If you do start one, make it seeker sensitive so it will grow more quickly.

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this does seem to be more of a complication for paedo churches than credo. While not all credo churches hold to the same standards for membership, I think that to be consistent membership should require believer's baptism. To fail to do so is disobedient and subjects one to church discipline. And to allow those baptized as infants is to allow, from a credo perspective, unbaptized members; i.e. those to become members who must be disciplined.
For a peado to be consistent in their understanding, though I disagree with their position, it seems that they must discipline any parent who refuses to baptize their child. Failure to do so would denigrate their understanding of the covenant.
I would, however, welcome a paedo to worship with us and welcome them as brethren, if not members of our church. I would hope the same consideration would be extended me if I were in a town with no sound alternative, and I would expect no more.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

I will keep all of this in mind when I found The Church of Kathleen.

__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana

Joe,
A baptist can join our church. What if he gets married after he joins? Are we going to discipline him if he has children? What if he has only grown and previously baptized children?

The issue for me (and most sessions): willingness to be taught, to serious consider the teaching, not to "absent oneself" from the gathering if we are going to teach on that topic or witness an infant baptism.

Might as well say, "Hey, I'll come 90% of the time, except when you teach on eschatology. Nope, you can't teach me anything on that..."

That, ISTM, is the whole issue. If someone wants membership and the Lord's Supper, then he is going to have to submit himself to the teaching of that church, without a "special reservation or exception." The Continentals go a bit farther, and give their members the Confession to sign and make their own. So it behooves them to know what they are confessing prior.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Bruce,
That's the decision your leadership has to make, and you will answer to God for it. I am not "teachable" if that means can I be swayed to the paedo view. And, though I mean absolutely no disrespect, I find the position that allows a family with unbaptized infants to be members of a paedo church a bit inconsistent. If it is God's mandate, then the parents are sinning. Can the church wink at such sin? Isn't that what allowing disobedient membership is? Still, I would rather go to a good presby church than a bad bapt one any day, even if I could not become a member.

Joe,

I understand where you're coming from. It would seem a clean cut policy to exclude credos from membership. In the paedo mind are we in sin or not? Are we to categorize sin as to which sin is worthy of discipline and which sin is not?

There is a couple in our church that is moving to a sparsely populated area of central New York. Based on my research on their behalf there are no Calvinistic credo churches within 150 miles of their new home. However, there a few Presbyterian churches nearby. I know the husband is quite resolved in his credo position, and that is not likely to change. They have a young son who is preschool age. What should they do? Do they join a local fundamentalist Baptist church even though the husband disagrees with much of the teaching, or do they attend a Presbyterian church even if they are denied membership? This is a real life decision that needs to be made, not a hypothetical. If it were my decision to make I would attend the Presbyterian church as long as my family was able to partake of the Lord's Supper. If entrance to the table was denied, I would join the Baptist church and make the best of it. I would attempt to "undo" the deficiency in the church's teaching during family worship.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

The vows are to God, witnessed by the visible church, including her lawful authority (governance through elders and deacons).

They require:

1) an examined and credible profession of faith
2) a confession of that faith
3) a vow to walk an orderly Christian life
4) a vow to support the church (time, prayers, finances)
5) a vow to submit to the governance and discipline of the church
6) a vow to peaceably study her doctrine

Some presbyterian and reformed denominations require more, e.g. to "confess" the church's doctrine by taking a promise of agreement with it, but the PCA and OPC do not.

In the PCA, officers must subscribe to "every proposition or statement" of the Westminster Standards unless granted a peer-reviewed exception. I can't imagine covenant baptism being an exception because it is so central to the covenant theology confessed.

So, what is the application of the vows to someone who is convinced infant baptism is not biblical?

First, a willingness to be taught as has been mentioned. The vow is to peaceably learn the church's doctrine, and in that way to submit to it. Someone who is unwilling to do that from the start cannot really in good faith take that vow.

It would seem to me someone who is trying to understand it, but not convinced of it could.

I would think that someone interviewing for membership who has infant children would need to be at least open to learning and peaceably studying the central church doctrine on that point. If they are a confirmed and outspoken in their belief against infant baptism, they ought not take the vows or be received in membership.

Remember God judges vows from both the external and the heart. He enforces them. Sometimes, He chooses to use the church visible in enforcing them, sometimes He uses other means for chastisement (for disobeying or carelessly taking vows).

It would seem to me that a church that does not believe in infant baptism ought hold to the same- for sake of the vows and integrity of the confession. It is better to be consistent. There is a biblical case that can be made for infant baptism and one that can be made for believers only baptism. But that would not seem to be a "flexible" doctrine to be consistent with a church's confession (that is a confessional church).

In practical fact, under the PCA system someone could be admitted for membership not being convinced of infant baptism and not agreeing to have their infant child baptized...

but over time, it would become inconsistent with their vows and profession and eventually, after much grace I would think, could become an issue for church discipline.

A person could also remain a "regular attender" indefinitely without taking those vows.

Remember too, "church discipline" takes many forms. In the PCA that is at least:

1) informal admonishment
2) formal admonishment
3) suspension from Lord's Supper
4) excommunication

Even a "regular attender" (not a member) can be informally admonished as part of general protection of the flock. They cannot be excommunicated but the lesser forms could be applied and they could leave without breaking the vows must take on that point. My understanding is discipline can in some cases be done in absense of the person for a member, but not for a non-member (e.g. regular attender).

We live in a generation perhaps that has less consciousness of vows. God has not forgotten.

The focus here is on the vows, what the covenant community confesses and your responsibility before God in that- not what one can "get away with" and not technically violate a vow in the context of new profession.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

Scott, well said. In a sense it is a sad thing to have credos and paedos existing within, but also outside the church at the same time. Within, as visitors. Outside, as being excluded from membership. I can't help but think that elders should consider each case individually and extend grace were appropriate.

But what we're left with when we accept brethren as regular attenders but not members is their inability to participate in the Lord's Supper.
I'm ok with not allowing them to vote, etc, but not refusing them the table.

Maybe if you were allowed to take the Lord's Supper just as being a member of the INVISIBLE church, this problem would be solved.

__________________
Shalom,
jessi
PCA
Steelers fan exiled to Virginia


“Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.”
Martin Luther

My church allows any baptized, professing believer to come to the table. All the Presbyterian churches that I've been to do that. Is that unusual?

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

You've got me thinking about this point.

My understanding is, the Lord's Table is visibly fenced by warning unbelievers not to partake, warning those walking a disobedient Christian life (e.g. under discipline, not regularly attending church, in major unrepentant sin) but allowing...

"any member in good standing of a church where this Gospel is preached"- that phrase does seem to require membership though- not necessarily that church but another evangelical church, whatever membership there might entail.

Your post has me considering whether a regular attender, who is not still a member of an evangelical church elsewhere can partake of the Lord's Supper

Practically, this can be complex in that other churches often have little or no formal membership requirements or process for dismissal or transfer. E.g. someone leaves a Baptist Church, is in good standing there but has been regularly attending a reformed presbyterian church (and getting excited about the doctrines of grace) for a year.

In my thinking, this situation would still allow the believer to partake. We would want to interpret as generously as possible to not deny access to this means of grace, but at the same time to protect it. Biblically, I don't see how membership, technically is quite at the heart of it.

I think the preaching of the Word would trump the LS. IOW, I would go where the preaching is even if it means being barred from the LS.

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Just for clarification, attenders could be disciplined under 1,2 and 3 correct? Is that what you mean by 'lesser forms'? If so, this would be an argument in favor of allowing non-members to partake of the LS! One more avenue for church discipline.

In my church, credos can be members and even become deacons, but cannot become elders.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

I think the URC only allows members in good standing of Reformed churches. This is from the bulletin at Oceanside URC where Danny Hyde serves.

Maybe Rev Hyde could weigh in on how they handle this. (BTW, I visited once but during an evening service. It was a wonderful service and you wouldn't believe the view! Location, location, location!)

Ken,

In worship I do not believe there is any separation between the Word and sacrament since sacraments are commanded unto obedience in the Word. If other believing members of my household were prohibited from the Table, that would be an egregious offense to me. I would have to worship elsewhere unless there was no other option.

Technically, according to the Form of Gov't, this is incorrect, Andrew. I know you may have men currently serving that capacity (I believe you have stated such before), but deacons take same ordination vows (with the exception of the obvious word change) as elders. If a Session permits a man to become a deacon who is credo, it is doing so in violation of the Standards. If a man answers the vow in the affirmative but disagrees with it, there is obviously another problem.

Here is what the FoG says with regard to the ordination of elders/deacons:

This is obviously a problem, and my advice is that you should speak to the Session of your church about it.

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

People who aren't members (someplace!) aren't technically subject to ANY discipline, if by discipline we understand the recognition of authority and submission to it's force.

That's the entire point, summarized. Folks who will not belong to a church, are saying that THEY will be in charge of their spiritual lot, from beginning to end.


As far as negative church discipline goes, as in those 4 points above, a non-member isn't subject to ANY of them, not: "yes" to the first three, excepting excommunication.

"Discipline" is both a positive and a negative reality. Positively the church disciplines through teaching (nurture) and by permissions to do things like "take the Lord's Supper."

I'm sorry, but no professing Christian has a RIGHT to the Lord's Supper. Hear me? NO RIGHT to it.

You don't even have a RIGHT to preaching, or to baptism--if by "right" you mean access on your own terms. That's the definition of "right," and rights are typically granted by a higher authority--unless there is NO higher authority.


The family analogy is perfectly apt. My children do not have "rights" to the privileges of my house. They do not have a "right" to the refrigerator, a "right" to the car keys, a "right" to education.

There is a just argument that they have some "rights" granted them by God, which their Mother and I are supposed to respect and in some cases provide for (according to our wisdom and judgment). Those "rights" are supposed to mediated to those children through the authority structure of this house. They enjoy those "rights" through the parents.

The principle of "appeal" (to higher authority) is the mechanism by which lesser authority is held accountable for its activity in mediating the rights of subordinates. But anyone who thinks that he's ONLY accountable to God will be disturbed to find that God is displeased with wholesale disregard for the forms He established. There is such thing as "abuse of authority," but such abuse is no license to disparage authority.

I exercise discipline in my house by FEEDING my children: "Come and eat, NOW." By EDUCATING my children: "2+2=4, memorize it" "i before e except after c, your answer is wrong" "did you read your history assignment? good job." By TAKING THEM to church, to grandma's, to the eye doctor, AND to the woodshed.


Discipline is not merely PUNISHMENT! It is the LIFE of the church. Receiving Baptism and the Lord's Supper are BENEFITS of belonging to Christ. So is sitting under Gospel ministry. All the blessings of discipline are just as much a free gift of God as a new heart.

No sensible church will turn away people from hearing the gospel, from hearing the Bible preached in fullness. Because that is the DOOR to heart-submission to God in every area. They should open that venue to ALL, and not just to members.

And they should be sensible about admitting members of the church-universal to their own table, but they may set their own rules as to the manner they will allow it. But it is out of the question that someone who CANNOT BE EXCOMMUNICATED (by any body) should be IN-COMMUNICATED, that is, permitted to the Table.

A half-moment's reflection should be sufficient to make this perfectly clear. That man is his OWN BOSS. his own authority. OK fine, then he can get his own Lord's Supper from himself, or from Christ himself. After all, he doesn't need anything mediated to him, so he can just find a church without any standards, or one that has no idea they will be held accountable by Christ for the care they exercised in these matters.


The point, as far as an unpersuaded Baptist holding membership in a Presbyterian church goes--he is a sinner, and his mind (to our way of thinking) needs sanctification in this area. Shall we punitively discipline a member who tells us "I am having trouble getting my head around the idea of Limited Atonement"?

Admonish him? Scold him? Keep him from the Table? Why?! He needs to keep coming, and have a teachable spirit. He needs to "believe that he may understand."

Obviously, if a man cannot be persuaded of a church's doctrine or practice, if he's hardened to it, then he cannot become a member. Or he needs to find another church, to which authority he can honestly submit. But a man in error should listen in the congregation. He should be submissive to the loving, patient, parent-like care of a church's minister and elders.

Perhaps I am being thick-headed, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here. Could you clarify? Are you saying you would allow a credo-Baptist to become a member as long as they had a teachable spirit? Or are you saying that allowing membership of a Credo-Baptist into a paedo-Baptist church is unwise?

In practical effect, probably only #1 for a regular attender.

Formal admonishment involves more process (remember, presbyterians are (often for good biblical reason) big on process, appeal, etc.)

When verbally fencing the Lord's Supper (e.g. for the Pastor to say that someone who is "a member in good standing of a church where this gospel is preached"), is a generalized instruction, not really particularized to a person. Discipline is always particularized to the alleged offender.

It's not a "suspension" in the sense of a step of discipline.

My church only allows "members in good standing of an Evangelical church."

My former church (also PCA) worded it differently and I took communion even though I was not a member anywhere. The pastor said, "members of Christ's church in good standing." Even though I had no membership anywhere, I considered myself a member of Christ's church and was not in gross sin, so I took the bread and wine. I eventually became a member there so this became a non-issue, but I could have been wrong in my interpretation of the pastor's statement. I think that is the correct view, though. I think anyone who is in Christ should be allowed the table. I think membership has practical and spiritual benefits, but I don't think it equals unity with Christ.

Bruce, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If you moved into an area where the only church available had serious doctrinal issues that precluded you from joining (either by your choice or the choice of the church), you would be making a statement that you are in charge of your spiritual lot, from beginning to end? If your conviction on baptism would cause you to face eventual church discipline, wouldn't you compound your sin of supposed erroneous doctrine by taking vows you cannot fulfill? Would it not be better to be a faithful attender and pray that God will lead you to a church you would be able to join? In this situation, which the couple moving from our area is about the face, I would not accuse them of neglecting spiritual authority. In fact, I would commend them for their acknowledging the authority of scripture in their life and having the principle not to take a rash vow.

So, what does 'formal admonition' look like?

Bruce, so is a Christian then forced to believe a doctrine that they do not agree with in order for them to be a member and enjoy the blessing of church discipline, preaching and the sacraments? Wouldn't I be guilty of hypocrisy if I joined a church that required my assent to a doctrine, even if I don't believe it? I'm not talking about the neophyte or the ignorant; I'm referring to a person who has studied the doctrine, in this case, baptism. Is that person to be cast outside of the gathered body of believers and treated as though they are schismatic?

A couple of thoughts come up through this discussion.
One, it is difficult. Souls are held in the balance according to our decisions. We cannot wink at sin. We have an eternal charge.
Two, one should not move their family lightly. It is rare that one must move their family to an area where there is no likeminded church that they can plug into. Survival is necessary, but it is rarely a matter of survival. Often it is a matter of increased income or comfort. If these are our motives then we err and put ourselves in a spiritually compromising position. A church that we can embrace and that can embrace us must be at the top of our list in considering a move.

I appreciate the views of various perspectives here. They reveal the struggle and hearts that desire to glorify God and edify their brethren in Christ.

Joe, I generally agree with you, but be careful in ascribing motives. People move for different reasons. Yes, a job may transfer someone, but if your skill is specialized, and you need to support your family, you do what you must. None of us live in a perfect world. On the PB we can often present sanitized versions of what should be; but they are not often based in reality. Often times we must minister to people where they are.

An action on behalf of the court (session, presbytery, general assembly- 3 levels of courts [that's why general assembly is a spiritual court in presbyterianism], attaches process, and even a right of appeal.

This does not mean formal admonition is public in the sense of announcing it to the congregation. Ordinarily, steps 1-3 are private, but the level of private engagement widens progressively.

I'm not aware that I ascribed motives or said any differently.

Joe, I may have read your post wrong. Sometimes I'm a quick-draw McGraw when it comes to reading posts. Bad habit. I apologize.

Montana,
Yes, completely yes to your initial understanding. It is as simple as the membership vow. If a person cannot, will not listen to preaching of God's Word with a minimum of an open mind--on whatever comes out of the pulpit--SOMEONE needs correction.

Perhaps it is the Pastor! The pew-sitter takes his concerns to the appropriate supervision. Otherwise, it is an ungodly bristling at the preached Word; it is resistance to Christ speaking.

It seems so obvious on other points, doesn't it? Sister Arminian sitting there, beet-red with anger at that "horrible" doctrine of election that preacher is spouting. But she comes back and sits to that Word, and one day a few weeks later, she is in tears of gratitude. Her mind was softened by her submission. And now she not only receives such election teaching, she rejoices in it.


What I'm saying is: a Baptist who is so unalterably convinced of his point that he will not even listen to contrary preaching on the subject, or will "forsake the assembling together" on the day of an infant member's baptism--he should not be a member in that church. If the session knows he is obdurate past persuasion when he is thinking about possibly joining, they should refuse him for his conscience' sake.

In that case, I would call it "unwise". He is reserving to himself an area which he will not be in submission, going in he knows it. What if that area was "how to treat your wife"? No controversy, right? He can't say "No, I won't listen if you try to tell me I should NEVER beat my wife! What about when...?!? Seems a pastor ought to recognize that situation its OK." Sorry, I'm not taking this guy in voluntarily, until he changes his tune.

If its a no-brainer, that guy shouldn't be getting a membership (over a matter of practice related to his faith), then why is "baptism" (a matter of practice borne of theology borne of faith) a kind of "gray area" for us?

Historically, this disagreement is WHY there are Baptist churches. "Can't submit; OK, we've got to make our own church where we get it right."

Bruce, is a person obdurate if they are studied on a point of doctrine and have a well formed conviction? As with this couple from our church who is relocating; could they not sit under the teaching of a Presbyterian church, with a good heart attitude, but not be swayed by the teaching on baptism? Their lack of acquiescence to the teaching they are receiving is not because of a hardened heart, but because they are convinced by other scriptural arguments.

Bill,
Honestly, it would be a form of "taking charge" of my own spiritual lot. And either myself, or that church, will have to answer to God for that choice. I'm not afraid to say that. But I would also hesitate to move to a place where I could not join a church.

I can tell you now, today I cannot imagine what kind of shattering experience would be required to take me out of my mind on baptism, and likewise yourself I suppose. So, I am "unbaptized" to most baptists, I am not able to join their church without a second "baptism" (as far as they are concerned), and some of them anyway will follow that up by refusing an unbaptized person communion.

How can I join that church? I would not put myself in a position of compounding my sin through insubordination.

A baptist could at least know his baptism was recognized by that Presbyterian church. And he could be a communicant, provided he sat for the teaching on whatever the text for Sunday was. He might be STILL be unpersuaded, at the end of it. But he came, he listened, he compared the lesson to his conscience. He got something out of the Word. And he is not held back from communion.

If the church taught the Word, preached Christ, was the best choice from a less-than-ideal selection, I would come and come back again and again--for the Word. I would play "lone ranger" Christian, and ask God for an improvement by whatever means of my situation. But I would not consider my situation tolerable.

I would probably move away from there if I could. I would make a church-home my principal driving conviction concerning where I should go.

Of course they would welcome someone to visit ... there are no vows being taken. Of course it could become difficult if the person of the "opposite" belief tries to vocally maintain their belief (we recently had that problem at our church with a credo that wanted to always challenge that position in our Sunday School program, at Sunday evening Bible study, and the women's study). It is one thing to attend and be charitable with the difference and not try to continually bring up that difference at every opportunity, and to continually be argumentative on the subject.

But I also presume that the last part of my statement is being missed. No credo church I know would allow a paedo to become a member without being re-baptized (from the paedo perspective) as a believer. All of the credo churches I've seen require believer's baptism in order to become a member ... please correct me if I'm wrong on that. The paedo would certainly be welcome to visit, but I'm sure the same would be true there ... it would not be "okay" for a paedo to visit and try to "win converts" to paedo beliefs.

I believe the OP was about "membership" not just visiting.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

It is essentially the same thing. I baptist would not allow a believer to join without baptism in the way they view baptism, but that would be sinful for someone that was baptized as an infant (it would call into question the efficacy of God in the original baptism the person was submitted to in infancy). So someone already baptized, should not be baptized again to join a church (even baptists would reject the idea of re-baptizing someone that they recognized the baptism of once ... one faith, one Lord, one baptism is a requirement of scripture).

As a side note, I do not believe that the OPC nor the PCA fence the table to only those who have membership in the local church, or even in their own denomination. I know that we include a warning that only those that are members in good standing of a Bible believing church, and not in some sin that would prohibit them from the table should partake, but very rarely do we have anyone that has not been under discipline in our own church (or known to be under discipline from their church) whom we would not allow at the table. I know some churches do a much more narrow fencing of the table, but I do not want to speak for them (and I cannot speak with authority in any case, I only speak to what I have experience with in my own church and those of which I have previously been a member ... I am deacon, not presbyter.)

If one wants to really study the original situation from the historical context I would look at John Bunyan's opinion and the way the Particular Baptist's held to Church membership. I believe the Particular Baptist of the late 1600's were a bit more lax than than modern day guys are. I referrenced this before in three places. One was concerning rebaptism and the other was about self baptism, but I will direct you to this one.

I would have problem's keeping anyone who believed and lived the Gospel from the table despite their view of covenant baptism.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I've heard this from both sides, and I will add my own voice as well. It is NOT okay for a person who has any choice to decide to move a family to a place that has no faithful church which to attend.

I faced such a decision about 8 years ago, and while it meant taking a pay cut to about 20 - 25% of my former salary, I would not move my family to a place where the job paid the same, but we would have not had a reasonably good assurance of a good church. Eventually, I stopped looking anywhere else, and accepted that God was calling me to a different lifestyle (from an economic point of view).

If someone moves because of work to an area without a good church when it is possible to stay put, they have only themselves to blame.

Brian, you're right, the same goes for a paedo at a Baptist church. And while the OP was about membership, I was taking it to the next step, "What do you do if you won't be accepted as a member?" If providence places you in such a situation you attend with a charitable attitude.

It is my hope, that if a credo attends at my church with a charitable attitude (does not try to subvert our teaching on those areas where our confession differs from 1689er's) that they would be welcomed with open arms (and I don't mean firearms, unless that is "open and show clear"! ). I love my baptist brethren, even if I do feel they are in error on this point. I even love my FB brethren, though I have a lot more bones to pick with them. (My 16-year-old son attends an indy baptist church's Christian school now, mostly so the wife can spend more time with the second son (six-year-old), who is on the high functioning side of the autism spectrum. I don't know of much more to show trust in someone than to trust one's son to their care!)

I know that we are to love one another ... and that unity of the body of Christ is not just for those that agree on every point of doctrine.

I would hope that we would be able to maintain a membership in a church from where I left until I could find a like minded church in where I was going ... though I would hope that my session would attempt to stop me from moving, unless it was necessary for life itself, into an area without a reformed presbyterian witness. About the only reason I could see me doing something like that would be to minister to my parents if something changed in their condition or situation.

We had a Baptist family who attended who with us and were not made to convert to paedo-baptism.....my pastor of course would have never changed his preaching on paedo-baptism!

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

How relevant is the passage about what happened to Moses when he didn't circumcise his son, to this? Or is it not relevant at all?

Is it too sensitive an issue to be throwing texts like that around at our baptist brethren?

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)