Quote:
|
I remain unconvinced that BCO 12-5 "to see that parents do not neglect to present their children for Baptism", applies to credo-Baptists members in the PCA. While the BCO is the third leg of the PCA's constitutional stool, it is a bit ambiguous on this point. If it were unambiguous, credo-Baptists would be disciplined and I don't know of a credo-Baptist who was ever disciplined in the PCA for not having their children Baptized. The adherence to this doctrine is not a requirement for membership in the PCA so I don't see how someone could be disciplined for refusing to have their children baptized as a matter of conscience. This is not a matter of "neglect" for the credo-Baptist, it is a matter of conscience. After having made a diligent effort to understand it, I don't believe it's sinful to come to a conclusion about a particular non-essential point of doctrine . I would point to eschatology. If we discover from our Lord upon His return, that amillenialists were correct, does that make post-millenialists sinful? "Whatever is not from faith is sin" Rom. 14:23. I am, by faith, a credo-Baptist.
|
I don't disagree with anything you say there. I have no problem with credos joining PCA Churches. But it is appropriate to bar them from church office, as is common practice.
Quote:
|
The way I have observed this practiced in a teaching setting in the PCA is that, anyone who held to a particular view that was out of accord, would make it known to their Session and would agree to refrain from teaching that view. That has worked well where I have seen it practiced. Do Spurgeon, Bunyan, Begg, Mohler, Piper, and Dever have nothing to offer the PCA and its members individually?
|
The practice as you describe sounds fine to me, and those folks have plenty to contribute.
Quote:
|
Brad, I am not advocating for credo-Baptistic Sunday School teachers in the PCA but I surely hope you are not suggesting that anyone other than a paedo-Baptistic Presbyterian has anything constructive to offer you and your children. You are primarily responsible for your children's Biblical instruction and your children will likely discuss this doctrine with a credo-Baptist at some point. May they be driven to the Word as the Bereans were.
|
Here may be where we differ. While I have no problem sitting through a class taught by a credo myself as an adult, I would not want my children to do so. Can you tell me of any part of theology that is not in some way colored by one's view of the sacraments? A Sunday School teacher occupies an important and influential position in a child's life, why would I want mine taught by one with which I so much disagree? I am primarily responsible, as you say, and I view that responsibility as requiring that their exposure to error not be through the adherents of same. Erroneous theology must be presented as just that... error. No offense, brother, but I firmly believe credo-baptism to be error. That is why I am a member of a PCA Church. If I held to credo-baptism, it would be because I thought paedo-baptism were error, and I would not be a PCA member, but instead a member of a Reformed Baptist Church (if they do membership, don't know). I consider most reformed credos to be brethren, but they are brethren in error.
Quote:
|
If the member you mentioned was open about being a credo-Baptist why would the pastor suppose that he would want his infant Baptized contrary to his conscience? I hope the pastor was more respectful but if he wasn't I can possibly understand why that member would leave. BTW, "great guys" aren't "theologically iffy". That's a rather pejorative term for a brother.
|
Well, as I found out later, the Pastor had been under the impression that he had come around to covenant theology, but was apparently wrong on that. The last I heard, the fellow left because he had come to the conclusion that paedo-baptism and covenant theology were error that he could no longer abide, so he's gone to an SBA Church. That is precisely why I would not want a professed credo teaching my children in a Church-organized setting. They are, in my view, theologically iffy. I actually see that term as rather polite, so I am confused by your "perjorative" label of it. Would you prefer that I call them "sacramentally and covenantally twisted"?
Funny thing, though. I've NEVER seen a Baptist Church of any kind that would accept my family as members, or especially that would allow a paedo-baptist teach children Sunday School. So if that type of exclusion really bothers you, the local Reformed Baptist Church would be a good place to start trying to weed it out, and hey, you might even like the fact that they agree with your sacramental view.