Severe mental handicap, visible church, and discipline

[Tim]

In light the issue discussed in another thread,

Can adults with a severe mental handicap, who are unable to give a satisfactory profession of faith (and thus are not baptized, according to the credo-only position), ever able to be considered to be part of the visible church?

Can they ever receive loving (official) church discipline?

 

[Herald]

Tim,

The 1689 LBC reads thus:

10.3
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

A person with a severe enough cognitive disorder, that it is impossible to ascertain their understanding of the Gospel, may be incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. As such, we have no way of knowing if they are believers. However, we are to treat them with grace, love, and compassion; for they may very well have believed but are unable to express it.

Can such a person every receive church discipline? No. How can you discipline someone who cannot express their behavior? If their cognitive impairment is so severe that they are unable to communicate, how would we know that they have sinned?

 

[Tim]

Yes, of course. I understand that for some people there is such a great practical inability to communicate that one would be unable to exercise discipline.

But what I am interested in is what we see when we take a step back and view such a person who can never be considered to be "a part of" the visible church. My Presbyterian mind struggles to understand this, given Jesus' view toward the "lowest" members of society. They are "there", but not included, nor will they ever be included in the official organization and operations of the visible church. Children of believing parents are not included, but can in the future if they are able to give a valid profession. But never someone who is handicapped in this way, according to Baptist polity.

Is this a correct representation of the Baptist position?

 

[Tim]

But you are Presbyterian, yes?

Would the benefits and responsibilities of such a person be identical whether they went to a Presbyterian church (baptized and part of the visible church as a covenant child) versus a Baptist church (not baptized and apparently not a part of the visible church, although this is what I am trying to discover)?

 

[Herald]

Yes, of course. I understand that for some people there is such a great practical inability to communicate that one would be unable to exercise discipline.

But what I am interested in is what we see when we take a step back and view such a person who can never be considered to be "a part of" the visible church. My Presbyterian mind struggles to understand this, given Jesus' view toward the "lowest" members of society. They are "there", but not included, nor will they ever be included in the official organization and operations of the visible church. Children of believing parents are not included, but can in the future if they are able to give a valid profession. But never someone who is handicapped in this way, according to Baptist polity.

Is this a correct representation of the Baptist position?

Tim, pretty much. RB's place the emphasis on regeneration as being what makes a person part of the invisible church, and consequently, the visible church. Why? Because we are convinced this is the position of scripture. There has to be a scriptural basis for membership in both the invisible and visible churches. RB's believe the basis for that membership is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If a person cannot make a profession of that faith, even to the most minimal degree, we must err on the side of scripture. All that I said before; about treating the person with severe cognitive ability with grace, love, and compassion still stands.

 

[rbcbob]

My son, now 30 years of age but mentally ranging from 1 to 4, is clearly a part of the visible church. As a covenant child, the child of believing parents, how could he be otherwise?

But he is outwardly incapable of perceiving the Gospel. Thus any sort of church discipline would be entirely out of order. I can attest that my son is a sinner. In fact that is one of the proofs that he has a soul of inestimable worth and that he is in need of Christ as his Savior. But as the Confession states, I must rest in the fact that the Holy Spirit works when, where and how He pleases. And take it as you will, I think I see him growing in grace.

With mental disabilities, it is always a case by case situation. A church might have someone in the church with Downs syndrome and they might be fairly high in their function or mental capacity. People with Downs, for example, can come to faith in Christ. Thus they may also be in need of loving, patient discipline by the Session from time to time.

Forum: Credo-Baptism Answers

A place where only Credo-Baptists may answer questions posed regarding the Confessional understanding of the Ordinance of Baptism

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 AM ----------

Yes, of course. I understand that for some people there is such a great practical inability to communicate that one would be unable to exercise discipline.

But what I am interested in is what we see when we take a step back and view such a person who can never be considered to be "a part of" the visible church. My Presbyterian mind struggles to understand this, given Jesus' view toward the "lowest" members of society. They are "there", but not included, nor will they ever be included in the official organization and operations of the visible church. Children of believing parents are not included, but can in the future if they are able to give a valid profession. But never someone who is handicapped in this way, according to Baptist polity.

Is this a correct representation of the Baptist position?

I am growing, I trust, in my recognition of the hurdles that my beloved paedobaptist brethren face when trying to understand Baptist doctrine on membership in a local church.

In the examples cited in this thread it is good to remember that

1. Baptists make no pretence at certainly knowing who is regenerate-
2. Baptists aim at approximating the biblical paradigm of the New Covenant; i.e. bringing into membership those who “know the Lord” Jer. 31; Heb 8. Because we believe that only those who have been given new hearts and are united to Christ are those who (and the Lord knows perfectly who they are) are in this New Covenant, then they are the ones we seek to bring into the membership of our local church. We are obviously fallible but we aim at the paradigm nonetheless-
3. Baptists recognize that there can be those who are regenerate that may be excluded from admission to our membership for various reasons. This need not be seen as a pronouncement that such people are lost-
4. Our church has denied membership to some whom we were thoroughly persuaded were regenerate. But for ecclesiological reasons they remained long-time and beloved visitors.

 

[steadfast7]

4. Our church has denied membership to some whom we were thoroughly persuaded were regenerate. But for ecclesiological reasons they remained long-time and beloved visitors.

I'd be interested in hearing the reason for this ...

 

[rbcbob]

4. Our church has denied membership to some whom we were thoroughly persuaded were regenerate. But for ecclesiological reasons they remained long-time and beloved visitors.

I'd be interested in hearing the reason for this ...

The dear brother and sister could not, in good conscience, assent to our confessional distinctives. They faithfully held to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Our church polity requires agreement with the 1689 LBC for membership.