Should Paedo churches allow Baptist members to not baptize infants?

[he beholds]

This type of hypothetical scenario came up in discussion at a family picnic (my two brother-in-laws are RP pastors). This is simply for my own curiosity, as I am Paedo and belong to a Paedo church and baptize my children. But I was wondering what would happen if a Baptist wanted to become a member at your Presbyterian church (maybe because there were no other faithful churches in the area or the preaching was just too good to ignore, etc.). I don't believe I was asked when I joined the PCA if I believed in Covenant baptizing, and I am sure I was not asked what I would do if I ever had children, so I feel like I could have become a member with the credo conviction.
SO:
Would a Baptist be allowed to join?
If so, when he had children, would he be disciplined for not baptizing them?

What about if a member changed his mind following membership and decided that he was credo? Would he be under discipline? Would he be disciplined if refused to baptize his children?

For what it is worth, I personally believe that the Baptist brother should be allowed to remain a member and should be free to not baptize his children, though I do believe that the benefits and reasons for baptizing infants would need to be shared with him.

 

[Tripel]

My church allows it, so that means it must be correct.

 

[KMK]

I am confused... Isn't there some kind of confessional subscription required in Presbyterian churches that would preclude credobaptist membership?

 

[he beholds]

I am confused... Isn't there some kind of confessional subscription required in Presbyterian churches that would preclude credobaptist membership?

We don't have to subscribe to the confession to become members.

 

[Skyler]

No. No church should ever allow anyone to become a member unless they agree without reservation to every nuance of that church's doctrine.

 

[larryjf]

He would be able to become a member, but wouldn't be considered for any office in the church as that would require him to adhere to the Confession.

Children are under the direct oversight of the parents, not of the church...so i think the parents have the right to not baptize their children and continue in membership. However, the issue of baptism would be taught, preached, exhorted, etc...from a paedo view, not from a credo view.

By washing them in the Word of God regarding the sacrament, and praying for God to give understanding, He may very well bring them over to the paedo side of things.

 

[Knoxienne]

I agree that they can and should be allowed membership - what if the only solid, biblical Calvinistic church within a 100 mile radius is a paedo church? That said, I agree that credobaptist men shouldn't be allowed to be elders in paedo churches. However the same would go if the situation were reversed. Although we're brethren in Christ, those distinctives need to be pronounced and there need to be boundaries, which is why we have our confessions.

I think paedo churches are missing out on many blessings that come from fellowship and support from our credo brethren if we don't allow them to be members at all. The timing of baptism is something that shouldn't divide us membership-wise. Sooner or later it all boils down to a profession of faith before God and men anyway. Either way, we are called to remember what was done for us when Christ washed away our sins with His precious Blood.

 

[larryjf]

Sooner or later it all boils down to a profession of faith before God and men anyway.

I liked what you said except for this snippet....as it implies that those who die in infancy can't be elect because they were never able to make a profession.

The PCA doesn't allow credos to become officers, but that's because the debate on that exception went all the way to the General Assembly. There's at least one Presbyterian church that allows for exceptions on this point...the one Ian Paisley is part of...if i'm not mistaken.

 

[strangecharm]

I'm actually in a close situation to this. I'm very much a baptist, but the only church near where I go to college that preaches the Doctrines of Grace is a United Reformed Church. I'm quite sure that I could not even become a member there, as this is the form of the profession of faith used (CRC Psalter Hymnal):

The Questions:

Q. Whom do you trust as the Savior from your sin and the Lord of your life?

A. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord.

Q. Do you know that you belong to the family of God through your baptism.

A. I do.

Q. Will you continue to learn more about God and his Word, and will you continue to serve him with us in your life and worship?

A. I will.

Q. Will you allow us, your church family, to encourage you in your faith and hold you responsible to your commitment to Jesus and His church?

A. I will.

Welcome:

_____, because you have responded to your baptism by telling us of your personal faith in Jesus Christ, we now welcome you to join the family of God at the table of the Lord. Strengthened by this heavenly food and drink, we will travel together on the journey of faith that brings us to the promised land of God’s kingdom.

Prayer:

Our covenant God, we thank you for leading ______, your children, to the faith they expressed today. May the fellowship of the Lord’s table strengthen them in faith and service to you. Help them to continue to learn more about you through your word and grow in faith and love with all your people. Bring us all, one day, to that great wedding feast, where, clothed in the white robes of Christ’s righteousness, we will eat and drink with him in the heavenly kingdom forever. Amen.

I was baptized in response to faith (my baptism and confirmation as a United Methodist don't count ).

Nevertheless, I thank God for that congregation.

 

[lynnie]

I am in my second PCA church, used to be in Philly Presbyterian and now in NY Metro.

In both, credos can be members but not hold office.

If somebody is a member of the body of Christ, with evidence of conversion/regeneration, I don't think any church has the right to deny them membership as long as they will honor and respect the leadership and not go making trouble with differing doctrine. I mean, let's face it, among the Reformed paedos there is endless debate on all sorts of other things. You'll never get a church full of members that agree on every doctrine.

 

[Repre5entYHWH]

I'm also in a similar situation... kinda
I WAS a credo and started going to the only reformed church around for miles, the pastor knew i wasn't paedo and gave me some reading materials and said i can still join the church even if i remained credo. but I now am paedo and helping my wife understand the complicated process.

 

[jogri17]

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.

 

[Herald]

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.

Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?

 

[puritanpilgrim]

No. No church should ever allow anyone to become a member unless they agree without reservation to every nuance of that church's doctrine.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

No. They shouldn't have creedo-baptist members.

 

[KMK]

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.

Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?

Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Herald]

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.

Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?

Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.

Agreed. If there was no credo church in town, and I had to attend a paedo church, I would not join the church if I was told I would be disciplined for not baptizing my child. I would simply be a permanent visitor.

 

[jogri17]

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.

Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?

Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.

That is kind of the point. It is also a policy deceided on by the elders for our particular context. What we have done is sort of have a system where the Lord's supper is given to all those who can give a credible profession of faith but the rest of the benefits of full membership (voting, marriage in the church, discipline, etc...) are for members only. We actually just welcomed into membership a young family who just had their first kid (little girl) and the mother, who was a devout baptist, after a long time came to the point where she saw the covenantal argument and agreed finally to become a member. And she was welcomed into membership (of course her husband too... He was waiting and praying for her) the same day as her little girl was baptized! Of course she became a member first in the order of the service.

 

[matt01]

We attended a PCA church for three years, and were told that we would have to baptize our children if we became members. It would be a matter of dicsipline if we did not baptize our daughter.

It made sense to us. Why allow members to hold different beliefs on central things?

 

[Knoxienne]

Sooner or later it all boils down to a profession of faith before God and men anyway.

I liked what you said except for this snippet....as it implies that those who die in infancy can't be elect because they were never able to make a profession.

The PCA doesn't allow credos to become officers, but that's because the debate on that exception went all the way to the General Assembly. There's at least one Presbyterian church that allows for exceptions on this point...the one Ian Paisley is part of...if i'm not mistaken.

Sorry, Larry - I don't believe that infants who die in infancy can't be elect and I did not intend to imply that. The only reason I mentioned a profession of faith is because first, we're talking about communicant membership, and infants aren't given communicant membership in either credo or paedo churches; and second, because usually credobaptist youths get baptized around the same age that many paedobaptist youths make a profession of faith.

God saves us, and our baptism is a sign of that salvation, whether one receives it in infancy or any other time.

 

[jogri17]

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.

Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?

Our Church is not baptistic nor a free church. We are a confessionally reformed church. If you want to be a member then we act that you abide by our doctrine if not you are welcome to sit along side with us and we even permit the taking of the Lord's supper (which many in our denomination DO NOT LIKE which on this issue puts us at odds with the more conservative persons...), but if you have children under your care and they are not baptized or you have another one and you are a member you are out side of the visible covenant. Ruth may have had saving faith before her official entrance into the nation of Israel (probably did when you read the narrative) but until her marriage into the visible covenant she did not have the rights to the benefits of them even though she was chosen to be apart of the covenant of grace. So if any member of a reformed church did not baptize their children we surely would not act in the same manner as though they were sleeping around but by joining our covenant fully by profession of faith (all new members are required to make a profession of faith before the congregation unless there are extreme circumstances like language or age) maintaining that they have been baptized and have exercised faith in Jesus Christ and want to continue to walk with Him all the days of their lives. Then we has a congregation make a pledge to look out for them. By not baptizing their children (this is already after making our doctrinal beliefs CRYSTAL CLEAR) this is in essence a massive lie and deception to the body of Christ. And in my mind can be compared to Annias and Sapharia.

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 06:40:47 EST-----

Bottom line: if credo baptists are so offended plant a credo baptist church.

And the same goes for reformed and prebyterian folk in credo churches, plant a Biblical church.

We do not agree on the nature of the covenant and the status of children of the those who had made a profession of faith. Fine. I have my 3fu and west.standards and you can have your philiy confession and 1689 and we can have separate churches. I can read grudem and piper and you can read Duncan and Keller but we are not from the same historical heritage at the end of the day. We can work together in many good things and come together for common causes, but at the end of the day when all is said and done: we both ought to protect the doctrine that we confess and it is the job of the elders to do that despite the fact there may be other sincere believers with different theology. But membership ought to be taken seriously by both and if I was at a baptist church (and even despite the fact I was baptized by immersion after faith around 18 years of age) I would not partake in the Lord Supper if that was a requirement because I consider my baptism in the Roman Catholic Church my true baptism despite its stance as a false church (my great grandma begged the priest to baptize me and give me a private baptism becuase my mom and dad were both non faithfuls... this happened in a location where catholics still cared about theology more than money before all the scandals about priests and boys). Why? I respect there right to be wrong.

 

[KMK]

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.

Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?

Our Church is not baptistic nor a free church. We are a confessionally reformed church. If you want to be a member then we act that you abide by our doctrine if not you are welcome to sit along side with us and we even permit the taking of the Lord's supper (which many in our denomination DO NOT LIKE which on this issue puts us at odds with the more conservative persons...), but if you have children under your care and they are not baptized or you have another one and you are a member you are out side of the visible covenant. Ruth may have had saving faith before her official entrance into the nation of Israel (probably did when you read the narrative) but until her marriage into the visible covenant she did not have the rights to the benefits of them even though she was chosen to be apart of the covenant of grace. So if any member of a reformed church did not baptize their children we surely would not act in the same manner as though they were sleeping around but by joining our covenant fully by profession of faith (all new members are required to make a profession of faith before the congregation unless there are extreme circumstances like language or age) maintaining that they have been baptized and have exercised faith in Jesus Christ and want to continue to walk with Him all the days of their lives. Then we has a congregation make a pledge to look out for them. By not baptizing their children (this is already after making our doctrinal beliefs CRYSTAL CLEAR) this is in essence a massive lie and deception to the body of Christ. And in my mind can be compared to Annias and Sapharia.

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 06:40:47 EST-----

Bottom line: if credo baptists are so offended plant a credo baptist church.

And the same goes for reformed and prebyterian folk in credo churches, plant a Biblical church.

Bill is not offended, believe me. What he is saying is that if you want to welcome credobaptists into your membership then you are going to have to have to bear with them when they don't allow you to baptize their infants.

I have heard of both Presbyterian and Baptist churches that have a two-fold membership. One that is allowed the LS, and the other which is allowed to also vote and hold office. It sounds problematic but I can understand the desire to do so.

 

[Herald]

My church's policy is that they much be willing to submit to the teaching of the church. So if they already have grown kids its not much of an issue. If they are young (and our church is primarly young) then if they refuse to baptize their children they would be subjet to church discipline. But for joining we just make it clear that they have a credible profession of faith and that they are willing to submit to the teaching of the church.

Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?

Our Church is not baptistic nor a free church. We are a confessionally reformed church. If you want to be a member then we act that you abide by our doctrine if not you are welcome to sit along side with us and we even permit the taking of the Lord's supper (which many in our denomination DO NOT LIKE which on this issue puts us at odds with the more conservative persons...), but if you have children under your care and they are not baptized or you have another one and you are a member you are out side of the visible covenant. Ruth may have had saving faith before her official entrance into the nation of Israel (probably did when you read the narrative) but until her marriage into the visible covenant she did not have the rights to the benefits of them even though she was chosen to be apart of the covenant of grace. So if any member of a reformed church did not baptize their children we surely would not act in the same manner as though they were sleeping around but by joining our covenant fully by profession of faith (all new members are required to make a profession of faith before the congregation unless there are extreme circumstances like language or age) maintaining that they have been baptized and have exercised faith in Jesus Christ and want to continue to walk with Him all the days of their lives. Then we has a congregation make a pledge to look out for them. By not baptizing their children (this is already after making our doctrinal beliefs CRYSTAL CLEAR) this is in essence a massive lie and deception to the body of Christ. And in my mind can be compared to Annias and Sapharia.

-----Added 9/2/2009 at 06:40:47 EST-----

Bottom line: if credo baptists are so offended plant a credo baptist church.

And the same goes for reformed and prebyterian folk in credo churches, plant a Biblical church.

We do not agree on the nature of the covenant and the status of children of the those who had made a profession of faith. Fine. I have my 3fu and west.standards and you can have your philiy confession and 1689 and we can have separate churches. I can read grudem and piper and you can read Duncan and Keller but we are not from the same historical heritage at the end of the day. We can work together in many good things and come together for common causes, but at the end of the day when all is said and done: we both ought to protect the doctrine that we confess and it is the job of the elders to do that despite the fact there may be other sincere believers with different theology. But membership ought to be taken seriously by both and if I was at a baptist church (and even despite the fact I was baptized by immersion after faith around 18 years of age) I would not partake in the Lord Supper if that was a requirement because I consider my baptism in the Roman Catholic Church my true baptism despite its stance as a false church (my great grandma begged the priest to baptize me and give me a private baptism becuase my mom and dad were both non faithfuls... this happened in a location where catholics still cared about theology more than money before all the scandals about priests and boys). Why? I respect there right to be wrong.

Whoa. Cool your jets. I was postulating a hypothetical situation (which is not so hypothetical in some areas). If my choices were between a non-Calvinistic, dispensational, fundamentalist Baptist church, and a paedo-Reformed church, I would choose the paedo-Reformed church. Now, if those elders told me that I would face church discipline for not submitting my children for baptism, I would attend the church but not join it. My attitude would be good, and I would seek to serve in the church as much as they elders would allow.

 

[jogri17]

Not to say this and I may get in trouble for bringing this up because it sounds like I'm questioning the moderators but by looking at the name of the churches in the signatures (and the signatures in general) of those who would have a problem with deny membership or disciplining those who would not baptize covenant children, all seem to be of non-reformed baptistic or non-presbyterian or non-reformed backgrounds. They all seem to be maybe TULIPers or maybe could affirm a confession personally but when it comes to the churches in which they serve they could never consistently put these believes into practice and want to find a way out. This is the problem with revivalistic calvinism right here. Bible Churches, Community Churches, SBC Churches are all mixed (I guess in theory any one of these could make this a membership issue because of the autonomy of the local church but very few do in my experience and I think I am right on this one) and they could never break away from these revivalistic/evangelicical traditions.

 

[matt01]

Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.

Agreed. We were happy for a church with sound teaching, but not willing to change on the issue of baptism. As the pastor said, we should just get over it and join, not so easy.

 

[Herald]

Not to say this and I may get in trouble for bringing this up because it sounds like I'm questioning the moderators but by looking at the name of the churches in the signatures (and the signatures in general) of those who would have a problem with deny membership or disciplining those who would not baptize covenant children, all seem to be of non-reformed baptistic or non-presbyterian or non-reformed backgrounds. They all seem to be maybe TULIPers or maybe could affirm a confession personally but when it comes to the churches in which they serve they could never consistently put these believes into practice and want to find a way out. This is the problem with revivalistic calvinism right here. Bible Churches, Community Churches, SBC Churches are all mixed (I guess in theory any one of these could make this a membership issue because of the autonomy of the local church but very few do in my experience and I think I am right on this one) and they could never break away from these revivalistic/evangelicical traditions.

J.P.,

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know the Baptist mods on this board and the degree to which they hold to the 1689 LBC. You're best served by muting your opinion in that area until you speak with some knowledge.

Secondly, the OP had to do with whether paedo churches should allow Baptists to join who will not submit their children to baptism. Your added commentary isn't helpful. I brought up a hypothetical situation that is a very real scenario in some locales. If you moved to an area where there were no paedo churches, would you attend a Reformed Baptist church? I hope you would. You may decide not to join out of conscience sake, but why would you not want to worship and fellowship with God's people? That's really what my hypothetical was about.

 

[Montanablue]

Not to say this and I may get in trouble for bringing this up because it sounds like I'm questioning the moderators but by looking at the name of the churches in the signatures (and the signatures in general) of those who would have a problem with deny membership or disciplining those who would not baptize covenant children, all seem to be of non-reformed baptistic or non-presbyterian or non-reformed backgrounds. They all seem to be maybe TULIPers or maybe could affirm a confession personally but when it comes to the churches in which they serve they could never consistently put these believes into practice and want to find a way out. This is the problem with revivalistic calvinism right here. Bible Churches, Community Churches, SBC Churches are all mixed (I guess in theory any one of these could make this a membership issue because of the autonomy of the local church but very few do in my experience and I think I am right on this one) and they could never break away from these revivalistic/evangelicical traditions.

I don't think this is actually the case. I think the concern is more with people who may be unable to find a credo-Baptist church within a reasonable distance. Right now I attend a church that is not reformed (although I do think the pastor is a Calvinist in many senses). It is the only church preaching the gospel within a 75 mile radius. If it was a paedo-Baptist church (I'm credo), I would still want to become a member because I believe its very important to put oneself under the guidance of a church and its elders. But, I probably wouldn't be willing to change my credo-Baptist convictions to do so - especially if I had children.

And you can say , "well then, plant a church," but its not always that easy. (Especially if you are a young single woman).

Cross posted with Bill - Sorry!

 

[Brian Withnell]

It would seem to me that eventually, it would come to the parents failing to fulfill their membership vows. While subscription is not required, the WCF states:

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.

And while that is not in itself a violation of the membership vows, one of the vows is:

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?

So while technically, I suppose a session might think not subscribing to covenant baptism would not be restrictive of membership as long as it is not an issue. Though if a person has a child, the session should be working to instruct them as they are delinquent in doctrine. If then, after a long period of time of attempting to convince them of their error, they still do not "heed its discipline" the parents would be contumaciously holding to sin in disregard of their membership vows.

Those that are not baptized are not necessarily lost, but those that neglect the baptism of their children are in "great sin". When they are instructed in that error, and continue in such great sin, it is not only that sin they commit, but rebellion and violation of their vows. Should they be held to discipline for such action? I believe they should, and so if I were a credo baptist, I would either find a credo church, or start one. Joining a "good church" would mean joining one that would exercise loving discipline over the flock, and that would include not allowing the parents of a child to so neglect the baptism of their own children that they should not allow them to remain in fellowship.

This is no different than a credo church insisting that a person who being paedo and was baptized as an infant be baptized as an adult in order to join the church. I no of no baptist church that would allow a person baptized as an infant to join the church as an adult without submitting to baptism yet again, even though from a Presbyterian point of view, that is sin.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have been in Confessional Churches for most of my 28 years. I have been a member of a RPCNA church, a PCA Church, and 1689 churches. Also a few others. I have always been a credobaptist. I have always defended my position while living at peace with the leadership of the Church. I was always respectful and promised to seek the unity of the Church. If baptism ever came up I would defer to the Pastor / Elders. They are the ones responsible for the congregation. I did not come out of revivalistic church background. My first Church was a Reformed Baptist Church without altar calls. I did share the gospel quite effectively with those around me.

The PCA allows credo's to be in membership. Not all Covenant Theologians are paedo.

 

[Herald]

Your church's policy makes for an interesting set of circumstances. If a couple has a child, and refuses to have them baptized, you will subject them to Matthew 18. If you take Matthew 18 to it's conclusion you will be forced to put them out of the church if they don't repent. Is this hypothetical couple really to be treated as though they are unbelievers? Is there any room for grace in this scenario? The elders could inform that parents that they are in sin by denying their children the sign of the covenant, but they will not be "put out" of the church for their sin in this area. It that a possibility?

Why allow them membership in the first place if they hold to views that will get them disciplined? It doesn't make sense.

Agreed. If there was no credo church in town, and I had to attend a paedo church, I would not join the church if I was told I would be disciplined for not baptizing my child. I would simply be a permanent visitor.

If I may comment on my own post... If a paedo were to visit our church and not join because of our stand on baptism, I would still welcome them into our fellowship with the love of Christ. I would minister to them in the same manner as a member. They would not be able to vote, preach or teach, but I would consider them an integral part of the family of God.