# Should wives be held to equal standard for profession?



## non dignus (Oct 8, 2007)

In view of the household covenant, when a man gives a credible profession of faith, should the wife have to be able to give an equally credible profession for baptism and membership? Now, no one would allow the baptism of an atheist wife, but what about an agnostic wife who isn't yet convinced but is willing to learn?


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 8, 2007)

If she is an adult then baptism should be preceeded by a confession of faith as I understand it anyway.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 9, 2007)

Hi Richard,
Thanks for responding. I agree. 
But knowing the head of the household is faithful and knowledgeable, he can teach his wife at home, as Paul said to Timothy. Certainly if the wife seems to disdain church she shouldn't be baptized. But if she desires baptism and membership and still doesn't have 'all her ducks in a row' in terms of doctrine why not allow them into membership together? Maybe the only thing right now she believes is that Christ rose from the dead. 

Baptise her, make her a member based on her husband's subscription to the confessions. I think this is consistent with covenant theology.


----------



## Puddleglum (Oct 9, 2007)

David,
Isn't there a difference between the scenario in your first post (agnostic wife) and the scenario in your second post (wife who believes basics, but has a long way to go to being Reformed)?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 9, 2007)

No, they should not be baptized.



> IV. Not only those that *do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ*,11 but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.12



The reason that children are baptized is completely different. As those of a minor status, it is the responsibility of a Covenant head to disciple them.

Paul, in 1 Cor, even notes that believers that find themselves married to an unbelieving spouse are permitted to let the unbelieving spouse go. In the OT, not only were God's people forbidden from marrying unbelievers but they were to put them away if they had transgressed this command.

Baptism is for disciples - for those who are under submission to the Church. An adult wife who, theoretically, is willing to get baptized who is yet an unbeliever under the knowledge of the Church would be an atrocity. How has she professed obedience? Simply saying that "Yeah, I'll get baptized because I don't have anything against it and I want to make my husband happy" doesn't cut it.

Covenant headship is not some sort of blanket authority that permits a man to apply a Covenant sign to unbelievers in his household. Children, by default, are not unbelievers but are under his charge to disciple in the Church.

Incidentally, I categorically _reject_ the repeated assertion by some Baptists that Abraham was commanded to circumcize unbelievers in his household or that any Israelite was permitted to do so. The Law, for one, would not permit repeated violations of the Law within a household - namely idolatry. Further, _all_ the examples of Abraham's household demonstrate a vibrant faith and trust in Yahweh. The first example of rebellion is met with excommunication.

Thus, I see no warrant for believing that either now, or in any period of redemptive history, it was acceptable to apply the Covenant sign to a person who rejects the faith.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 9, 2007)

Puddleglum said:


> David,
> Isn't there a difference between the scenario in your first post (agnostic wife) and the scenario in your second post (wife who believes basics, but has a long way to go to being Reformed)?



Yes there is, but I guess I would like to use 'agnostic' now in regard to the confession. She might be Arminian in her understanding, and is open to the Reformed perspective but doesn't know much about it. 

I'm just trying to take a pulse here on this question. To what degree do we give latitude to the authority of the head of the household? 

(The head of the household might be a woman. It wouldn't be any different. Maybe she has younger siblings in her household.)

Also, what if the paternal head falls away from the faith? Do the elders discipline the wife and children with the same zeal? Because more than likely they will follow him in his apostasy.

What latitude should be given in light of the covenant household authority structure?


----------



## non dignus (Oct 9, 2007)

Rich,
I'm just thinking out loud and bouncing this off the PB. 

Let's say the woman doesn't understand everything in the confession. She believes she is a sinner and needs Christ, but she has been poisoned by Arminianism and now is completely confused. Should they come in as members separately, when she is able to subscribe completely, or does he wait for her to catch up? 

And what about excommunication? If he leaves, she will probably go with him even if leaving the church is abhorrent to her. Should she be disciplined to the same standard as he?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 9, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Rich,
> I'm just thinking out loud and bouncing this off the PB.
> 
> Let's say the woman doesn't understand everything in the confession. She believes she is a sinner and needs Christ, but she has been poisoned by Arminianism and now is completely confused. Should they come in as members separately, when she is able to subscribe completely, or does he wait for her to catch up?
> ...



Well, now the parameters are a bit different and I wouldn't want to prescribe a case for all situations. I don't think any adult needs a full orbed understanding of the Gospel to be baptized into discipleship. If she expressed a desire to obey and follow Christ then she ought to be baptized but it wouldn't be on the basis of her husband's faith.

Discipline would only be for rebellion, correct? If she's willing to be discipled then what rebellion? Ignorance isn't rebellion and unbelief.

I mainly wanted to reject the idea that any person who openly repudiates the faith ought to be a recipient of the Covenant sign - regardless of the dispensation of the CoG and regardless of who they fall under in terms of household.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 10, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Rich,
> I'm just thinking out loud and bouncing this off the PB.
> 
> Let's say the woman doesn't understand everything in the confession. She believes she is a sinner and needs Christ, but she has been poisoned by Arminianism and now is completely confused. Should they come in as members separately, when she is able to subscribe completely, or does he wait for her to catch up?
> ...



All those in a household who are capable of making a credible profession of faith will need to do so in order to be baptized. Whoever is the head of the household does not cover everyone in the household when it comes to baptisms.

As far as how clear of an understanding of salvation any person needs have in order to be baptized is ultimately up to the Session. Some Sessions have have more rigoruos requirements than others. But the final question that a Session will have to determine is how credible was the profession. A full understanding of the Standards is not required since membership in the OPC or PCA does not include subscription to the Standards.

Regarding excommunication, each case is judged on its own merits. Excommunication is a last resort for an unrepentant member. If a wife leaves the congregation because the husband was excommunicated would not mean that the Session would automatically excommunicate the wife just because she left that congregation.


----------

