# The Standards of Membership in Presbyterian Churches



## Dearly Bought (Sep 29, 2009)

I am interested to learn what standards the membership are held to in Presbyterian (big "P", i.e. Westminster tradition) churches. It is my understanding that both the PCA and OPC tend to hold their members to a very basic standard which usually allows for Baptists, Arminians, anti-Sabbatarians, etc. to hold membership without fear of discipline. I am more curious to find out the standards that the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Free Church (Continuing), Presbyterian Reformed Church, and other such bodies hold their members to. I'm particularly interested in American churches, but I'd be interested to hear from our international brethren as well.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2009)

In one sense all members are held to the same standards as the office-bearers because of their commitment to be subject to oversight. They are obliged to "hear the church" in this sense.

In another sense, Presbyterians recognise individual development means that people will be at various stages in their pilgrimage -- little children, young men, and fathers. Hence personal subscription to church standards is not required, but only a willing submission to listen and learn as the Holy Spirit speaks to the church through the Word.

In the "Free Church" tradition there has been a conscientious attempt to make the gates of Jerusalem as wide as the Scriptures open them. This means that a credible profession of faith is required for membership, which is received by church oversight with a judgment of charity.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 29, 2009)

1) credible profession of faith.

2) baptism in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

(not necessarily in that order )

Or, if you do not mean membership in the sense of joining as an adult then only baptism.

Anything else and you have begun to leave Prebyterianism & enter Fundamentalism, in my opinion.


----------



## Wayne (Sep 29, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> In the "Free Church" tradition there has been a conscientious attempt to make the gates of Jerusalem as wide as the Scriptures open them. This means that a credible profession of faith is required for membership, which is received by church oversight with a judgment of charity.



Well said. PCA practice would be in perfect agreement. I assume this would be the case with the OPC as well.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Sep 29, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> In one sense all members are held to the same standards as the office-bearers because of their commitment to be subject to oversight. They are obliged to "hear the church" in this sense.
> 
> In another sense, Presbyterians recognise individual development means that people will be at various stages in their pilgrimage -- little children, young men, and fathers. Hence personal subscription to church standards is not required, but only a willing submission to listen and learn as the Holy Spirit speaks to the church through the Word.
> 
> In the "Free Church" tradition there has been a conscientious attempt to make the gates of Jerusalem as wide as the Scriptures open them. This means that a credible profession of faith is required for membership, which is received by church oversight with a judgment of charity.



What are the differences (if any) over the expectations of the membership following a credible profession of faith? I understand that members are not required to confess the church's confession, but are they held to the standards of God's Law confessed in the Confessions?


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2009)

Dearly Bought said:


> What are the differences (if any) over the expectations of the membership following a credible profession of faith? I understand that members are not required to confess the church's confession, but are they held to the standards of God's Law confessed in the Confessions?



They are held to the standards of God's law as taught by the Confessions in their commitment to "hear the church." The church recognises that "the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." So the application of the commandment is always with this end in view. The church should never seek to impose an implicit faith on her members. All discipline should be exercised in a familial spirit to encourage grace rather than in a legal way of punishing sin.


----------



## Edward (Sep 30, 2009)

Dearly Bought said:


> It is my understanding that both the PCA and OPC tend to hold their members to a very basic standard which usually allows for Baptists, Arminians, anti-Sabbatarians, etc. to hold membership without fear of discipline.



You have either not stated this well, or you need to do a bit more homework.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Sep 30, 2009)

Edward said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> > It is my understanding that both the PCA and OPC tend to hold their members to a very basic standard which usually allows for Baptists, Arminians, anti-Sabbatarians, etc. to hold membership without fear of discipline.
> ...



Please help me to state it better. I'm not trying to be offensive, but rather to understand the different conceptions of membership. I'm not under the impression that the PCA or OPC _encourage_ "credo-baptism," Arminianism, or anti-Sabbatarianism. However, it has been my basic understanding that someone can hold these views in both the PCA and OPC without coming under the church's discipline as long as they are not stirring up dissension in the church.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 30, 2009)

> Presbyterian Church in America
> membership vows
> 
> 1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of
> ...



Basically, for membership:

1) an examined credible profession of faith (e.g. elder visitation after instruction)
2) vow to walk an orderly Christian life
3) vow to support the church (prayers, service, finances, etc.)
4) vow to submit to church governance and discipline
5) vow to peaceably study the church's doctrine

A new member must also have had a valid Christian baptism before membership.

A new member is not required to understand, far less agree with everything in the doctrinal standards (Westminster Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechism).

An officer (elder or deacon) must have comprehensive knowledge of and receive every statement and/or proposition in the Westminster Standards unless granted a peer reviewed exception.

So, for example, a brand new Christian who has absorbed something of the broadly evangelical Arminian influence, dispensationalism, and lack of binding confession could join as a member with the vow to peaceably study the church's doctrine and be under her governance and discipline.

This works well in practice when everyone seeks to do, by God's grace, their role (e.g. elders teach the doctrine, deacons lead in encouraging covenant community participation, members faithfully study). New people get "converted" to reformed theology all the time.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 30, 2009)

Vows of Church Membership for the OPC

1. 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?
2. Do you admit you are a sinner and hating your sinfulness, do you humble yourself before God and trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, putting to death your old nature and to lead a godly life?
4. 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 obey its discipline?


----------



## Dearly Bought (Sep 30, 2009)

To clarify my line of questioning a little more, I want to know how these vows are interpreted in practice:


> (PCA)
> 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?





> (OPC)
> 3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, putting to death your old nature and to lead a godly life?
> 4. 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 obey its discipline?


In the PCA, would Sabbath-breaking or refusal to baptize one's children violate the third vow since the Confession does not present such as becoming to followers of Christ?

In the OPC, what is the standard for delinquency in doctrine? What is the standard for delinquency in godly living? (Please don't say "the Bible." I'm asking if there are any subordinate standards to guide church discipline.)


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 30, 2009)

Our pastor makes the distinction between dogma -- what the early church described as being essential to being Christian, believing in Christ alone for Salvation, the trinity and so forth -- and standards of a particular church. He draws an inner circle for dogma (everyone associated with the church must hold to these beliefs) then draws an outer circle for the standards and says that all church officers must hold to both dogma and doctrinal standards.

To become a member, visitors go through a fairly lengthy orientation class that thoroughly explains the standards of the church and then are examined by the session regarding their profession of faith.

As a result, I've seen people come into our fellowship actually changing some of their positions. (Just last week we had a family join who came out of a credo-baptist position and willingly had their children baptized after hearing the doctrine carefully examined in the orientation class.) On the other hand, we had a dear sister in Christ and another couple, reared in the credo-Baptist position, who were involved in our church for a long time, but as a matter of conscience, didn't join because of the same credo-baptism issue. (They eventually did join.)

I think "delinquent in doctrine" is viewed quite charitably as long as it does not disrupt the orderliness of the church or stray into outright heresy like Mormonism. I'm not an officer in the church, but I think I'm correct in saying that if a person holds to the basic dogma, but as a matter of conscience holds to viewpoints outside of our doctrinal standards, that's OK, unless that person uses those differences to try to disrupt classes and to mislead others in the congregation. Then it becomes a bigger issue of not submitting to the gov't of the church.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 30, 2009)

Dearly Bought said:


> To clarify my line of questioning a little more, I want to know how these vows are interpreted in practice:
> 
> 
> > (PCA)
> ...



Obviously, it's not possible to define every particular or potential aspect of the Christian life in one sentence.

Would a session expect a brand new believer who was just regenerated from a life of self seeking and self destruction to instantly fully understand the fourth commandment in its broad application (as summarized in the Westminster Standards)? Would a session expect complete and perfect obedience immediately? Would a session monitor every aspect of that?

I think the answer to all three questions would be "no."

My own interpretation of this, the one I see assumed (and this is only an observation, I'm not necessarily advocating it or not advocating it) is that church discipline comes into play for open, scandalous sin that God causes to become known to the session, and for lesser sins mainly through informal (private) admonishment.

That's not true in every single case, but I think the historical language and practice this comes from in Presbyterianism supports that general understanding. Vow #3 is addressing an overall lifestyle pattern given over to sin, not a promise never to sin (or we would all be in constant trouble).

Reformed theology believes God's grace will prevail to save and bear out some witness in the life of those whom He has miraculously changed. Not perfection, but as time goes on, there will be more reflection of God's grace at work in the life of that person- for His Honor and His Glory.

If the Session and Diaconate are performing faithfully, over time, someone who has no regard for trying to keep the fourth commandment or for baptizing their child into the covenant community is going to become uncomfortable. I trust that would come from conviction of the Holy Spirit attending the Word.

Now some in the reformed tradition require members to vow to a comprehensive understanding and reception of their confession of faith, no exceptions.

The answer to your question might be different in that case.


----------



## Edward (Sep 30, 2009)

Dearly Bought said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Dearly Bought said:
> ...



The post was capable of several readings, one of which would make it overbroad 

But going to a narrower reading of what you are asking, you might look through the posts on this thread, there are several that address the issue (for example, post 19):
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/sho...ow-baptist-members-not-baptize-infants-52866/


----------



## TimV (Sep 30, 2009)

There's nothing wrong with Dearly Bought's statement. Sabbatarian? Really! Whom do you think enforces this?


----------

