A Baptist in a Presbyterian church?

[Otávio Maziero]

Hello brothers,

I do not believe infant batism in biblical, even though I respect my brothers who believe so.

I am trying to find a biblical church, and was wondering if there is a problem in going to a Presbiterian church where they believe in paedobaptism.

Thank you


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk

 

[Ben Zartman]

I am a baptist, and for a time was a member of a presbyterian church. It depends on whether they'll insist that you baptize your children. The church I joined did not so insist.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Otávio,

I'm pastoring a paedobaptist church, and you'd be most welcome, as long as you did not seek to undermine or contradict our paedo views. I've also pastored in a Baptist church (to help a pastor-friend for a while who was carrying too heavy a load), and I counseled Presbyterians who came to the church they were welcome if they did not promote contrary views to "our" Baptist standards.

It often happens that the only Reformed / Doctrines of Grace churches available to us – usually due to geographical situations – differ from what we believe re baptism. But even so, that the Doctrines of Grace are preached and lived retain the treasure of the Gospel is precious to our souls, especially amid the barren landscape of Arminianism and Charismatic practice, which do contradict Biblical teaching.

So I'd say you should have no problem if you respect their teachings (even if you disagree), and your children are not required to be baptized, as Ben said above.

 

[Catechised in Heidelberg]

Hi Otávio,

hoping not to offend anyone but I think that a Reformed Church that lets Baptists become members has problems in their understanding of Church membership and the practical consequences of living out the Christian faith as laid out in the Reformed confessions. Also, I highly respect Baptist Churches that don't allow Paedobaptists to become members. It is just the right consequence. Otherwise, I don't really know how this should work.

Best

 

[Jake]

Hi Otávio,

hoping not to offend anyone but I think that a Reformed Church that lets Baptists become members has problems in their understanding of Church membership and the practical consequences of living out the Christian faith as laid out in the Reformed confessions. Also, I highly respect Baptist Churches that don't allow Paedobaptists to become members. It is just the right consequence. Otherwise, I don't really know how this should work.

Best

Most Presbyterians and Baptists do not require confessional adherence to become members, unlike many continental Reformed churches.

I think the issue more often becomes in the practical outworkings of those doctrines. For example, from my experience Baptists will let me partake in the Lord's Supper because I was baptized in a Baptist church by profession of faith and immersion. If I had been baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church, most would not. And I suspect the same would apply to membership. For Presbyterians, many will not allow someone to join who has children they're not willing to submit to baptism, but someone without children in the home would not be an issue.

 

[Catechised in Heidelberg]

Most Presbyterians and Baptists do not require confessional adherence to become members, unlike many continental Reformed churches.

I think the issue more often becomes in the practical outworkings of those doctrines. For example, from my experience Baptists will let me partake in the Lord's Supper because I was baptized in a Baptist church by profession of faith and immersion. If I had been baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian church, most would not. And I suspect the same would apply to membership. For Presbyterians, many will not allow someone to join who has children they're not willing to submit to baptism, but someone without children in the home would not be an issue.

Yes, I get that point but still I think it is highly inconsistent. That seems to touch on the old quia and quatenus subscription problem. In my opinion, only the quia subscription makes sense, although I recognise that this is hard to accomplish in North America due to structures and inner-denominational struggles. But the confessions only work and make sense if understood as a union. E.g. if a Baptist is a member in a Reformed Church, how could he participate in the Lord's Supper, if he does not acknowledge the baptisms of those baptised as infants? So you have an issue at the Lord's Table which should be a representation of the Church's union.

 

[Edward]

The issues will certainly be smaller if you don't have infant children. Regular attendance instead of membership might be better in the circumstances. I'm not sure how one can submit to the authority of the elders if they refuse to be taught on a key point of doctrine.

 

[Edward]

Most Presbyterians and Baptists do not require confessional adherence to become members,

True, but in at least the PCA, a member must answer this in the affirmative: "Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to study its purity and peace?"

 

[jwithnell]

Purity and peace generally means a morally upright person who does not stand up in every Bible study and denounce the church's beliefs and practices.

 

[Edward]

@jwithnell But don't forget the "government and discipline" which should include teaching key doctrines of the faith. And if someone refuses to be taught, there is a problem.

 

[Catechised in Heidelberg]

I still don't think that this is enough. All Church members should fully subscripe to the confessions!

 

[Joshua]

If the “Presbyterian” church permits you to join -and you have children who are not baptized- and does not require you to submit your children for baptism (and, especially if they require those who believe infant baptism to be God’s ordinance), then that is not a confessional Presbyterian church, since they would willingly suffer sin upon you (and your little ones) in such a way.

 

[Andrew35]

If the “Presbyterian” church permits you to join -and you have children who are not baptized- and does not require you to submit your children for baptism (and, especially if they require those who believe infant baptism to be God’s ordinance), then that is not a confessional Presbyterian church, since they would willingly suffer sin upon you (and your little ones) in such a way.

Believe you've just thrown most PCA and OPC churches out of the "confessional" box.

I was a member a member of churches in both of these at various times as a Baptist, and they did not require us to baptize our children. Rather they challenged and encouraged us to work through the issue, and eventually we did come to the understanding that infant baptism was Biblical.

If they had come down on us and excluded us from fellowship, we would probably still be Baptist today.

 

[Catechised in Heidelberg]

If clauses are never actually appropriate having in mind that God is still souverain. Good that you changed your view but still they made a false decision allowing you to become members. This is just creating all sorts of problems!

 

[retroGRAD3]

Believe you've just thrown most PCA and OPC churches out of the "confessional" box.

I was a member a member of churches in both of these at various times as a Baptist, and they did not require us to baptize our children. Rather they challenged and encouraged us to work through the issue, and eventually we did come to the understanding that infant baptism was Biblical.

If they had come down on us and excluded us from fellowship, we would probably still be Baptist today.

Perhaps some OPCs, but for the one I attend, I could not have become a member without my child getting baptized. The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any. I can't speak to the PCA as I have never been in that denomination.

 

[Andrew35]

Perhaps some OPCs, but for the one I attend, I could not have become a member without my child getting baptized. The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any. I can't speak to the PCA as I have never been in that denomination.

My understanding has always been there is a different standard for membership as opposed to office holding among members, and that Baptists could become members in the PCA and OPC, but not the latter.

I'll let officers speak to this, though, as I believe neither of us are. Perhaps my church experience was irregular. That was just how I understood the matter.

 

[Taylor]

The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any.

The OPC BCO does not require members to subscribe to the WCF, and it certainly does not ask new members if they take any exceptions to it. If a church asks new members if they take exceptions, they are going far beyond what the BCO requires. Here is all the OPC BCO asks members received into the OPC to affirm (DPW IV.B.2):

1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
2. Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
3. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
4. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?
5. Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?

 

[Joshua]

Believe you've just thrown most PCA and OPC churches out of the "confessional" box.

I was a member a member of churches in both of these at various times as a Baptist, and they did not require us to baptize our children. Rather they challenged and encouraged us to work through the issue, and eventually we did come to the understanding that infant baptism was Biblical.

If they had come down on us and excluded us from fellowship, we would probably still be Baptist today.

I could have better stated that by saying “such a church is not acting according to its confession of faith.” I’m not saying a zero to sixty in 2.5 seconds thing is the answer. Instruction is good and proper, and until such a time parents are not on board, they should not be members, because it’s “great sin” to withhold one’s children from baptism, and the church would be complicit in such. There are other problems, too, but that’s the first consideration.

(Also, to be clear, I am not arguing for church membership having fully to subscribe to the Confession of faith, but rather submission to government as guided by said Confession, and vows not to grate against such teachings)

 

[lynnie]

Perhaps some OPCs, but for the one I attend, I could not have become a member without my child getting baptized. The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any. I can't speak to the PCA as I have never been in that denomination.

The PCA varies. Our old PCA in PA required kids to get baptized before allowing membership, but we knew a guy on staff in another state whose PCA church didnt. One local PCA near us used to allow Baptists to be elders but stopped that maybe a dozen years ago. You really need to ask at the individual church. The PCA is not a homogenous group.

 

[retroGRAD3]

The OPC BCO does not require members to subscribe to the WCF, and it certainly does not ask new members if they take any exceptions to it. If a church asks new members if they take exceptions, they are going far beyond what the BCO requires. Here is all the OPC BCO asks members received into the OPC to affirm (DPW IV.B.2):

1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
2. Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
3. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
4. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?
5. Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?

It sounds like the church I attend goes a bit beyond then. At the same time, I am glad they do this. What is the point of having a confession if you don't actually require members to adhere to it? I should clarify a bit though, this doesn't mean you can't take exceptions at all. They just want to know this going in.

 

[Catechised in Heidelberg]

But, again without offending anyone, does it make sense to take exceptions in the first place? I mean, the confessions work and function as an organic unity, don't you think that you undermine their authorities if you allow exceptions? And how to decide which exceptions are okay and which aren't?

 

[Joshua]

It sounds like the church I attend goes a bit beyond then. At the same time, I am glad they do this. What is the point of having a confession if you don't actually require members to adhere to it?

Adhering to its rule (i.e. submitting to the government of the local session, then presbytery, et al) is to be distinguished from requiring them to vow that they believe everything in the Confession. While I don't believe members have to be subscriptionists, it is regrettable to see the pendulum swing to the other side where accommodation is made such that members are encouraged in anti-covenantal and dis-unifying behavior (i.e. your kids are baptized, but I don't have to submit mine for such). There is no place for such "special cases" when it comes to the rightful administration of the sacraments. It is contrary to the unity of the church to submit members to different categories of discipline, some submitting to the government of the church, while others are free conscientiously to disregard. The message that sends -whether intentional or not- is not good. A session or Pastor, however, patiently coming alongside parents, instructing them with regard to baptism, encouraging them to their duty, until such a time they are ready to submit, sends a good message.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Adhering to its rule (i.e. submitting to the government of the local session, then presbytery, et al) is to be distinguished from requiring them to vow that they believe everything in the Confession. While I don't believe members have to be subscriptionists, it is regrettable to see the pendulum swing to the other side where accommodation is made such that members are encouraged in anti-covenantal and unifying behavior (i.e. your kids are baptized, but I don't have to submit mine for such). There is no place for such "special cases" when it comes to the rightful administration of the sacraments.

Right and like I said, putting aside full subscription to the confession, baptism of my child was a non negotiable.

 

[Joshua]

Right and like I said, putting aside full subscription to the confession, baptism of my child was a non negotiable.

Praise the Lord for that!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Perhaps some OPCs, but for the one I attend, I could not have become a member without my child getting baptized. The OPC is pretty strict on what exceptions you take regarding the WCF and I have been told by one of the pastors that it is rare for new members to take any. I can't speak to the PCA as I have never been in that denomination.

I've brought this up before. I was told when I was pondering alternatives, that if the WCF's Sabbatarianism was important to me, I'd find the OPC disappointing. I know an OP minister who will go out to eat on the Lord's Day. If the OPC does not allow exceptions, which is what I"m told for ministers, how is this all possible?

 

[Taylor]

Adhering to its rule (i.e. submitting to the government of the local session, then presbytery, et al) is to be distinguished from requiring them to vow that they believe everything in the Confession. While I don't believe members have to be subscriptionists, it is regrettable to see the pendulum swing to the other side where accommodation is made such that members are encouraged in anti-covenantal and unifying behavior (i.e. your kids are baptized, but I don't have to submit mine for such). There is no place for such "special cases" when it comes to the rightful administration of the sacraments.

I think what Josh said here strikes the right balance.

There are actually a few different conversations being had here: 1) What ought Presbyterian churches do about church membership? 2) What ought Presbyterian churches do with regard to sacramental differences among the body? 3) How does this relate to holders of office? These are three related but quite distinct questions, with related but also distinct answers. Regarding confessional subscription only (so, questions #1 and #3), Church bodies ought to require full, strict subscription of their officers. Church unity is in peril without it. But requiring it of lay people is going too far. It puts in place barriers to membership in the Church (not the ministry) where the Lord has not placed any, which is very dangerous.

 

[Taylor]

I've brought this up before. I was told when I was pondering alternatives, that if the WCF's Sabbatarianism was important to me, I'd find the OPC disappointing. I know an OP minister who will go out to eat on the Lord's Day. If the OPC does not allow exceptions, which is what I"m told for ministers, how is this all possible?

While I love the OPC, it is not necessarily the greener pastures the general Presbyterian world thinks it is. It has its share of problems. For this reason, I am thankful for my presbytery (Presbytery of the Southeast), because they will not ordain or license a man who takes exceptions, including and especially the Sabbath.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I've brought this up before. I was told when I was pondering alternatives, that if the WCF's Sabbatarianism was important to me, I'd find the OPC disappointing. I know an OP minister who will go out to eat on the Lord's Day. If the OPC does not allow exceptions, which is what I"m told for ministers, how is this all possible?

I was not careful in my first response. I attempted to clarify. Exceptions are allowed, but baptism of children is required (at least in the church I attend). They did want to know if I took any exceptions though up front. When it comes to the Lord Day observance though, you are right on and it is very sad. My family is one of like 3 that actually observe the Lord's day.

 

[Edward]

I still don't think that this is enough. All Church members should fully subscripe to the confessions!

Under your standards, my wife would never have joined my church when we got married. A solid Christian, but it took years of teaching in church to get her from Dispensational to reformed. If they had closed the door in her face, things likely would not have worked out as well.

 

[Catechised in Heidelberg]

Under your standards, my wife would never have joined my church when we got married. A solid Christian, but it took years of teaching in church to get her from Dispensational to reformed. If they had closed the door in her face, things likely would not have worked out as well.

Of course, there is a learning process. In our Church, all future members are required to have read the confessions and ask questions about what they don't understand. And at the end of the membership course there is a small "test" (which is definetly the wrong word") about the right understanding of the gospel, the sacraments, the Apostle's Creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. Of course, you are not examined about every little detail of the confessions but still you are required to say yes not only to the Church gouvernment but also to the confessions itself.

And also, think about it: there are texts in the Ancient Church period that say that for some new converts it took years to become members and participate in the Lord's Supper. It is also a good old Reformed tradition and worth considering!