If a Paedo becomes Credo is that reason for discipline or excommunication?

[shackleton]

With all the recent people turning from a strongly paedo position to one that is strongly credo would that be reason for discipline or excommunication (from that one church)?

When one is convinced of something and strongly believe in it they usually want to tell everyone, how would it be handled if they began telling everyone their beliefs on believers baptism and maybe eventually decided to not have a child baptized.

I would imagine they would change churches and find one that more closely matches what they believe, but suppose they did not and wanted to stay awhile since they were prominent members and connected in the church.

What if it was the pastor or an elder or deacon?

 

[Hippo]

I would have thought that if a member of a paedo church becomes credo then that is a reason for that perosn to be barred from office, but absolutley no reason for excommunication or discipline. You can accept the authority of the Bible and come to a reasoned credo position, if it is a view reached in faith it is not a sin. It is however an important doctrine of which a church requires a firm view, for that reason it should absolutely be a requirement of office.

There is a certain amount of disparity here as most baptist churches would not let a paedo be a member, which I do understand and is I think defensible (although I do think that it would be more correct to let paedos be members). What is not defensible in my view is to limit membership to certain modes of baptism (i.e. immersion), that is just sectarianism.

 

[Pilgrim]

I have heard of cases where LCMS members who are converted later in life and submit to believer's baptism are excommunicated from the LCMS for doing so.

 

[Pilgrim]

It is not grounds for excommunication in Presbyterian churches because Presbyterian churches do not have confessional membership, meaning that only the officers have to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. Members only have to answer the four (OPC) or five (PCA) questions and otherwise meet with the approval of the session. One does not even have to believe in unconditional election to join a Presbyterian church. Now, as Josh noted, if the credo convert stays in the church instead of going to a Baptist one and is being disruptive and undermining the elders, that is a different issue.

Things may be different in the Continental Reformed churches that subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity since I understand that their members must subscribe to the confession. Many if not all of them do not recognize Baptist churches as "true churches" and thus will not commune Baptists. But I am not as familiar with their practice overall.

 

[Pilgrim]

It is not grounds for excommunication in Presbyterian churches because Presbyterian churches do not have confessional membership, meaning that only the officers have to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. Members only have to answer the four (OPC) or five (PCA) questions and otherwise meet with the approval of the session. One does not even have to believe in unconditional election to join a Presbyterian church. Now, as Josh noted, if the credo convert stays in the church instead of going to a Baptist one and is being disruptive and undermining the elders, that is a different issue.

Things may be different in the Continental Reformed churches that subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity since I understand that their members must subscribe to the confession. Many if not all of them do not recognize Baptist churches as "true churches" and thus will not commune Baptists. But I am not as familiar with their practice overall.

Do members have vows which they take to join the Presbyterian denoms? If so, is part of those vows, either explicitly or implicitly, seeking to uphold (and not undermine) the confessional teachings of the church. In other words, whether the members are confessional or not, they shouldn't be overtly contra-confessional, nor should they seek to stir up dissent in the church, right?

I think it's at the point of stirring up dissent in the church that one would get into trouble in most churches.

These are the vows I took when joining the OPC a couple of years ago:

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 confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify your old nature, and to lead a godly life?
4. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?

 

[py3ak]

Concerning the desire to "tell everyone":

If you mean, goes around and tells all the other church members not merely to tell them, but to convince and/or teach them, then he would be violating the very Church Covenant he made, not to mention the fact that he didn't mention exceptions he had with the Confession at the time of membership.

1. His first step, when having doubts about his wavering with an aforeheld Confessional doctrine, should have been to counsel with his elders.

2. His second step should have been to take the advice of his elders, whether that be to read certain books, etc.

3. His third step, if he is still adamant in his conviction, should have been to tell his elders that he's convinced of credo-only baptism, and that he has no intentions of changing.

4. His fourth step should be that he has no intentions of undermining their confessional stance (WCF) of paedobaptism and his original church covenant vows by going behind the backs of the elders and badmouthing the WCF's teaching.

5. Rather, he should seek to find a church elsewhere more in line with his beliefs or keep his mouth shut from trying to convince others in such a way that undermine's the Eldership's leading, and the Church's confessional stance.

6. If he persists in doing what is mentioned in number 5, or he refuses to have his children Baptism when it comes time, there should be discipline (which does not always mean excommunication.)
​

Just my , because the man made vows, changed his views after counsel from the elders, and instead of finding another church elsewhere, or refraining from trying to convince other church members, he persisted in his endeavors to undermine the Confessional Stance of the church, and his very own membership vows.

This goes for a Paedo attending a Credo church too (except for the fact that he obviously wouldn't have to get his children baptized.)

I agree with you all the way up to the first comma in #6, Josh. If God has not granted to a person to understand paedobaptism, I don't think it's contemning or neglecting that ordinance to not apply it to his children.

 

[beej6]

I disagree, Ruben; #6 is where "the rubber meets the road." The logical step is for that member to have already found a church which fits his believers' baptism stance. To have an infant unbaptized in a paedobaptist church is evidence of refusal to submit.
Another step, of course, is to end one's membership, but why someone would do that yet continue to attend the same church is beyond me.

 

[Pilgrim]

I disagree, Ruben; #6 is where "the rubber meets the road." The logical step is for that member to have already found a church which fits his believers' baptism stance. To have an infant unbaptized in a paedobaptist church is evidence of refusal to submit.
Another step, of course, is to end one's membership, but why someone would do that yet continue to attend the same church is beyond me.

I have to admit to not having studied this exhaustively but my guess is that the Westminster Assembly would agree more with B.J. in this instance. How is refusing baptism anything other than neglecting or contemning the ordinance from the point of view of the Westminster Standards?

Edit: As Tim notes below the BCO dictates what constitutes a disciplinible offense in a particular Presbyterian denomination.

 

[TimV]

I disagree, Ruben; #6 is where "the rubber meets the road." The logical step is for that member to have already found a church which fits his believers' baptism stance. To have an infant unbaptized in a paedobaptist church is evidence of refusal to submit.

It would depend on the church constitution. A church can't demand submission to something not required by the constitution. In the PCA for example the Session couldn't carry out discipline in that case unless the person was an Elder or Deacon.

 

[DMcFadden]

This is a fascinating education for an old Baptist!

Like many disgusted with the latitudinarian individualism of the Baptists in America, I could easily see myself joining a Presbyterian church (that took confessional Christianity seriously) at some time in the future (if they would take me). Currently my "job" requires me to be a Baptist minister. However, that will not be true of retirement. Having grown children, the baptism issue would not be very existential for me. And, my approach there would be the same as it is on the PB. Join a group with somewhat different views than you have held, take a submissive role regarding any point of difference by adopting the role of a humble learner, and recognize that you have no right to "make noise" or agitate for a different view than is officially taught by the church. It amazes me that PCA congregations would allow a credo baptist to hold ANY kind of office on any type of official OR non-offical basis.

Come to think of it, though, I had members of my former congregations with Presbyterian backgrounds who had been baptized as infants and who had not been convinced of believer's baptism. It was never much of an issue in a congregation full of Baptists, however. So, maybe it is not so strange.

 

[MOSES]

If I recall my history correctly, the church in Geneva (maybe Zurich) not only excommunicated baptists but executed some of them if they administered re-baptism.

Felix Manz being one example (he was executed by baptism, i.e., by drowning) under the authority of Zwingli.

You modern day baptists got it made...we won't even excommunicate you, let alone execute you... ... (yes, I'm kidding)

 

[shackleton]

I am going to go out on a limb here a suggest that since you call yourself "MOSES" that your are a theonomist.

 

[Mushroom]

I am going to go out on a limb here a suggest that since you call yourself "MOSES" that your are a theonomist.

"Tut tut, it looks like rain!"

 

[staythecourse]

You modern day baptists got it made...we won't even excommunicate you, let alone execute you... ... (yes, I'm kidding)

That is one lame sense of humor brother.

 

[shackleton]

I am going to go out on a limb here a suggest that since you call yourself "MOSES" that your are a theonomist.

"Tut tut, it looks like rain!"

Is that a reference to sprinkling?

 

[MOSES]

I am going to go out on a limb here a suggest that since you call yourself "MOSES" that your are a theonomist.

Perhaps the question is off topic, but it's your thread.

The way I see it, I have only two choices.
- Autonomy
- Theonomy

As a Christian, I now only have one choice...Theonomy. Only because of God's grace do I, with the psalmist and the apostles, delight in the Law of God.

 

[MOSES]

You modern day baptists got it made...we won't even excommunicate you, let alone execute you... ... (yes, I'm kidding)

That is one lame sense of humor brother.

I used to be a baptist myself and was very avid in defending the baptist position.
Therefore, in my opinion, my lame sense of humor is justified.

(If I was only a baptist persecuting presbyterian, then perhaps it may not be)

 

[staythecourse]

I'm thinking even though time separates the slaughter, it was still a slaughter of my brothers and sisters who are still alive today.

 

[Cotton Mather]

Don't these questions really depend upon the degree to which confessional subscription is demanded? I'm not too familiar with how far most Presbyterian denominations will go with confessional subscription. I know that at my ARP church, the session made it very clear that paedobaptism was non-negotiable. From what I gathered, my wife and I couldn't have joined the church if we were weren't paedobaptist's. Since we are, there was no problem. I've encountered more laxity in denominations like the PCA. And I've noticed that Dutch Reformed communions are very strict on the subscriptionist scale. Historically, are there differences between say Scottish Presbyterians, American Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, etc. etc. on this issue of subscription? Wouldn't church discipline depend upon the degree of confessional subscription? I ask out of curiosity, not really knowing myself.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Should people who become credo-baptists be excommunicated by Presbyterian churches?

Not if those churches still believe WCF 26.

 

[shackleton]

Chapter XXVII:
Of the Sacraments


27:1 Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace (Gen 17:7, 10; Rom 4:11), immediately instituted by God (Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 11:23), to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him (Gal 3:27; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25, 26); as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world (Gen 34:14; Ex 12:48; Rom 15:8); and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word (Rom 6:3, 4; 1 Cor 10:16, 21).

27:2 There is, in every sacrament, as spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other (Gen 17:10; Matt 26:27, 28; Titus 3:5).

27:3 The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them: neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it (Rom 2:28, 29; 1 Pet 3:21): but upon the work of the Spirit (Matt 3:11; 1 Cor 12:13), and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers (Matt 26:27, 28; 28:19, 20).

27:4 There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained (Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 4:1; 11:20, 23; Heb 5:4).

27:5 The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New (1 Cor 10:1-4).

Are you saying, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism...?" Since baptism is one of the sacraments instituted by Christ that it is valid whether it be credo or paedo?

 

[timmopussycat]

Come to think of it, though, I had members of my former congregations with Presbyterian backgrounds who had been baptized as infants and who had not been convinced of believer's baptism. It was never much of an issue in a congregation full of Baptists, however. So, maybe it is not so strange.

Your church must not have been confessional if they allowed the abovementioned situation to occur. From what I gather the situation you describe is actually a rarity in Baptist churches. At my church it is presently a very big issue.

Tim

 

[timmopussycat]

I am going to go out on a limb here a suggest that since you call yourself "MOSES" that your are a theonomist.

Perhaps the question is off topic, but it's your thread.

The way I see it, I have only two choices.
- Autonomy
- Theonomy

As a Christian, I now only have one choice...Theonomy. Only because of God's grace do I, with the psalmist and the apostles, delight in the Law of God.

Until recently the word "theonomy" was used as a label to categorize all the differing views that see God as the source of ethics: using the word in this sense, Cornelius Van Til correctly wrote that there “is no alternative but that of theonomy or autonomy. Some 18 years after Van Til made the argument that theonomy and autonomy were the only alternatives, Greg Bahnsen noted in Theonomy in Christian Ethics p. xxiii that the category of theonomy covered diverse ethical views. Within this category Bahnsen specifically mentioned Tillich, (the vain thought that "God is dead" and his “theonomy” is only the existential encounter between an individual and a moral principle, an encounter that cannot be generalized to serve as the basis for state law), the Dispensationalist argument (that all of the Old Testament Mosaic Law Genesis to Deuteronomy is irrelevant today unless particular stipulations stated there are reiterated in the New Testament), and “the ethical perspective of [Christian] Reconstructionism” - that all Mosaic laws are presumed to apply today, except where Biblically amended by the Lawgiver. Among the theonomies Bahnsen didn't mention are the Roman Catholic, the Anglican and that developed by Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which sees that particular Old Testament laws may or may not apply today depending on whether or not the specific principle of justice (“general equity”)still applies outside the Mosaic covenant within which the law in question was originally given.

So which kind of theonomist are you?

 

[Pilgrim]

Come to think of it, though, I had members of my former congregations with Presbyterian backgrounds who had been baptized as infants and who had not been convinced of believer's baptism. It was never much of an issue in a congregation full of Baptists, however. So, maybe it is not so strange.

Your church must not have been confessional if they allowed the abovementioned situation to occur. From what I gather the situation you describe is actually a rarity in Baptist churches. At my church it is presently a very big issue.

Tim

I agree with Tim. But this was the ABC, USA after all

 

[DMcFadden]

Come to think of it, though, I had members of my former congregations with Presbyterian backgrounds who had been baptized as infants and who had not been convinced of believer's baptism. It was never much of an issue in a congregation full of Baptists, however. So, maybe it is not so strange.

Your church must not have been confessional if they allowed the abovementioned situation to occur. From what I gather the situation you describe is actually a rarity in Baptist churches. At my church it is presently a very big issue.

Tim

Tim,

Remember that I was an AMERICAN Baptist Churches, USA pastor. I knew some of my colleagues in the east who did infant baptisms!

 

[DMcFadden]

Come to think of it, though, I had members of my former congregations with Presbyterian backgrounds who had been baptized as infants and who had not been convinced of believer's baptism. It was never much of an issue in a congregation full of Baptists, however. So, maybe it is not so strange.

Your church must not have been confessional if they allowed the abovementioned situation to occur. From what I gather the situation you describe is actually a rarity in Baptist churches. At my church it is presently a very big issue.

Tim

I agree with Tim. But this was the ABC, USA after all

My point exactly (before seeing your post).

This is also another dynamic that was at work. In California many ABC baptists saw themselves as evangelicals first and baptists (small b) second. Because of the taint of ABC liberalism, many of us ran from the identity like the plague. And, since our major feeder school was Fuller, we generally attended seminary with a majority of paedobaptists (including our profs). So, in a post-denominational era, when your California congregation might be comprised of as many non-denominationalists, Presbyterians, Foursquares, Nazarenes, fundamental Baptists, Methodists, etc. as people from your "own" group, issues such as baptism took on less importance.

Remember also, Baptists have been famous for their minimalist sacramentology. It is as if we believe in the "real absence" of Christ's presence from the sacraments. In such a context, it is not too great a stretch to see young evangelical pastors trained by Presbyterian seminary professors making less of an issue about receiving a member by "Christian experience" upon their "profession of faith" regardless of how or when they were baptized. In one of my last membership classes as a pastor, we had 18 people, only 2 of which came from an ABC background.

It is my understnading that this would be very rare in the SBC, however. The SBC (like many of the Reformed groups) have a MUCH more sectarian identity that they cherish. Entry barriers are more pronounced and maintained. Here in Southern California, all of my former ABC buds in the larger congregations (and some of the middle sized and smaller ones) are in a rush to drop the name "Baptist" from their names in favor of generic names such as "Northpoint Church," "Beachpoint Church," "High Desert Church," "Wilshire Avenue Community Church" (to site but three of them). When my judicatory withdrew from the ABCUSA, they named it "Transformational Ministries," (sounds more like a consulting firm to me) without any Baptist in the title of a denominational body!

 

[Herald]

Brother Dennis,

I agree with your assessment about the problems resident in Baptist churches. Some of it is due to the independent nature of Baptist polity. But the true problem is theological. The majority of Baptist churches in the United States have embraced Finneyism and their own Baptist style of Arminianism. But there is a strong minority movement within Calvinistic and Reformed Baptist churches to return to a more biblical theology. My church is on the verge of adopting the 1689 LBC as our statement of faith. This from a church that was wholly in the Finneyist/Arminiam mold when we were founded nearly eight years ago.

As a Baptist I have not surrendered. I can choose to focus on the problems within Baptist churches or I can work towards change, like what is happening in the Founders Movement of the SBC. Baptists need to return to confessionalism and the doctrines of grace. The churches that do may remain a minority in Baptist circles, but so what? How many Presbyterian churches have abandonded confessionalism and embraced near-apostasy? Everytime I drive past a PC-USA church I think about that and I give thanks for the Presbyterian churches that have remained faithful to the word of God. I am thankful for the Baptist churches, many represented on the PB, that have remained faithful to Christ and His word.

No. I'm not down on Baptist churches at all. I recognize and admit our problems but I see the hand of God at work in changing whole churches for His glory.

 

[DMcFadden]

Bill,

I agree with you completely. My point was simply to explain why So. Cal. conservatives in a liberal mainline denomination, trained in a largely Presbyterian environment, and facing new members from mostly non-ABC sources, might be willing to receive members by "Christian experience" without challenging the validity of their prior baptism.

Unlike the SBC where pastors generally attend denominational seminaries, the last statistics I saw showed that a majority of ABC pastors (liberal and conservative) attended a non-ABC school. And, sociological studies of mainline churches have shown that denominational identity in the ABC is among the lowest of ANY of the mainline groups! Add to this the California nutty religious landscape and the shifting of people from one group to another, and you have an explanation for what seemed inexplicable to Tim (post #26) and Chris (post #28) about my post #13.

Once the Lord leads me away from my current ministry (possibly through retirement), my hope would be to unite with a CONFESSIONAL congregation of Calvinist conviction. ARBCA, FIRE, PCA, other Presbyterian groups would all be acceptable to me. Unless my convictions change, I would prefer a confessional BAPTIST group. However, at this point, Calvinism matters more to me than polity.

 

[Pilgrim]

Brother Dennis,

Just as well that these churches drop the Baptist name since as you note they see themselves primarily as evangelicals and have little sense of Baptist identity. Of course it would be better in my opinion for them to retain the name and the substance.

 

[Herald]

Dennis,

Thanks for clarifying things.

btw would you ever fully retire? What your plans after you leave where you are?