did come to the understanding that infant baptism was Biblical.
> 
> If they had come down on us and excluded us from fellowship, we would probably still be Baptist today.


I could have better stated that by saying “such a church is not acting according to its confession of faith.” I’m not saying a zero to sixty in 2.5 seconds thing is the answer. Instruction is good and proper, and until such a time parents are not on board, they should not be members, because it’s “great sin” to withhold one’s children from baptism, and the church would be complicit in such. There are other problems, too, but that’s the first consideration.

(Also, to be clear, I am not arguing for church membership having fully to subscribe to the Confession of faith, but rather submission to government as guided by said Confession, and vows not to grate against such teachings)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Jan 31, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Perhaps some OPCs, but for the one I attend, I could not have become a member without my child getting baptized. The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any. I can't speak to the PCA as I have never been in that denomination.


The PCA varies. Our old PCA in PA required kids to get baptized before allowing membership, but we knew a guy on staff in another state whose PCA church didnt. One local PCA near us used to allow Baptists to be elders but stopped that maybe a dozen years ago. You really need to ask at the individual church. The PCA is not a homogenous group.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> The OPC BCO does not require members to subscribe to the WCF, and it certainly does not ask new members if they take any exceptions to it. If a church asks new members if they take exceptions, they are going far beyond what the BCO requires. Here is all the OPC BCO asks members received into the OPC to affirm (DPW IV.B.2):
> 
> Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
> Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
> ...


It sounds like the church I attend goes a bit beyond then. At the same time, I am glad they do this. What is the point of having a confession if you don't actually require members to adhere to it? I should clarify a bit though, this doesn't mean you can't take exceptions at all. They just want to know this going in.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 31, 2022)

But, again without offending anyone, does it make sense to take exceptions in the first place? I mean, the confessions work and function as an organic unity, don't you think that you undermine their authorities if you allow exceptions? And how to decide which exceptions are okay and which aren't?


----------



## jw (Jan 31, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> It sounds like the church I attend goes a bit beyond then. At the same time, I am glad they do this. What is the point of having a confession if you don't actually require members to adhere to it?


Adhering to its rule (_i.e._ submitting to the government of the local session, then presbytery, _et al_) is to be distinguished from requiring them to vow that they believe everything in the Confession. While I don't believe members have to be subscriptionists, it is regrettable to see the pendulum swing to the other side where accommodation is made such that members are encouraged in anti-covenantal and dis-unifying behavior (_i.e._ your kids are baptized, but I don't have to submit mine for such). There is no place for such "special cases" when it comes to the rightful administration of the sacraments. It is contrary to the unity of the church to submit members to different categories of discipline, some submitting to the government of the church, while others are free conscientiously to disregard. The message that sends -whether intentional or not- is not good. A session or Pastor, however, patiently coming alongside parents, instructing them with regard to baptism, encouraging them to their duty, until such a time they are ready to submit, sends a good message.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 31, 2022)

jw said:


> Adhering to its rule (_i.e._ submitting to the government of the local session, then presbytery, _et al_) is to be distinguished from requiring them to vow that they believe everything in the Confession. While I don't believe members have to be subscriptionists, it is regrettable to see the pendulum swing to the other side where accommodation is made such that members are encouraged in anti-covenantal and unifying behavior (_i.e._ your kids are baptized, but I don't have to submit mine for such). There is no place for such "special cases" when it comes to the rightful administration of the sacraments.


Right and like I said, putting aside full subscription to the confession, baptism of my child was a non negotiable.


----------



## jw (Jan 31, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Right and like I said, putting aside full subscription to the confession, baptism of my child was a non negotiable.


Praise the Lord for that!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 31, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Perhaps some OPCs, but for the one I attend, I could not have become a member without my child getting baptized. The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any. I can't speak to the PCA as I have never been in that denomination.


I've brought this up before. I was told when I was pondering alternatives, that if the WCF's Sabbatarianism was important to me, I'd find the OPC disappointing. I know an OP minister who will go out to eat on the Lord's Day. If the OPC does not allow exceptions, which is what I"m told for ministers, how is this all possible?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

jw said:


> Adhering to its rule (_i.e._ submitting to the government of the local session, then presbytery, _et al_) is to be distinguished from requiring them to vow that they believe everything in the Confession. While I don't believe members have to be subscriptionists, it is regrettable to see the pendulum swing to the other side where accommodation is made such that members are encouraged in anti-covenantal and unifying behavior (_i.e._ your kids are baptized, but I don't have to submit mine for such). There is no place for such "special cases" when it comes to the rightful administration of the sacraments.


I think what Josh said here strikes the right balance.

There are actually a few different conversations being had here: 1) What ought Presbyterian churches do about church membership? 2) What ought Presbyterian churches do with regard to sacramental differences among the body? 3) How does this relate to holders of office? These are three related but quite distinct questions, with related but also distinct answers. Regarding confessional subscription only (so, questions #1 and #3), Church bodies ought to require full, strict subscription of their officers. Church unity is in peril without it. But requiring it of lay people is going too far. It puts in place barriers to membership in the Church (not _the ministry_) where the Lord has not placed any, which is very dangerous.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I've brought this up before. I was told when I was pondering alternatives, that if the WCF's Sabbatarianism was important to me, I'd find the OPC disappointing. I know an OP minister who will go out to eat on the Lord's Day. If the OPC does not allow exceptions, which is what I"m told for ministers, how is this all possible?


While I love the OPC, it is not necessarily the greener pastures the general Presbyterian world thinks it is. It has its share of problems. For this reason, I am thankful for my presbytery (Presbytery of the Southeast), because they will not ordain or license a man who takes exceptions, including and especially the Sabbath.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 31, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I've brought this up before. I was told when I was pondering alternatives, that if the WCF's Sabbatarianism was important to me, I'd find the OPC disappointing. I know an OP minister who will go out to eat on the Lord's Day. If the OPC does not allow exceptions, which is what I"m told for ministers, how is this all possible?


I was not careful in my first response. I attempted to clarify. Exceptions are allowed, but baptism of children is required (at least in the church I attend). They did want to know if I took any exceptions though up front. When it comes to the Lord Day observance though, you are right on and it is very sad. My family is one of like 3 that actually observe the Lord's day.


----------



## Edward (Jan 31, 2022)

Catechised in Heidelberg said:


> I still don't think that this is enough. All Church members should fully subscripe to the confessions!


Under your standards, my wife would never have joined my church when we got married. A solid Christian, but it took years of teaching in church to get her from Dispensational to reformed. If they had closed the door in her face, things likely would not have worked out as well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 31, 2022)

> Under your standards, my wife would never have joined my church when we got married. A solid Christian, but it took years of teaching in church to get her from Dispensational to reformed. If they had closed the door in her face, things likely would not have worked out as well.


Of course, there is a learning process. In our Church, all future members are required to have read the confessions and ask questions about what they don't understand. And at the end of the membership course there is a small "test" (which is definetly the wrong word") about the right understanding of the gospel, the sacraments, the Apostle's Creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. Of course, you are not examined about every little detail of the confessions but still you are required to say yes not only to the Church gouvernment but also to the confessions itself. 

And also, think about it: there are texts in the Ancient Church period that say that for some new converts it took years to become members and participate in the Lord's Supper. It is also a good old Reformed tradition and worth considering!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> While I love the OPC, it is not necessarily the greener pastures the general Presbyterian world thinks it is. It has its share of problems. For this reason, I am thankful for my presbytery (Presbytery of the Southeast), because they will not ordain or license a man who takes exceptions, including and especially the Sabbath.


Is the OPC Presbytery of the SE exclusive psalmody?


----------



## MChase (Jan 31, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> Is the OPC Presbytery of the SE exclusive psalmody?



No, there are very few EP congregations in the OPC and the OPC as a whole is quite hostile to such ideas. One minister even suggesting that psalm singers would not be allowed to be members of his congregation.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 31, 2022)

MChase said:


> No, there are very few EP congregations in the OPC and the OPC as a whole is quite hostile to such ideas. One minister even suggesting that psalm singers would not be allowed to be members of his congregation.


_If_ the WCF teaches EP, and Taylor is claiming the presbytery does not allow exceptions, how are the churches not EP?

If the interpretation that the WCF is EP, and someone claims full subscription yet is not EP, they are either being revisionist with the confession or should take an exception. I believe this is why Fred Greco takes exception to the WCF at this point. If the interpretation that the WCF is EP is correct, this would be the honest thing to do.


----------



## MChase (Jan 31, 2022)

It is interesting how much confessional subscription has changed in the PCA and OPC over the years. When my minister, who was not EP at the time, was in the PCA he was required to take exception to the confession on exclusive psalm singing. You were required to take exception to the standards if you believed in singing man-made hymns. 

When I was in the OPC a few years back, I was told that its basically sectarian and narrow minded not to ordain "orthodox men" who may disagree with the standards on a certain point. I was also told that an exclusive psalmist would not be welcome in this presbytery (or the OPC for that matter). How those two things go together, I do not know. Same sort of issue wrt the sabbath. Folks who thought the sabbath was abiding and had some impact on what one did or didn't do on the Lord's Day were derided as legalists. I had a man who filled the pulpit from time to time walk out of the house and leave a men's gathering because I said it probably wasn't best practice to eat out on the Lord's Day. The OPC has a confessional standard, I think it too often happens to differ from the one that is written down. In the OPC's case, I think _animus imponentis _has been used to justify far too much.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

MChase said:


> No, there are very few EP congregations in the OPC and the OPC as a whole is quite hostile to such ideas. One minister even suggesting that psalm singers would not be allowed to be members of his congregation.


I would say calling the OPC as a whole “quite hostile“ to exclusive psalmody is an extreme assessment. I would be curious to know what OPC minister said he would not allow EP folks even to be members of his congregation, because I highly doubt any presbytery in the OPC would tolerate such extremism. Do you have a name or a source?

Anyway, the question had to do specifically with the Presbytery of the Southeast. To answer that question, no, our presbytery is not by conviction EP. I’m not sure if there are any EP churches in our presbytery, but I do know that our presbytery is certainly not “hostile“ to the conviction.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 31, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> _If_ the WCF teaches EP, and Taylor is claiming the presbytery does not allow exceptions, how are the churches not EP?
> 
> If the interpretation that the WCF is EP, and someone claims full subscription yet is not EP, they are either being revisionist with the confession or should take an exception. I believe this is why Fred Greco takes exception to the WCF at this point. If the interpretation that the WCF is EP is correct, this would be the honest thing to do.


The PCUSA tradition out of which the OPC (and PCA) come, revised the WCF with the understanding hymns are permitted. They did not do this directly but via the old PCUSA directory for worship. The OPC and PCA do not hold to the original WCF which they altered, so while one can take an exception to the original understanding, which was I believe EP, at least practically speaking, if one wants to, it is not necessary given the PCUSA tradition or what is called adopting intent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 31, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The PCUSA tradition out of which the OPC (and PCA) come, revised the WCF with the understanding hymns are permitted. They did not do this directly but via the old PCUSA directory for worship. The OPC and PCA do not hold to the original WCF which they altered, so while one can take an exception to the original understanding, which was I believe EP, at least practically speaking, if one wants to, it is not necessary given the PCUSA tradition or what is called adopting intent.


In the PCA recently a licentiate's exception to the original being EP was deemed semantic.


----------



## MChase (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I would say calling the OPC as a whole “quite hostile“ to exclusive psalmody is an extreme assessment. I would be curious to know what OPC minister said he would not allow EP folks even to be members of his congregation, because I highly doubt any presbytery in the OPC would tolerate such extremism. Do you have a name or a source?
> 
> Anyway, the question had to do specifically with the Presbytery of the Southeast. To answer that question, no, our presbytery is not by conviction EP. I’m not sure if there are any EP churches in our presbytery, but I do know that our presbytery is certainly not “hostile“ to the conviction.



It was Jim Cassidy on a public Facebook post a few years back. He said EPers would not be allowed to be members of his congregation. I was told in private that if I was EP, the OPC "was not the place for me". It was not something that was going to be tolerated of ministers in that presbytery, that is for sure. I guess that is fine, where are they going to find a pulpit anyway?

Recently an acquaintance who is a student at GPTS came to his presbytery for licensure in the PCA. He holds to the Establishment Principle and EP. He was denied on that account, and was told that the Establishment Principle was equivalent to Christian sharia.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

MChase said:


> It was Jim Cassidy on a public Facebook post a few years back. He said EPers would not be allowed to be members of his congregation.


I would be shocked if that was exactly what he said. Do you have a way for me to see that post? I have a friend who knows Jim very well. I will ask if that is his position. To be frank, unless I were to see the post, I highly doubt it.

Anyway, the question about subscription and EP in the OPC is interesting, but it seems off-topic to me. It doesn’t help or concern the OP.


----------



## MChase (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I would say calling the OPC as a whole “quite hostile“ to exclusive psalmody is an extreme assessment. I would be curious to know what OPC minister said he would not allow EP folks even to be members of his congregation, because I highly doubt any presbytery in the OPC would tolerate such extremism. Do you have a name or a source?
> 
> Anyway, the question had to do specifically with the Presbytery of the Southeast. To answer that question, no, our presbytery is not by conviction EP. I’m not sure if there are any EP churches in our presbytery, but I do know that our presbytery is certainly not “hostile“ to the conviction.



Part of this has to do with geography. There is quite a big difference in presbyteries. I've been to an OPC in Northern Michigan that was very similar to the PRC sans piano. My wife's former OPC was as liturgical as they come and elders' families skipped church to go to art festivals. The OPC is not a monolith.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

MChase said:


> Part of this has to do with geography. There is quite a big difference in presbyteries. I've been to an OPC in Northern Michigan that was very similar to the PRC sans piano. My wife's former OPC was as liturgical as they come and elders' families skipped church to go to art festivals. The OPC is not a monolith.


You’re right, it isn’t monolithic, which is what I said a few posts back. Still, a minister saying he would not allow EP folks to be members of his church seems extreme to the max, to the point of being unbelievable. Hence, I would prefer to see an actual statement. And I’m also asking my friend about this because, if true, it is very disturbing.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I would be shocked if that was exactly what he said. Do you have a way for me to see that post? I have a friend who knows Jim very well. I will ask if that is his position. To be frank, unless I were to see the post, I highly doubt it.
> 
> Anyway, the question about subscription and EP in the OPC is interesting, but it seems off-topic to me. It doesn’t help or concern the OP.


I was responding to your initial claim that your presbytery requires full subscription which on one interpretation of the WCF would require EP. If the presbytery is not EP, there is either revisionism going on via the BCO or the individual, or an exception is taking place via the BCO or the individual. 

I was pushing a little to highlight the point that full subscription is a little fuzzier today than most make it out to be.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I would be shocked if that was exactly what he said. Do you have a way for me to see that post? I have a friend who knows Jim very well. I will ask if that is his position. To be frank, unless I were to see the post, I highly doubt it.
> 
> Anyway, the question about subscription and EP in the OPC is interesting, but it seems off-topic to me. It doesn’t help or concern the OP.


I may have seen that. Jim's not being hostile but practical; and he may be consistent if he treats RB's the same way. I would hope if there was no other church he would not show such folks the door, if they were otherwise peaceful. Some of this hostility may be in reaction to bad acting EPs. If everyone would just be mindful and charitable I think there should be no reason EPs couldn't find refuge in a non EP church. I've managed it for 15 years now; granted my late sister's husband is the pastor. He'd like to retire now and so I'm on the committee looking for his replacement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I would say calling the OPC as a whole “quite hostile“ to exclusive psalmody is an extreme assessment. I would be curious to know what OPC minister said he would not allow EP folks even to be members of his congregation, because I highly doubt any presbytery in the OPC would tolerate such extremism. Do you have a name or a source?
> 
> Anyway, the question had to do specifically with the Presbytery of the Southeast. To answer that question, no, our presbytery is not by conviction EP. I’m not sure if there are any EP churches in our presbytery, but I do know that our presbytery is certainly not “hostile“ to the conviction.


The Presbytery of Wisconsin and Minnesota would be the same in regard to EP (they are not EP), but certainly not hostile to it.


----------



## MChase (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> You’re right, it isn’t monolithic, which is what I said a few posts back. Still, a minister saying he would not allow EP folks to be members of his church seems extreme to the max, to the point of being unbelievable. Hence, I would prefer to see an actual statement. And I’m also asking my friend about this because, if true, it is very disturbing.



I was in the OPC happily for a few years and was EP the entire time. My pastor never gave me a hard time.


----------



## Smeagol (Jan 31, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> _If_ the WCF teaches EP, and Taylor is claiming the presbytery does not allow exceptions, how are the churches not EP?
> 
> If the interpretation that the WCF is EP, and someone claims full subscription yet is not EP, they are either being revisionist with the confession or should take an exception. I believe this is why Fred Greco takes exception to the WCF at this point. If the interpretation that the WCF is EP is correct, this would be the honest thing to do.


I believe the thinking is that since the authoritative body (the OPC as a whole) does not adopt the document as being an EP document, therefore no exception would be required. I believe @Alan D. Strange has given a talk somewhere online about the technical legal terms involved with this subject. I state all this without giving my opinion one way or another.

See interview here: https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc337/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 31, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> I believe the thinking is that since the authoritative body (the OPC as a whole) does not adopt the document as being an EP document, therefore no exception would be required. I believe @Alan D. Strange has given a talk somewhere online about the technical legal terms involved with this subject. I state all this without giving my opinion one way or another.
> 
> See interview here: https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc337/


And I’m in agreement with the OPC and any P&R denomination in America really. What I’m trying to bring out is that I don’t think there is a _simple_ full subscription to the original in reality (an individual and the confession with no layers or filters in between). The confessions have been revised, and layers/filters are further added to that by way of a BCO or Testimony. So even if an individual may not take an exception, there are already varying degrees of interpretational differences between the church bodies which would amount to exceptions had it simply been just an individual and the confession. In other words, “exceptions” in some form are already taking place regardless.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> The OPC BCO does not require members to subscribe to the WCF, and it certainly does not ask new members if they take any exceptions to it. If a church asks new members if they take exceptions, they are going far beyond what the BCO requires. Here is all the OPC BCO asks members received into the OPC to affirm (DPW IV.B.2):
> 
> Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
> Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
> ...


I think this is the right approach. I like the OPC affirmation for membership and confessional subscription for elders. Any greater requirement for membership would seem unbiblically burdensome.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MChase (Jan 31, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> And I’m in agreement with the OPC and any P&R denomination in America really. What I’m trying to bring out is that I don’t think there is a _simple_ full subscription to the original in reality (an individual and the confession with no layers or filters in between). The confessions have been revised, and layers/filters are further added to that by way of a BCO or Testimony. So even if an individual may not take an exception, there are already varying degrees of interpretational differences between the church bodies which would amount to exceptions had it simply been just an individual and the confession. In other words, “exceptions” in some form are already taking place regardless.



I think to a certain extent you are correct. The Church of Scotland interpreted WCF 23.3 in a certain way (magistrate's ability to call synods when a church is not yet constituted). I think the rub comes when the _animus imponentis _is used to justify things that the assembly would have never meant. 

If a church doesn't believe that 6 day creationism or psalm singing is required for ministers, why not change the confession of the church? I think that is a better practice than allowing for exceptions or cramming things into the intent of the adopting body.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 31, 2022)

MChase said:


> I was in the OPC happily for a few years and was EP the entire time. My pastor never gave me a hard time.


Thanks for the pictures. They’re helpful.

I think what Jim said there is a far cry from “I will not allow EP folks in my church as members.” That doesn’t appear to me to be a charitable reading. The context, terseness, punctuation, and the fact that it’s a social media comment section leads me to believe his remarks were at least to some degree tongue-in-cheek.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 31, 2022)

MChase said:


> If a church doesn't believe that 6 day creationism or psalm singing is required for ministers, why not change the confession of the church? I think that is a better practice than allowing for exceptions or cramming things into the intent of the adopting body.


Better, more honest, but harder; cramming is easier and avoids the hard work of constitutional change. My guess as to why the PCUSA only changed the directory was to avoid any fight over changing the CF, given the several generation fight over psalmody in the American churches. I may be very wrong but I don't know why otherwise they would not have changed it since they clearly changed a few other places where there were no such fights current or recent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jan 31, 2022)

Maybe we can steer this discussion back the question of baptism views and membership?

I only say this because good info has been shared that might be worthy of a separate thread title easier to find in search.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase (Jan 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Thanks for the pictures. They’re helpful.
> 
> I think what Jim said there is a far cry from “I will not allow EP folks in my church as members.” That doesn’t appear to me to be a charitable reading. The context, terseness, punctuation, and the fact that it’s a social media comment section leads me to believe his remarks were at least to some degree tongue-in-cheek.



I don't really have the time nor energy to find old threads, but if I am remembering correctly he elaborated and said he'd allow neither baptists nor exclusive psalm singers to become members because they could not take the 5th membership vow of the OPC. I grant that allowing Baptists in a church creates a sort of Church within the Church scenario, but the application to EPers is troubling. What if I sing hymns but don't recite creeds? I think its a rather narrow interpretation of the 5th vow.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 31, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> Maybe we can steer this discussion back the question of baptism views and membership?
> 
> I only say this because good info has been shared that might be worthy of a separate thread title easier to find in search.


Since confessional subscription is not required for membership as in holding office, a Baptist would have no problem being in a P&R church. Even most baptists would recommend a confessional P&R church over a looser Calvinistic Baptist body. As a Presbyterian I would further recommend it as a Baptist would be more likely to get the right teaching and administration of the sacraments presented which would hopefully lead to them becoming Reformed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 31, 2022)

> Since confessional subscription is not required for membership as in holding office, a Baptist would have no problem being in a P&R church. Even most baptists would recommend a confessional P&R church over a looser Calvinistic Baptist body. As a Presbyterian I would further recommend it as a Baptist would be more likely to get the right teaching and administration of the sacraments presented which would hopefully lead to them becoming Reformed.


Don't you think this causes some rather big issues in that congregation? I don't mean attending a Reformed Church (of course this should be possible), I mean becoming a member.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 31, 2022)

Catechised in Heidelberg said:


> Don't you think this causes some rather big issues in that congregation? I don't mean attending a Reformed Church (of course this should be possible), I mean becoming a member.


What big issues are you thinking of?


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 31, 2022)

> What big issues are you thinking of?


You have someone who does not think of the baptised children of believers as members of the visible covenant community. I think this is a pretty big issue, especially if this person is allowed to come to the table.


----------



## Otávio Maziero (Jan 31, 2022)

Andrew35 said:


> Believe you've just thrown most PCA and OPC churches out of the "confessional" box.
> 
> I was a member a member of churches in both of these at various times as a Baptist, and they did not require us to baptize our children. Rather they challenged and encouraged us to work through the issue, and eventually we did come to the understanding that infant baptism was Biblical.
> 
> If they had come down on us and excluded us from fellowship, we would probably still be Baptist today.



Can you send me a private message showing how you changed your mind?


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Otávio Maziero (Jan 31, 2022)

jw said:


> I could have better stated that by saying “such a church is not acting according to its confession of faith.” I’m not saying a zero to sixty in 2.5 seconds thing is the answer. Instruction is good and proper, and until such a time parents are not on board, they should not be members, because it’s “great sin” to withhold one’s children from baptism, and the church would be complicit in such. There are other problems, too, but that’s the first consideration.
> 
> (Also, to be clear, I am not arguing for church membership having fully to subscribe to the Confession of faith, but rather submission to government as guided by said Confession, and vows not to grate against such teachings)



Can you tel me in private message why it is such a great sin? My wife is pregnant, Im studying the subject. 


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk


----------



## Smeagol (Jan 31, 2022)

I would say go to the Presbyterian Church, assuming they are faithful in the mains (preaching, sacraments, & membership accountability) and be willing to learn from the Pastor. Attend for a season. If your mind is changed, then join and be ready to have the newborn baptized.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 31, 2022)

MChase said:


> I think its a rather narrow interpretation of the 5th vow.


I think on an old thread @Alan D. Strange said that in as many words. It would exclude John Murray from OPC membership. And Jim is not ignorant; I think he was still an CPJ editor when we did the Murray issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_; but regardless, he knows Professor Murray was EP and the OPC has a both sides presentation report.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

