Paedobaptist attending a baptistic church

[TSL316]

First of all my names Tyler. I'm kind of new to the board although I've been a member for a while now but have not actively participated in any discussions. I'm Reformed and hold to the Westminster Standards. As of now I attend Faith Bible Church in North Canton, Ohio. I have been going back and forth on the issue of infant baptism. I greatly respect both sides of the debate but I'm still leaning towards paedobaptism. The church that I am attending right now is baptistic. I'm getting married this September and I was just looking for some opinions on what to do when we have children someday and if anyone here on the board is paedobaptistic while attending a baptistic church?

 

[Marrow Man]

Moved to Paedo-baptism Answers.

Tyler, click on the link in my signature to see how to fix your signature per the Board rules.

And to the PB.

 

[MRC]

I would suggest searching the board for "paedobaptism", or checking out some of the recent threads in the paedobaptism answers forum. There is a lot of good stuff out there you can get reading right now, then post more specific questions as you work through the doctrine.

 

[lynnie]

Westerly Road Church in Princeton is Baptist and Reformed, but sends folks over to the local PCA if they want babies baptized.

We are attending a Baptist sort of church. I say sort of because the Pastor went to Westminster and understands and holds to Covenant theology ( he's amil too) so they accept paedo baptisms and don't make paedos get rebaptized (quite a number of former Presbyterians at this church). You can be a member and go get your baby baptized over at the local Paedo church if you want to. But they encourage baptizing believers not babies.

Obviously I don't know about your church, but if you believe God wants you to baptize your baby, hopefully you can do so elsewhere and still be a member in good standing.

Funny, it seems more common for the PCA to have Baptists. If you have a church with good preaching, good elders and fellowship, I would not make the paedo-credo thing my #1 concern. I feel like we hit the doctrinal jackpot finding a Calvinist church that makes this a non essential, where members can agree to disagree on it, and neither side is forced to go against their conscience on it.

 

[Jack K]

In my case, in the unlikely event another child came into our family, we'd take a trip to the Presbyterian church where we're still official members and get it done there. We can't be members here with the Baptists without being rebaptized ourselves.

Or we might choose not to baptize the child in a gesture of respect and submission to the Baptist church we attend. But I don't think we would approach a church where we were strangers, since an important part of baptism is the way it joins us to a particular local church.

If we did get the child baptized, I would not try to hide our actions from the Baptist leadership where we attend. But neither would I talk about it among the membership, as that just raises an unnecessary stink.

 

[bill]

I also was attending a Baptist church when I came to the conviction of paedo baptism. I was willing to settle with going to a church that was close and Calvinistic. Where I live one has to travel a 45 minutes to the closest covenantal church. I and my wife had kids and I did not ask the church to baptize them because they made it clear they would not. If I had it to do all over again I would have gone to a church that was confessional much sooner. I and my wife finally were convinced that we must worship with a church that is more like minded in order to be happy. So we left. However, I was never a member of the church I attended because I would not agree to their dispensationalism theology and they would not except me as a member unless I could sign on to their doctrinal statement. I don't know if this helps you any, but I feel what you might be going through.

 

[dudley]

In my case, in the unlikely event another child came into our family, we'd take a trip to the Presbyterian church where we're still official members and get it done there. We can't be members here with the Baptists without being rebaptized ourselves.

Or we might choose not to baptize the child in a gesture of respect and submission to the Baptist church we attend. But I don't think we would approach a church where we were strangers, since an important part of baptism is the way it joins us to a particular local church.

If we did get the child baptized, I would not try to hide our actions from the Baptist leadership where we attend. But neither would I talk about it among the membership, as that just raises an unnecessary stink.

I say Amen to Jacks recomendation and agree with Jack here.

 

[lynnie]

since an important part of baptism is the way it joins us to a particular local church.

Is that a confessional understanding? I have no idea, just asking. I figured if PCAs baptize babies not in their congregation, it is understood covenantally regarding the parents and the visible church in general, but not one local church.

 

[Mushroom]

Or we might choose not to baptize the child in a gesture of respect and submission to the Baptist church we attend.

Wow. So how would you rectify this in your mind?:

WCF Ch. 28:5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

So when you took your ordination vows as Deacon in your former PCA Church, of which you are a member, did you declare your exception to this portion of the Confession?

There is a PCA Church in Durango, two members there are here presently visiting my family. Why would you deny your brethren your presence and support in favor of a group who by your own Confession engage in a "great sin"?

You have a very gentle and wise spirit, Jack, so this is something that has confused me for some time. Acquiescing to sin is not justified by convenience.

 

[Jack K]

Or we might choose not to baptize the child in a gesture of respect and submission to the Baptist church we attend.

Wow. So how would you rectify this in your mind?:

WCF Ch. 28:5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

So when you took your ordination vows as Deacon in your former PCA Church, of which you are a member, did you declare your exception to this portion of the Confession?

There is a PCA Church in Durango, two members there are here presently visiting my family. Why would you deny your brethren your presence and support in favor of a group who by your own Confession engage in a "great sin"?

You have a very gentle and wise spirit, Jack, so this is something that has confused me for some time. Acquiescing to sin is not justified by convenience.

First of all, in my hypothetical situation we MIGHT go that route. Probably not, but I'm not 100% sure. Secondly, the confession doesn't anticipate all scenarios. I can't picture the Westminster divines endorsing the practice of walking into a church you're unconnected with, getting a baby baptized, and then leaving to worship across the street. That's what we'd be doing if we didn't have the option of a Presbyterian church on the other side of the country where we still have membership and a long history. We're in one of those tough spots (the subject of the OP) where we've joined ourselves in some measure to a congregation we don't entirely agree with. As you've suggested, that's really the heart of the issue.

I've mentioned here a few times that choosing to join with the Baptists rather than the local PCA congregation was one of the most difficult decisions I've ever made. It was NOT convenient. In many ways it has been very inconvenient for my family and myself personally, as I suspected it would be. But for biblical reasons I did not feel we should join the PCA church at the time we moved here. And rather than constantly revisit that decision, I choose to partner with my Baptist brothers and sisters as we labor for the gospel, and to worship with them, despite the fact that we sometimes struggle with each other. It'd be convenient to leave, but I believe it's right to stay.

I have to smile. If my Baptist pastor saw you were challenging me confessionally, he'd probably let you have an earful. His life and mine would both be much easier if I weren't such a stickler on paedobaptism.

If I thought we were going to have more kids, I think there's a very good chance I would've had to decide differently back when we were picking a church. Paedobaptism is important to me, and getting my own kids baptized is extra important. But it isn't all important. There's a PC(USA) church here too but I never considered that one.

I'm intrigued that you have PCA visitors from Durango. It's a good bet I or my wife know them or have at least met them. It also makes me doubly cautious to avoid gossip or unkind remarks about that church here. In many ways it is a fine church, and we know some outstanding Christian brothers and sisters there.

 

[Cato]

OK so baptise the child via your Presbyterian movement & if later on the kid feels the need to get baptised via immersion, tell your pastor & see if he would make arrangements with a baptistic affiliate church. The Spirit moves as it will!

But I would agree with Lynn to find a good bible believing church to raise the kid up in. Thats critical.

 

[Mushroom]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I do think the subject is pertinent, so I will continue until it becomes plain it is unwelcome.

Jack, I'm very confused. You profess to adhere to the WCF, which clearly states that the position of these "fine Baptists" is "great sin", and yet you find it more amenable (but not convenient) to attach yourself to their body rather than one of your own denomination, in which you are an Ordained Officer? That makes absolutely no sense.

Does the sin of others only matter if it personally affects you? Their sin of rejecting proper sacramentology is only an issue if you unexpectedly wind up with a covenant child who needs baptizing? What about all the other children in that congregation? Are they covenant children or not, according to your beliefs? I'd really like to hear the answer to that question, because if they are, you are particpating in sin against them by supporting a group that denies them the benefits of the sacrament. If you believe they are not, why are you maintaining your membership at a Church where I am sure you took vows to assist in the Christian upbringing of covenant children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? That is even more confusing.

You're a very nice and peaceable fellow, Jack, but this sort of 'cafeteria christianity' is precisely the attitude that prevails to such detriment to the Church today. The truth is not a smorgasbord from which we may choose this and reject that. Two opposing positions can either both be wrong, one right and one wrong, but never both right. These 'fine Baptists' are either right, are engaged in "great sin", or something else entirely. Which is it, brother?

 

[Brian Withnell]

This is one of those things for which I would move rather than stay where I could not worship with like minded people. I know I'm in a vast minority here, but I feel strongly that being in a good church is more important than what job we have or where I live. If I could not be in an OPC church here in Leesburg, I'd move ... even if that means finding a different career.

Find a church, then determine the rest of the details of your life. "Seek first the kingdom of God and all these other things will be added to you."

 

[Herald]

This is one of those things for which I would move rather than stay where I could not worship with like minded people. I know I'm in a vast minority here, but I feel strongly that being in a good church is more important than what job we have or where I live. If I could not be in an OPC church here in Leesburg, I'd move ... even if that means finding a different career.

Find a church, then determine the rest of the details of your life. "Seek first the kingdom of God and all these other things will be added to you."

Brian,

In principle I agree with you. However, let's be careful when considering the motives of others (not that you personally need that reminder). Sometimes people can't move for myriads of reasons. I just don't want people to feel guilty if they're unable to move in order to find the "right" church if they are providentially hindered.

 

[Jack K]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I do think the subject is pertinent, so I will continue until it becomes plain it is unwelcome.

Jack, I'm very confused. You profess to adhere to the WCF, which clearly states that the position of these "fine Baptists" is "great sin", and yet you find it more amenable (but not convenient) to attach yourself to their body rather than one of your own denomination, in which you are an Ordained Officer? That makes absolutely no sense.

Does the sin of others only matter if it personally affects you? Their sin of rejecting proper sacramentology is only an issue if you unexpectedly wind up with a covenant child who needs baptizing? What about all the other children in that congregation? Are they covenant children or not, according to your beliefs? I'd really like to hear the answer to that question, because if they are, you are particpating in sin against them by supporting a group that denies them the benefits of the sacrament. If you believe they are not, why are you maintaining your membership at a Church where I am sure you took vows to assist in the Christian upbringing of covenant children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? That is even more confusing.

You're a very nice and peaceable fellow, Jack, but this sort of 'cafeteria christianity' is precisely the attitude that prevails to such detriment to the Church today. The truth is not a smorgasbord from which we may choose this and reject that. Two opposing positions can either both be wrong, one right and one wrong, but never both right. These 'fine Baptists' are either right, are engaged in "great sin", or something else entirely. Which is it, brother?

Seriously, Brad. Allow me some good-natured sarcasm. I'm amazed you can stomach being a member of this board given all the Baptists here whom you must consider "great sinners." Not just in error. But willfully defying God and in a "great" way. Sometimes even advocating for their great sin on this board.

Or could it be there's a difference between the "great sin" of neglecting baptism altogether and the error (I'd say a pretty big error) of making children in the church wait to be baptized?

I've yet to find a sin-free church or even one with a confession I could totally agree with (yes, like many conscientious guys I did state a few scruples before my PCA ordination). And it's hard to have this discussion without revealing the error/sin I perceived in churches I opted not to join, and I'm not going to reveal that. Suffice it to say I had to choose an imperfect church. Didn't you?

My affection for the children in the Baptist church I attend is strong. It's a big reason I stay there, not a reason to leave.

The Baptists I worship with preach the doctrines of grace and rest in the gospel, which is more than I can say for some paedobaptists. More than that, they are covered by the blood of Christ, joint heirs with him, dearly loved sons and daughters of the Creator. Jesus calls them his friends. Do you really have a problem with me calling them "fine" people?

 

[Mushroom]

No problem with the sarcasm, Jack. Just trying to understand the seeming inconsistency of acquiescing to something that the confession to which you subscribe calls great sin. Maybe it's my view of what that portion means, but "delay" sounds like it would include waiting for a verbal profession. Maybe someone could clarify for me why it would not.

There's plenty of sinners I love. In fact, everyone except one whom I love is a sinner, and I'm one myself. But that does not mean that I should pretend any sin, mine or others', is acceptable. In fact, I perceive that loving them would never include pretending such. My confession, and yours, calls the delaying of baptism to be a great sin, and I agree with it. The Reformed Baptists on this board who know me know that is my position. I still love them, and I hope despite the frustration I may be at times to them, that they love me. But I will not call evil good or good evil, at least to the best of my feeble understanding.

So, again, you say you have affection for the children at this Baptist Church, would you consider them covenant children or not?

 

[lynnie]

So, again, you say you have affection for the children at this Baptist Church, would you consider them covenant children or not?

Brad, I know you from PB and know you are not a closet FV at all, but you might want to be careful how you phrase things elsewhere. Children are set apart by the faith of the parents in Corinthians. It isn't baptism that makes them Covenant children. If I didn't know you I'd think the FVers were sneaking in.

 

[Mushroom]

So, again, you say you have affection for the children at this Baptist Church, would you consider them covenant children or not?

Brad, I know you from PB and know you are not a closet FV at all, but you might want to be careful how you phrase things elsewhere. Children are set apart by the faith of the parents in Corinthians. It isn't baptism that makes them Covenant children. If I didn't know you I'd think the FVers were sneaking in.

Yes, Lynnie, the children of believers are set apart by the faith of their parents, and are thus covenant children. And if covenant children, isn't denying them the benefits of the sacrament of baptism a sin against them according to the WCF?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brad,

I think your emphasis on "great sin" and "fine Baptists" puts the two together in a way that is painting the picture as if Baptists are willfully neglecting or despising the Sacrament.

Something can be a great sin in what its effects are upon the person or the Church without the persons being aware of the consequences. Even the sacrifices of the Old Covenant recognized the notion of unintentional sin.

It is inappropriate to connect the two notions as if Jack's affiliation with Baptists amounts to his willingness to associate with people who are engaged in willful sin.

I'm not trying to minimize the idea that, if Christ has commanded the baptism of disciples, and if Scripture reveals that the children of believers are disciples that they ought to be baptized according to the command of the Lord. If it was as easy as getting agreement that the children of believers are disciples then it would be more appropriate to charge a person with wantonly neglecting or contemning the ordinance.

Consequently, the reason this board does not permit calling a person to repentance for his respective confession is to allow us to discuss the issue and persuade each other of the Biblical support for our position. We could certainly answer every question to why a person is struggling with a Biblical doctrine with the notion that they are sinning for refusing to submit to what the Lord has commanded but 2 Tim 2:24-25 is apt:

[bible]2 Tim 2:24-25[/bible]

It is the purview of teaching and shepherding to patiently instruct someone in the things of God. If we jump to the conclusion before we've made the case then the person doesn't even understand the manner in which he is viewing the matter improperly.

The man who goes into the Temple and thanks the Lord that he has the things of God revealed to him and isn't like that "tax collector" misses the point that there is some truth to the fact that he ought to be thanking God for revealing the Word to him but that he ought to have a more tender heart toward those that he might be the instrument to bring the light of God's truth to bear in that person's life.

I would suggest, then, having labored with Baptists, that the way to convince them of paedobaptism is not merely noting that all "fine Baptists" are in "great sin".

 

[Jack K]

So, again, you say you have affection for the children at this Baptist Church, would you consider them covenant children or not?

Yes, I consider them covenant kids and treat them as such. And the leadership at this church, while they might not choose the phrase "covenant children," would have an understanding similar to that. At first I, too, thought their understanding of kids' acceptance into God's family must be seriously flawed, but I've come to realize the bigger issue is their understanding of baptism's meaning in the life of a believer. They see it as a step of faith and obedience. So the issue of an infant's status in the covenant community doesn't really matter to them when it comes to baptism.

I don't agree, of course. But that's an explanation.

To be sure, there are families that don't get it. I know parents, influenced by the "believism" culture around us, who figure their child is to be regarded as no different than a complete heathen until such time as he recites a "sinner's prayer." But this is not the leadership's position, and my covenant theology background has helped as we've corrected and encouraged such parents and tried to erradicate believism ideas.

I'd like to see those kids baptized. I believe (with the confession) that a measure of God's grace is both exhibited and conferred in baptism. So for the sake of the kids as much as anything, I would change their policy if I could. But I cannot, and leaving in a huff isn't going to help those kids either.

For the record, the confession does not call delaying baptism a great sin. It says condemning or neglecting baptism is a great sin. I do believe there's a difference between spurning baptism entirely and delaying it out of a conviction that the person baptized should exhibit faith. I believe the Baptist position is a serious error. But it sounds to me that to label it "great sin" is coming from you, not the confession. We'll probably disagree on this. I hope we can do so in a spirit of friendship. Do you know... do we have any record of what sort of folks the confession's creators had in mind when they wrote that line?

 

[chbrooking]

I don't personally see where delaying out of respect and submission is out of accord with the confession. Jack never indicated "waiting for profession".

A personal anecdote may shed light on the issue. While in seminary, I served as youth director at a baptist church. The church knew very well my paedobaptistic position. I agreed that, when the matter came up, I'd invite the pastor to address the issue. I did not believe it was my job to convert baptists to the truth ( - don't flame me for one little jab my baptist brothers). And when we had a child, I waited out of respect, until my tenure as youth pastor was over before having him baptized. I wasn't waiting on him to confess. I was exercising wisdom and courtesy and preserving unity.

The end of the anecdote is wonderful (at least from my perspective). The Lord's day after I left, I don't know who preached and who listened at the baptist church, because the entire congregation -- including the pastor! -- joined us at the Presbyterian church for Russell's baptism. The New Testament is VERY concerned about maintaining unity. I understand denominational devision over the issue. It defines how we regard our kids, for instance. But that doesn't mean we can't embrace the larger unity that was established at Pentecost for the whole church.

Again, I wasn't waiting for confession. I was waiting to respect and maintain unity. And I did mention this during the ordination process and nobody had a problem with it. I wasn't condemning, nor neglecting his baptism. I was exercising wisdom. And I don't think Jack's scenario would necessarily be different.

 

[DMcFadden]

What a wonderful account of how sensitivity can promote Christian outcomes. I bear witness that in my experience, the support you received from your Baptist ex-parishioners is what is more typical than not. During my three pastorates, we always went out of our way to invite visiting Christians from other traditions to share the communion with us. In my longest pastorate, transfers into our membership by "letter" were for those from other Baptist churches in fellowship with us while those by "Christian experience" were mainly Presbyterians who came in upon their profession of faith and prior Presbyterian baptism.

 

[lynnie]

The Lord's day after I left, I don't know who preached and who listened at the baptist church, because the entire congregation -- including the pastor! -- joined us at the Presbyterian church for Russell's baptism

What a heartwarming, beautiful story! Glory to God!

 

[Mushroom]

Brad,

I think your emphasis on "great sin" and "fine Baptists" puts the two together in a way that is painting the picture as if Baptists are willfully neglecting or despising the Sacrament.

Something can be a great sin in what its effects are upon the person or the Church without the persons being aware of the consequences. Even the sacrifices of the Old Covenant recognized the notion of unintentional sin.

It is inappropriate to connect the two notions as if Jack's affiliation with Baptists amounts to his willingness to associate with people who are engaged in willful sin.

I'm not trying to minimize the idea that, if Christ has commanded the baptism of disciples, and if Scripture reveals that the children of believers are disciples that they ought to be baptized according to the command of the Lord. If it was as easy as getting agreement that the children of believers are disciples then it would be more appropriate to charge a person with wantonly neglecting or contemning the ordinance.

Consequently, the reason this board does not permit calling a person to repentance for his respective confession is to allow us to discuss the issue and persuade each other of the Biblical support for our position. We could certainly answer every question to why a person is struggling with a Biblical doctrine with the notion that they are sinning for refusing to submit to what the Lord has commanded but 2 Tim 2:24-25 is apt:

[bible]2 Tim 2:24-25[/bible]

It is the purview of teaching and shepherding to patiently instruct someone in the things of God. If we jump to the conclusion before we've made the case then the person doesn't even understand the manner in which he is viewing the matter improperly.

The man who goes into the Temple and thanks the Lord that he has the things of God revealed to him and isn't like that "tax collector" misses the point that there is some truth to the fact that he ought to be thanking God for revealing the Word to him but that he ought to have a more tender heart toward those that he might be the instrument to bring the light of God's truth to bear in that person's life.

I would suggest, then, having labored with Baptists, that the way to convince them of paedobaptism is not merely noting that all "fine Baptists" are in "great sin".

Rich, I appreciate this response very much. It clarifies somewhat the position of this board in regards to this subject. I would like to make clear that I am not calling anyone to repentance, not even Jack, whose confession is not credo-baptist. I am just trying to understand how one adheres to a confession while participating and supporting a ministry that is contrary to that confession in such an extreme manner. In reality, I am not even trying here to convince credos of the paedo position. I don't see that as my place.

I suppose this devolves to the issue of whether credo-baptism is sin or not. My reading of the confession says that it is. Perhaps a distinction is to be made as to whether it is willful on the part of convinced credos or not, but Jack is not such, and rather than calling him to repentance, I'm seriously trying to understand. I don't presume to teach or shepherd because I definitely do not find those to be my calling. I'm just a layman trying to rectify inconsistencies that have pertinence to my own walk. I have credo brethren both here on PB and in my local area with which I need to understand how to properly interact. My use of quotes around fine Baptists was not intended as a slight, but as a contrast to what the confession states. If offense was taken, I can only point out that if one holds that a group is engaged in sin, it would be difficult to consider them fine, whether willful or not. I would never say someone was a "fine liar" or a "fine adulterer". So once again we come to the question; is credo-baptism a sin in light of the WCF or is it not?

Jack K

Originally Posted by Brad
So, again, you say you have affection for the children at this Baptist Church, would you consider them covenant children or not?

Yes, I consider them covenant kids and treat them as such. And the leadership at this church, while they might not choose the phrase "covenant children," would have an understanding similar to that. At first I, too, thought their understanding of kids' acceptance into God's family must be seriously flawed, but I've come to realize the bigger issue is their understanding of baptism's meaning in the life of a believer. They see it as a step of faith and obedience. So the issue of an infant's status in the covenant community doesn't really matter to them when it comes to baptism.

I don't agree, of course. But that's an explanation.

To be sure, there are families that don't get it. I know parents, influenced by the "believism" culture around us, who figure their child is to be regarded as no different than a complete heathen until such time as he recites a "sinner's prayer." But this is not the leadership's position, and my covenant theology background has helped as we've corrected and encouraged such parents and tried to erradicate believism ideas.

I'd like to see those kids baptized. I believe (with the confession) that a measure of God's grace is both exhibited and conferred in baptism. So for the sake of the kids as much as anything, I would change their policy if I could. But I cannot, and leaving in a huff isn't going to help those kids either.

For the record, the confession does not call delaying baptism a great sin. It says condemning or neglecting baptism is a great sin. I do believe there's a difference between spurning baptism entirely and delaying it out of a conviction that the person baptized should exhibit faith. I believe the Baptist position is a serious error. But it sounds to me that to label it "great sin" is coming from you, not the confession. We'll probably disagree on this. I hope we can do so in a spirit of friendship. Do you know... do we have any record of what sort of folks the confession's creators had in mind when they wrote that line?
​

Jack, thank you for your response. I think I understand it, while I wouldn't agree with it. My view is that disunity in the Church is often the caused by these kinds of rationalizations, but I'm sure you are sincerely convinced of your position. I'm still convinced that delay constitutes neglect, which the WCF calls great sin, but we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jack K]

Thanks, everyone, for your kind support and, Brad, for trying to understand and being gracious. Let me try this again. I think I've slipped into defensiveness a few times in this thread, so I'll try to simply explain how my situation works for me.

I'm worshipping with Baptists. How I came to that decision is water under the bridge. At issue is how I manage to hold paedobaptist beliefs, which I've sworn to, and yet participate as fully as possible in the worship and work of a Baptist church. Making things even stickier is the fact that my main area of ministry in this church is teaching children and encouraging their families.

My answer is that holding to a particular belief does not necessarily mean refusing to work with other believers who don't. You have to ask: (1) "How essential is the belief?" and (2) "Can you cooperate without sacrificing your integrity?" When we can, we should work together because, as Pastor Brooking has pointed out, The New Testament is very concerned with unity.

Now we all know much, much orthodoxy has been lost in the name of unity. But this does not mean all attempts at unity are bad. In my case, I'm not made to hide my beliefs. I've agreed not to teach contrary to the church's position, but I have open and helpful discussions with church leaders about our differences. More than that, our areas of agreement are many and strong. Although I believe the credobaptist position carries with it some weakening of the gospel, the core of the gospel message remains uncommonly strong at this church, and the doctrines of grace are preached with fervor and clarity.

For this reason, we appreciate each other despite our differences. And for this reason, we've agreed to stick with each other. I'm encouraged to teach. I even preach on occasion. I'm humbled by their trust and grateful for it.

At the same time, there are some lines we cannot cross. There's a good chance I'd be an employee of this church by now were it not for the fact that I do hold to Presbyterian confessional beliefs and they hold to Baptist ones. We don't just throw them out in order to cooperate. We cooperate to the extent we can, and we stop when we have to.

In some strange way, at times it feels like a stronger unity than I felt among Presbyterians. Oh, it's much more awkward. And frustrations are frequent. But the unity we do have is based not on argeeing about nearly everything, but rather on finding common joy in the gospel. The struggle to get to that point has had some benefits.

 

[Robert Truelove]

This sort of problem is precisely why Christ Reformed Church has adopted the position of the Free Presbyterian Church on this issue...

Christ Reformed Church | Our Position on Christian Baptism

We are not saying that baptism is not important, but appreciate the differences between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists. We simply believe that in our generation, there are far bigger fish to fry and that dividing the church over this issue is contrary to the bigger picture that this same sacrament presents. Neither do we just throw the doctrine of baptism out the window. Both positions are taught and elders must have a working knowledge of both sides. Elders also teach and persuade of their own position but not to the point of being divisive.

Qualified men of either persuasion can be officers in the church. There are no second class saints at CRC because of the position they hold on baptism (baptismal regeneration excepted).

I would never advocate a church adopt such a position to the dividing of the church for that would defeat the point. However, new churches just starting out and established churches who are on the same page may want to prayerfully consider this approach.

 

[chbrooking]

I understand the desire to seek unity. But I could no more put my family (long term) in a paedo-credo church than I could a credo church. Paedo isn't just about when we wet 'em. It's about what that means. It's about how we view our children, and what we expect from God and from them. This position may not be "saying that baptism is not important." But it does make me wonder what the position regards as the MEANING of baptism. I know this is a trend among church plants. But it's a trend I can't get excited about. Unity shouldn't be found by watering down differences. It should be found by a) gracious theological discussion to resolve them and b) recognizing the larger unity while respecting differences. I'll work with my baptist brothers all day long for the kingdom. But when it comes to a church home, I have to go where I believe the truth is being taught and practiced. I'm sure my baptist brothers feel the same way.

This sort of problem is precisely why Christ Reformed Church has adopted the position of the Free Presbyterian Church on this issue...

Christ Reformed Church | Our Position on Christian Baptism

We are not saying that baptism is not important, but appreciate the differences between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists. We simply believe that in our generation, there are far bigger fish to fry and that dividing the church over this issue is contrary to the bigger picture that this same sacrament presents. Neither do we just throw the doctrine of baptism out the window. Both positions are taught and elders must have a working knowledge of both sides. Elders also teach and persuade of their own position but not to the point of being divisive.

Qualified men of either persuasion can be officers in the church. There are no second class saints at CRC because of the position they hold on baptism (baptismal regeneration excepted).

I would never advocate a church adopt such a position to the dividing of the church for that would defeat the point. However, new churches just starting out and established churches who are on the same page may want to prayerfully consider this approach.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Pastor Brooking,

One of my first experiences of a church with a practice like ours was at the Free Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC. I drove up there to speak with Dr. Allen Cairns (who is baptistic) and Dr. David Barret (who is a paedobaptist) about this very subject. For two ours I watched these two men, elders on the same session, go at it over this subject (baptism). Each was completely convinced of his position and quite forceful in their articulation and disagreement. When the conversation began winding down, Dr. Cairns looked at me and said with his heavy Irish accent, "well, that's where we are coming from, let's go to supper". We went to supper and discussed what the Lord was doing in the church and abroad and encouraged one another in our callings. Those these two men differed strongly on the subject of baptism, though they were serving Christ in the same church in unity to the great edification of that ministry.

I remember driving home thinking about how this is exactly how this should look in the church.

As an aside, I remembers asking these men how they handled the living out of these differences in the church (beyond baptism itself). Together they explained that there was no practical difference whatsoever in how this was subsequently lived out in the church. Both encouraged and promoted catechizing, family worship, training dads, Christian education etc. Once they got past the issue of baptism itself, they were on the same page in every related area that actually played into the life of the church and the family. One may have spoken of "covenant children" while the other spoke of "children of the church", but their orthopraxy was virtually identical.

Having been in a number of faithful Reformed Baptist churches and faithful Presbyterian churches, I have found that they are amazingly similar (the issue of higher courts aside) once you get past baptism. So similar in fact that if you didn't know what the label was on the door, you wouldn't know which type of church you were in.

We have seen this same dynamic at Christ Reformed Church. You would have to ask each family to know what their position is on baptism. What you would see is a church unified in family worship, children's catechism, a corporate commitment to the children of the church, a deliberate working out of the children's practical relationship to the church, etc..

 

[chbrooking]

Pastor Truelove,
You've obviously given this some thought. I don't agree with your decision. I don't believe it does justice to EITHER side's position. I don't believe that the orthopraxy could be both identical and faithful to the differing positions on orthodoxy. But I'm not likely to convince you, either. So let's just affirm the unity that we share in Christ and respect the differences between us.

 

[Gesetveemet]

First of all my names Tyler. I'm kind of new to the board although I've been a member for a while now but have not actively participated in any discussions. I'm Reformed and hold to the Westminster Standards. As of now I attend Faith Bible Church in North Canton, Ohio. I have been going back and forth on the issue of infant baptism. I greatly respect both sides of the debate but I'm still leaning towards paedobaptism. The church that I am attending right now is baptistic. I'm getting married this September and I was just looking for some opinions on what to do when we have children someday and if anyone here on the board is paedobaptistic while attending a baptistic church?

Tyler,

My advice is, and I say this kindly is to seek out the most faithful Reformed church you can find before you are joined in marriage. The reason, there are other problems besides the sacraments associated with baptistic churches, hymn singing, lay preachers, church government . . .


William