Question for PCAers about Baptism

**Marrow Man** · #1 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 06:59 PM

I received an email from a friend today who is considering joining a PCA church. He was formerly ARP (and Free Church of Scotland before that), but is now remarried and joining his wife's church.

He went through the membership class, but at the end the pastor made a comment that greatly distressed him. Someone in the class asked about baptism, and he said, "You don't have to be baptized to be a member of this church."

I sent a reply saying maybe it was just a misunderstanding -- perhaps he was just saying that the church did not re-baptize. But that was not it; the response was to a young lady who had never been baptized, and the context was something like, "We encourage it, but don't require it."

Can someone help me out here? He is freaking because he doesn't want to be a part of a church with such a view of the sacraments. Is there something I'm missing? I've already encouraged him to meet with the pastor to clarify this.

Scott1 · #2 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order

DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP 57-1
CHAPTER 57

The Admission of Persons to Sealing Ordinances

57-1. Believers’ children within the Visible Church, and especially those
dedicated to God in Baptism, are non-communing members under the care of
the Church. They are to be taught to love God, and to obey and serve the
Lord Jesus Christ. When they are able to understand the Gospel, they should
be earnestly reminded that they are members of the Church by birthright, and
that it is their duty and privilege personally to accept Christ, to confess Him
before men, and to seek admission to the Lord’s Supper.

57-2. The time when young persons come to understand the Gospel cannot
be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the Session, whose
office it is to judge, after careful examination, the qualifications of those who
apply for admission to sealing ordinances.

57-3. When unbaptized persons apply for admission into the Church, they
shall, ordinarily, after giving satisfaction with respect to their knowledge and
piety, make a public profession of their faith, in the presence of the
congregation, and thereupon be baptized.

57-4. It is recommended, as edifying and proper, that baptized persons,
when admitted by the Session to the Lord’s Supper, make a public profession
of their faith in the presence of the congregation. But in all cases, there
should be a clear recognition of their previous relation to the church as
baptized members.

57-5. The time having come for the making of a public profession, and
those who have been approved by the Session having taken their places in the
presence of the congregation, the minister may state that:

...

I have never heard of members in our denomination being admitted as members without being first baptized.

The above part of our Book of Church Order is constitutionally binding (as is the Westminster Confession, Catechisms and the Form of Government and Rules of Discipline sections, and three chapters only in the Directory of Public Worship- all in the Book of Church Order.)

Now regular attenders (not members) could continue being unbaptized.

One of the first things that is looked at for membership is baptism, especially whether a previous baptism (e.g. one from a mostly apostate mainline denomination, etc. is valid).

Romans922 · #3 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 07:30 PM

PCA BCO 56-58 are constitutionally binding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PCA BCO

Temporary statement adopted by the Third General Assembly to preface the
Directory for Worship: The Directory for Worship is an approved guide and
should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the
Standards. However, it does not have the force of law and is not to be
considered obligatory in all its parts. BCO 56, 57 and 58 have been given
full constitutional authority by the Eleventh General Assembly after being
submitted to the Presbyteries and receiving the necessary two-thirds (2/3)
approval of the Presbyteries.

So in response to the OP: I would first go to the Session and ask about this before joining the Church. Second, I would hesitate greatly before joining this church, as by the description above they do have a serious slacking on the sacraments. If I were the person joining, I wouldn't. I'd go somewhere else.

***fredtgreco*** · #4 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 07:33 PM

Tim,

You cannot be a member of a PCA church without being baptized. It is a requirement.

Quote:

BCO 6-2. Communing members are those who have made a profession of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and have been admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table.

and

Quote:

BCO 6-4. Those only who have made a profession of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table, are entitled to all the rights and privileges of the church. (emphasis added)

It is possible that the comment was a reference to not having to have your children baptized as infants (which would be true), or with respect to the validity of Roman Catholic baptism.

Feel free to PM me.

Montanablue · #5 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 07:37 PM

Could the pastor have thought she was talking about infant baptism?

The reason I ask is that I had a conversation with a PCA elder about baptism and this response "We encourage it, but don't require it." was exactly what he said to me about infant baptism. I just wonder if there could have been a misunderstanding about the type of baptism that was being asked about/required.

-----Added 8/29/2009 at 07:37:16 EST-----

Oops. I cross posted with Pastor Greco.

**Marrow Man** · #6 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montanablue

Could the pastor have thought she was talking about infant baptism?

The reason I ask is that I had a conversation with a PCA elder about baptism and this response "We encourage it, but don't require it." was exactly what he said to me about infant baptism. I just wonder if there could have been a misunderstanding about the type of baptism that was being asked about/required.

I thought about this too, but he says no. He said the person asking said she had never been baptized, to which the pastor said it wasn't a requirement.

***fredtgreco*** · #7 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 08:05 PM

Perhaps he meant baptism wasn't a requirement before an interview. In any event, the pastor should be questioned about it for clarity.

ericfromcowtown · #8 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 08:29 PM

No that's not right. I was baptized as an adult at a PCA church, and it was made clear to me that first being baptized first was a requirement for church membership. Both happened at the same Sunday service, but the baptism preceded being welcomed as a member.

Romans922 · #9 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericfromcowtown

No that's not right. I was baptized as an adult at a PCA church, and it was made clear to me that first being baptized first was a requirement for church membership. Both happened at the same Sunday service, but the baptism preceded being welcomed as a member.

What if they baptized you and then asked you the vows to be a member of the church and you said no to some of the questions? Then what do they do?

***fredtgreco*** · #10 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericfromcowtown

No that's not right. I was baptized as an adult at a PCA church, and it was made clear to me that first being baptized first was a requirement for church membership. Both happened at the same Sunday service, but the baptism preceded being welcomed as a member.

What if they baptized you and then asked you the vows to be a member of the church and you said no to some of the questions? Then what do they do?

The appropriate form would be:

Interview by the Session, hearing of the credible profession of faith
Answering the vows (5 questions of membership)
Becoming a member of the church, pending baptism
Baptism
Being asked the questions publicly as a testimony

In any event, the asking of the questions in 5 above does not affect membership. In the unlikely event that someone was admitted as a member, baptized, and then repudiated the vows, it would be a matter for Church discipline.

Romans922 · #11 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 09:18 PM

So upon #4 baptism, they are 'officially' a member.

***toddpedlar*** · #12 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montanablue

Could the pastor have thought she was talking about infant baptism?

The reason I ask is that I had a conversation with a PCA elder about baptism and this response "We encourage it, but don't require it." was exactly what he said to me about infant baptism. I just wonder if there could have been a misunderstanding about the type of baptism that was being asked about/required.

I thought about this too, but he says no. He said the person asking said she had never been baptized, to which the pastor said it wasn't a requirement.

This needs clarification right away, as has already been stated. If this is the practice of that congregation, they are out of accord with the standards and their practice needs to be rectified.

***fredtgreco*** · #13 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

So upon #4 baptism, they are 'officially' a member.

Yes.

Romans922 · #14 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 10:21 PM

Makes sense to me.

lynnie · #15 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 11:16 PM

I am in the PCA.

Almost all of what I hear now and then about PCA churches is fine. But there is one I've heard about several times from very reliable people that is so wacked out you'd never guess it was PCA. According to credible reports everybody there is fine with the garbage and not one person in the church will complain to the session or the Presbytery, so nothing changes. (none of their elders ever go to presbytery meetings either, I was told). The WCF is not held in high esteem ( it isn't seeker friendly....I am not making this up, really).

Point is, not to burst anybody's rosy bubble and be a cynic, but entire churches can go off within an OK denomination. Anything is possible, certainly a low view of baptism included. Welcome to the wonderful world of deception. Depressing, isn't it.....

chbrooking · #16 (**permalink**) 08-29-2009, 11:31 PM

What kind of ship are you guys running over there in the PCA?

Just kidding.

Scott1 · #17 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 08:13 PM

As we are all sinners, with tendency to be blind to sin, knowing some in the visible church prove out apostate, the presbyterian system recognizes individuals, churches, even whole presbyteries can go off.

Thankfully, that's why there are so many checks and balances in presbyterianism- a binding confession, vows, petition, appeal, a division of courts, etc.

They all reflect God acting out His purposes amidst an imperfect world, among an imperfect people. Good churches go "bad," and bad churches go "good." That's all for His Honor and His Glory too.

Archlute · #18 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 10:03 PM

That's a nice "pie in the sky" view of the system, Scott, but at least some of us will testify otherwise.

Checks and balances are atrocious when the powers that be in some presbyteries know how to manipulate them for reasons of self protection, and personal advancement. A confession is worthless when you can confront a session with their violation of it, and they ignore your complaint. Vows are meaningless when the elders who have sworn to them don't take them with any seriousness, even when the importance of upholding their vows is brought to their attention.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that Presbyterianism is by far a perfect system of government, and at this point, with all of the corruption I have seen from within my own presbytery, I am not even sure that it is preferable once corruption and/or liberalism has gained enough of a foothold. There is a reason that the OPC and PCA are where they are as denominations separate from the mainline, and it's certainly not because they found the polity of Presbyterianism successful in correcting the errors residing within the Presbyterianism of their own day.

Let's not make an idol of sorts out of a very imperfect system. I've seen more dirt coming out of our polity than I have beauty.

chbrooking · #19 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 10:07 PM

Hey guys,
A) I was kidding, and
B) I'm Presbyterian, too.

Archlute · #20 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 10:17 PM

That's fine brother. I'm just a little short with our polity right now, and so people speaking of it as being such a great thing will rub me just a little bit the wrong way. It has not fixed the wickedness in the hearts of men in our current situation as quickly as had an Independent set up, and if it weren't for grudges being held that can affect the system in a way that would be unthinkable in a congregational/associational system I would still be on my way to the Sept. 13th Chaplains course. But that is a discussion for a different time and place.

I'll just say this much: backlash from my opinions regarding our FV supporting presbytery, backlash from my family's opposition to the pastor's institution of women leading in worship (they refuse even to talk about it with us), a session ignoring points of the confession, points of the BCO, and basic issues of pastoral integrity, untrained ruling elders unwilling to put their money where their mouth is when they have admitted in private that there are a number of problems going on, etc, etc. But I will stop now.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #21 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

That's a nice "pie in the sky" view of the system, Scott, but at least some of us will testify otherwise.

Checks and balances are atrocious when the powers that be in some presbyteries know how to manipulate them for reasons of self protection, and personal advancement. A confession is worthless when you can confront a session with their violation of it, and they ignore your complaint. Vows are meaningless when the elders who have sworn to them don't take them with any seriousness, even when the importance of upholding their vows is brought to their attention.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that Presbyterianism is by far a perfect system of government, and at this point, with all of the corruption I have seen from within my own presbytery, I am not even sure that it is preferable once corruption and/or liberalism has gained enough of a foothold. There is a reason that the OPC and PCA are where they are as denominations separate from the mainline, and it's certainly not because they found the polity of Presbyterianism successful in correcting the errors residing within the Presbyterianism of their own day.

Let's not make an idol of sorts out of a very imperfect system. I've seen more dirt coming out of our polity than I have beauty.

-----Added 8/30/2009 at 10:27:32 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

That's fine brother. I'm just a little short with our polity right now, and so people speaking of it as being such a great thing will rub me just a little bit the wrong way. It has not fixed the wickedness in the hearts of men in our current situation as quickly as had an Independent set up, and if it weren't for grudges being held that can affect the system in a way that would be unthinkable in a congregational/associational system I would still be on my way to the Sept. 13th Chaplains course. But that is a discussion for a different time and place.

I'll just say this much: backlash from my opinions regarding our FV supporting presbytery, backlash from my family's opposition to the pastor's institution of women leading in worship (they refuse even to talk about it with us), a session ignoring points of the confession, points of the BCO, and basic issues of pastoral integrity, untrained ruling elders unwilling to put their money where their mouth is when they have admitted in private that there are a number of problems going on, etc, etc. But I will stop now.

Praying Adam...

chbrooking · #22 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 10:30 PM

Sorry to hear of your frustrations, my friend. Do remember, though, that God is working this together for your good, and for the good of the soldiers among whom you will minister. Undoubtedly sin is behind the delay . . . but then, so is the secret counsel of God.

The problem isn't the polity. It's the sinners operating under it (or refusing to).

OPC'n · #23 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 10:34 PM

Do hope it's all a misunderstanding will be praying that it is!

Mark Hettler · #24 (**permalink**) 08-30-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

There is a reason that the OPC and PCA are where they are as denominations separate from the mainline, and it's certainly not because they found the polity of Presbyterianism successful in correcting the errors residing within the Presbyterianism of their own day.

Valid point, often overlooked.

Dao · #25 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

. . . You cannot be a member of a PCA church without being baptized. It is a requirement.

I was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church. Later in my young days, my wife and I went to a General Baptist Church and liked the preaching style of Nelson Price, a popular pastor in Atlanta. We were baptized at that church via immersion. At that time, we had a different understanding of Baptism. After reading documents on Baptism, I would have been fine with baptism by sprinkle. I believe I only need to be baptized once regardless of which mainline church I attended too. Although, I have been going to my PCA church, regularly, I haven't really signed up membership to that church but looking forward to. What are the requirements of membership when one was baptized by immersion in a general Baptist Church?

Romans922 · #26 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

That's fine brother. I'm just a little short with our polity right now, and so people speaking of it as being such a great thing will rub me just a little bit the wrong way. It has not fixed the wickedness in the hearts of men in our current situation as quickly as had an Independent set up, and if it weren't for grudges being held that can affect the system in a way that would be unthinkable in a congregational/associational system I would still be on my way to the Sept. 13th Chaplains course. But that is a discussion for a different time and place.

I'll just say this much: backlash from my opinions regarding our FV supporting presbytery, backlash from my family's opposition to the pastor's institution of women leading in worship (they refuse even to talk about it with us), a session ignoring points of the confession, points of the BCO, and basic issues of pastoral integrity, untrained ruling elders unwilling to put their money where their mouth is when they have admitted in private that there are a number of problems going on, etc, etc. But I will stop now.

According to the BCO, you can do something about such actions of your session, presbytery...

"43-1. A complaint is a written representation made against some act or
decision of a court of the Church. It is the right of any communing member
of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a
court to whose jurisdiction he is subject, except that no complaint is
allowable in a judicial case in which an appeal is pending."

he beholds · #27 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

I've seen more dirt coming out of our polity than I have beauty.

I am sorry that you've been involved in a lot of bad things, but most of us would probably say that we've seen dirt, but far more beauty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dao

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

. . . You cannot be a member of a PCA church without being baptized. It is a requirement.

I was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church. Later in my young days, my wife and I went to a General Baptist Church and liked the preaching style of Nelson Price, a popular pastor in Atlanta. We were baptized at that church via immersion. At that time, we had a different understanding of Baptism. After reading documents on Baptism, I would have been fine with baptism by sprinkle. I believe I only need to be baptized once regardless of which mainline church I attended too. Although, I have been going to my PCA church, regularly, I haven't really signed up membership to that church but looking forward to. What are the requirements of membership when one was baptized by immersion in a general Baptist Church?

I am pretty sure that they would accept either of your baptisms. My husband was baptized Baptist and he did not need to be re-baptized. Plus, you were already baptized at that point, so I am sure the PCA would just say that your second baptism was redundant.

Curt · #28 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

According to the BCO, you can do something about such actions of your session, presbytery...

"43-1. A complaint is a written representation made against some act or
decision of a court of the Church. It is the right of any communing member
of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a
court to whose jurisdiction he is subject, except that no complaint is
allowable in a judicial case in which an appeal is pending."

Some folks are aware that just because it's written down, that does not mean it will happen.

DD2009 · #29 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I thought about this too, but he says no. He said the person asking said she had never been baptized, to which the pastor said it wasn't a requirement.

Only baptized people can join a Church. If one has never been baptized in the Trinitarian formula then they must be baptized to join the visible Church.

There is no way around it.

Second baptisms are not necessary unless the original wasn't done in a trinitarian way.

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 12:20:44 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montanablue

Could the pastor have thought she was talking about infant baptism?

The reason I ask is that I had a conversation with a PCA elder about baptism and this response "We encourage it, but don't require it." was exactly what he said to me about infant baptism. I just wonder if there could have been a misunderstanding about the type of baptism that was being asked about/required.

I thought about this too, but he says no. He said the person asking said she had never been baptized, to which the pastor said it wasn't a requirement.

This needs clarification right away, as has already been stated. If this is the practice of that congregation, they are out of accord with the standards and their practice needs to be rectified.

I have heard there are some PCA churches who have a lot of Baptist members because Calvinistic soteriology isn't normally taught in baptist churches anymore. Instead they are steeped in finneyism. So there may be an influence away from the standards here.

***fredtgreco*** · #30 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dao

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

. . . You cannot be a member of a PCA church without being baptized. It is a requirement.

I was baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church. Later in my young days, my wife and I went to a General Baptist Church and liked the preaching style of Nelson Price, a popular pastor in Atlanta. We were baptized at that church via immersion. At that time, we had a different understanding of Baptism. After reading documents on Baptism, I would have been fine with baptism by sprinkle. I believe I only need to be baptized once regardless of which mainline church I attended too. Although, I have been going to my PCA church, regularly, I haven't really signed up membership to that church but looking forward to. What are the requirements of membership when one was baptized by immersion in a general Baptist Church?

I am a PCA pastor who was immersed in a Southern Baptist church.

Dao · #31 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by he beholds

. . . I am pretty sure that they would accept either of your baptisms. My husband was baptized Baptist and he did not need to be re-baptized. Plus, you were already baptized at that point, so I am sure the PCA would just say that your second baptism was redundant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DD2009

Second baptisms are not necessary unless the original wasn't done in a trinitarian way.

Oh! So I had a re-baptism or a second baptism? I didn't think of that. Gee, I almost drowned. I've forgotten the rules of baptism and please refresh my mind on this. Question: If you're baptized as a infant at a presbyterian church, then you don't need to be baptized again as an adult, right? If you're baptized as an infant, you get lifetime membership at the presbyterian church. How does that work?

Scott1 · #32 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Psalm 34:19

19Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all.

Sorry to hear about all your frustrations.

It's easy to say have faith to someone who has been through all you have experienced. But, be encouraged, God will work these things out toward the end of His own Glory. It will happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

That's a nice "pie in the sky" view of the system, Scott, but at least some of us will testify otherwise.

Checks and balances are atrocious when the powers that be in some presbyteries know how to manipulate them for reasons of self protection, and personal advancement.

Based on experiences you describe, it is understandable you are thinking this way.

Not too long ago, an entire presbytery went off on a certain peculiar set of doctrines and ended up repenting. A few left, escaping the hearing they demanded. The presbytery was restored, humility was evidenced by some who, though not even responsible for not guarding the flock against the original error, who bore the chastisement for others. Very Christlike. Now, the Presbytery has modeled true repentance and humility, and wants to help ferret out the errors elsewhere.

There is redemption, sometimes.

A confession is worthless when you can confront a session with their violation of it, and they ignore your complaint. Vows are meaningless when the elders who have sworn to them don't take them with any seriousness, even when the importance of upholding their vows is brought to their attention.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that Presbyterianism is by far a perfect system of government,
No system will ultimately protect if the people are indifferent or corrupted. But the system does allow working out of discipline and positive change as part of the ordinary course of God's dealing with His visible church.

and at this point, with all of the corruption I have seen from within my own presbytery, I am not even sure that it is preferable once corruption and/or liberalism has gained enough of a foothold. There is a reason that the OPC and PCA are where they are as denominations separate from the mainline, and it's certainly not because they found the polity of Presbyterianism successful in correcting the errors residing within the Presbyterianism of their own day.

The presbyterian polity (e.g. vows), doctrine (e.g. Confession), governance (e.g. ordaining women) was not followed by the mainline denomination. It's not that the presbyterian system was followed and failed... it was not followed.

Let's not make an idol of sorts out of a very imperfect system. I've seen more dirt coming out of our polity than I have beauty.

Pray that God will help you discern the dirt... and the beauty. Both are there. There has been much of the latter.

he beholds · #33 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dao

Quote:

Originally Posted by he beholds

. . . I am pretty sure that they would accept either of your baptisms. My husband was baptized Baptist and he did not need to be re-baptized. Plus, you were already baptized at that point, so I am sure the PCA would just say that your second baptism was redundant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DD2009

Second baptisms are not necessary unless the original wasn't done in a trinitarian way.

Oh! So I had a re-baptism or a second baptism? I didn't think of that. Gee, I almost drowned. I've forgotten the rules of baptism and please refresh my mind on this. Question: If you're baptized as a infant at a presbyterian church, then you don't need to be baptized again as an adult, right? If you're baptized as an infant, you get lifetime membership at the presbyterian church. How does that work?

A pastor could better handle this question, but you are correct that Presbyterians do not require adults who were baptized as children to be re-baptized. They also would not require adults who were baptized as adults, but through Baptist churches, to be baptized at a Presbyterian church. I was baptized in a Catholic church and have not been made to even redo that (though opinions vary on this issue).

Also, baptism doesn't equal lifetime membership in a church. A child who was baptized as an infant needs to make a profession of faith to become a communicant member. If he never does that, he will never become a communicant member and at some point (probably late teens/early adult) be questioned (maybe disciplined??) if he refuses to do so.
Also, just because a person is baptized does not mean (in Baptist or Presbyterian churches) that he is really a Christian and if a person showed that he wasn't, he would fall under discipline and possibly be ex-communicated, thus becoming a non-member.

Hope what I wrote makes sense AND was truthful...