Position Change: paedo to credo

[Osage Bluestem]

How can you discipline someone who has had a change of convictions? I don't understand... I thought it was permissible to be a credo in the PCA as long as you were not in a church office. (Perhaps not desirable, but permissible)

I was told you could be a member of the PCA with Credo convictions as well. I won't be disciplined over this at all. It will probably just cause needless strife when I talk to them about it., but I will indeed talk to them before I leave.

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

Thanks you all for your advice and concern regarding this issue. I value your opinions greatly.

Can a mod close the thread now? Thanks.

 

[Mushroom]

David, do you remember making this vow?:

5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

What you would like and what the Lord has ordained are not always going to be the same. The Body of Christ is not some cafeteria where you pick and choose from what you like and discard the rest. It's not cable TV where when you get tired of one show, you just change the channel. I submit to you that your desire to avoid facing the shepherds the Lord has set over you on this matter is a form of rebellion that a man whose heart has been transformed by the Gospel would realize is grave sin. God is sovereign over the 'situation' your Church is in, He is sovereign over the fact that regardless of that situation those Officers are occupying that position and therefore qualified to handle whatever 'trouble' you imagine this might bring, and He is sovereign over you and your joining of this Church and making the vows you made. Your desire to slink away unnoticed is not unnoticed by your God. It is cowardly and rife with rebellion, regardless of what color dress you drape on it. Vow-breaking is not the behavior of a faithful Christian man, dragging one's wife and children into that behavior is even lower. Please have the courage to rethink this decision, and go have a talk with your Elders. I'm not saying this to you in hopes that your mind will be changed, I'm saying it to you in hopes that you will not wilfully commit this sin.

Brad do you understand the situation? I'm leaving anyway. How can I be under the government of that Church if I'm not there!
*If I was planning to stay in the Church then of course I would talk to them!* That is only proper.

I'm not leaving the Church because of my view change. I was leaving ANYWAY for work reasons.

I understand the situation, David. But using relocation as a cloak for not honestly addressing these things with the shepherds God has set over you is NOT appropriate. As mentioned, holding to a credo view of baptism is not cause for discipline in a PCA Church. There are credo members of my PCA Church. But the act of not bringing this change of position to them is sin. When you move, it is appropriate for you to inform your shepherds and request from them a letter of dismissal. How could you do that in good conscience without telling them of this change? Again, this is not cable TV. You made vows. You have obligations. Keep them.

Brother, I hope you know from our past that I love you. In fact, you are very dear to me. My aim is not to judge your motives, but to plainly tell you that your plans were sinful. Your being RB will not ever detract from the love I have for you. I believe it to be error, but not such as to warrant division. I just want to save my brother from the sorrow of commiting sin if I can. I am greatly relieved that you are going to discuss this with your Teaching Elder.

 

[Herald]

David, just be honest with your TE. If is a man of God, he will understand the change in your conviction. He may try to illumine you (to what he may consider to be) your error, but that is to be expected if he is faithful to what he believes. By letting your church know of your doctrinal change you will be doing the right thing the right way. It will allow your church to bless you as you leave; committing you into God's hands and your new church. You will have maintained a sound testimony in the sight of God and men. You will not give the enemies of our Lord reason to blaspheme. Integrity and credibility is a character trait each Christian needs to diligently maintain. It is easy to lose and so hard to recapture. May the Lord honor your decision to do the right thing.

 

[Mushroom]

See, now there's one RB that I love with my faltering heart (and the rest of you, too). If you join with the likes of my brother Bill, you will be very happy indeed! The Lord go before and behind you, David.

 

[lynnie]

How can you discipline someone who has had a change of convictions? I don't understand... I thought it was permissible to be a credo in the PCA as long as you were not in a church office. (Perhaps not desirable, but permissible)

If you are referring to my comment, sorry for the misunderstanding. The man who made the comment about discipline is not in the PCA, and as far as I know spoke for himself and not his denomination. I was just trying to make the point that it is real easy to anticipate strife over this subject.

Works both ways...my former PCA pastor had Calvinist Baptists who told him he must not have ever read the bible if he baptized babies.

This is one subject I don't blame anybody for trying very hard to avoid these days.

 

[Andres]

David, could you please give some of your reasons that caused you to make the change? Scripturally, what you have read/understood differently than you did before?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I will indeed speak with the Teaching Elder at my church before I go.

Thanks everyone. I love you guys.

 

[toddpedlar]

As Brad noted - it's not a matter at all of your helping them. It's a matter of their being shepherds over your soul - and as such, it is simply a matter of your being a sheep under their care that you should discuss such a fundamental change in your convictions with them. It sounds to me like you simply want to walk away and not deal with your elders in the faith concerning such a significant change that you have made more or less on your own without input or discussion with them. That is, it seems to me, problematic.

What I would like to hear an elder in the faith say is "Congratulations, I'm glad that God has shown you the truth about baptism." If I go to a baptist church where there are elders that see the topic the way I do that's what I'll hear. If I talk to my presbyterian interim pastor about it it's just going to bother him. I really don't see the sense in disturbing people needlesly about something I know they aren't going to like when I'm leaving anyway because I'm moving away. Do you see what I'm saying? They won't change my moind anyway. I'm comfortable with the credo position it is logical and consistant with my calvinistic soteriology.

We all like to hear things that affirm a position we've come to. We don't like to hear from people who disagree with us. It seems to me your lack of desire to talk about this matter with the shepherds of your congregation might have as much to do with your being unwiling to listen to their contrary evaluation of the Scriptural position on baptism, than to do with your concern for "bothering them".

Your "they won't change my mind anyway" is an attitude that seems quite unfortunate. Are you willing to admit that you are fallible and that your new conviction on this could in fact be wrong?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

David, could you please give some of your reasons that caused you to make the change? Scripturally, what you have read/understood differently than you did before?

There are a lot of things that I have covered recently, but one that stands out to me is what Macarthur brought up. If you read Acts 15 where it gives the account of the council of Jerusalem you will notice that the entire council with all of the apostles present was brought together because some pharisees had been telling people in Antioch that they had to be circumcised to be saved. If ever the New Testament point was going to be made that baptism has replaced circumcision this would have been the place it appeared, however, we read nothing of the kind, nor even a hint that the apostles were thinking along those lines. Also Galatians chapter 3 clearly teaches that only those of faith are in Christ and all of those who are baptized have put on Christ so if that is the case then it must have been common knowledge that only those who have come to faith were baptized.

---------- Post added at 09:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------

Your "they won't change my mind anyway" is an attitude that seems quite unfortunate. Are you willing to admit that you are fallible and that your new conviction on this could in fact be wrong?

Certainly, but I highly doubt that it is. I am quite confident in its consistency with scripture. I will talk to our pastor. I promise.

 

[SemperEruditio]

I'm glad you're talking to your pastor. More than likely he may know of a good Calvinist Baptist church...I'm sure some exist in the area you are relocating too. We have people in our church (PCA) who are Credo. Only one family left the church but that was a convoluted situation. The wife had issues with the fact that she was ordained but would not be in leadership in the church and did not want to be limited to "women-only" activities. After the church did a series on the paedo position in Sunday School my wife "crossed over" and so did this couple but they wouldn't join the church. They had a new baby and wanted her baptized but did not want to become members and would not become members because the wife would never be in leadership...yet they insisted that their daughter had to be baptized.

You may know your elders better than we but as one who is undercare and being mentored I know that it would come as a shock that one of our former members left the church and joined with a Baptist church. So I'm glad to see you showing your elders the respect they deserve and just letting them know that you are leaving the area and even if you weren't that your position on baptism has changed...in the wrong direction

 

[westminken]

Maybe you can check out First Baptist Church of North Richland Hills if you are moving out that way. The pastor used to post here. As far as talking with the interim pastor at your church, that is a good idea. I am not going to rehash what everybody else has said but I will say that it is the proper thing to do.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Maybe you can check out First Baptist Church of North Richland Hills if you are moving out that way. The pastor used to post here. As far as talking with the interim pastor at your church, that is a good idea. I am not going to rehash what everybody else has said but I will say that it is the proper thing to do.

Thank you. It certainly looks like that will be the closest Reformed Church to me.

 

[jbucklin]

The issue of paedo/credo baptism can only be deduced from Scripture, since there are no direct commands regarding either. However, it appears, covenantally speaking, that in this particular case, deducing from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence, you will find solid support for the practice of infant baptism. If the infant children of OT believers were not denied the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision), why then should we, under a new and better covenant, withhold the sign and seal (baptism) from our children? I think it would be very difficult to find support for credo baptism apart from this "whole counsel of God" approach.

Even if that does not convince you, sacrificing sound, orthodox doctrine (which hopefully your church teaches) in favor of a church that upholds credo baptism may not be the best decision.

Btw, what area are you moving to? Maybe you already gave that info. If so, I missed it.

 

[JM]

The issue of paedo/credo baptism can only be deduced from Scripture, since there are no direct commands regarding either. However, it appears, covenantally speaking, that in this particular case, deducing from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence, you will find solid support for the practice of infant baptism. If the infant children of OT believers were not denied the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision), why then should we, under a new and better covenant, withhold the sign and seal (baptism) from our children? I think it would be very difficult to find support for credo baptism apart from this "whole counsel of God" approach.

It is not convincing which is why DD is looking for orthodox doctrine that upholds credo baptism. It is a good decision.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

The issue of paedo/credo baptism can only be deduced from Scripture, since there are no direct commands regarding either. However, it appears, covenantally speaking, that in this particular case, deducing from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence, you will find solid support for the practice of infant baptism. If the infant children of OT believers were not denied the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision), why then should we, under a new and better covenant, withhold the sign and seal (baptism) from our children? I think it would be very difficult to find support for credo baptism apart from this "whole counsel of God" approach.

It is not convincing which is why DD is looking for orthodox doctrine that upholds credo baptism. It is a good decision.

Thanks. You are correct JM. I do not see any cases of infant baptism in scripture all of the cases I see are clearly believers baptism. Also if baptism had replaced circumcision then we would have heard that clearly stated in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem that was indeed called to address the topic of circumcision.

 

[Herald]

Can a mod close the thread now? Thanks.

Aye.