Puritan Board Freshman
LBCF of 1689, to be sure. And the baptized version of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
Honestly, I've had the discussion about who would be allowed to be ordained as elders or deacons. I guess we're too open on the issue of baptism, but we believe that it is best if a church has only one practice of baptism. However, I think that to say that because someone else disagrees with me on baptism, that therefore makes them inadmissable to the church community. Coming from a Baptist standpoint, or perhaps this is more congregational than baptist, I view those who should be members of the local church as those who are visible saints, who show signs of regeneration, regardless of their view of baptism. I would rather allow than exclude those who, though I don't believe have been biblically baptized, show clear signs of regeneration and visible sainthood.
Also, I've discussed the issue of church officers with my pastor, and we both believe that a paedo should be allowed to be an elder on the grounds that he doesn't baptize children, since this is the stance of the church, and that he doesn't create a schism with his belief. This has given me many headaches, but I have to say that if John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, or John Owen were to desire to join the local church that I attend, I could not disallow them to do so. And, I would have no problem with them being elders, if they subscribed to a similar policy such as you have laid our, Austin.
Exodus 4:24-26 24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.