Advice needed on elders taking exceptions (PCA).

[Christodulus]

The reason is simple: the Dutch Reformed, since at least the Synod of Dordt, have practiced confessional membership in which not only the elders but also the members must affirm the confession.

I am aware of this difference and it does not explain this peculiar practice. My surprise is not so much concerned with members’ subscription, but the elders’. If they are allowing people with Baptist convictions to be members, then that would seem to be allowing men who endorse what the confession calls sin to be members. Also, if the parents refuse to present their children for baptism (as seems likely), what happens next? Are they put under church discipline? Are they allowed to neglect the baptism of their children and still be considered members in good standing? Do Presbyterian churches discipline sin, or participate in it?

(This, BTW, is why I so strongly oppose the position that modern Baptists are Anabaptists. I twice affirmed the Form of Subscription back in the 1990s, I take it VERY seriously, and while I don't have a problem with the Dutch Reformed banning Baptists from membership based on a different view of what membership means, it's important that I make clear that I don't think the Anabaptist condemnation, which is in three places, not just one, accurately describes modern Baptists or historically describes the English Particular Baptist movement.)

When the confession says we detest the error of the Anabaptists, it is very clear in both its textual and historical context that it is referring to the repudiation of infant baptism, neglect of the sacrament, and re-baptism of baptized persons (for those unfamiliar with the Three Forms of Unity, see BC article 34). It is the key issue which Particular Baptists and Anabaptists have unmistakably in common, by definition. They may not be Anabaptists, but they do maintain “the error of the Anabaptists”.

However, I've attended two other OPC churches for long periods of time when I lived in other states, and would be willing to join the OPC if it were the only Reformed option.

I don’t (theoretically) have a problem with myself being a member of the OPC, I have a problem with Baptists being members of the OPC.

If the URC isn't willing to accept the fact that most OPC churches allow Baptists into membership, the URC is going to have problems with almost every Presbyterian denomination in North America

Well first of all, I hope I’m not giving the impression that I can speak for the URC; who am I? But as I am speaking for myself, I can say there is much in modern Presbyterianism I have a problem with, and I believe there is great cause for reformation across the Church Catholic in the world today.

Confessions count, and this is a confessional difference between the two traditions.

That seems an unwarranted conclusion from everything you’ve said. Do the Westminster Standards somewhere require Baptists to be admitted as members? You said they’ve only been doing this since the 19th century, long after the Presbyterian confessions were written. Plus, I can think of some members of the Westminster Assembly whom I think would’ve taken great umbrage with this, top of the list being the great covenanter Samuel Rutherford.

The core of the issue is that in an ideal world, Reformed Baptists should be in Reformed Baptist churches and Reformed paedobaptists should be in Reformed paedobaptist churches.

In an ideal world Baptist churches should not exist.

If we view each other as brothers, we're going to be brotherly. If we view each other as interlopers teaching dangerous doctrines, we will act in accord with those views.

Pick one.

I'd rather say God is sovereign and I'll treat those who agree with that as brothers.

But membership means something more than brotherhood. The great majority of my brethren are not therefore members of my church. We are talking what the church confesses to be true, should the members of that church not be expected to likewise confess it to be true? I would not expect to be a member in any church in which I could not affirm what is confessed by that church. Baptists are Christians, that doesn’t mean they should be members of my church. The argumentation here seems to conflate the local church and the Catholic Church.

Even if we say that failure to handle this sacrament correctly is a great sin, is it so great a sin that it warrants breaking or witholding the communion of the saints that we affirm should be extended to all those in every place who call upon the name of Christ? Excommunication is consignment to the world of one who lives like the world. I think we all agree that a Christian who disagrees on the doctrine of baptism is nevertheless a member of the body of Christ. How great a sin is it to divide the body of Christ if not absolutely necessary for the peace of the church? If Christians can have fellowship peaceably and without joining the body of Christ to the harlotry of the world, they should do so by all means.

My only baptism was being sprinkled as a baby, and by the hands of a priest of the church of Rome no less. The number of Baptist churches in the world which would welcome me to the Lord’s table, much less to membership, is few to none. Does this criticism cut both ways, or only against the Reformed tradition?

Even beyond that, I can -- and have -- made a whole long list of arguments unrelated to supposedly "old fashioned pharisaical" arguments saying that even if purported images of Christ are NOT a 2CV and sinful for that reason, they're a really bad idea because they usually represent Him with the wrong skin color, wrong ethnic features, wrong hair length, and not at all in accord with what we actually DO see in Scripture about his appearance. These purported images are making God in our image, often a medieval Western European image, and are bad for that reason even if they aren't a 2CV.

Just to point out this is not a novel argument, the point was made at least as early as the Byzantine iconoclasm in the 8th century.

Nevertheless, there are churches all over the Reformed world that have them. Everything from REALLY expensive stained glass windows of Christ as the Great Shepherd to disposable coloring books intended to be filled out by kids and thrown away when done.

I consider this HIGHLY objectionable and just proof positive of what I said about the need for reformation.

I don't like that and I've taught against it for years. But if I felt I had to walk out of every NAPARC church that had a purported image of Christ somewhere, I'd be afraid even to try to count how many of them are around that would prompt me to walk out.

I think this is a great analogy to bring up and serves to bring out how great our disagreement is here, as well as how important it is especially in this time of judgment that we not compromise and not grow lax. Lord willing I will never worship in any church which presents the image of any person in the sanctuary, let alone the image of Christ, may the Lord forget me before I forget the Reformation!

I view the WCF's statement about the sinfulness of neglecting baptism to be in that category. Wrong, and it needs to be addressed. But in a world where we're dealing with churches denying the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Christ and the virgin birth, and even in the evangelical world many are advocating semi-Pelagian or even fully Pelagian stuff like an age of accountability under which children go to heaven, is the timing of baptism really the most important thing we need to be dealing with?

It is not the most important thing, but the most important thing is that we do not grow lax and permissive, and uncaring of doctrine. If the salt loses its savor, it is good for nothing except to be thrown out and trampled under the foot of men. It is more important now than ever to be clear, consistent, and uncompromising. This is a dangerous step towards tolerating greater errors like Arminianism, after all do we not have many brothers which profess the Arminian doctrine, and live in a world where many churches deny the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, and the virgin birth? We live in a nation which is under God’s judgment. As the nation slips further and further away, and becomes more and more ungodly, it will move more and more towards persecution, and institutional persecution. We should prepare ourselves to soon share a cell (if it should be God’s will to place us under such conditions) with our Baptist brethren, as well as with Arminians, and with Romanists, and further still with Muslims and Mormons. Will we therefore allow such conditions to become a justification for compromise, or should it not underscore that this is a time more important than before for Reformed Christians to be Reformed Christians?

Look, if I'm cooperating with Roman Catholics in the pro-life movement

I would like to know how you are cooperating with them, because I cannot. It is one thing (which makes no point) if you are voting alongside them, but how do you propose to stand outside an abortion mill with them, when if a woman should come out and fall to her knees and ask “what must I do to be saved”, he will give the incorrect answer of a different gospel (which is not another)? How do you propose to save the world with him when he denies the only message which can save it, and instead seeks to increase his justification through good works of merit, restore it through the so-called sacrament of penance, and seeks forgiveness repetitively from the blasphemous sacrifice of the mass?

I kind of think Cromwell would be a lot less happy with me cooperating with Catholics than with Baptists.

Me too.

 

[darrellmaurina]

@Christodulus, I am about to leave my church office to go get my nightly vice of Panera sip club before they close for the evening, and I may not be able to respond to this again until Monday. Before I go, I need to test the videocameras for tomorrow so I don't have a last-minute problem before morning service, which has happened way too often. The Ozarks are not known for quality internet or for computers that reliably work.

You raise some REALLY important issues and I don't want you to think I am ignoring them.

Several Presbyterians will probably respond before Monday morning so I'll leave the application of Presbyterian polity to them. I don't agree with some specifics of their view of church government and my reasons for admitting Baptists to church membership, while similar, are not identical on all points.

On cooperation with Roman Catholics: The current head of our local crisis pregnancy center is a black evangelical woman, but for years the head was a retired Roman Catholic soldier with deep involvement in the Fort Leonard Wood military parish on post and in leadership roles in the Knights of Columbus. In other words, not just a Catholic who is sort of loose on doctrine, but seriously committed. A number of years ago, he got former US Senator and former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who I also supported for the Republican nomination, to come speak for the annual fundraising dinner. Pretty much every prominent evangelical in our county, including the leadership of our local IFB (independent fundamental Baptist) church and school where we sent our niece since there are no Reformed school options in our county, was there.

Is that a problem? D. James Kennedy, Francis Schaeffer and Abraham Kuyper wouldn't have thought so.

On baptism: Mine is worse than yours. My father, a lapsed Catholic, had the integrity to refuse to take the baptismal vows required to get me baptized, and my Catholic grandmother refused to enter a house with an unbaptized baby, so my mother took me to a liberal Protestant church (UCC) to get me baptized and that's how I ended up as Congregationalist instead of a Catholic. The UCC allows both positions on the Trinity, and it took a while to verify that the Trinitarian form was used in my baptism, rejection of which is of course almost the only reason why a Reformed church will refuse to accept a baptism. It was, but my baptism in a liberal but not yet formally anti-Trinitarian church has been a sticking point several times upon membership transfers.

On Anabaptism and the Form of Subscription: I have stated repeatedly and publicly for over thirty years that I believe the Belgic Confession's description of Anabaptists is a condemnation of Munster and, at most, may be extendable to the Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites, but two of the three descriptors of Anabaptism clearly don't apply to modern Reformed Baptists and probably didn't apply to the English Particular Baptists, even before the First London Baptist Confession. I am no longer formally subject to the language of the Form of Subscription, not being a member of the URC or another Dutch Reformed denomination, but my views have not changed and were publicly known at the time I first affirmed it, way back in the early 1990s, probably late 1991 or early 1992. Churches differ within the URC, but what I've just stated is a pretty common position, namely, that we can blame Reformed Baptists for not baptizing their babies, but not for the other two things clamed about Anabaptists which they explicitly reject.

I understand the arguments for saying Reformed Baptists cannot, based on the language of the Belgic Confession, be members of Dutch Reformed churches.

The Westminster Standards use strong language, but not at the level of the Belgic Confession. Why? The answer seems pretty obvious. The English Particular Baptists had pretty clearly proven to the Parliament and to Oliver Cromwell that they weren't Munsterites, and Cromwell was regularly using them to great effect in the New Model Army fighting the Royalist forces trying to overthrow the rule of Parliament.

I think Oliver Cromwell and John Owen got it right about the English Particular Baptists. Guido de Bres never met one. The Anabaptists he did meet were deservedly condemned as dangers to church AND to state.

 

[Christodulus]

You raise some REALLY important issues and I don't want you to think I am ignoring them.

I appreciate it brother, and I am neglecting my response right now since you are not in a position to respond. I do ask for clarification though, because your exposition of the confession is very strange to me. You seem to be conflating the three very different doctrines of the Anabaptists the confession repudiates. Obviously, the anarchist political theology and Melchiorite Christology the confession likewise condemns are not typical (or as far as I can tell, exist at all) among Particular Baptists, modern or historical, but that doesn’t have anything to do with Article 34. Could you please explain what you believe the phrase “the error of the Anabaptists” specifically refers to in Article 34 of the Belgic Confession, especially as how it is some unique Anabaptist distinctive which excludes Particular Baptists?

 

[darrellmaurina]

I appreciate it brother, and I am neglecting my response right now since you are not in a position to respond. I do ask for clarification though, because your exposition of the confession is very strange to me. You seem to be conflating the three very different doctrines of the Anabaptists the confession repudiates. Obviously, the anarchist political theology and Melchiorite Christology the confession likewise condemns are not typical (or as far as I can tell, exist at all) among Particular Baptists, modern or historical, but that doesn’t have anything to do with Article 34. Could you please explain what you believe the phrase “the error of the Anabaptists” specifically refers to in Article 34 of the Belgic Confession, especially as how it is some unique Anabaptist distinctive which excludes Particular Baptists?

Thank you.

Just very briefly -- this is the underlying issue on the debate going on elsewhere on the Puritan Board, I think on a thread you also participated in but I don't have time to look it up and verify my memory, in which Rev. Winzer (@MW ) was accused of misrepresenting modern Reformed Baptists by calling them Anabaptists. Rev. Winzer defended his position. The Reformed Baptists and others said, essentially, words have meanings and you're misrepresenting people because being called an Anabaptist, particularly in the context of the Reformation era, means much worse things than being called a Baptist.

I realize that what I'm saying may be new to you, but what I'm saying here is what I've been taught essentially as long as I've been involved in confessionally Reformed circles, namely, that the Belgic Confession is working with a very specific definition of what an "Anabaptist" is, and what the confession describes as "Anabaptist" has several specific confessional meanings, and only one of them applies to modern Baptists.

Furthermore, virtually all modern Anabaptists (meaning primarily Mennonites and Amish, though Hutterites do also still exist) are pacifists by conviction so the issue of violent revolution against the civil government doesn't apply even to those who self-identify as Anabaptists.

I don't know how much contact you may have with Anabaptists, but I'm quite confident that your local Amish farmer or Mennonite tradesman isn't being fairly described by this language of the Belgic Confession: "And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings." The "common ownership" clause would describe the historic Hutterite position, but this is one of the areas on which most Anabaptists have rejected their own older history, and have done so for centuries now.

There are a number of areas on which the Three Forms of Unity represent a different confessional tradition from the Westminster Standards. In the modern American context, those are the two main Reformed traditions which exist today. If we were back in Europe in the 1600s and 1700s, we would also be dealing with other Reformed theological traditions, the most important of which would be the German Reformed, the French Reformed, and the Hungarian Reformed, and there are other smaller groups as well that are part of the historic Reformed faith but differ on secondary points.

We need to be careful that we not be more strict than the Reformers themselves, and certainly not more strict than the Puritans.

With respect, Scott, on this issue of not admitting Baptists to church membership, you need to realize there are real differences between the two main confessional traditions that exist today in the United States and the OPC is not being "loose" here. They are being faithful to the way that American Presbyterianism has mostly been operating for the last two centuries, and to some extent earlier as well.

The OPC is most emphatically **NOT** a "loose" denomination. Put candidly, if someone thinks the OPC is "too loose," it says more about the person making the claim, and about their view of the confessions, than it does about the OPC.

Being more narrow than the OPC is not generally a good place to be.

 

[ParticularBaptist]

Hello everyone. Long time lurker here in need of advice.

What is PCA policy if an elder diminishes the importance of doctrine when speaking to a member?

Background: I've been dating, and given how warped the dating scene is these days, decided to speak with an elder at my church to make sure I'm in line. Realistic expectations, proper perspective, and the like. Over the course of the conversation I observed that what surprised me was how many baptists (broadly speaking) I encountered and how stridently they refused to baptize infants. Surprised because I expected the real challenge would be sifting out progressive or cultural Christians.

I made it clear that infant baptism was a non-negotiable for me. At this point my elder suggested I relax that position as it would keep the pool too small. I'm almost certain that this particular elder is a baptist. I knew this before entering the conversation, and while I think the PCA is a little too broad in its allowance of exceptions to the Westminster Standards, admission of officers is not my decision to make.

I was rather disturbed by this suggestion. Not because baptists exist or even because they hold positions in the PCA, but because I was advised to downplay the importance of church doctrine by a church officer. And for purely pragmatic reasons.

Also, for context, this conversation happened about a year ago. While I was disappointed at the time, it's full importance didn't really strike me until a member made the same comment last week. (I'm not here to police members' beliefs though.)

So, my questions to everyone here are: (1) what to do next, and (2) has the PCA ever addressed this issue before? On the latter question, there are plenty of resources on church discipline and officer requirements generally. But, I haven't seen anything which addresses what happens when an elder doesn't deny doctrine, but minimizes its importance. These are two different things, and I want to be charitable and careful as I go forward.

Thanks for the help.

Sorry to hear you're going through that brother. As a thoroughgoing 1689 baptist, I would urge you not to compromise on your convictions. You are right there seems to be a lot more Baptists in the dating world, but from my experience new profiles pop up all the time so try to be patient. I found my wife at a most unexpected time.

 

[ZackF]

How does this relate to dating though? I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t date a Baptist as long as she is willing to submit to your leadership in the area of infant baptism.

Oh is that all…

 

[DrJack]

Being more narrow than the OPC is not generally a good place to be.

My new friend, I take issue with such a statement! The OPC has increasingly 'softened' from what I am seeing. When their majority went AGAINST John Murray (a position that should only be taken with utmost care!) on Exclusive Psalmody, they formally denied their Scottish Presbyterian heritage. They have recently tried again to plant a church in Birmingham, with a non-MDiv person serving as pastor, who was choosing to worship at an Anglican church because he wanted his young children to experience "liturgical worship" {meaning 'high church' with its trappings). He uses rote, formal prayers from other theological backgrounds; while visiting another OPC church when on the road, I gently asked the pastor about this (same Presbytery) and he basically responded that they didn't have any rules against that! This is WILL WORSHIP! It is Normative Principle worship, not Regulative Principle worship.

Such a statement as you made impugns all of us who subscribe to the [original] Westminster Standards. Being a member of Briarwood PCA for over 20 years, I gradually did enough outside reading (this website played an important part, though I was simply lurking & reading) to gradually become more Reformed. I first learned of Psalm singing on this site. Gradually I came to recognize how poorly my church adhered to said standards. Let me relate an incident that occurred during the time of 'crystalizing' my Confessional views:

One Lord's Day, after the service had ended & people are interacting with lots of loud talking (fine - it's a BIG sanctuary & >1000 people), an Elder (whom I had great respect for) yelled to his son-in-law (perhaps 30 feet away) about a 'Tee Time'. His SIL yelled back a suggested time, and I realized they were talking about that afternoon. Color me dismayed, as I had come to conviction about 4th C issues. I guess it was a week or two later, I saw the Elder who usually gave reports of session issues (not sure if he was moderator or what) so I asked him "Do Elders specify their particular exceptions from the WCF iin their vows?" He said no, they were just 'generally agreeing' with them. Now I now that is supposed to mean not teaching in contradiction to Confessional Standards (I was given formal approval to teach apologetics in Sunday school & Wed evening classes, and had to sign a statement to that effect). Now this Elder was not TEACHING in opposition to the standards, but publicly proclaiming his stance.

This was one of the final things to show me that I needed to seek a more Confessional / Biblical church for worship. This was also around the time Pastor Reeder died, which also played a part.

As to the dating: as a widower I truly hoped to remarry, but 'Christian dating' proved far more difficult than anticipated. Many women were divorced (not Biblically), some did not know what that even meant. Even my PCA church was more conservative & confessional than the churches of the women I met. I haven't dated in years now, and my 1647 WCF adherence moves we WAY out onto the fringes! Oh well, I have another Spouse awaiting me. For a young man, I would DEFINITELY sort out your own theological position FIRST. Then be very clear about what you believe and why. I would NOT proceed with courtship of a woman with signficant differences UNLESS she clearly states (and exhibits) that she will follow your leadership. Baptism ... I can only imagine if you came to believe 1Cor11 for what it seems to so CLEARLY state about headcoverings!

 

[Christodulus]

Thank you.

Just very briefly -- this is the underlying issue on the debate going on elsewhere on the Puritan Board, I think on a thread you also participated in but I don't have time to look it up and verify my memory, in which Rev. Winzer (@MW ) was accused of misrepresenting modern Reformed Baptists by calling them Anabaptists. Rev. Winzer defended his position. The Reformed Baptists and others said, essentially, words have meanings and you're misrepresenting people because being called an Anabaptist, particularly in the context of the Reformation era, means much worse things than being called a Baptist.

I realize that what I'm saying may be new to you, but what I'm saying here is what I've been taught essentially as long as I've been involved in confessionally Reformed circles, namely, that the Belgic Confession is working with a very specific definition of what an "Anabaptist" is, and what the confession describes as "Anabaptist" has several specific confessional meanings, and only one of them applies to modern Baptists.

Furthermore, virtually all modern Anabaptists (meaning primarily Mennonites and Amish, though Hutterites do also still exist) are pacifists by conviction so the issue of violent revolution against the civil government doesn't apply even to those who self-identify as Anabaptists.

I don't know how much contact you may have with Anabaptists, but I'm quite confident that your local Amish farmer or Mennonite tradesman isn't being fairly described by this language of the Belgic Confession: "And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings." The "common ownership" clause would describe the historic Hutterite position, but this is one of the areas on which most Anabaptists have rejected their own older history, and have done so for centuries now.

I am unsatisfied with this response because I don’t think it’s striking the issue. The issue is not if Baptists are Anabaptists, I believe my exact words were “They may not be Anabaptists [read: “they are not”], but they do maintain ‘the error of the Anabaptists’”. The issue is whether BC 34 is applicable to Baptists, and I still haven’t heard how it couldn’t be. I don’t think Karl Marx and Vladmir Lenin were Anabaptists either, but I certainly think what you quoted is applicable to the likes of them, do you also believe that application is inappropriate?



The idea that Baptists and Anabaptists do not agree with each other on the subject of baptism is one which to be honest I don’t think I have ever heard outside of this board. Whenever I have heard it addressed outside of this context, it has been universally acknowledged (including by Particular Baptists) that they do have the same doctrine. For instance, I have heard James White say many, many times that he would have been driven out of Geneva by John Calvin, I don’t think he believes that on the basis that he is a political anarchist who believes Christ has “celestial flesh”. I do not believe the reformers, including Guido de Bres, would be making the same distinction you are.

With respect, Scott, on this issue of not admitting Baptists to church membership, you need to realize there are real differences between the two main confessional traditions that exist today in the United States and the OPC is not being "loose" here. They are being faithful to the way that American Presbyterianism has mostly been operating for the last two centuries, and to some extent earlier as well.

The OPC is most emphatically **NOT** a "loose" denomination. Put candidly, if someone thinks the OPC is "too loose," it says more about the person making the claim, and about their view of the confessions, than it does about the OPC.

Being more narrow than the OPC is not generally a good place to be.

I am opposed to the practice of the OPC in permitting avowed Baptists to be members, and I criticize them for that, and I think they should reform on that. However, much of my argumentation has been pointed at something I am even more opposed to, which is the idea that these important differences should be smoothed over and ignored (that has been used to defend the practice). I think baptism is very important and we must not compromise or mitigate our convictions for the sake of an ecumenical kind of unity in the present age.

 

[EvanF]

I am unsatisfied with this response because I don’t think it’s striking the issue. The issue is not if Baptists are Anabaptists, I believe my exact words were “They may not be Anabaptists [read: “they are not”], but they do maintain ‘the error of the Anabaptists’”. The issue is whether BC 34 is applicable to Baptists, and I still haven’t heard how it couldn’t be. I don’t think Karl Marx and Vladmir Lenin were Anabaptists either, but I certainly think what you quoted is applicable to the likes of them, do you also believe that application is inappropriate?



The idea that Baptists and Anabaptists do not agree with each other on the subject of baptism is one which to be honest I don’t think I have ever heard outside of this board. Whenever I have heard it addressed outside of this context, it has been universally acknowledged (including by Particular Baptists) that they do have the same doctrine. For instance, I have heard James White say many, many times that he would have been driven out of Geneva by John Calvin, I don’t think he believes that on the basis that he is a political anarchist who believes Christ has “celestial flesh”. I do not believe the reformers, including Guido de Bres, would be making the same distinction you are.

I am opposed to the practice of the OPC in permitting avowed Baptists to be members, and I criticize them for that, and I think they should reform on that. However, much of my argumentation has been pointed at something I am even more opposed to, which is the idea that these important differences should be smoothed over and ignored (that has been used to defend the practice). I think baptism is very important and we must not compromise or mitigate our convictions for the sake of an ecumenical kind of unity in the present age.

Why would convictions about a sign and seal of the covenant be more important than the integrity of the covenantal body itself? Baptism is meant to visibly unite us with eachother and set us apart from the world. It must be the work of Satan to see us divided by it.

How do we honor Christ's sacraments by driving his lambs from the fold?

My only baptism was being sprinkled as a baby, and by the hands of a priest of the church of Rome no less. The number of Baptist churches in the world which would welcome me to the Lord’s table, much less to membership, is few to none. Does this criticism cut both ways, or only against the Reformed tradition?

This is a thread about reformed doctrine and policy in the PCA and other paedo-baptist churches, but of course baptists are just as guilty of dismembering the bride of Christ when they exclude professing believers from the communion of the saints over scrupulous differences in beliefs about baptism. However, as a paedo-baptized paedo-baptist, I have only ever been blessed with brotherly christian communion when I have attended reformed baptist churches and I pray that any faithful credo-baptist will always be likewise blessed at a PCA church.

 

[No Other Name]

That is extraordinary to me. Does not the WCF say it is a great sin to neglect the sacrament?

My family were visiting a PCA church during COVID and very nearly became members. The elders had zero issues with my subscription to 1689. (as a member; they would never have allowed leadership for me and I get that)
[automerge]1778497086[/automerge]

It is the key issue which Particular Baptists and Anabaptists have unmistakably in common, by definition. They may not be Anabaptists, but they do maintain “the error of the Anabaptists”.

Also, this has been thoroughly debunked in Phil D's thread and my own posting there. Not all - fair to say not even most - Particular Baptists "re-baptized". One Lord, one church, one baptism - even if invalid in mode or subject, made legal by the Spirit who seals in the New Covenant. The 1689 Appendix specifically calls paedobaptistic churches true churches and confirms our Lord is Lord of those assemblies.

[automerge]1778497352[/automerge]

My only baptism was being sprinkled as a baby, and by the hands of a priest of the church of Rome no less. The number of Baptist churches in the world which would welcome me to the Lord’s table, much less to membership, is few to none. Does this criticism cut both ways, or only against the Reformed tradition?

Yeah, but on this point, you can count probably all Particular Baptists as requiring a baptism. Not a "re-baptism" though since Rome is not a true church and our Lord is not the Lord of that assembly.

 

[Christodulus]

Why would convictions about a sign and seal of the covenant be more important than the integrity of the covenantal body itself? Baptism is meant to visibly unite us with eachother and set us apart from the world. It must be the work of Satan to see us divided by it.

How do we honor Christ's sacraments by driving his lambs from the fold?

You are confusing the local church and the Catholic Church. Baptists are members of the body of Christ, but as my local church is not the extent of that body, it is unnecessary for them to be the members of one to be members of the other. Baptism is indeed meant to unite us, and as it is therefore very important, we ought to care deeply that it is understood correctly and administered rightly. And a conviction about baptism is not a conviction about baptism, but a conviction about Church and covenant. We should not divide the body, so why should we divide the body by allowing major differences to fester by pretending they weren’t there, so that when they become manifest in practice the division is much worse?

This is a thread about reformed doctrine and policy in the PCA and other paedo-baptist churches, but of course baptists are just as guilty of dismembering the bride of Christ when they exclude professing believers from the communion of the saints over scrupulous differences in beliefs about baptism.

They wouldn’t exclude me based on a difference in a belief about baptism, but based on a difference in baptism. This speaks to the significance of this difference, and how it is no small and irrelevant, ‘scrupulous’ issue. I fault them for this error, but only insofar as I fault them for the error of rejecting infant baptism, since they are hardly inconsistent with their doctrine.

Also, this has been thoroughly debunked in Phil D's thread and my own posting there. Not all - fair to say not even most - Particular Baptists "re-baptized". One Lord, one church, one baptism - even if invalid in mode or subject, made legal by the Spirit who seals in the New Covenant.

I would love to see this compelling proof, since I am aware that receiving infant baptisms was largely a unique practice of John Bunyan for which he got in a lot of trouble with the other Baptists, writing in his own defense a treatise “Differences in judgment About Water-Baptism, No Bar to Communion” which also received a number of replies from the others. I do not believe his opinion on the subject has ever represented the majority, even to this day. For example, I mentioned James White before, he has stated in public debate that he would not commune one who was baptized as an infant unless they accepted re-baptism (and he also agreed with what I’ve said about church membership). Do you believe he is in a minority?

The 1689 Appendix specifically calls paedobaptistic churches true churches and confirms our Lord is Lord of those assemblies.

That’s good, of course, but that just means the Particular Baptists were not cultists claiming to be the only Christians in the world. Some of the framers of that confession had engaged in the controversy against Bunyan.

Yeah, but on this point, you can count probably all Particular Baptists as requiring a baptism. Not a "re-baptism" though since Rome is not a true church and our Lord is not the Lord of that assembly.

This once more speaks to the real depth of the difference, because as you well know in our tradition it is nothing but a re-baptism. The controversy concerning the re-baptism of heretics is a much older one than the controversy of infant and believer’s baptism, going back to the days of Cyprian and Stephen. The Reformed tradition has recognized the validity of Roman baptisms for about 500 years, since baptism is “the washing of water with the word”; now a baptism otherwise valid coming from the hands of a Roman priest is not therefore invalid, anymore than the true gospel coming from his mouth would be made invalid, since the efficacy of the sacrament depends on the operation of the Spirit in and through the sacramental word attached to it, and not the piety or virtue of the minister.

 

[No Other Name]

And therefore, you now choose to ignore the case I posted against "re-baptism" (not mine but Jim Renihan's) and settle in on Baptists committing the "error of the Anabaptists" on the sole issue of "re-baptism" and augment that (non-universal) similarity of doctrine ignoring the wholesale fundamental differences in our systematics. Sadly typical here among some of you.

Yet have no problem admitting the baptism into Rome as a "washing of water with the Word". Rome has the Word huh? How could the Antichrist (WCF 25.6) have the Word? (Genuine question, no matter your answer, I will not debate, so questions from me from now on are curious and not rhetorical)

I know tradition holds that it does, but I just kind of had no idea tradition was even more pronounced in your system that I originally thought.

Again, no debate, it seems you are settled that we have the "error of the Anabaptists", and Rome has true baptism sealing infants through the sign and work of the Holy Spirit into the Covenant of Grace.

What an amazing stance. Every time I think I may have paedobaptists figured out, I really don't.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Brothers, I am in the unusual position here of defending the OPC, a denomination I spent almost a year trying, and failing, to keep my former church in Springfield from joining. OPC people, not me, need to be defending the OPC.

There's a history here going back not just years but decades, and a number of OPC men on this board know that history, but so far have been keeping quiet. If I keep defending the OPC, I will, at minimum, start getting private messages saying, "What on earth?"

Here's the most recent part of that decades-long history. I was almost the longest-term member of my former church but my warnings about the OPC's narrowness were not persuasive. The vote went the way it went, and that's done, and I wish my former church well. Different churches exist for a reason, and I hope they succeed in getting enough strictly Reformed people in the Missouri Ozarks to survive. That will be very difficult, and I know that from seeing numerous churches fail for the last two decades in the Ozarks, and the history of failed Reformed church plants in Springfield, the largest city in the Missouri Ozarks, goes back even farther.

This is the Bible Belt. Baptists and charismatics and independent nondenominational churches succeed here in church planting by having tentmaking unpaid or part-time pastors, often local businessmen who know their communities very well, and if they gather enough people, they may (emphasis on "may") grow large enough to pay a pastor. It's far more difficult to get enough confessionally Reformed people to pay a full-time pastor using a traditional Reformed or Presbyterian model of a paid full-time seminary graduate who isn't from the area and (usually) is a recent seminary graduate who has student debt in the high five digits or even six digits, and a denomination that puts up significant barriers that most people in the Ozarks do not understand at all.

Is the OPC "too narrow?"

When an OPC minister told me he was confident I didn't understand the OPC at all, I told him I had attended almost every OPC general assembly back in the 1990s, almost every meeting of NAPARC, and more presbytery meetings than I could count, had read the OPC New Horizons for well over a decade, and had sat through not only the OPC General Assembly's debates on the OPC's fraternal relations with the CRC, but watched MANY other debates on other internal church matters. In addition to that, when living in a different state, I also attended two different OPCs for years, driving almost two hours to one church until it closed, and then over two hours to another. I was also recruited to join the OPC by two prominent ministers, one of them still living so I won't name him, and the other being GI Williamson himself. (Rev. Williamson and I quickly realized we were not on the same page and I don't belong in the OPC -- his main problem with me wasn't polity, since he understood I am well within the Dutch Reformed tradition on that point which he knows quite well from direct firsthand experience, but rather that he viewed me as "too tolerant" on a number of points where I agreed with him but wasn't willing to say it's the only legitimate Reformed way to do things.)

I don't hate the OPC. I wouldn't have driven that kind of distance to attend two different OPCs if I did.

But to claim that the OPC is not a strict and narrow denomination because 1) it admits Baptists to membership and 2) it doesn't follow Murray in practicing exclusive psalmody?

I support psalmsinging and have spent the last two and a half years getting Baptist and charismatic pastors excited by sending them videos from the Genevan Psalter (thank you, Psalternative!) of God's war songs against Satan and his minions. We in the Reformed world sometimes think psalmsinging, especially the imprecatory psalms, is a turn-off. Not at all my experience with Baptists and charismatics.

But I guess I'm as "loose" as the OPC on believing Baptists can be church members. I plead guilty to liking the OPC position on that issue.

However, to blame the OPC for holding positions which have been the majority view of most of conservative American Presbyterianism for centuries just doesn't make sense.

I can't think of a Presbyterian denomination in North America with a membership of over 10,000 people that is stricter and narrower than the OPC. There are Dutch Reformed denominations with that number of members, and more, which are significantly stricter than the OPC, but that's largely due to confessional and historical differences.

There are things on which the OPC can fairly be criticized.

Being "loose" is not among them.

Sorry to my OPC brothers -- I make a strange defender for the OPC. I guess I'm too close to you to make some people happy, but not close enough for you. You need to be defending your own positions on these issues not me.

 

[paranymph]

Not all - fair to say not even most - Particular Baptists "re-baptized". One Lord, one church, one baptism - even if invalid in mode or subject, made legal by the Spirit who seals in the New Covenant. The 1689 Appendix specifically calls paedobaptistic churches true churches and confirms our Lord is Lord of those assemblies.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that they accepted covenantal paedobaptists into membership without requiring immersion?

 

[No Other Name]

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that they accepted covenantal paedobaptists into membership without requiring immersion?

Yes. I am uncertain of the number so I should probably retract "not even most" until sure.

It's in Renihan's exposition on Chapter 29. As I recall records of transfers sans re-baptism records included large churches like Petty France and Broadmead.

 

[DrJack]

But to claim that the OPC is not a strict and narrow denomination because 1) it admits Baptists to membership and 2) it doesn't follow Murray in practicing exclusive psalmody?

I support psalmsinging and have spent the last two and a half years getting Baptist and charismatic pastors excited by sending them videos from the Genevan Psalter (thank you, Psalternative!) of God's war songs against Satan and his minions. We in the Reformed world sometimes think psalmsinging, especially the imprecatory psalms, is a turn-off. Not at all my experience with Baptists and charismatics.

However, to blame the OPC for holding positions which have been the majority view of most of conservative American Presbyterianism for centuries just doesn't make sense.

I can't think of a Presbyterian denomination in North America with a membership of over 10,000 people that is stricter and narrower than the OPC. There are Dutch Reformed denominations with that number of members, and more, which are significantly stricter than the OPC, but that's largely due to confessional and historical differences.

There are things on which the OPC can fairly be criticized.

Being "loose" is not among them.

Let me respond to a few things which I have bolded above. I did not simply base the issue of Psalms on Murray's position, but used that (with a bit of irony) as an example. You have problems with singing some of God's Psalms because you don't like the content (imprecatory), you find that "a turn-off"? Take that up with the Lord! Go back to the earliest Reformers - Luther's intro to the Psalter is fascinating, a 'little Bible'. If we decide to eliminate singing WITH Christ some of His Psalms because we don't like the content, we need to reconsider our position In my humble opinion.

CONSIDER: in Heaven we will be GLORIFYING GOD for the Eternal Torment of our lost loved ones. I will PRAISE God for eternal torment of my own mother! To sing His Psalms, even when they include imprecations, is His commandment, not subject to our 'taste'. Or as Isaac Watts in his own twisted mind called some of the Psalms "sub-Christian".

As far as American Presbyterians - they allowed an Enlightenment view of 'freedom of religion' to corrupt the WCF. Coming to terms with Establishment was my last step into full confessional subscription. I would STRONGLY recommend listening to Gavin Beers on this issue. Pastor Beers clarified the underlying issues in Establishment so clearly, it was like a light coming on for me. I have yet to hear ANY refutation of his position.

Numbers: are we REALLY going to hold a popularity contest? Elijah had an interesting take on the numbers game on the mountain top showdown w/ the prophets of Ba'al!

Finally, perhaps you missed my comments about a new OPC pastor using Anglican formal prayers, even having his congregants recite them in worship with him. Where is it that man believes that he is allowed to add his own components to God's ordained worship? This was a HUGE issue for the Presbyterian Church during the time of the Reformation & their BEING MURDERED by Anglicans for taking a different position.

The Dutch largely ignored the Second Reformation gains, and to me it is notable that such things as as the church calendar & that absurd winter celebration were kept SOLELY because the local .gov wanted these "holy-days" to remain for secular reasons.

 

[darrellmaurina]

No problem, @DrJack ... I know you said more on this issue than just psalmsinging.

To be clear, I have ZERO problems with imprecatory psalms. I think that's one of the biggest benefits of using them -- telling people that God is NOT just a big granddaddy in the sky spoiling the kids and grandkids, but is a real God with real wrath against real sin that has real and eternal consequences.

Much of modern Christian music is basically feminized "Jesus is my boyfriend" sappy love songs. And not just modern CCM, but hymnody of the 1800s.

I was criticizing people who think psalms are a "turnoff," not defending people who think that way. My point was we in the Reformed world make a major mistake in apologizing for psalmsinging. From my own experience, I've sent the Genevan Psalter to people who are not at all Reformed, including ordained ministers in churches that are not anywhere close to us theologically, who think the Psalternative online version of the Genevan Psalter is great.

Good hymns exist. The problem is that a lot of what people like in hymnody is exactly what we should NOT be singing.

Look, I'm Italian. A good love song can be very romantic and cute, and I don't have any problem with a young man courting a young woman and playing or singing romantic music to her. (Go ask my wife how often I do that, to the point that she has the idea that "it's in the blood" of Italians to sing sappy love songs, and she's not wrong.) But that is NOT the primary picture portrayed in God's Word of Himself. Yes, there's some of that in the Bible, but the predominant picture is that God is very, very upset with his unfaithful bride, and calls the church to repent.

I am sitting in a county commission meeting right now where the commissioners are chit-chatting without any real business, waiting in case a constituent comes to the meeting. In case you're wondering, with this being the Ozarks, the incumbent commissioners are joking with two candidates for the commission sitting in the audience about using gas cans for "plinking," i.e., target practice. No, I'm not kidding. Gun culture is so normal around here that people talk openly in government meetings about things that would be major news in larger cities and likely get them run out of office by media for "inappropriate jokes," but the sheriff and chief deputy are sitting here, laughing along with them, and they know it's not news because most voters would think the jokes are funny. One of the candidates is being teased about not being able to hit the target; I'm sitting behind him and I can tell that his US Army veteran cap has a note in the back that he's an Afghan War vet, so I'm pretty sure he can hit what he wants. (He's a retired LTC in a MOS where being able to shoot well is pretty much a requirement.)

After this, I have a court case upstairs in the courthouse where a Korean driver ran his semi truck off I-44, smashed into Burger King, destroyed the building and a number of employees' cars, and my last article got well over 100,000 views. I kind of need to be in his court hearing today. Then I have a bunch of drug cases and a murder case and child sex abuse cases to follow up on, and then a city council meeting tonight.

So I hope people won't mind if I don't respond for a while to this thread.

I hope our OPC brethren chime in and defend their positions on admitting Baptists to church membership. I agree with them. But the OPC needs to be defending OPC positions.

 

[DrJack]

Appreciate all of that (and glad to provide entertainment while sitting in on a boring meeting!). Still not clear on why man ought to be WRITING his own worship songs when God gave us 150 of them. And I FULLY agree, but I further mock by calling them "Jesus is my girlfriend" songs. A patient of mine invited me to his church for an evening service, and I used those words to characterize the guy playing guitar and singing the same thing over & over, eyes closed in reverie with his own fantasies that he was pleasing the Lord! He has come to understand that we are to be singing Psalms.

I am a romantic at heart myself! I take the stance that it is NOT sinful for a married couple to ALSO read the Song as pertaining to them, not SOLELY to Christ & His Bride!

 

[darrellmaurina]

I am a romantic at heart myself! I take the stance that it is NOT sinful for a married couple to ALSO read the Song as pertaining to them, not SOLELY to Christ & His Bride!

Should I ask you of the Song of Songs is appropriate, as an inspired and inerrant text that was clearly intended for singing, to sing in church?

Now I will duck.

(My answer: No, not in church, definitely not formal worship and not even non-worship contexts. Unmarried people and children are present. Now MAYBE it would be okay for a marriage retreat. But I'm not going to push that envelope. I do think the Dutch Reformed were right in allowing singing in worship of inspired texts like the Song of Zacharias that were clearly intended to be sung, and I don't have a problem with singing the Ten Commandments even though they were not necessarily intended to be sung.)

 

[DrJack]

Should I ask you of the Song of Songs is appropriate, as an inspired and inerrant text that was clearly intended for singing, to sing in church?

Now I will duck.

(My answer: No, not in church, definitely not formal worship and not even non-worship contexts. Unmarried people and children are present. Now MAYBE it would be okay for a marriage retreat. But I'm not going to push that envelope. I do think the Dutch Reformed were right in allowing singing in worship of inspired texts like the Song of Zacharias that were clearly intended to be sung, and I don't have a problem with singing the Ten Commandments even though they were not necessarily intended to be sung.)

Nope, we have a songbook. We don't sing the Song of Moses, nor Habukuk. Only the Psalms.

I HAVE told married couples struggling with intimacy to get rid of the kids for the night, open a bottle of wine, and read the Song to one another. Clothing optional. And I won't even get into the discussion about ivory!

Now I REALLY need to close up the laptop & do some things!

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Should I ask you of the Song of Songs is appropriate, as an inspired and inerrant text that was clearly intended for singing, to sing in church?

Now I will duck.

(My answer: No, not in church, definitely not formal worship and not even non-worship contexts. Unmarried people and children are present. Now MAYBE it would be okay for a marriage retreat. But I'm not going to push that envelope. I do think the Dutch Reformed were right in allowing singing in worship of inspired texts like the Song of Zacharias that were clearly intended to be sung, and I don't have a problem with singing the Ten Commandments even though they were not necessarily intended to be sung.)

It was included in the 2nd edition and later of the Bay Psalm Book.

It's about Christ. The only reason I can see not to sing it is that many wrongly think it's some kind of Christian kama sutra and could be scandalized. That was not a concern on anyone's mind in 1650's Massachussets.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I’ll admit I find this thread a bit frustrating because the premise seems underdeveloped and the discussion has become somewhat incoherent.

The original post seems to imply that an elder is some sort of “crypto-credo-baptist” or is soft on paedobaptism, but the actual basis for that charge is not clearly stated. From what I can gather, the concern may be that the elder advised a young man that he need not categorically limit his dating interests only to young women who already have a fully developed Presbyterian theology.

But that is a very different question from whether the elder denies covenant baptism.

The PCA’s position is not ambiguous: a denial of covenant baptism is hostile to the system of doctrine. Full stop. An officer in the PCA may not simply treat the Baptist view as equally confessional within our courts.

But whether it is wise for a young Presbyterian man to get to know a young woman with Baptist convictions is a prudential question, and context matters a great deal. Is she teachable? Is he grounded? Is this a casual interest or a serious path toward marriage? Is he the sort of man who could lovingly lead a future household? Is she merely unfamiliar with Presbyterian theology, or actively opposed to it? Those are not minor details.

It is entirely possible that the elder in question is deeply convinced of Presbyterian doctrine and is simply not soft in the head. Perhaps he has lived long enough to know that many people do not arrive at Presbyterian convictions fully formed at age twenty. Perhaps he himself was not always Presbyterian. Perhaps his wife was not. Perhaps he came to these convictions over time and led his household accordingly. That would make his counsel not evidence of doctrinal looseness, but of pastoral realism.

So, yes, we should be serious about covenant theology, covenant baptism, and the vows of PCA officers. But we should also be careful not to turn every piece of dating advice into an ecclesiastical trial balloon.

The real question worth discussing is: under what circumstances is it wise or unwise for a confessional Presbyterian young man to pursue a woman with Baptist convictions?

That is a legitimate pastoral question.

The rest of this feels like a lot of chaff.

 

[Christodulus]

And therefore, you now choose to ignore the case I posted against "re-baptism" (not mine but Jim Renihan's) and settle in on Baptists committing the "error of the Anabaptists" on the sole issue of "re-baptism" and augment that (non-universal) similarity of doctrine ignoring the wholesale fundamental differences in our systematics. Sadly typical here among some of you.

1. I didn’t see any case against re-baptism made (although I did see you acknowledge most, and implicitly yourself, would encourage me to be re-baptized) 2. I was not aware you personally represented all Baptists in the world, so whatever opinion you have they also must have (unless you show me compelling evidence to believe the majority today have forsaken their traditional position on the subject, I have no reason to believe it) 3. I don’t know why this is so difficult for some here to understand, but Baptists agreeing with Anabaptists in their doctrine of baptism (again, uncontroversial outside of this board) does not imply that Baptists are Anabaptists or agree with them about everything else.

Yet have no problem admitting the baptism into Rome as a "washing of water with the Word". Rome has the Word huh? How could the Antichrist (WCF 25.6) have the Word? (Genuine question, no matter your answer, I will not debate, so questions from me from now on are curious and not rhetorical)

The Antichrist can have the word because the word is external and objective and independent of the speaker’s piety or virtue, the Gospel of Matthew does not cease to be the Gospel of Matthew when it is read verbatim by a Romish priest.

I know tradition holds that it does, but I just kind of had no idea tradition was even more pronounced in your system that I originally thought.

I’m surprised you thought we would’ve abandoned our historic doctrine simply because it’s the current year.

Again, no debate, it seems you are settled that we have the "error of the Anabaptists", and Rome has true baptism sealing infants through the sign and work of the Holy Spirit into the Covenant of Grace.

What an amazing stance. Every time I think I may have paedobaptists figured out, I really don't.

You should be less easily offended, brother.

However, to blame the OPC for holding positions which have been the majority view of most of conservative American Presbyterianism for centuries just doesn't make sense.

In your opinion, did it make sense to criticize the church of Rome in 1517 for holding what had been the majority view for centuries?

 

[Beoga]

Seeking doctrinal uniformity keep you single for a long time. I went down that route for a while.

Then I met a pretty Baptist girl, we had some good discussions, she witnessed a few baptisms, we got married, had children, and she is now a full on card carrying paedobaptists.

If you want to get married, don't put up so.many barriers. Get to know the person and find out if marriage is a good option for you two, rather than assuming ahead of time because she hasn't yet reached doctrinal purity.

 

[Edward]

@Fox26

My wife was was at a Dispensational Bible church when I met her; we even got married there. She had no problem with the PCA membership vows, and no objection when we got out infant daughter baptized.

I agree with @Begoa - don't erect artificial barriers.

If you are looking for the perfect woman, give up.

And if you do get married, she certainly won't have married a perfect man.

 

[darrellmaurina]

However, to blame the OPC for holding positions which have been the majority view of most of conservative American Presbyterianism for centuries just doesn't make sense.

I can't think of a Presbyterian denomination in North America with a membership of over 10,000 people that is stricter and narrower than the OPC. There are Dutch Reformed denominations with that number of members, and more, which are significantly stricter than the OPC, but that's largely due to confessional and historical differences.

There are things on which the OPC can fairly be criticized.

Being "loose" is not among them.

In your opinion, did it make sense to criticize the church of Rome in 1517 for holding what had been the majority view for centuries?

Scott, of course it made sense to criticize the Roman Catholics prior to 1517, but the criticism needs to be on different grounds today, grounds which are far more serious, and the answer to the question that you raise really has very little to do with criticizing the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Why? The OPC essentially holds to the American revision of the Westminster Standards. While there are differences between the OPC of 2026 (or 1936) and the Presbyterian General Assembly of the 1780s and 1790s, the core confession hasn't significantly changed. The OPC isn't identical to the Presbyterian General Assembly of Witherspoon's era, but it's pretty close in doctrine and the actual practice, while different, isn't radically so.

That's not the case with the Roman Catholic Church, which has had three major councils between 1517 and today.

Part of the problem in answering your question is that to criticize the Roman Catholic Church today, we have the authoritative decisions of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II, as well as several ex cathedra papal pronouncements, that were not yet defined dogma in 1517.

While Trent and Vatican I formalized what had long before, in each case, become the majority position of the Roman Catholic Church, those positions were not unanimous before the two councils. Luther could still, in a pre-Trent context, make the claim that his views were standard Augustinian theology which had become a minority position but could be defended as the teaching of the great St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo and doctor of the church. Trent closed the door on that argument. Likewise, Vatican I closed the door on the views of John Henry Newman and others that while councils were infallible, the pope was first among bishops but not infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra. For what it's worth, I did my senior thesis on Cardinal Newman's "development of doctrine" theory so this isn't something I'm saying without serious thought.

The Reformers begged for a church council to address their concerns. By the time a council was finally called, while there were a few bishops present who might be described as mildly Protestant, and others who were concerned about condemning the Augustinian tradition, the split between Protestants and Catholics was essentially over and Trent simply ratified the existing reality on the ground.

Vatican II complicates matters further. We are not dealing with a church that takes the same approach to us that was taken by Trent or by Vatican I. In some ways, the approach is worse because Vatican II opened the door to a Catholic form of liberalism, something that had been severely condemned by Vatican I and by numerous Popes prior to Vatican II. The core doctrine wasn't changed by Vatican II -- I don't see any way, given the Catholic view on conciliar and papal infallibility, that there is any way to undo Trent, and without undoing Trent, a great gulf has been fixed that cannot be overcome -- but the animosity toward cooperating with Protestants is no longer there and that is a crucial development in dealing with the political and cultural world outside the church.

Important Roman Catholic doctrines have changed since 1517, and as Reformed people, we would say Trent and Vatican I changed them for the worse. (I'm avoiding the Vatican II issue because it's not relevant to my point.) We can't take the approach of the early Reformation-era Protestants in calling for a new ecumenical council to reassess the medieval Catholic consensus. That ship sailed (or perhaps better said, that ship was shipwrecked) with the decrees of the Council of Trent.

Very little of this has much, if anything, to do with criticizing the OPC.

The OPC is being faithful to its confessions and to American Presbyterian history.

A good case can be made that Trent changed Catholic doctrine in ways that were not only bad ways, but in ways that cannot be undone.

The OPC hasn't had anything remotely comparable to Trent in which the OPC broke from Presbyterian history.

The OPC claims to be in the heritage of Northern Old School Presbyterian theology. I believe that claim is largely correct.

It's not a loose denomination, unless we want to call Witherspoon "loose."