I'm paedo but my church is not

[Megan Mozart]

To Paedobaptists ONLY: (sorry if this is the wrong forum; feel free to move it mods)

My denomination allows paedos or credos to be members, but my church is mostly credo and all of the elders are credo. My head pastor is credo and he won't do infant baptism but in the past he has said that if there were to be an elder elected (it's a congregationalist church) that happened to be paedo then that elder could perform infant baptisms.

Well, the elders have now come up with an Elder Confession that all elders, pastors, and church planters would have to agree with completely. They did this mainly to preserve Calvinism in the teaching of the church and disallow future pastors, elders and church planters that would be Arminian. But in this confession it happens to not allow paedobaptists to be any of these types of leaders, and other lesser leaders would not be allowed to teach paedobaptism. Nice.

If this confession ends up being adopted, then my husband and I can't have our future babies baptized at our church.

Have you ever heard of anyone in this situation? Once we start having children, what would you advise us to do? I personally do not feel comfortable refraining from baptizing my infant. I would feel like I was disobeying God. Is that how I should feel? Would it be ok to sneak over to a sound paedo church for a week and baptize my baby? Or is that a big no-no?

This has given me a bit of turmoil, so thanks in advance for your insight.

 

[Skyler]

I'm not a paedo, but if I were in the place of the credo elders I'd suggest sneaking off to a paedo church to get the baby baptized.

 

[toddpedlar]

I'm not a paedo, but if I were in the place of the credo elders I'd suggest sneaking off to a paedo church to get the baby baptized.

I agree, Megan, with your assessment of the situation, should you have children that you are unable to baptize and then if you do not. I do believe it would be sinful.

However, this "solution" offered by Skyler is no solution at all (no offense intended, Skyler).

Baptism is not to be done by individuals "sneaking off" to a paedo church to be baptized. It's not an individual sacrament, but one only properly done in the context of a church in which you are members (In my humble opinion). I would strongly counsel against this - and if your church is unwilling to baptize your covenant children, then I'd take this as motive to find a faithful church wherein this is done.

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

As baptism is to be a sacrament of the church, I wouldn’t advise “sneaking off” to have your child baptized. Such a baptism should be done in and sanctioned by a church to which you have some connection.

As your church theoretically allows for both paedo and credo baptismal practice, why can they not specify that in their new confession? You should humbly petition them to allow this.

Also, a church which theoretically allows paedo-baptism, but has no-one to administer such is not really allowing paedo-baptism. Obviously, elders can not perform what they in conscience object to. However, if the church permits, they could invite a paedo-baptist minister or elder from another congregation to perform the baptism, or ask a paedo-baptist church to administer such.

If a congregation were not willing to make these accommodations, it might be good to look for another congregation.

 

[Poimen]

I don't know if this helps but I agree with brother Todd & Glenn: be received as members in a paedobaptist church. As a paedobaptist pastor I could not in good conscience baptize a child under the circumstances you are presenting here. The church is responsible for the pure administration of the sacraments and this duty is nearly impossible to fulfill if you are worshipping elsewhere under the authority of elders who disagree with your stance.

 

[Simply_Nikki]

As baptism is to be a sacrament of the church, I wouldn’t advise “sneaking off” to have your child baptized. Such a baptism should be done in and sanctioned by a church to which you have some connection.

As your church theoretically allows for both paedo and credo baptismal practice, why can they not specify that in their new confession? You should humbly petition them to allow this.

Also, a church which theoretically allows paedo-baptism, but has no-one to administer such is not really allowing paedo-baptism. Obviously, elders can not perform what they in conscience object to. However, if the church permits, they could invite a paedo-baptist minister or elder from another congregation to perform the baptism, or ask a paedo-baptist church to administer such.

If a congregation were not willing to make these accommodations, it might be good to look for another congregation.

I used up my thanks quota for the day, but well said.

 

[Megan Mozart]

As your church theoretically allows for both paedo and credo baptismal practice, why can they not specify that in their new confession?

Their answer to that question is this: though they recognize the broadness of the denomination, they want to have a unity among the leaders in the teaching that comes forth from the church. In the letter they sent with a copy of the confession to all members, they used the spiritual gifts (tongues, healing etc) as an example, saying "you can't teach that tongues still continue yet don't continue at the same time," but then proceeded to not make a distinct teaching on the doctrine in the confession itself. In fact, it wasn't even mentioned. Well, since they didn't take a stance, what they're trying to prevent is going to happen anyway.

You should humbly petition them to allow this.

We will at the next congregational meeting, which is going to be about the confession.

 

[larryjf]

If the church will not baptize your children then this points to a deeper issue for you to consider....the church would not consider your children as being members within it.

There are a few valid reasons for leaving churches, and one of the valid reasons would be if the church improperly administers a sacrament.

Denying your children the sacrament of baptism is parallel to denying them the blessing of being members of the visible Church.

The two closest PCA churches to your church would be...
Harvest Church of Madison | gather. grow. go
Lake Trails Presbyterian Church in Madison, WI

 

[Daniel Haley]

If denying baptism to an infant is improperly administering the sacraments shouldn't we be concerned with these issues before we have children?

 

[larryjf]

If denying baptism to an infant is improperly administering the sacraments shouldn't we be concerned with these issues before we have children?

I would say "yes"

In the past i didn't think that it was an improper administration, but after giving it more thought and prayer i am convinced that it is.

 

[PresbyDane]

This is excactly why Me and my family had to stop trying to help build the baptist church plant over here because they in reality denied my son and future children membership of the visible church.

So Megan I absolutly understand your situation and I will for you.

My advice (for what it is worth) stick to what God has told your conciense and do not stray under any circumstances.

 

[Ivan]

Here is your closest option: CPC

And I hear there is this swell guy that attends there that's part of the PB.

 

[Jack K]

I personally do not feel comfortable refraining from baptizing my infant. I would feel like I was disobeying God. Is that how I should feel?

First, I think the suggestion previously offered that you could invite a paedo-believing elder from another congregation to perform the baptism under your church's authority bears looking into.

But the big point... Are you going to beat yourself up about this if it can't get done? I do believe God wishes us to baptize our infants. But he also wishes us to honor and submit to the elders in our church. And he's put you where you are. Are you being disobedient if these two good things end up mutually exclusive and the child doesn't get baptized? I don't believe so. Disappointed, yes. Perhaps uncomfortable. But not disobedient.

There is often more than one way to obey God. You have some freedom to decide which honors him most.

BTW... I too am a paedo-baptist worshipping with credo-baptists. My kids were baptized before we got here, but if we were to have another or to adopt I would be very torn. I'll take a moment and do the instant prayer thing for you.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Megan,

I would agree with those that are telling you the symptom is part of a larger issue, and the best thing you could do is find a reformed congregation that is committed to baptism within the larger covenant family.

I'm not at the point of saying our baptist brothers are outside the true church, but from the Presbyterian standpoint, they dance a fine line (they preach the word, they have discipline, but the right observance of the sacraments ... they are so close to the line that I would not want to be there, and frankly I'm not sure which side of it they are on). Baptists certainly should have problems with being in a presbyterian church, and presbyterian believers should have problems with being in a baptist church. (Though if someone were in a prison setting; that is, they have no choice on where to live, then I could see them joining themselves to the opposite camp out of necessity.)

 

[TimV]

But he also wishes us to honor and submit to the elders in our church. And he's put you where you are. Are you being disobedient if these two good things end up mutually exclusive and the child doesn't get baptized? I don't believe so. Disappointed, yes. Perhaps uncomfortable. But not disobedient.

There is often more than one way to obey God. You have some freedom to decide which honors him most.

God puts you in the church that you're in. Be submissive to some ignorant men who are steadily working themselves from what the church has taught forever and that balances out disobeying God Almighty, and even tips the balance towards disobedience regarding your covenant children. I guess I never should have left the dipsy baptist church I grew up in.

 

[toddpedlar]

But the big point... Are you going to beat yourself up about this if it can't get done? I do believe God wishes us to baptize our infants. But he also wishes us to honor and submit to the elders in our church. And he's put you where you are. Are you being disobedient if these two good things end up mutually exclusive and the child doesn't get baptized? I don't believe so. Disappointed, yes. Perhaps uncomfortable. But not disobedient.

God not only wishes us to baptize our infants, but I believe it's commanded. (again, this is not to disparage my credobaptist brethren) So to disobey that command is not just a question of "feeling bad" but is one of disobedience.

Submission to elders is not absolute. If the elders refuse to baptize infants, then to stay and submit to them is to submit to a requirement by them that you NOT obey God. This is little different than submission to kings and rulers, which we are also commanded to do. However, that submission is also conditional on whether those rulers command you to sin. If and when they do, you are to disobey them.

The covenant child is a child of the covenant whether or not the baptism is done, this is certain. HOWEVER, I think this is a watershed moment for Matt and Megan - and I think it cannot be dashed off as mere preference, and the lack of ability to baptize their children in the covenant community of which they are a part is not merely an inconvenience or a discomforting thing.

I'm not arguing for individualism here, either - but that the right thing to do is to ask release from their elders to another faithful church where they can join and be members, and have their covenant children given the sign and seal of the covenant as is appropriate. If they have a good relationship with their elders, and if their elders are doing their job properly, there should be NO issue in obtaining the blessing to move on to a church more in line with their Biblical convictions.

 

[Jack K]

But he also wishes us to honor and submit to the elders in our church. And he's put you where you are. Are you being disobedient if these two good things end up mutually exclusive and the child doesn't get baptized? I don't believe so. Disappointed, yes. Perhaps uncomfortable. But not disobedient.

There is often more than one way to obey God. You have some freedom to decide which honors him most.

God puts you in the church that you're in. Be submissive to some ignorant men who are steadily working themselves from what the church has taught forever and that balances out disobeying God Almighty, and even tips the balance towards disobedience regarding your covenant children. I guess I never should have left the dipsy baptist church I grew up in.

We could argue that baptizing the child is the more important obedience. I think I might agree, but it's beside the point.

My point is that God's children, having wrestled well with how best to obey and made a God-fearing choice, do not then walk around worrying that if they mistakenly made a poor choice they are living in disobedience, and feeling condemned. To suggest this places an unfair and untrue burden on Mike and Megan, who are indeed at a watershed moment and feel enough burden already.

 

[Megan Mozart]

Mike and Megan

Matt and Megan.

 

[Brian Withnell]

But he also wishes us to honor and submit to the elders in our church. And he's put you where you are. Are you being disobedient if these two good things end up mutually exclusive and the child doesn't get baptized? I don't believe so. Disappointed, yes. Perhaps uncomfortable. But not disobedient.

There is often more than one way to obey God. You have some freedom to decide which honors him most.

God puts you in the church that you're in. Be submissive to some ignorant men who are steadily working themselves from what the church has taught forever and that balances out disobeying God Almighty, and even tips the balance towards disobedience regarding your covenant children. I guess I never should have left the dipsy baptist church I grew up in.

We could argue that baptizing the child is the more important obedience. I think I might agree, but it's beside the point.

My point is that God's children, having wrestled well with how best to obey and made a God-fearing choice, do not then walk around worrying that if they mistakenly made a poor choice they are living in disobedience, and feeling condemned. To suggest this places an unfair and untrue burden on Mike and Megan, who are indeed at a watershed moment and feel enough burden already.

I would disagree that it is an unfair and untrue burden. They need to feel such a burden as "it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance". For those that believe in baptizing covenant children to even attend a baptist church if they have a Biblical church that agrees with their position on baptism is just plain wrong. If nothing else, it adds their voice to the proclamation of the error of credo-only baptism which leads many a person astray on that path. If it is great sin, it must be avoided. While it is not heresy, it is error (at least those that believe the Westminster standard are an accurate reflection of the Bible have little choice in that conclusion). I have many brothers that are caught in this error ... yet I would not choose to attend such a church if a Biblical alternative exists. I will not help spread error.

 

[VictorBravo]

Moderation

Just a reminder, this is the paedo only forum. Baptists (including me) should refrain from posting here:

Paedo-Baptism Answers
A place where only paedobaptists may answer questions posed to clarify the Confessional understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[Jack K]

God puts you in the church that you're in. Be submissive to some ignorant men who are steadily working themselves from what the church has taught forever and that balances out disobeying God Almighty, and even tips the balance towards disobedience regarding your covenant children. I guess I never should have left the dipsy baptist church I grew up in.

We could argue that baptizing the child is the more important obedience. I think I might agree, but it's beside the point.

My point is that God's children, having wrestled well with how best to obey and made a God-fearing choice, do not then walk around worrying that if they mistakenly made a poor choice they are living in disobedience, and feeling condemned. To suggest this places an unfair and untrue burden on Mike and Megan, who are indeed at a watershed moment and feel enough burden already.

I would disagree that it is an unfair and untrue burden. They need to feel such a burden as "it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance". For those that believe in baptizing covenant children to even attend a baptist church if they have a Biblical church that agrees with their position on baptism is just plain wrong. If nothing else, it adds their voice to the proclamation of the error of credo-only baptism which leads many a person astray on that path. If it is great sin, it must be avoided. While it is not heresy, it is error (at least those that believe the Westminster standard are an accurate reflection of the Bible have little choice in that conclusion). I have many brothers that are caught in this error ... yet I would not choose to attend such a church if a Biblical alternative exists. I will not help spread error.

I would agree believers should feel the burden to make the most obedient choices in what church we attend, how we deal with error, baptism, etc. And I would agree baptism is a very important issue on which to be in obedience.

But I don’t see Matt and Megan taking any of this lightly. So my first inkling when I read the OP was not to set down a rule to follow but to remind them that God honors their efforts to be obedient in a tricky situation. He isn’t sitting in heaven with a scorecard, docking them points because they tried to obey in one way when, actually, another way would have been wiser.

I don’t really know if they need that kind of reminder, but I often do. The burden of using godly wisdom is a true burden to be taken seriously. But the burden of feeling we might be condemned if we get it wrong does not apply to God’s children.

 

[Scott1]

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

....

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

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

....

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

Recently, a friend moved to a new city and changed from a biblical, reformed presbyterian denomination to an independent, Calvinist influenced one. His new church does not hold an historic confession and does not have its covenant theology, and consequently its practices on baptism worked out.

Through special procedure, he was able to have the (presbyterian) infant baptism of his son count, though the new church would ordinarily require a believer's baptism.

I think it far better for a believer's only church to practice only that and not make exceptions for infant baptism, and vice versa.

There's substantial doctrine behind this and it reflects truth the church confesses.

It goes to one's understanding of covenant community, so it's important to seek out Scripture to inform your views on this.

With the Holy Spirit illuminating your understanding, the decision as to where you need to commit and be accountable for membership at will become clearer.

 

[Brian Withnell]

I don’t really know if they need that kind of reminder, but I often do. The burden of using godly wisdom is a true burden to be taken seriously. But the burden of feeling we might be condemned if we get it wrong does not apply to God’s children.

Jack, that they will not be condemned if they make a mistake in figuring out the best path is certainly not what I was implying. I doubt we even recite the Bible perfectly without some taint of sin, and yet we are saved from our sins. What I am attempting to say is that while M&M might be struggling with what to do, the end of choosing poorly is sin. Is it unforgivable? Not from what I see in scripture.

Just to add one more thought ... if we continue in sin (knowingly) we have no assurance of salvation, for we are denying Jesus who died. We can be sure of our interest in Christ when we are obedient, not when we are vigorously or negligently following sin.