Baptism and Church Membership

[Scott1]

TsonMariytho
Puritanboard Freshman

That's exactly what I'm talking about and that's exactly what I believe. Rich, if you and your dear family comes to Maranatha the Table of the LORD will be open to you!

Of course, that leads us down other roads of discussion.

This is my heart's desire...to see all believers in Christ be one.

I don't mean to interrupt the back and forth or train of thought here but a couple thoughts come to mind here for those of us following:

1) The Lord's Supper is open (PCA, OPC at least) to Christians who are members in good standing of a church where the gospel is preached.

2) As to "all being one" that is, in fact true of the invisible church. However, there's more to it in reformed theology which says that the unity of the (visible) church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

3) I take it it is understood reformed presbyterians would accept a previous baptism by immersion even though their doctrinally preferred and practiced method is sprinkling.

 

[Pergamum]

the church and not have baptism as one's firt public action in that church as a member?

Pergs, what exactly is a "firt public action"?

Firt is Ozarkian for first. Hard to get those S's out with a mouth full'a' toe-backy.


Just wrote a report in another language, hard time thinking and typing in two languages.

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 09:26:51 EST-----

I do not see a formal church membership expressed in the NewTestament as we practice it today.

What then is the point of the final step of Church discipline, that of putting one out of the Church?

[bible]1 Corinthians 5:4-5[/bible]

The only way to put someone out of the entire Church would be to mark them in some physical way. I suppose we could implant them with some sort of gps chip today, but what could they have done in Paul's day? The act of putting out would then imply out of a local assembly, in particular, and out of the Church universal as a necessary consequence of having been put out of the local assembly. Therefore membership is a real association with a local body, not just general membership in the universal body.

Let's get back to this point about a formal church membership.

It is quite easy to mark someone out socially even in the lack of a formal "church membership" process. It is not like joining or getting kicked out of the Mickey Mouse club. In a tight-knit local group meeting together in a person's home, where the Christian community is bound socially and economically, we have great social presure applied.



Below I am thinking out loud:............

Perhaps the Amish custom of shunning is more Biblical than merely revoking church membership on a piece of paper for those that fall into heresy. Perhaps that is where the issue lies, in that due to the nature of our churches, we have gone from tight social cohesion to adherance to a set of rules


Those who were acknowledged as being Christians in the NT bonded closely together socially, economically and met in one another's home. It was an organism and not an institution and its bonds were less formal and more "organic" and familial if you will. People in town X believed and so they met in someone's house.

I suppose as Western culture got less communal and we switched to third-party neutral buildings, church "membership" got more formalized. Instead of merely getting a personal letter of recommendation from other Christians meeting in a house, we now have church forms in order to "transfer membership."


I see articles all the time from Reformed Baptists that say "Church membership is not optional." Of course, we all must be members of Christ's body. And wherever we are, we meet together with the Lord's people.

However, sometimes I see these articles on the importance of local church membership as being motivated by an effort to consolidate power and holding people's toes to the fire when they differ on more minor issues. i.e. "You agreed to our church covenant, now you have to obey us."

Thus, many of us drive 2 hours to sit in a place where everyone does not know everyone else very well, there is minimal fellowship throughout the week and we are reminded of our obligations and duties to a church that should merely come through daily social intercourse and economic and social mutual dependance. If we travel a lot we feel guilty as if we need to ask permission to be excused to have an absence And if we want to move to another church we need to ask for a "transfer of membership" form.

I agree in principle to what lies underneath many of these practices, but I see church membership as being a naturally occurring thing as local Christians banded together and were bound to each other by circumstances, rather than joining an institution like the rotary club and being reminded of one's duties, fees, and obliations.

A good case in point is many baptist churches that use their membership policies to make a new member agree not to engage in the drinking, production or selling of liquor? What if a church required its members to mop the floors every tuesday night? What if no non EP person could become a member or women without headcoverings were asked to leave?

My point is that the local fellowship should be "local" for one thing and not the niche and commuter churches that I see so often among us, and it should be a "fellowship" and resemble a fellowship rather than a highly restrictive club orinstitution with too many rules (i.e. full subscription to the 1689 without compromise for lay membership is too strict, even if this creates a ""two-tiered" structure).


As time passed and the NT church turned into the early church which spread out into the Gentile world, there were questions of how to incorporate people. Due to uncertainty about whether someone really understood and believed the faith, probationary periods and delays in baptism were initiated and people became catechumens. These pre-baptized Catechumens followed the service, but did not partake in the Lord's Supper because they were not yet baptised...thus we see that baptism does seem to be the acknowledged entry-point into the life of the church, whatever view we hold about church membership.

I think the Didache was used as a manual for catechumens (maybe I'll start another OP on this worthy topic).

Most of these catechisms were general and not too specific and I think it is a virtue to be purposely general to allow broader membership (this attitude is reflected in that there is a wide array of eschatological beliefs and most churches would allow people holding to most of these positions as church members, perhaps requiring something stricter for the officers.)


Therefore, I believe that all Christians are members of the universal church. And as Christians we seek out to be baptized and join ourselves with a local assembly. Our participation in this local assembly is based upon our being acknowledged as Christians. This requires some sort of checking the new person's doctrine and an agreement to some sort of basic doctrinal statement, but I think that full subscription 1689 and the WCF are not basic enough to determine whether someone can join a church and take the Lord's supper, since one presumably has to believe that the Pope is the Antichrist.


Here's a good link to Piper on the issue of the OP. I post it merely because it fits this discussion not because it makes my points:

How Important Is Church Membership? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library



Summary: Any "membership" of the early church varied widely from what we see practiced in modern denominations. There are a great number of differences. While I don't think any of you are wrong for trying to initiate some sort of system, I would challenge you if you think that "stricter" and more "formal" means "better."


..end of ramble.

 

[Romans922]

Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.

Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).

 

[Mayflower]

From a credo baptistic view, we don't view an infant sprinkeling as a NT baptism, and because in scripture we don't see any example of a non baptized person being a member of the church and partaking the Lord's supper, so a baptist would only follow the NT order.

 

[TsonMariytho]

Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).

I think it would be interesting to have a discussion (on another thread) about what it means that the promise is "to your children". I've seen many Reformed Baptists argue that it refers to spiritual children, and of course the Reformed paedo take on it is well known. My own view is that the promise is offered to you and to your children and to those afar off. In fact, there is no one within the hearing of the gospel to whom the promise is not offered.

I'm new here... Is there a more appropriate thread we can jump to with this, or perhaps start one?

 

[TimV]

Scott, in the PCA and OPC the local Session have the right to fence the Table strictly or liberally, so in one church a Baptist visitor can be allowed Communion and in another not allowed. Both denominations allow Baptists as full members, though.

We know that baptism is a command to be obeyed. It is to be administered immediately following a credible profession of faith.

And it comes down to the basic differences between Baptists and Reformed folks. The main difference is one of continuity between the New Testament and the Old. My youngest son has Down's, and will never be able to profess his faith in a way that you would find credible, but just as that wasn't a hindrance to his being circumcised in the OT it's not a hindrance to his being baptized in the NT. Or so it seems to Reformed folk. Since Baptists start from scratch on so many issues, they run into all sorts of like problems that simply aren't issues for us.

 

[Pergamum]

Scott, in the PCA and OPC the local Session have the right to fence the Table strictly or liberally, so in one church a Baptist visitor can be allowed Communion and in another not allowed. Both denominations allow Baptists as full members, though.

We know that baptism is a command to be obeyed. It is to be administered immediately following a credible profession of faith.

And it comes down to the basic differences between Baptists and Reformed folks. The main difference is one of continuity between the New Testament and the Old. My youngest son has Down's, and will never be able to profess his faith in a way that you would find credible, but just as that wasn't a hindrance to his being circumcised in the OT it's not a hindrance to his being baptized in the NT. Or so it seems to Reformed folk. Since Baptists start from scratch on so many issues, they run into all sorts of like problems that simply aren't issues for us.

TimV: I respect the OPC, and also the PCA and like these policies by them. Why the variety among churches as to whom can partake? Why do some allow Baptists to partake and some not?

 

[TimV]

TimV: I respect the OPC, and also the PCA and like these policies by them. Why the variety among churches as to whom can partake? Why do some allow Baptists to partake and some not?

I think that the idea is to give the local churches as much freedom as possible within certain distinctive bounds. As has been said, Presbyterianism tries to avoid "the tyranny from above" like in Roman Catholicism where one man can basically lord it over everyone and "the tyranny from below" like happens at times in independent baptist churches where there isn't any recourse when injustices are perpetrated by the local leadership. And so while no local denomination could elect, say, a FV proponent as an Elder, there are huge differences allowed in music, liturgy, frequency of Communion, etc...
And PS, if a Session were to interview you personally, the number of PCA and OPC churches that would deny you Communion would be a tiny fraction, if any at all, of either denomination.

 

[Herald]

Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.

Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).

This really isn't a thread to debate credo vs. paedo. But I too take exception to your interpretation of this passage. The promise is for you, your children, and for who are far off. The passage is not about household baptism, it's about the offer of the gospel to "as many as the Lord has called."

 

[Romans922]

Acts 2:41-42 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

These "three thousand souls" became part (members, if you will) of the church in Jerusalem. The model was believe and be baptized.

Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).

This really isn't a thread to debate credo vs. paedo. But I too take exception to your interpretation of this passage. The promise is for you, your children, and for who are far off. The passage is not about household baptism, it's about the offer of the gospel to "as many as the Lord has called."

I know (this is not a cread/paedo debate thread), I was just trying to be funny. (it is about the offer of the Gospel, I don't deny that. It is very much that indeed. But the promise is not just for these believing men of Judea here, it is for their children as well. Just as the promise to Abraham was to him and to his children (not that they would actually receive it, but only if they had faith would they recieve it) and to that is the sign pointing to the promise (for Abraham and his children --> circumcision), for us baptism.

 

[Herald]

Ah yes, believe and be baptized. We all agree. And the promise is for you and your children. That baptism which pointed you to the promise. If you have faith the promise is for you and your children, so you are baptized as a sign pointing to the promise, and so shall your children receive the sign as well, pointing them to the same promise. (See Abraham, circumcision, Isaac/Ishmael -- Gen. 17 (the sign very closely linked to the promise).

This really isn't a thread to debate credo vs. paedo. But I too take exception to your interpretation of this passage. The promise is for you, your children, and for who are far off. The passage is not about household baptism, it's about the offer of the gospel to "as many as the Lord has called."

I know (this is not a cread/paedo debate thread), I was just trying to be funny. (it is about the offer of the Gospel, I don't deny that. It is very much that indeed. But the promise is not just for these believing men of Judea here, it is for their children as well. Just as the promise to Abraham was to him and to his children (not that they would actually receive it, but only if they had faith would they recieve it) and to that is the sign pointing to the promise (for Abraham and his children --> circumcision), for us baptism.

And for Baptists the promise extends to all those who believe, whether child or adult (these are the ones that the Lord has called to Himself), and the corresponding sign of baptism. What I don't take this passage in Acts to be saying is, "The promise extends to your children, therefore apply the sign." The "promise" is extended on the basis of faith, "as many as the Lord has called to Himself."

-----Added 12/8/2008 at 02:32:23 EST-----

Scott, in the PCA and OPC the local Session have the right to fence the Table strictly or liberally, so in one church a Baptist visitor can be allowed Communion and in another not allowed. Both denominations allow Baptists as full members, though.

We know that baptism is a command to be obeyed. It is to be administered immediately following a credible profession of faith.

And it comes down to the basic differences between Baptists and Reformed folks. The main difference is one of continuity between the New Testament and the Old. My youngest son has Down's, and will never be able to profess his faith in a way that you would find credible, but just as that wasn't a hindrance to his being circumcised in the OT it's not a hindrance to his being baptized in the NT. Or so it seems to Reformed folk. Since Baptists start from scratch on so many issues, they run into all sorts of like problems that simply aren't issues for us.

Tim,

I don't see a one-for-one correlation between circumcision and baptism. The sign of baptism is applied to those who believe. I have met some wonderful down syndrome children. You would know better than me the severity of your child's condition. In one church I visited a young man who had downs was bright and articulate. Looking back on it, I would have no problem administering baptism to this young man if he was able to articulate his faith in Christ. From what I remember he was rather vocal about his faith. I was encouraged and my faith strengthened by having met him.

As far as Baptists "running into trouble", I'm not sure what trouble we have run into. If you believe you are to be baptized. Period. If you have believed, been baptized and display the ability to examine your faith, you are to partake in the Lord's Supper. Where's the trouble?

 

[Hippo]

From a credo baptistic view, we don't view an infant sprinkeling as a NT baptism, and because in scripture we don't see any example of a non baptized person being a member of the church and partaking the Lord's supper, so a baptist would only follow the NT order.

Thats a very low view of the visible Church where you deny the sacraments on the basis of sectarianism. Paedo's are either Christians in your view or they are not.

 

[TsonMariytho]

I would urge extra restraint and caution in this discussion, as this is an issue obviously very close to Tim's heart as well as others', and we would not want to say something that could be interpreted as offensive...


Bill / Herald,

I'm very glad to hear you say that you would administer baptism to a mentally disabled person. I know that many Reformed Baptist pastors deliberately delay baptism of normal, believing children until they reach an age of maturity and can make a more credible profession. Glad to see you would make a (possible) exception for a person who may never attain the full mental level of a normal adult, but who at least shows some sign of loving Jesus.

I want to believe that our God has mercy on all people who are never able to hear and comprehend the gospel, including all dying infants and the most severely mentally disabled. Since I can't find a proof one way or the other in scripture (e.g. Charles Hodge's argument doesn't convince me), I leave that as one of the secret things, and trust our loving and just God to sort it out as he knows best.

As far as baptism and the subject of this thread goes, under the New Covenant we do not recognize a distinction between the natural children of Abraham (Jews) versus the foreign outsiders (Gentiles). The only way to be recognized as an heir of Abraham under the New Covenant is to possess the family characteristic -- a big nose.

No, I'm kidding (although I do have a big nose). The family characteristic that all members of the New Covenant (children of Father Abraham) possess is the faith of Abraham.

Bill is right that the gospel is offered to all within its hearing. It contains great promises and great warnings, blessings and curses based on how people respond to it. All who hear the gospel come under its obligations. (There's an external covenant arrangement, if perchance you're looking for one in the New Covenant era.) However, the only true members of the New Covenant are those who know the Lord.

 

[Wannabee]

Mike,

Please be more careful before jumping to conclusions. Ralph may have meant that, but it's also entirely possible that he's merely pointing to the order of things as a Baptist sees it. Though he might not allow paedos to share the Supper. His statement didn't necessarily mean that. Perhaps a question for clarity, alone, would have been more fruitful and charitable. These mis-characterizations can come across as extremely ungracious and instigatory.

 

[Hippo]

Mike,

Please be more careful before jumping to conclusions. Ralph may have meant that, but it's also entirely possible that he's merely pointing to the order of things as a Baptist sees it. Though he might not allow paedos to share the Supper. His statement didn't necessarily mean that. Perhaps a question for clarity, alone, would have been more fruitful and charitable. These mis-characterizations can come across as extremely ungracious and instigatory.

I did not intend an accusation that it was believed that paedos are not Christians, my point was that "things as a baptist sees it" are sectarian when the sacrements are refused on the basis of a doctrinal mode. The response that this is just the Baptist way is not a particularly helpful response.

The Baptist position that paedos would be denied the sacraments is widely expressed on this board, I do not see my recognition of this as an ungracious and instigatory conclusion, it has been repeated in this thread several times. I do not want to offend anyone but I have a real problem with this position and I do not think that it is uncharitable to point this out.

Why do you have a problem with me having a problem with it? If it is my tone I do apologise, that is not my intention.

 

[TimV]

I don't see a one-for-one correlation between circumcision and baptism.

That was my whole point. That is the difference between Reformed folk and Baptists. Continuity.

I have met some wonderful down syndrome children. You would know better than me the severity of your child's condition. In one church I visited a young man who had downs was bright and articulate. Looking back on it, I would have no problem administering baptism to this young man if he was able to articulate his faith in Christ.

Philip cannot articulate his belief in Christ. He cannot make a credible confession of his belief, nor will he ever be able to. I don't feel bad that some Baptists would never baptize him anymore than I feel bad that some Baptists think I'm not saved for not speaking in tongues, not believing Israel is special or not believing in alter calls. It is frankly a matter of supreme indifference to me. The only reason I care about things like Israel is that certain political actions that flow from the belief that Israel is special affect my nation's standing in the world and my family safety and bank account. Philip is baptised, and those who think his baptism is invalid can't affect me personally, and are not a threat to my church. Here he is goofing off in front of one of my beehives

 

[Pilgrim]

From a credo baptistic view, we don't view an infant sprinkeling as a NT baptism, and because in scripture we don't see any example of a non baptized person being a member of the church and partaking the Lord's supper, so a baptist would only follow the NT order.

Thats a very low view of the visible Church where you deny the sacraments on the basis of sectarianism. Paedo's are either Christians in your view or they are not.

What is your view of paedo churches who will not admit those to the Lord's Supper simply because they are not formally a member of an "evangelical" church?

 

[Herald]

I don't see a one-for-one correlation between circumcision and baptism.

That was my whole point. That is the difference between Reformed folk and Baptists. Continuity.

I have met some wonderful down syndrome children. You would know better than me the severity of your child's condition. In one church I visited a young man who had downs was bright and articulate. Looking back on it, I would have no problem administering baptism to this young man if he was able to articulate his faith in Christ.

Philip cannot articulate his belief in Christ. He cannot make a credible confession of his belief, nor will he ever be able to. I don't feel bad that some Baptists would never baptize him anymore than I feel bad that some Baptists think I'm not saved for not speaking in tongues, not believing Israel is special or not believing in alter calls. It is frankly a matter of supreme indifference to me. The only reason I care about things like Israel is that certain political actions that flow from the belief that Israel is special affect my nation's standing in the world and my family safety and bank account. Philip is baptised, and those who think his baptism is invalid can't affect me personally, and are not a threat to my church. Here he is goofing off in front of one of my beehives

Tim, I had to chuckle at this picture. Philip has more bravery than I do around bees.

I can't respond to experiences you have had with churches. They are what they are. The baptism issue comes down around theological lines (as you know). I'm content to allow our disagreement over baptism to be theological in nature and not speculative.

This thread has covered the gamut. From whether or not baptism is necessary for church membership to the old (and tired!) credo-paedo debate. It's been months since the last baptism donnybrook and I'd be just as happy to lengthen the hiatus.

Brother Tim, I'm sure Philip is a joy. May the Lord bless Him with His grace to overflowing.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't feel bad that some Baptists would never baptize him anymore than I feel bad that some Baptists think I'm not saved for not speaking in tongues,

Are these actually Baptists or are they Pentecostals that you are simply referring to as Baptists because of their baptismal practice?

To get back on track, that is a great picture of your son. I agree with Bill that he is braver than I am! I have an older brother (38) who is autistic who probably functions at a much lower level and most likely wouldn't be able to even sit through a service today without causing a scene.

Does your son partake in the Lord's Supper? Most Presbyterian churches, unless they are FV or PCUSA or somesuch require a profession of faith prior to admitting someone to the Lord's Supper.

 

[TimV]

Does your son partake in the Lord's Supper? Most Presbyterian churches, unless they are FV or PCUSA or somesuch require a profession of faith prior to admitting someone to the Lord's Supper.

The Session allowed him at the PCA church we were at. The results of the divorce were such that of the 6 still living at home earlier this year, I got 4 and she got 2, including Philip, who only lives with us two weekdays every week. She's going to a large community Arminian Baptist church which doesn't fence the table, so I'm sure he's still taking communion.

 

[Wannabee]

I did not intend an accusation that it was believed that paedos are not Christians, my point was that "things as a baptist sees it" are sectarian when the sacrements are refused on the basis of a doctrinal mode. The response that this is just the Baptist way is not a particularly helpful response.

The Baptist position that paedos would be denied the sacraments is widely expressed on this board, I do not see my recognition of this as an ungracious and instigatory conclusion, it has been repeated in this thread several times. I do not want to offend anyone but I have a real problem with this position and I do not think that it is uncharitable to point this out.

Why do you have a problem with me having a problem with it? If it is my tone I do apologise, that is not my intention.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Mike. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to your comments as I was mischaracterized by you by a long shot earlier in this thread (Landmarkism?). Your comment in regard to Ralph's post "seems" to jump to the conclusion that he would fence the table. Maybe he would. I don't know. Maybe he said so earlier. But the quote from his post didn't take a postion in regard to this, so your response seems to draw an unnecessary conclusion.

As for a "problem with it" - I consider communion an issue of conscience between the redeemed and the Redeemer. We don't fence the table in this regard. I also "have a problem it it."

 

[Hippo]

I did not intend an accusation that it was believed that paedos are not Christians, my point was that "things as a baptist sees it" are sectarian when the sacrements are refused on the basis of a doctrinal mode. The response that this is just the Baptist way is not a particularly helpful response.

The Baptist position that paedos would be denied the sacraments is widely expressed on this board, I do not see my recognition of this as an ungracious and instigatory conclusion, it has been repeated in this thread several times. I do not want to offend anyone but I have a real problem with this position and I do not think that it is uncharitable to point this out.

Why do you have a problem with me having a problem with it? If it is my tone I do apologise, that is not my intention.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Mike. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to your comments as I was mischaracterized by you by a long shot earlier in this thread (Landmarkism?). Your comment in regard to Ralph's post "seems" to jump to the conclusion that he would fence the table. Maybe he would. I don't know. Maybe he said so earlier. But the quote from his post didn't take a postion in regard to this, so your response seems to draw an unnecessary conclusion.

As for a "problem with it" - I consider communion an issue of conscience between the redeemed and the Redeemer. We don't fence the table in this regard. I also "have a problem it it."

I am sorry that I rubbed you up the wrong way, thank you for being so gracious.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 09:57:53 EST-----

From a credo baptistic view, we don't view an infant sprinkeling as a NT baptism, and because in scripture we don't see any example of a non baptized person being a member of the church and partaking the Lord's supper, so a baptist would only follow the NT order.

Thats a very low view of the visible Church where you deny the sacraments on the basis of sectarianism. Paedo's are either Christians in your view or they are not.

What is your view of paedo churches who will not admit those to the Lord's Supper simply because they are not formally a member of an "evangelical" church?

In my view all that is required is that you are a member of a true church, therefore if a paedo church will not admit on the basis that your church, while "true", is not evangelical enough they are being sectarian.

Of course what is and what is not a true church is not a simple question apart from at the extremes.

To be honest at least Baptists have a strong theological basis for not admitting paedos (even if I disagree with it and feel that it has huge implications), by and large fenced paedos do not have anything like the same basis for their position.

 

[Wannabee]

As follow up for Mike's statement, if a Baptist church that denies paedos has a convert who cannot get baptized immediately for logistical reasons they would have to restrain that new convert from the Lord's Supper until arrangements could be made for a baptism. So, both ordinances are withheld because of logistics encumbering one. This seems highly problematic.

1 Cor 11 is applicable here, for the Corinthians were admonished to "examine yourselves" in light of their elitism.

 

[Pilgrim]

I did not intend an accusation that it was believed that paedos are not Christians, my point was that "things as a baptist sees it" are sectarian when the sacrements are refused on the basis of a doctrinal mode. The response that this is just the Baptist way is not a particularly helpful response.

The Baptist position that paedos would be denied the sacraments is widely expressed on this board, I do not see my recognition of this as an ungracious and instigatory conclusion, it has been repeated in this thread several times. I do not want to offend anyone but I have a real problem with this position and I do not think that it is uncharitable to point this out.

Why do you have a problem with me having a problem with it? If it is my tone I do apologise, that is not my intention.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Mike. Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to your comments as I was mischaracterized by you by a long shot earlier in this thread (Landmarkism?). Your comment in regard to Ralph's post "seems" to jump to the conclusion that he would fence the table. Maybe he would. I don't know. Maybe he said so earlier. But the quote from his post didn't take a postion in regard to this, so your response seems to draw an unnecessary conclusion.

As for a "problem with it" - I consider communion an issue of conscience between the redeemed and the Redeemer. We don't fence the table in this regard. I also "have a problem it it."

I am sorry that I rubbed you up the wrong way, thank you for being so gracious.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 09:57:53 EST-----

Thats a very low view of the visible Church where you deny the sacraments on the basis of sectarianism. Paedo's are either Christians in your view or they are not.

What is your view of paedo churches who will not admit those to the Lord's Supper simply because they are not formally a member of an "evangelical" church?

In my view all that is required is that you are a member of a true church, therefore if a paedo church will not admit on the basis that your church, while "true", is not evangelical enough they are being sectarian.

Of course what is and what is not a true church is not a simple question apart from at the extremes.

To be honest at least Baptists have a strong theological basis for not admitting paedos (even if I disagree with it and feel that it has huge implications), by and large fenced paedos do not have anything like the same basis for their position.

What about a situation in which a believer has left a church that had no formal membership but is barred from taking communion in the OPC because he is not a member of a Bible believing church?

 

[Hippo]

What about a situation in which a believer has left a church that had no formal membership but is barred from taking communion in the OPC because he is not a member of a Bible believing church?

Well if he had left the church with no formal membership then he could just join the OPC and there would not be a problem. If he just did not want to join a church then he has decided not to be in a position to recieve the sacraments which is his decision, and not one a Christian would be expected to take.

If he attended a church with no formal membership then according to the reformed view that may not be a true church, which would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well if he had left the church with no formal membership then he could just join the OPC and there would not be a problem. If he just did not want to join a church then he has decided not to be in a position to recieve the sacraments which is his decision, and not one a Christian would be expected to take.

If he attended a church with no formal membership then according to the reformed view that may not be a true church, which would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

It takes a while to join the OPC, usually a month or more after one has decided to take that step. For someone coming from a different background, I'm sure that it's not uncommon to take a few months to come to that decision.