Advice needed on elders taking exceptions (PCA).

[Fox26]

Hello everyone. Long time lurker here in need of advice.

What is PCA policy if an elder diminishes the importance of doctrine when speaking to a member?

Background: I've been dating, and given how warped the dating scene is these days, decided to speak with an elder at my church to make sure I'm in line. Realistic expectations, proper perspective, and the like. Over the course of the conversation I observed that what surprised me was how many baptists (broadly speaking) I encountered and how stridently they refused to baptize infants. Surprised because I expected the real challenge would be sifting out progressive or cultural Christians.

I made it clear that infant baptism was a non-negotiable for me. At this point my elder suggested I relax that position as it would keep the pool too small. I'm almost certain that this particular elder is a baptist. I knew this before entering the conversation, and while I think the PCA is a little too broad in its allowance of exceptions to the Westminster Standards, admission of officers is not my decision to make.

I was rather disturbed by this suggestion. Not because baptists exist or even because they hold positions in the PCA, but because I was advised to downplay the importance of church doctrine by a church officer. And for purely pragmatic reasons.

Also, for context, this conversation happened about a year ago. While I was disappointed at the time, it's full importance didn't really strike me until a member made the same comment last week. (I'm not here to police members' beliefs though.)

So, my questions to everyone here are: (1) what to do next, and (2) has the PCA ever addressed this issue before? On the latter question, there are plenty of resources on church discipline and officer requirements generally. But, I haven't seen anything which addresses what happens when an elder doesn't deny doctrine, but minimizes its importance. These are two different things, and I want to be charitable and careful as I go forward.

Thanks for the help.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

A ruling elder may not be a baptist in the PCA. "The Commission affirms the judgment of Eastern Carolina Presbytery in that Infant Baptism (WCF 28-4) and Limited Atonement (WCF 3-3, 8-5 and 11-4) are to be considered fundamentals of the system of doctrine and that there can be no exceptions given in the case of officers in the church."
Minutes of the 19th PCA General Assembly (1991), pg. 84ff.

 

[Theoretical]

I made it clear that infant baptism was a non-negotiable for me. At this point my elder suggested I relax that position as it would keep the pool too small. I'm almost certain that this particular elder is a baptist. I knew this before entering the conversation, and while I think the PCA is a little too broad in its allowance of exceptions to the Westminster Standards, admission of officers is not my decision to make.

Due to its breadth, and the STRONG lack of compelling counteroptions in many areas, the PCA is a safe haven for Calvinistic Anglicans on the one side and Calvinistic Baptists ranging from TULIP-only Baptists to McArthurites to 1689 but without a good local body. Officer level exceptions are permitted for essentially Calvinistic Anglicans but not for Baptists, as Chris mentioned. Both varieties are fully accepted into membership as long as mostly in the baptist's case they don't try to prevent infant baptisms for others and such. That's my impression anyway.

Giving the most charitable case for the elder's approach, I have observed a hefty number of household type baptisms not from conversion but from delayed credo to paedo doctrinal positions such that you might see a family with three kids that's been coming for years have an 6, 3, and 1 year old all getting baptized at the same time. If you're strongly convinced of the paedo position and the woman is credo but open to the paedo view, then maybe it's fine but maybe it's not once there's actually a baby in the home. Someone who's strongly credo is a bad candidate not because she's a bad Christian but because your views on life and doctrine are fundamentally different and will require some pretty fundamental compromises when children could be in the picture. Aside from adoption or a grandchild guardianship, that's obviously less of an issue for a later in life marriage like a couple in their 50s.

 

[philomath]

I'm not in the PCA, but I had a few general thoughts.

I made it clear that infant baptism was a non-negotiable for me. At this point my elder suggested I relax that position as it would keep the pool too small. I'm almost certain that this particular elder is a baptist.

I don't know a lot of the ins and outs of the PCA, but I would be extremely surprised if there was a baptist elder. That would be an enormous exception to the WCF, and one in which any claim to holding the WCF would be pure bologna.

I see some pastors suggest a broadening of who to date (ex. any conservative orthodox protestant), with the thought in mind that someone may change their views over time. I think one of the reasons for this is that with our morally corrupt and anti-Christian culture, it can be a breath of fresh air just to find anyone who is an actual Bible believing Christian. I have no doubt that it's worked out for some folks, but it's worked poorly for others.

I was advised to downplay the importance of church doctrine by a church officer. And for purely pragmatic reasons.

doesn't deny doctrine, but minimizes its importance

I'll be interested to see the replies to these. In general, I've seen the minimizing of doctrine over time lead to the inevitable consequence of people denying doctrine. So it is serious for an elder to minimize doctrine, especially if it's doctrine they're required to uphold by their confessional standards. There's always the chance of some form of miscommunication though. Perhaps your elder is oblivious to the fact that it seems he's undermining the WCF?

 

[Clemson_Gentleman]

Greg,

I would first look carefully for a more confessionally faithful church in your area.
If one cannot be found, then use the means available to seek reform in your current church: prayer, respectful petition, voting and conversations with officers. If your conscience truly will not allow you to remain and no other local option exists, then it may be time to begin making longer-term preparations: job search, researching churches elsewhere, and so on.

Regarding the dating pool, I would draw a distinction between a Baptist woman who is truly evangelical, teachable, peaceable, and willing to submit to your duty as a husband and father to bring the household under Reformed doctrine and practice, verses one who is settled against infant baptism.

 

[paranymph]

Is he an RE or TE? I would take this to the proper channels if an elder is a baptist in the PCA.

 

[DanSSwing]

How does this relate to dating though? I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t date a Baptist as long as she is willing to submit to your leadership in the area of infant baptism.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

A lot of reformed churches are not very strict anymore with doctrine. Yes elders and deacons have to take vows that they will uphold the doctrine, and that they will let it be known if they change their views on it. At the same time they are allowed to write down what exceptions they take to the doctrine, and maybe they will be allowed to continue on in leadership if it's agreed that's okay. But yeah if the guy is a Baptist in PCA leadership, it sounds like somebody should talk to him about that.

On another note lol, you wouldn't consider marriage to a woman based on her view of baptism? I've been married for almost 14 years now, and I'll say that my wife and I have both gone through doctrinal changes. I would imagine that's kind of to be expected as people learn and grow. I am completely fine with her having different opinions than I do on certain doctrines so long as they aren't the essentials of the faith. As long as she is a Christian and a godly woman of character, that's what is going to really matter.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

A lot of reformed churches are not very strict anymore with doctrine.

Which is strange to me. Wouldn't than historical confessional denominations be more strict on doctrine than broad evangelical churches? Why are confessional churches becoming so lax on these matters?

 

[Theoretical]

On another note lol, you wouldn't consider marriage to a woman based on her view of baptism? I've been married for almost 14 years now, and I'll say that my wife and I have both gone through doctrinal changes. I would imagine that's kind of to be expected as people learn and grow. I am completely fine with her having different opinions than I do on certain doctrines so long as they aren't the essentials of the faith. As long as she is a Christian and a godly woman of character, that's what is going to really matter.

The main problem with strongly held differences in baptism is that they become fundamental flashpoints once a child is born. So it's not a big deal for a widow-widower in their 70s aside from grandchildren's baptisms but is a very big deal for a couple of childbearing age. It shouldn't be an absolute dealbreaker but someone who is firmly convinced of the paedo position as the OP is should be pretty hesitant to date and marry someone who has even a somewhat firm position on credobaptism simply because delaying baptism of children is a sin for one and baptizing them before profession of faith is void or at best irregular and a serious spiritual offense to the other.

The context is far different than a situation where both are credo or paedo when they get married and one of the spouse's position shifts fundamentally. There, the husband's leadership is important, but handling it well as a process matters greatly for both marital harmony and for it to really hold as a change in the family rather than a division. It's also not something where OP and the hypothetical woman are definitely Christian but not doctrinally particular on this particular set of issues.

I'd also add that it's a pretty fundamental problem in terms of needing to find a new church when a move occurs or something bad happens at the home church. Compromise that might have worked well in one setting now leads to having two choose between two options (if they're lucky) that are good for one but not the other.

Post automatically merged: May 1, 2026

Which is strange to me. Wouldn't than historical confessional denominations be more strict on doctrine than broad evangelical churches? Why are confessional churches becoming so lax on these matters?

Breakaway churches (PCA) or churches that had a lot of moderation before moving in a more confessional direction (ARP as I understand it) often got to be in the situation of having confessional, conservative to moderate broad types, and progressive types. Confessional + Conservative/moderate is the functional coalition to keep the church Christian at least for a generation or two and it's certainly better than Broad + Progressive's coalition in terms of church governance.

But functionally, it means that the PCA, in contrast to more confessional denominations has (1) a large contingent that would have been very happy in the Pre-Anglo-Catholic Reformed Episcopal Church or something like Steven Wedgeworth's 1662 congregation, (2) a large contingent of Reformed Baptists who find the PCA the best option due to not really having a good confessional baptist setting of their own - and they're not disciplined for having children not be baptized until they can make a profession of faith, and (3) a large contingent of basic Calvinistic evangelicals who aren't sharply offended by baptizing infants even if they wouldn't do it themselves.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I am a presbyterian. My wife attended a baptist church when we met. It really was not that hard to convince her that there was a better way. Just read the bible, explain it, repeat.

Of course, you have to be patient. One thing at a time. Rome wasn't built in a day. And they have to be teachable. But you don't want to marry someone unteachable anyway, presbyterian or not.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Which is strange to me. Wouldn't than historical confessional denominations be more strict on doctrine than broad evangelical churches? Why are confessional churches becoming so lax on these matters?

Yeah it's definitely interesting. For one I would say in my estimation it seems that generally church leaders are not as focused on systematic theology anymore. And then also, holding doctrine very tightly very much restricts church growth, because only like-minded people will be at that church. So if the non-essentials are not tightly controlled and regularly talked about, this allows for more people with various views feeling comfortable in the church.

That's just my opinion and what I've experienced. It is interesting too when you look at the numbers with growth/non-infant baptisms with reformed churches and non-reformed churches. Apart from the good and bad of the different Christian denominations, the numbers are staggering when you look at how many more adult baptisms and how much more church growth that non-denominational churches have each year over the reformed. I just wonder if a lot of that is because non-denominational churches typically don't have very strict and narrow doctrinal stances. So lots of people from different backgrounds are united under common Christian essentials.

 

[EvanF]

Well, considering that credo-baptists can be members in good standing of PCA churches, the elder would probably be remiss if he didn't encourage you not to reject faithful sisters out of hand. That being said, it is potentially a source of relationship difficulty if either or both spouses can't look past scruples on this doctrine and live peacably and fruitfully.

 

[Frosty]

Issue 1: Are you sure that the ruling elder is credobaptist? Based on what?

Issue 2: If the girl is submissive, then it's a go. If she's not, then it wasn't going to work out anyway. But find that out now, not later.

 

[Cals2lip]

I am a presbyterian. My wife attended a baptist church when we met. It really was not that hard to convince her that there was a better way. Just read the bible, explain it, repeat.

Of course, you have to be patient. One thing at a time. Rome wasn't built in a day. And they have to be teachable. But you don't want to marry someone unteachable anyway, presbyterian or not.

Best advice here

 

[Fox26]

Thank you everyone for the responses.

I was more curious though if anyone could address procedural issues and whether the PCA has addressed this before. I'd like to know if there is a more or less official denomionational position which could inform next steps. Without simply throwing around the BCO without context.

Thanks.

 

[philomath]

in my estimation it seems that generally church leaders are not as focused on systematic theology anymore

I just wonder if a lot of that is because non-denominational churches typically don't have very strict and narrow doctrinal stances

I think this is precisely the thing with a lot of non-denoms. There certainly are faithful congregations among them filled with people who love The Lord, but there are a lot that are more worried about numbers and growth; to the detriment of sound teaching. A common saying that I hear from time to time seems to be accurate: "What you win them with is what you win them to."

I also think that in a culture that values emotionalism and individualism as cardinal virtues, confessional churches seem less attractive. Some confessional churches get a little soft and try to copy broader trends to counteract that sentiment, but it causes problems in the long run.

 

[Ploutos]

And they have to be teachable. But you don't want to marry someone unteachable anyway, presbyterian or not.

Issue 2: If the girl is submissive, then it's a go. If she's not, then it wasn't going to work out anyway. But find that out now, not later.

This is the best advice in the thread. If you have to choose between doctrinal agreement and submissiveness, choose the latter. This is one of the most important things you can look for in a wife, after the basics of making sure she's a genuine believer.

By submissiveness, I don't mean Stepford wife mindless obedience. I mean someone who will fight for your leadership of the marriage rather than fighting you for leadership of the marriage. Someone who will criticize you for being weak and sinful rather than someone who will criticize you for not doing what they want or like. Someone who will push you to take the lead when there's a disagreement rather than someone who will push to take the lead from you when there's a disagreement. Unless you happen to be wired similarly enough to have and to maintain total agreement on all major issues for your whole marriage (and it does happen), an unsubmissive spirit is bound to cause problems.

And don't marry with the hopes that it will develop after marriage. If you don't see that in the dating/courtship phase, don't expect to see it afterwards.

 

[Jack K]

Obviously, I don't know the particular people it this case. But normally, I would think it's more likely a committed Baptist gal would be willing to reconsider if she likes you after dating a few times than it is that a PCA elder is secretly a Baptist.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Thank you everyone for the responses.

I was more curious though if anyone could address procedural issues and whether the PCA has addressed this before. I'd like to know if there is a more or less official denomionational position which could inform next steps. Without simply throwing around the BCO without context.

Thanks.

On the issue of dating and marrying a Baptist -- a great deal depends on the woman involved. I know cases of women married to people who are convinced of infant baptism and the women didn't particularly care either way, being more interested in raising her children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord than in when the water gets applied. I've personally seen a situation of a baby being immersed in a paedobaptist Reformed church because the parents were willing to baptize infants but couldn't get over the issue of the amount of water. Some flexibility is legitimate, particularly for private members who are not officers, which by definition will be the case with women who cannot be pastors or elders in any NAPARC denomination. But if a husband and wife firmly disagree on something like infant baptism, it's going to be a major problem in marriage and will likely be the root of many more problems.

On the issue of official denominational positions of the PCA: @NaphtaliPress already addressed that above. There are some exceptions that are widespread in the PCA, and others that may be tolerated by one presbytery but not another, or in the case of ruling elders, by some churches but not others. Infant baptism isn't one of those and the precedent dates back three and a half decades.



May 1, 2026
#2
A ruling elder may not be a baptist in the PCA. "The Commission affirms the judgment of Eastern Carolina Presbytery in that Infant Baptism (WCF 28-4) and Limited Atonement (WCF 3-3, 8-5 and 11-4) are to be considered fundamentals of the system of doctrine and that there can be no exceptions given in the case of officers in the church."
Minutes of the 19th PCA General Assembly (1991), pg. 84ff.

 

[Christodulus]

Well, considering that credo-baptists can be members in good standing of PCA churches

That is extraordinary to me. Does not the WCF say it is a great sin to neglect the sacrament?

 

[darrellmaurina]

That is extraordinary to me. Does not the WCF say it is a great sin to neglect the sacrament?

Scott, I'm surprised you don't know that nearly all modern Presbyterians in NAPARC will accept Baptists into membership. There are exceptions -- this came to the OPC General Assembly last year -- but not many, and most of those exceptions are in local churches, not on the denominational level.

My understanding is that the OPC continued its historic position on this issue despite getting an increasing number of members from a Dutch Reformed background who disagree on that point. @Alan D. Strange -- you may want to explain the OPC position on this since I don't believe I should be the one to speak on the historic and recent actions of the OPC General Assembly.

The OPC is unusual in being significantly influenced by the Dutch Reformed to the point that this would even be an issue. This is a core difference between Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed practice and has been since at least the early- to mid-1800s, if not before that.

The reason is simple: the Dutch Reformed, since at least the Synod of Dordt, have practiced confessional membership in which not only the elders but also the members must affirm the confession. Look at the form for profession of faith -- we can debate just HOW much of the confessions a person must affirm to be a member, but you can't be in a conservative Dutch Reformed church as a professing member and openly dissent against some key part of Reformed doctrine, and the standard view for centuries, based on the Belgic Confession's condemnation of Anabaptists, was that those who rebaptize are included in that list of doctrines contrary to the confessions that bar people from membership. (This, BTW, is why I so strongly oppose the position that modern Baptists are Anabaptists. I twice affirmed the Form of Subscription back in the 1990s, I take it VERY seriously, and while I don't have a problem with the Dutch Reformed banning Baptists from membership based on a different view of what membership means, it's important that I make clear that I don't think the Anabaptist condemnation, which is in three places, not just one, accurately describes modern Baptists or historically describes the English Particular Baptist movement.)

Most Presbyterians, by contrast, normally require only a credible profession of faith and an agreement not to raise discord in the congregation or oppose the teaching of the elders. That means people who disagree with all sorts of things in the Westminster Standards can and do join Presbyterian churches. They can't become elders, but they can be members, so long as they don't cause problems.

Again, Scott, I'm surprised that you're surprised. The people in the URCNA who objected back in the 1990s to having ecclesiastical ties with the OPC -- and there were a number of them -- were quite aware of this difference and made their views known. A lot of them were people who wanted closer ties with the Canadian Reformed, and the old Blue Bell church dispute in metro Philadelphia, in which an OPC left under bad circumstances for the Canadian Reformed, was still a living memory. As the Canadian Reformed have developed better relations with the Presbyterian tradition via the ICRC and their own direct ties with the OPC, a lot of the concerns raised in the URC about the OPC in the 1990s have "gone by the wayside" with people saying, more or less, "Yes, the OPC and URC are different, but the difference is a confessional issue, and both confessions are legitimately Reformed, so people need to affirm what their own confessions say even if the confessions are different on some points."

It also helped that men like Rev. GI Williamson spent a lot of time with very, very conservative people in the URC explaining OPC practice and principles, convincing them that the OPC, while different, wasn't bad.

Not all differences are bad differences. Some are just historic differences that go back centuries.

If I can be direct on this point, I have objections to the OPC that are serious enough that I transferred out of my church in Springfield last year (amicably) when it voted to join the OPC. Those objections are on church government, not baptism, and if you know the history of the Springfield church, you know that admitting Baptists to membership was one of the areas on which some in the URC objected to what the Springfield church wanted when it was still a URC member.

However, I've attended two other OPC churches for long periods of time when I lived in other states, and would be willing to join the OPC if it were the only Reformed option. Back in the 1990s when I was working for Christian Renewal reporting on the CRC secession, I attended more OPC general assembly and presbytery meetings than most OPC elders and more than many OPC ministers. I know the denomination pretty well, though not as an insider, and it is clearly the Presbyterian denomination in NAPARC which the URC would like the most.

If the URC isn't willing to accept the fact that most OPC churches allow Baptists into membership, the URC is going to have problems with almost every Presbyterian denomination in North America, though there are some very conservative Presbyterian bodies overseas that would agree with barring Baptists from membership.

Confessions count, and this is a confessional difference between the two traditions.

 

[EvanF]

That is extraordinary to me. Does not the WCF say it is a great sin to neglect the sacrament?

Well, in many cases, holding credo-baptist beliefs does not necessarily mean that the sacrament is neglected. There are people who hold those beliefs but have no children and people whose children have already been baptized after a profession of faith. In the case of credo-baptist parents of a new child, the elders would need to carefully consider the best way to deal with the parents while admonishing them as to the impropriety of witholding the sign of their own covenant relationship with God from the child he has now entrusted to their care.

Obviously there is some point beyond which credo-baptists in a PCA congregation cannot push their scruples without effectively disturbing the peace of the church and advocating for their beliefs contrary to the WCF, however it is up to the elders to evaluate such things. As for credo-baptists themselves, if they are members of a PCA congregation for whatever reason, they should earnestly prepare to join themselves to a credo-baptist congregation if they foresee having and rearing an unbaptized child.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I'm aware of at least three OPC churches that at some point in the last 15 years had Baptists as members who have taken exceptions to the WCF with respect to infant baptism. Christ PC in Magna, UT, Reformation PC in Morgantown, WV, and Lakeview PC in Rockport, ME. For full clarity, I base this on Baptists who attended these churches telling me that they were members.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I like that Baptists aren't being treated as outcasts (since the Baptists, obviously, are right on infant baptism and Presbyterians are wrong). But on the other hand, I feel almost like it's a violation of the convictions of the Ministers in those churches. As already said, the WCF calls it a great sing to contemn or neglect infant baptism, so from where I sit it looks like the churches are tolerating open sin on the behalf of their members.

I myself, if circumstances required that I relocate to an area with no Reformed Baptist churches, would not in good conscience ever attempt to become a member of a paedobaptist church, even though I've attended OPC churches on Sundays in which I've been out of town and no viable RB church options available.

 

[darrellmaurina]

The core of the issue is that in an ideal world, Reformed Baptists should be in Reformed Baptist churches and Reformed paedobaptists should be in Reformed paedobaptist churches.

Reality isn't so easy.

If we regard ourselves as brothers in sovereign grace, when we're dealing with REAL issues -- not that the local OPC or PCA has a dry preacher who is clearly converted but focuses more on doctrine than conversion, and not that the local Reformed Baptist church has a minimally educated tentmaking pastor who loves the Lord but isn't very good in his exegesis and works too many hours at his secular job to prepare well for the pulpit, or not that people who own cars need to drive half an hour or 45 minutes to church -- we need to show some graciousness to people who really DO NOT have any other church they can attend that preaches sovereign grace.

I know what it is like to drive two hours one way, crossing state lines and a time zone, to attend an OPC while passing by hundreds of sound evangelical churches, one Southern Baptist church that was one step away from officially declaring itself to be Reformed Baptist, and another Southern Baptist church, literally within walking distance of my home, whose pastor was a five-point Calvinist. I suppose I ought to add that the OPC involved would have had significant problems with my Congregationalism, and while I could have joined, I never did and kept my church membership in a congregation over a thousand miles away that had held my membership for years.

I'm not naive about the problems of finding a Reformed church of ANY type in much of rural America.

If we view each other as brothers, we're going to be brotherly. If we view each other as interlopers teaching dangerous doctrines, we will act in accord with those views.

Pick one.

I'd rather say God is sovereign and I'll treat those who agree with that as brothers.

 

[EvanF]

That is extraordinary to me. Does not the WCF say it is a great sin to neglect the sacrament?

I'm aware of at least three OPC churches that at some point in the last 15 years had Baptists as members who have taken exceptions to the WCF with respect to infant baptism. Christ PC in Magna, UT, Reformation PC in Morgantown, WV, and Lakeview PC in Rockport, ME. For full clarity, I base this on Baptists who attended these churches telling me that they were members.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I like that Baptists aren't being treated as outcasts (since the Baptists, obviously, are right on infant baptism and Presbyterians are wrong). But on the other hand, I feel almost like it's a violation of the convictions of the Ministers in those churches. As already said, the WCF calls it a great sing to contemn or neglect infant baptism, so from where I sit it looks like the churches are tolerating open sin on the behalf of their members.

I myself, if circumstances required that I relocate to an area with no Reformed Baptist churches, would not in good conscience ever attempt to become a member of a paedobaptist church, even though I've attended OPC churches on Sundays in which I've been out of town and no viable RB church options available.

Even if we say that failure to handle this sacrament correctly is a great sin, is it so great a sin that it warrants breaking or witholding the communion of the saints that we affirm should be extended to all those in every place who call upon the name of Christ? Excommunication is consignment to the world of one who lives like the world. I think we all agree that a Christian who disagrees on the doctrine of baptism is nevertheless a member of the body of Christ. How great a sin is it to divide the body of Christ if not absolutely necessary for the peace of the church? If Christians can have fellowship peaceably and without joining the body of Christ to the harlotry of the world, they should do so by all means.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Even if we say that failure to handle this sacrament correctly is a great sin, is it so great a sin that it warrants breaking or witholding the communion of the saints that we affirm should be extended to all those in every place who call upon the name of Christ? Excommunication is consignment to the world of one who lives like the world. I think we all agree that a Christian who disagrees on the doctrine of baptism is nevertheless a member of the body of Christ. How great a sin is it to divide the body of Christ if not absolutely necessary for the peace of the church? If Christians can have fellowship peaceably and without joining the body of Christ to the harlotry of the world, they should do so by all means.

I mean, "great sin" seems pretty serious to me. The way you're saying it sounds to me like "great sin" really means "minor sin".

 

[darrellmaurina]

Even if we say that failure to handle this sacrament correctly is a great sin, is it so great a sin that it warrants breaking or witholding the communion of the saints that we affirm should be extended to all those in every place who call upon the name of Christ? Excommunication is consignment to the world of one who lives like the world. I think we all agree that a Christian who disagrees on the doctrine of baptism is nevertheless a member of the body of Christ. How great a sin is it to divide the body of Christ if not absolutely necessary for the peace of the church? If Christians can have fellowship peaceably and without joining the body of Christ to the harlotry of the world, they should do so by all means.

Spot on.

One of the rules on the Puritan Board is no Second Commandment violations with purported images of Christ. It's in the confessions and I don't disagree with the Puritan Board rule. The rule is clearly confessional.

Even beyond that, I can -- and have -- made a whole long list of arguments unrelated to supposedly "old fashioned pharisaical" arguments saying that even if purported images of Christ are NOT a 2CV and sinful for that reason, they're a really bad idea because they usually represent Him with the wrong skin color, wrong ethnic features, wrong hair length, and not at all in accord with what we actually DO see in Scripture about his appearance. These purported images are making God in our image, often a medieval Western European image, and are bad for that reason even if they aren't a 2CV.

Nevertheless, there are churches all over the Reformed world that have them. Everything from REALLY expensive stained glass windows of Christ as the Great Shepherd to disposable coloring books intended to be filled out by kids and thrown away when done.

I don't like that and I've taught against it for years. But if I felt I had to walk out of every NAPARC church that had a purported image of Christ somewhere, I'd be afraid even to try to count how many of them are around that would prompt me to walk out.

I view the WCF's statement about the sinfulness of neglecting baptism to be in that category. Wrong, and it needs to be addressed. But in a world where we're dealing with churches denying the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Christ and the virgin birth, and even in the evangelical world many are advocating semi-Pelagian or even fully Pelagian stuff like an age of accountability under which children go to heaven, is the timing of baptism really the most important thing we need to be dealing with?

Give me a good Reformed Baptist preacher any day over the apostate infidels who now fill Jonathan Edwards' pulpit in Northhampton, or the gay-friendly women elders who serve First Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, and put this right on their website:

LGBTQ+ Inclusion: We invite all members of our church family to full participation in the life and ministry of the congregation. Neither sexual identity nor being in a same-sex relationship will impact a person’s membership or ability to fully participate at First Church. With humility, knowing that our church family holds a variety of interpretations regarding same-sex marriage and some of us are in a place of uncertainty, we trust that our unity in Christ is strong enough to hold us together to further God’s kingdom. (Ephesians 4:1-6, Colossians 1:17)
Women in Leadership: We rejoice that God has given each person gifts to serve within and beyond the church. We affirm and are greatly blessed by women in leadership at all levels of church life. The God-given gifts of women enrich our life together, contribute to the flourishing of our ministries, and enable us to truly live out our calling as God’s image bearers in this world. (1 Corinthians 12:12-14, Ephesians 4:11-13, Galatians 3:26-29)

I don't think there is a single person on the Puritan Board who regards denial of infant baptism as being anywhere close to that level of sin.

Yeah, I know that 95 percent of Reformed Baptists won't accept my infant baptism. Many won't accept my wife's baptism (by profession, as an adult, but by sprinkling, not immersion).

Don't we have worse problems out there to worry about, and far more dangerous things to fight about?

 

[darrellmaurina]

I mean, "great sin" seems pretty serious to me. The way you're saying it sounds to me like "great sin" really means "minor sin".

I just made a post addressing your point before I saw your post.

Context counts. What "greater" and "lesser" means needs to be evaluated by the actual practice of the people who used those words in their written documents.

In the context of the 1640s and 1650s, maybe denying infant baptism was one of the greater things the Puritans had to fight about. Even so, it didn't keep John Owen from getting John Bunyan out of prison and getting his own printer to publish Pilgrim's Progress.

I think we have far greater sins to worry about today.

Look, if I'm cooperating with Roman Catholics in the pro-life movement and with outright Pelagians in various sorts of "culture war" activities, I've already waved the white flag on a whole lot of what the men in the Westminster Assembly considered to be non-negotiables on the limits of toleration of civil dissent in England. I'm not the first person to wave that flag; it got hoisted over two centuries ago when the US Constitution was ratified and some of the American founding fathers suggested that one of the key leaders of the Maryland planter aristocracy who had supported the Revolutionary War be named by the Pope as the first American bishop.

Oliver Cromwell was happy to accept people who denied infant baptism into the New Model Army.

I kind of think Cromwell would be a lot less happy with me cooperating with Catholics than with Baptists.

 

[EvanF]

I mean, "great sin" seems pretty serious to me. The way you're saying it sounds to me like "great sin" really means "minor sin".

One of the scriptural supports for WCF 28:5 is Gen 17:14,

"And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

Hereby the confession equates the sin of witholding the covenant sign from the children of covenant believers with symbolically cutting off these children from the church, yet we know that credo-baptists do not really cut their children off from the church. However, what they do symbolically we would do in truth if we disfellowship for a symbolic error those whom Christ himself has really united with his body in faith. I accept that separation to maintain the peace of the church may be better than internecine strife, but this should not be necessary if we each sincerely cherish our brothers and sisters in the Lord as we ought.