Baptist to Presbyterian

[Ezekiel3626]

I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. If myself and my family, who have a Reformed Baptist background, were to choose to join a Presbyterian congregation (PCA), what would be required as far as baptism? I understand that if this became a real scenario, I would have to discuss it with the elders. Perhaps some details are required. My wife and I both participated in believers baptism in a Baptist church. My children, ages 3, 8, and 11 have never been baptized. My only intent is to find answer the practical question of what would be required to join the congregation.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. If myself and my family, who have a Reformed Baptist background, were to choose to join a Presbyterian congregation (PCA), what would be required as far as baptism? I understand that if this became a real scenario, I would have to discuss it with the elders. Perhaps some details are required. My wife and I both participated in believers baptism in a Baptist church. My children, ages 3, 8, and 11 have never been baptized. My only intent is to find answer the practical question of what would be required to join the congregation.

I suppose it would depend on the individual session, but I have seen PCA churches accept members who disagreed with certain Presbyterian concepts, namely covenantal Theology. I have never seen this issue come up, but I would assume most PCA churches would not "force" you to baptize your children...

 

[Christusregnat]

I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. If myself and my family, who have a Reformed Baptist background, were to choose to join a Presbyterian congregation (PCA), what would be required as far as baptism? I understand that if this became a real scenario, I would have to discuss it with the elders. Perhaps some details are required. My wife and I both participated in believers baptism in a Baptist church. My children, ages 3, 8, and 11 have never been baptized. My only intent is to find answer the practical question of what would be required to join the congregation.

Briant,

Most pca churches would probably accept you and your wife into membership with the baptism you've received. Our confession doesn't require sprinkling as a valid baptism, so an immersion baptism would likely be accepted.

Clearly, most PCAs would also urge you to consider the grace of God to your entire family, and consider having your children baptized. It's possible that some would want all to join at once, and therefore require the children to be baptized at the same time that you and the wife join.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Mushroom]

Amen. We've had a number of RB folks join PCA churches we were members of. The only limitation would be that you could not occupy Church office. Personally I would not agree that an RB should teach in a PCA Church, especially the youth, but I've never seen a PCA Session that held that position.

If you did not want your children baptised, nobody would require it for membership.

 

[Ezekiel3626]

The only limitation would be that you could not occupy Church office. Personally I would not agree that an RB should teach in a PCA Church, especially the youth, but I've never seen a PCA Session that held that position.

Hopefully I will not hijack my own thread, but would this mean for a certain period of time, or would I never be able to occupy church office?

 

[fredtgreco]

The only limitation would be that you could not occupy Church office. Personally I would not agree that an RB should teach in a PCA Church, especially the youth, but I've never seen a PCA Session that held that position.

Hopefully I will not hijack my own thread, but would this mean for a certain period of time, or would I never be able to occupy church office?

Never unless you changed your position on baptism. Just as a baptist church should not let those who disagree on a fundamental issue hold leadership, so the same holds for Presbyterians.

 

[Scott1]

My general understanding, based on the information you have presented, is that your baptism would be acceptable. You were baptized in a church that preaches the Gospel so you would not be re-baptized.

The church's doctrine requires children be presented for baptism because to withhold it is great sin.

In practice, however, you could be a "regular attender" indefinately and there would be no pressure to join, in fact I think the PCA would encourage you to carefully consider church doctrine, including infant baptism. There would be no discipline and no requirement.

To join, I think you would at least need to be moving toward baptizing the children because to withhold baptism is a great sin.

To be a church officer is an entirely different matter. You would need to vow you understand and agree with the church doctrine in every aspect unless you were granted an exception. I cannot imagine an exception granted for believer-only baptism because that contradicts so much of covenant theology (Westminster Standards).

Remember, the PCA also practices believer's baptism... but infant baptism also.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Remember that "submission to the elders" (a basic membership vow) includes willing subjection and openness to the teaching of the church. I'm not saying you are like this, but there are those who say ahead of time what they will listen to, and what they won't.

No one is going to "check your attendance" but if the topic of baptism is X week, and you always seem to "have something come up!" that week which precludes your open-minded attentiveness to the ministry of the Word, that is not true submission. I will not bludgeon anyone into agreement with me, or get them "convinced against their own judgment." Just don't promise me you will receive God's Word from my mouth, and then refuse to hear me, instead of trying to be persuaded. On any other topic, we'd be agreed that this would be a discipline issue! What if the subject was marriage or divorce?

I do not ask any person who wishes to join our church to agree with me on every point of the WCF, or the Bible on other points and topics as they come up. But please don't tell me, "Pastor, don't waste your breath with me on this topic, you are wrong so just accept that I'm not a candidate for convincing."

Who gets to pick and choose what they are "open" to, so far as teaching is concerned? What if the next guy says, "This church is OK; it's close to home, good music, etc. Uses the Bible. I like that. I'm joining. Just don't try to convince me of that Calvinistic heresy." No doubt, this would be a contentious union.

I'm only saying the issue is more than a matter of "belonging" and general oversight.

 

[CharlieJ]

I'm interested in this as well. His children are 3, 8, and 11. Would all of them have to be baptized? How is that "infant" baptism? Is there a place in the BCO or somewhere that tells when to draw the line?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A better term, at least in the case you mention, if not in every case, might be "household" baptism (good biblical terminology). In any well-ordered house, even the 11 yr old would be in complete submission to his parents. I would baptize the lot. I will not baptize anyone who intentionally rejects the ordinance, as not being in submission.

 

[CharlieJ]

That's interesting. Are there differing views on this within the Reformed church?

I thought that I knew of a view stating that if the person was old enough to be presented with the gospel and did not accept it, he or she would not be baptized. Or, did I misunderstand?

 

[queenknitter]

That's interesting. Are there differing views on this within the Reformed church?

I thought that I knew of a view stating that if the person was old enough to be presented with the gospel and did not accept it, he or she would not be baptized. Or, did I misunderstand?

I had heard that too. . . . So I'm asking with you too. The other Sunday a lady said that she had heard that if the Pastor could hold the child, it's an infant baptism (otherwise NOT!). I thought of my lanky four-year-old and wondered. . . . all the elders in the room politely said, "Uh . . . no."

So, anyway, what Charlie said!!

C

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I suppose there could be different views. I have not personally encountered the view you describe in the OPC and PCA churches that I've been in. The question is not what practices are out there, but what practice is normative?

What do our Standards say? Anything about being "held in the arms"? No. Here's one example:

28:4 Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized.​

The history of the term "infant" reveals a wide range of description, including well up into childhood. We 20th cent. Americans tend to restrict such a term to children under the age of 2; or less, sometimes less than 1, preferring another descriptive term for older children. But there is no rule to this.

The fact is that it was simply assumed for the Vast Majority of the "Christian world" and "Christian era" (say the past 1500 years) that babes in arms would be persons ordinarily expected at the baptismal font, and only irregularly families with much older children. Primarily in evangelistic territories.


The issue of whom to baptize is theological before practical: was Abraham administering the visible sign of the Covenant of Grace by circumcision? Yes, according to our reading of the text. He circumcised not only his 13 yr old son Ishmael, but ALL the men in his household, including the servants.

Now, I assure you I do not believe Abraham forced his servants into position and threatened them serious damage is they didn't "lie still" for the operation. Most of them were believers already, demonstrably so, having set out from HOME, in Ur, with Abraham leaving everything (family, property) behind, to wander with a man on a mission from God.

And if they had resisted, failed this test of faith that Abraham himself took, there was the door. Here are some nice parting gifts, thanks for coming.

So, the question (as it was presented) seems to assume that a 3, 8, or 11 yr old is capable of responding positively or negatively, in a fully informed way to the claims of the gospel. I think this borders on the absurd--definitely in the case of the 3 yr old, probably in the case of the 8 yr old, and possibly in the case of the 11 yr old, although I know some pretty bright 8-10 yr olds.

Asking a 3, 8, or even 11 yr old of he believes in Jesus, or if he can articulate a gospel-faith, and on the basis of his answers deciding to baptize him--this is simply dumbed-down conversionism, or bringing in the worst of contemporary baptist-belief (note, friends, I am not excoriating baptists there!) into the presbyterian church. And I know plenty of baptists who would blanch if they heard about the sister church up the street baptizing 4-6 yr olds on average. In other words,, both sides should cringe at that example, albeit for different reasons.

We do not baptize minors on the basis of their professions, but their parents'.

Now, we have other issues to deal with. Is the child in subjection to his parents? If the obvious answer is "no" then why should he (or she) be baptized? They are in no frame to be so. If the youth refuses to participate, besides being an instance of insubordination, the church ought not to force it's ordinances on anyone capabable of obvious, willful resistance. And plainly, I'm not talking about a squirming infant here.

I can't tell if a 5 yr old understands the "gospel" I present him with. I can't get inside his head, and he can't explain such things back to me in his own words. But if I can tell Isaac was in subjection to his father when he tied him up and laid him on the altar, then I think I can tell if a child is in subjection to his parents, when they bring him for baptism. At the very least, I have the evidence of my own eyes of a compliant child, and parents who swear he is obedient to them, and that they will continue to discipline him in the faith.

And, we have to deal with the variable age of emancipation. Different ages in different times and places. So, not every child ought to be baptized, nor every person in a modern "household" compared to the ancient. Why? Because some people today may live at home, and be basically there to avoid paying rent, not because he still abides under his parent's authority.

I will not baptize an 18 yr old, not mentally retarded, who only comes to church sporadically, drives his own car, and makes no obvious attempt to unite with the church along with his family. I expect more from him, because he is an adult for all practical purposes. Wisdom is required in these matters. That is why there is a Session.

 

[TimV]

To join, I think you would at least need to be moving toward baptizing the children because to withhold baptism is a great sin.

No, as has been pointed out he wouldn't have to be moving towards that position in the PCA for regular membership. Details are in the Bowen case, available from the PCA historical center.

 

[CharlieJ]

So, the question (as it was presented) seems to assume that a 3, 8, or 11 yr old is capable of responding positively or negatively, in a fully informed way to the claims of the gospel. I think this borders on the absurd--definitely in the case of the 3 yr old, probably in the case of the 8 yr old, and possibly in the case of the 11 yr old, although I know some pretty bright 8-10 yr olds.

My question for other paedo-baptists is, do you agree with this view of children? I'm confused, because my systematic professor Dr. Morton Smith has articulated very strongly that he believes a 5-year-old can respond positively to the gospel.

 

[Scott1]

To join, I think you would at least need to be moving toward baptizing the children because to withhold baptism is a great sin.

No, as has been pointed out he wouldn't have to be moving towards that position in the PCA for regular membership. Details are in the Bowen case, available from the PCA historical center.

Only for the benefit of those reading this post: What we call the "Bowen" case in the PCA was a church court case holding that officers must vow they receive the church teaching regarding the limited atonement and infant baptism.

That is, officers must hold in good conscience to the limited atonement and infant baptism. These cannot be "excepted" by PCA church officers as they are fundamental doctrine of the church.

"Regular attenders" and members do not take such a vow. Members do agree to peaceably learn the church's doctrine and peaceable abide her governance. The church's understanding of Scripture, evidenced by the officer's vow, is that a believing parent withholding baptism from children in the household is great sin.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My question for other paedo-baptists is, do you agree with this view of children? I'm confused, because my systematic professor Dr. Morton Smith has articulated very strongly that he believes a 5-year-old can respond positively to the gospel.

Dr. Smith was my Systematics professor as well. I don't think I'm disagreeing with him much, if at all. But the question of whether SOME 5-yr old is capable of responding positively to the gospel is not the same question as asking if he ought to be baptized or not. If he IS capable, then I might not object to his OWN statement of faith, and his baptism "separate" (if you will) from his less-capable siblings. In other words,, he be received into the church on the basis of his own profession, rather than his parents'.

But I surely cannot refuse to baptize ANOTHER 5 yr old who cannot so articulate his faith. We have to distinguish between exceptional cases and the ordinary abilities of children. 'Ordinary' in the sense of what we are accustomed to seeing in our own time and place.