Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Family Forum' started by shawn737, Aug 27, 2019.
I was speaking according to truth, not according to what is practiced.
Brother, I don't understand why you don't have your family in a place where Christ's ordinances are administered in purity. Why are you trying to get access to a purer administration of the ordinances while refusing to join a church where they are administered purely?
It's like choosing to live in the shed instead of indoors and asking to have A/C.
If no one insists on you staying where you are, then get your family to a church where they can have all the benefits that Christ purchased for them.
“But if the division you are speaking of is a division between you and your wife, the situation is not as easy. You have a responsibility not only to lead your wife spiritually but also to do so with gentleness and sacrificial love, taking great care not to exercise authority in a way that drags her to a church that assails her conscience, or makes her take vows she disagrees with, or makes her feel trapped in a foreign faith. Your church decision, then, must not be merely about what you deem best but about what you deem best for her. “
Without going into too much detail, this is the main issue. She’s always been very involved in their church. She’s not the type to read Calvin or Sproul.
If that's the issue, the real question is how to shepherd your wife to embrace all that Christ has ordained for her good.
Start family worship and go through a book on the basics of reformed theology. Maybe one by Sproul. Just a thought.
Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk
We used to attend a Calvinist Baptist Church where if people wanted to Baptize a baby the pastor had a Presbyterian pastor friend who would do it, and nobody made a big deal out of it. Frankly I think you should recognize that here at the Puritan Board there are very godly and scholarly men who disagree on the paedo-credo subject, and there is NOTHING wrong with either side, where BOTH have a litany of bible verses to back up their position. I am sure hardly anybody agrees with me, but both sides are valid and biblical and there is no reason to make this primary in choosing a church. When picking your battles, don't pick this.
The main thing is that you have decided not to do a dry baptism as I've seen it called, ie, a baby dedication. For that I commend you.
By the way, if TULIP comes up, use Spurgeon. He was a Baptist, and held firmly to Calvinism while articulating well the mystery of our moral culpability and commands to repent and believe and obey. Most Baptists will interact better with Spurgeon than a Presbyterian on TULIP in my limited experience.
Great post, as mode of water Baptism is indeed not a hill to die on, and bring a Reformed Baptist, Spurgeon is to us as Calvin would be to Presbyterian bethren.
Knowing God would be a good book also to go through and study.
I was posting tongue in cheek, should have put on smily face!
Oh they definitely do baby dedication. Not in place of baptism though. Arminian tradition?
Your baby will belong to God as soon as it is conceived.
yes, it is an present day, evangelical fantasy.
Strangely enough, taken from the portion of the bible in 1 Samuel 1:10-17, 20; whereas Hannah leaves Samuel at the temple. He was already circumcised. He had the sign of covenant on his flesh; Hence, it is strange and idolatry to even consider this, as no one leaves their child w/ the pastor, nor does he have the sign of covenant upon him.
I'm rather indifferent when it comes to the practice in some credo churches of bringing their babies forward for dedication. This is not a practice prescribed in the Bible obviously; it's a church tradition meant to celebrate the birth or adoption of a child by giving thanks to God and by the parents pledging to raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Prayer for the family is generally included in the ones I've witnessed, which I find appropriate for the occasion, though it's been a long time since I've seen one done.
It seems you don't have to make a decision right away. Are you having consistent time together studying God's word? This might be the best time in your family's life to set consistent patterns for worship and to develop a shared understanding of the word. (With kids, the time will be much more interrupted and the lessons more basic.)
You may be hoping for too much to expect a properly functioning Presbyterian church to baptize a child in a family outside its membership. The question becomes, into what congregation is this child being baptized? What church leaders will be helping you fulfill the vows you make to God during the baptism? What congregation will come along side you? (In some Presbyterian denominations, the people affirm a vow. In others, they are admonished to help the parents.) Given the seriousness of all this, if a church does agree to baptize, I'd have real questions about their practices.
It sounds as if you have a gem for a father-in-law. If your wife was reared to learn his graciousness, you are a blessed man!
Not a requirement in the PCA BCO. There is a certain tension between 56-3 (presented by one or both parents or some other responsible party) and 56-4 (exhort the parents). [Emphasis Supplied]
Thanks for that clarification. in my opinion, thats strange. It's probably very rare.
I would imagine so. I'm not sure what the rule is in the OPC. (I'm not sure how they define Church as opposed to church, From a quick scan, I think they mean the denomination instead the congregation or the greater church, but I'll be happy to be corrected by someone with greater knowledge of that denomination's rules.) "For a child to be presented for baptism, at least one parent must be a communicant member of the Church, in good standing, normally of the local congregation.... Only parents who are communicant members of the Church may be permitted to take parental vows" BUT " In extraordinary circumstances, at the parents' request, the session may permit the baptism of a child of parents who are communicant members of another church".
Forgive me if this has been covered already, but if you don't mind me asking, what is your bride's major contention/issue with Presbyterianism?
Her family and friends aren't at that church. As I'm sure you all are aware, church is not just a lecture hall. Its a living organism, a dynamic family. Its hard to leave when your heart, if not your mind, is with another body.
I am not aware of an American Presbyterian BCO that prohibits the baptism of children within other churches (within the scope of perceived acceptable circumstances), though certainly the *general* practice is to baptize one's own members.
Blessings to you,
I'm wondering is she's having a hard time leaving the church you go to now because her father is the pastor and she feels safe (or pick your word to replace "safe") there? Do you feel she's cut the apron ties with her parents. Is this a case of "I want to go to the church my dad is the pastor of and which I grew up in."? It just seems strange that she's ok with infant baptism since she's a baptist and as long as she doesn't have to attend the other church she's ok baptising your future children. Does she believe in or agree with the reformed faith?
If unity with the family depends upon moral compromise, then it's not unity worth maintaining in my opinion. Even without the issue of bad theology, I would caution the decision to attend a church where your wife's father is a spiritual leader given the inevitable tension that presents over your own household headship. Your current situation seems to evidence this problem.
If you are the head of your home, then you should not defer to your father-in-law to make such important decisions for your family, especially in light of the conflict that exists practically.
You have a very good reason to leave your wife's family's church to attend an orthodox church that properly administers the sacraments. I can see no persuasive reason why you would remain in your current set of circumstances.
Blessings to you,
Shawn (aka Jay-Rod?),
There are a few other forums I periodically visit and as God's providence would have it I just stumbled on the below thread you started over at Anglican Forums on Tuesday about 20 minutes before you started this one here on the Puritanboard.
Brother, I am sympathetic to your situation (even still) and can obviously see you are a confused and conflicted man. In an attempt to gain clarity and seek wisdom you've been dishonest and have misled brothers and sisters here in the process.
Judging from the content of your posts on the Anglican Forum I believe an apology to those here might be appropriate. Furthermore, out of respect for the brothers and sisters here who are actually in the PCA I would recommend you remove it from your signature block.
I'll commit to praying for you friend. You are in need of it.
"My wife and I were married 10 years ago. We met at church. It is a Baptist Church. Her dad is the pastor. I was Reformed at the time, but over many years found my way into Anglicanism. I have attended an Anglican Parish on Saturday nights sporadically, and even sometimes on Sunday mornings. However, going to two churches is difficult and it creates some division in the family. Because of that, I have decided to solely attend the family's Baptist church.
However, I do have a question. We are trying for a child. I think it would be very difficult to deny Baptism to this child, but the Baptist church obviously won't baptize until a public profession can be articulated.
The Anglican church I've attended will baptize the baby. My wife is supportive of baptizing the baby. I can't imagine explaining salvation from a Baptist point of view to my child (fire brimstone for you, but say the prayer and you get in the heaven line and have "eternal security" because you said the prayer...but you better make sure you really meant it)
Should we just baptize the baby at the Anglican Church, teach that theology at home, but to maintain unity with the family continue to attend the Baptist church? Or some other idea?"
Jay-Rod, Tuesday at 8:55 AM"
"The family being in ministry here in the same town is definitely the kicker. If that wasn’t the situation I really wouldn’t care what they thought."
Jay-Rod, Tuesday at 3:57 PM
"In some ways I feel I just need to put all my Anglican beliefs on hold until her dad retires. Just go with the flow, stop being a cog in the wheel.
Seems like the only simple solution...though I fear it could lead to a spiritual desert."
Jay-Rod, Tuesday at 3:59 PM
"Really, my father in law is actually very gracious about it. There is never any open hostility about this stuff. It’s just my beliefs and absence from church sticks out like a sore thumb. But what’s an even bigger deal is how involved my wife has always been in the church. She just thrives there and is involved in everything. Leaving a church is leaving a family. Getting involved in a new church takes time. She likes Anglican beliefs but I know she doesn’t quite see what the big deal is, what the actual differences are. She’s much more of a practical person, not deeply theological."
Jay-Rod, Tuesday at 5:43 PM
"Thank you for that perspective. I've thought about that. With things like liturgy and sacraments, its does seem like the earlier the better for kids. Otherwise the reaction you've seen is probably what is to be expected.
I can baptize the baby and obviously teach at home, but what age do you think is important for actual participation in the worship?
Confirmation and first communion classes seem to be around age 10 or 12 here. The younger children leave the main service after about 10 minutes from the start of liturgy. I think they do teach them basics in the children's service though. Probably some sort of basic liturgy. I'd be shocked if the children's service and teachings are the same at this Anglican church as they are at the Baptist church."
Jay-Rod, Yesterday at 8:34 AM
"We were doing the double attendance for a while. Work on Saturdays was making that difficult and the church is about 40 min away so it was just too much for now.
Its hard to explain. They don't have like vocal objections, though if you were to get in a direct conversation about it then yes, most everything Anglicans do and believe would be objected to, so its just an underlying tension. To marry a pastors daughter of a very tight knit family and church to then go and take her and their grandkids into an completely foreign tradition will do that I guess. What would be very odd to me is if they were very supportive of it. I know pastor families who would dis own me for this, so all in all, I'm fortunate."
Jay-Rod, Yesterday at 10:51 AM
I value the reformed perspective. Was watching Douglas Wilson’s video on the issue and that’s what led me to ask here. Wasn’t trying to be totally dishonest. I just didn’t think I would be able to ask or that you would answer my question if I asked from an Anglican perspective. You can’t join the forum to ask anything without being reformed. It was still a legit question. I just wanted to cut straight to the issue of Baptism and not debate people as to why i wasn’t Presbyterian. No malice was intended. I will say that it was very interesting seeing the similarities and differences in response between the two perspectives. All appreciated. The prayers are appreciated too. We ALL need prayer, BL, even those who have it all figured out.
Perhaps u should forego the baptism issue for now as u study through the 9th commandment? If your conscience will allow u to haphazardly lie to brethren, without any repentance, this would be a wake-up call to myself.
You're right. For using you guys as a means to an end, not interacting with you completely honestly as brothers, I repent.
When I say no malice was intended, I just mean the core of the question wasn't dishonest and I wasn't trying to waste your time or start a futile debate.
Thread is closed for moderator review.
Ryan, or this person, lied and deceived to get past the membership rules to join the board. He compounded this by creating a false signature as far as who he was (PCA member). Having been exposed, perhaps thinking to correct this after the fact, he 'wiped' his profile of all the info necessary to meet membership requirements. Since we have no idea what is true at this point and for these reasons we had no option but to suspended his account. While moderators almost never air this sort of thing out before members, this is one of the more egregious examples of deception to come our way in a while and unfolded right before you in the discussion above. Pray that Ryan (or this person if that is not his name) is truly repentant and if as Scott observed, this light handling of the ninth commandment reflects broadly in his manner of life, lying so easily, that he contemplate this command more seriously and amend his life accordingly. I'll leave this up for a day or two for those involved in trying help this person with advice to see what has transpired, and then give it to file 13 as there is no need to leave it on record.