Philosophical Theology

The PCA Book of Church Order (BCO) teaches that children of professing believers are members of the visible church and, therefore, are entitled to baptism. Indeed, per BCO 56-1 baptism should not be unnecessarily delayed!

However, what the BCO does not teach is that a refusal to baptize one’s covenant child is great sin that entails a cutting off from the assembly. But should it? Should the BCO teach that to deny baptism to a covenant child is to deny a covenant child non-communing membership in the visible church? Or, is the BCO correct that children can remain unbaptized yet members of the visible church? In other words, in the face of pastoral oversight and instruction, should a parent’s refusal of the covenant entitlement of Christian baptism be met with the denial of the child’s covenant-keeping status? That is the principle beginning with Abraham, then dramatically punctuated through Zipporah’s intervention unto the saving of Moses’ life. (Genesis 17:14; Exodus 4:24-26)

BCO, a halfway covenant?

Does the BCO offer a half-way covenant that divides non-communing members into two classes?

A baptized child is to be distinguished from the world and considered a member of Christ’s body unless covenant incongruity is manifested either in delinquency of doctrine or manner of life. In other words, baptized children are to be given the judgment of charity with respect to their covenant standing in the church. In a word, Christian baptism is in the name of the triune God, by which the Lord himself places his name upon a covenant child.

The BCO teaches that an unbaptized covenant child remains a member of the visible church even without an intention of a believing parent to have his or her child received into membership through the sign of covenant membership. Consequently, it’s hard to understand how the BCO does not divide child membership in the visible church between non-received members and received members.

By implication, has the visible church become something other than a manifestation of members united by one faith and one baptism?

The halves and the halves not:

It would seem that two classes of covenant children are established by BCO 57-1, whereby non-communing members include not only (a) unbaptized children born of a member, but (b) especially those presented for baptism. Yet per BCO 56-4g it is not by birthright but baptism that children are “received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world… and united with believers.” Therefore, not all members are actually received into the church as members of Christ’s body.

Trying to make sense of things:

PCA ecclesiology distinguishes unbaptized child-members of the visible church from first class child-members who by baptism are especially members of the church; been received into her bosom; been distinguished from the world; and united to believers.

Put negatively and perhaps more strikingly, by implication the BCO teaches there are true members of the visible church – even adult members – who are “federally holy” yet not especially members of the visible church because they have not been received into her bosom and been distinguished from the world by being united to other believers in baptism.

Questions, implications:

What is it to be a visible member of the church while outside her bosom? What covenantal standing is there for non-bosom members who aren’t “especially” members of Christ’s church (because they have not been distinguished from the world, having not been united to other members of the church in Christian baptism)?

Has the BCO blurred the spiritual meaning of church membership, possibly by downplaying the theological significance of the sacrament when it comes to Baptist theology? At the very least, to be united to other members of Christ’s body is to be united to Christ in baptism. (In passing let it be noted that consistent Baptists will not be offended by the exclusion of their children from church membership for they do not consider their own children members of the visible church, otherwise Baptists would dedicate their children in baptism.)

Further ramifications, a reductio of sorts:

The practice of trying to maintain a two tiered membership for children leads to further difficulties with respect to non-baptized members upon coming to an age of discretion.

BCO 6-1 teaches that “children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally all benefits of the covenant.” (emphasis mine) The reference to instruction and in particular to government can suggest entitlement to the discipline of the church. Perhaps BCO 6-1 presupposes baptism has been administered (given it’s an entitlement), especially in light of BCO 6-3.

In the PCA one can be considered a non-communing unbaptized member of Christ’s body, at least for a time, while refusing baptism as an adult. (BCO 57-1) Notwithstanding, the BCO gives explicit consideration and amplification regarding the church’s responsibility toward baptized children who’ve come of age. BCO 6-3 teaches that “all baptized persons are entitled to the watchful care, instruction and government of the church, even though they are adults and have made no profession of their faith in Christ.” (emphasis mine)

However, unlike with BCO 6-3, which maps watchful care to baptism, BCO 28-4 draws no such distinction between baptized and unbaptized members with respect to the same rights and privileges. Rather, it speaks in inclusive terms of all “non-communing members,” which complements the teaching of BCO 57-1, as noted above.

Adult non-communing members, who receive with meekness and appreciation the oversight and instruction of the Church, are entitled to special attention. Their rights and privileges under the covenant should be frequently and fully explained, and they should be warned of the sin and danger of neglecting their covenant obligations.

BCO 28-4

Tying this together, can an unbaptized member (BCO 57-1), having never been been “received” into the church (BCO 56-4g), be in danger of (further) censure as an adult? (BCO 28-4)? Or does censure occur upon the child in the withholding of the sacrament? (Genesis 17:14; Exodus 4:24-26)

If in baptism the Lord marks out and claims a child by the visible sign and seal of the covenant, then how is the refusal of Christian baptism not a refusal of visible covenant status before God, the church and the world?

Of the church but not in the church?

Baptized children who don’t improve upon their baptism by credible profession of faith are entitled to the loving discipline of instructive government. In other words, being received into membership in baptism includes the privilege to covenantal warnings that are to precede ever being placed outside the church, which presupposes de facto member-status in the church.

But what about unbaptized adult members of the church? Are we saying one can be a member in good standing of the church without being a member in good standing in the church? Or is that to dilute the meaning of water baptism (no pun intended), even to the spiritual detriment of those who are actually received into the visible body of Christ by baptism?

What do we convey to baptized members (and to the world) regarding baptism in the name of the Trinity? In what biblical sense is a non-communing adult a visible member in the church of Jesus Christ apart from being marked out, claimed and received into the visible church of Jesus Christ by the one visible baptism instituted by Jesus Christ?

Wrapping up:

Perhaps the reason we have this dilemma, if indeed it is a dilemma (I think it is), regarding the status of children born of Christian parents is because we are being overly selective with the principles that can be derived from the sign of circumcision. Could it be we are applying the Old Covenant principle of blessings in establishing the rightful recipients of infant baptism, while passing over the covenant principle of curses upon covenant children as they relate to withholding infant baptism?

Covenant theologians rightly make much of the principle of circumcision as it applies to the baptism of covenant children; yet do we overlook the principle of Genesis 17:14 with respect to the covenant sanction that falls upon the children born of professing parents who withhold the sign of the covenant from their children?

“Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, shall be cut off for his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Genesis 17:14

My hope is we might at least tighten up the clarity of our sacramental theology as it relates to our ecclesiology, even while striving with our fellow Baptist members in the hope that their covenant children would not be cut off from the assembly but be received by baptism as non-communing members into the body of Christ.

Might charitable discussions ensue. [end of article]

Since publishing the article I’ve asked some to consider four points. What’s below was posted by me on a Facebook group:

Withholding baptism is indeed great sin. Theologically, I believe the OT principle that carries through to the NT is that the *child* falls out of covenant standing because of parental covenantal neglect. But that’s not the only point in the article, nor is it my interest here. 

My hope is a modest one. I’m merely seeking agreement that the BCO teaches the following:

1. Children who are denied baptism keep their membership in the visible church. 

2. It is only through baptism that children “are solemnly received into the bosom of the Visible Church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers…” (56.4.g) 

Whereas being born of a member in the visible church *entitles* one to Christian baptism, the single act of being received, distinguished, and united with believers is not through birth right but through the sacramental rite of baptism. 

3. Given 1 and 2, our BCO’s ecclesiology entails that those who “are federally holy before Baptism” keep their visible church status even if they are not “solemnly received into the bosom of the Visible Church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers…” 

4. One can identify as a member of Christ’s church without identifying with Christ in Christian baptism. (I find that strange, along with 3.)

End of 4 points.

The BCO correctly upholds the principle of entitlement to our covenant children. That entitlement includes the privilege of baptism. Our standards also correctly teach that only through baptism our children are grafted into the visible church, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Notwithstanding, it appears to me (and I believe to others) that our BCO would appear to lead us to the unhappy tensions of points 3 and 4. I believe that will remain the case until we address the covenant implications of withholding baptism. Our BCO appears silent on that front.

Appendix 

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) receives members by baptism. Moreover, the OPC’s Book of Discipline, chapter 2 (on jurisdiction), sections B,2,e and f distinguishes non communicant unbaptized children from non communicant baptized members. 

e. Noncommunicant unbaptized children whose parent(s) are members of the church shall be received by baptism.

f. Noncommunicant baptized members may be received with their parent(s).

“Case e. notes that children who are unbaptized, either due to birth within the bounds of the church or parents recently joining on reaffirmation or confession, may be admitted to the non-communicant membership of the local church upon their baptism.”Commentary on OPC BCO

I’m unaware of OPC member status granted to children who remain unbaptized. 

On the status of the parents of unbaptized children:

In Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) history a presbytery overtured the 32nd General Assembly not on the question of whether unbaptized children can be members of the church, but whether their parents who “refuse to present [them] for baptism on account of scruples concerning infant baptism” can be received into church membership. John Murray chaired a committee of three and submitted a report to the 33rd General Assembly (1966). The recommendation was to leave the matter to the judgement of particular sessions. This was not to punt, but to exercise wisdom and sound Presbyterian polity. 

With respect to receiving Baptists into membership I believe we must be sensitive to the difference between refusing circumcision to covenant children under the Old Covenant and refusing them baptism under the New Covenant. Both are commands of God, but one is explicit whereas the other must be derived. (And it can be derived!) I believe the OPC was jealous to guard that distinction while maintaining with equal fervor that a perpetual refusal of covenant baptism, presumably in the face of irrefutable and clear articulation of doctrine, entails willful unrepentant sin against God and one’s child. 

Individual sessions must treat each case on its own merits; I suppose much would depend upon how rigorous its own arguments are for covenant baptism and whether those arguments have been articulated clearly and patiently over time. A session can hardly charge a Baptist brother with willful disobedience if his sin cannot be proven from the Scriptures. This will take much striving, for even the best polemic for infant baptism can be missed because of the strongholds of one’s church tradition, family pressures and much more. Notwithstanding, if a sound and patient polemic is offered and has been understood, then there are good reasons for denying church membership to those who would deny baptism to their children.*

A challenge to us all:

Do sessions labor in love with intentional pastoral pursuit of the parents? Or, do sessions warmly, yet merely, offer themselves to answer any questions after once explaining the doctrine and giving literature to the parents? In other words, do sessions strive with Baptists or do sessions merely make themselves available after one brief discussion? I suppose a session’s actions will be consistent with how persuaded it is of the defensibility of infant baptism and the significance of the means of grace. Sometimes sessions need to overcome a fear of being perceived as unwelcoming and sectarian in order to lovingly and patiently shepherd congregants in their covenant obligations.

Anyway, the primary point of the appendix is to point out that nearly sixty years ago the OPC was not considering the membership status of children who were not marked out and claimed by the sign and seal of the covenant, but whether a class of baptized parents should be disqualified for membership. It’s as though it was settled doctrine that a child could not be a member of the church given the refusal of the parents. After all, if refusing a child’s baptism is not serious enough to place the child outside the visible church, then why consider whether the baptized parents’ decision would be sufficient grounds to deny them membership for their neglect toward their children? In other words, if withholding baptism has no significant covenantal ramifications, then why weigh the severity of the decision of parents who withhold baptism from their children?

* 5/8/2024 Bryan Holstrom offers “good reasons” for his position. But as I’ve tried to nuance, not all refusals to baptize infants may be construed as defiance, which was not the case with circumcision. Accordingly, Holstrom’s position runs contrary to the wisdom of Murray and the OPC, which allows sessions to determine membership on a case by case basis, which entails latitude to receive Baptists into membership as well as withhold membership based on willful unrepentant sin. It seems to me that Holstrom only allows the latter. 

I believe Holstrom’s argument would be considerably improved by drawing a distinction between (a) rejecting infant baptism out of ignorance and, therefore, allowing for Baptist membership, as opposed to (b) Baptists recklessly rejecting the covenant sign for no reason whatsoever after understanding or internalizing the biblical basis for the historical biblical practice. Again, sessions (not individuals) must labor to determine whether one is being rebellious in his rejection of the covenant sign for his household or not.