Becoming a member of PCA church

Mikeseven

Active Member
Feb 13, 2019
34
15
41
Houston
✟13,960.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hello everyone!

I have been going to a PCA church and I have found its theology to be solid. I am thinking about becoming a member. However, I spend my time in more than one place and I also have christian connections in other churches. So is it acceptable to become a member in more than one church? Even if one church is PCA and the other is non denominational? I tend to travel a fair amount and I am thinking that I might find additional growth in another church sometime later in life. I am trying to understand how memberships works and just want to do the right thing.

Thanks everyone!!!
 

seekingHiswisdom

Active Member
Jun 28, 2023
53
17
76
Pennsylvania
✟5,668.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I would have to ask you why you would want to actually join another denomination?

I am Evangelical Presbyterian, our church having split from Presbyterian USA around 2008, due to their more left leaning acceptances and while not entirely "woke" at that time would have summer retreats that would study the "Goddess" Sophia. If you look online for the Presbyterian Layman publication sent to all Presby USA you can read about that back in the 90s.

Anyway... If you are happy with the one you have been going to and feel to join... great.

I see nothing wrong with attending a number of different denominations, while a member of a specific one.

I am here because of the blending of beliefs.

LOL, and in truth do not generally follow any Presby forums

IMO no church ois 100% right and none is 100% wrong. They all bring good things to the table that we can learn from
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,310
13,522
72
✟370,037.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I joined the Presbyterian Church after I went through a confirmation class as a young teenager. In my college years the church dropped me from its membership rolls because I no longer was attending. After giving the matter some serious thought, I decided not to bother joining any other church and have happily been engaged with various churches over the years. My engagement surpasses that of most members, so I am not concerned about what others think about me.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,285
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,630.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Hello everyone!

I have been going to a PCA church and I have found its theology to be solid. I am thinking about becoming a member. However, I spend my time in more than one place and I also have christian connections in other churches. So is it acceptable to become a member in more than one church? Even if one church is PCA and the other is non denominational? I tend to travel a fair amount and I am thinking that I might find additional growth in another church sometime later in life. I am trying to understand how memberships works and just want to do the right thing.

Thanks everyone!!!

I no longer bother with membership. I was born into the body of Christ. That makes me a member of God's church. I never asked to join my natural family. Why would I want to "join" my spiritual family?
 
Upvote 0

seekingHiswisdom

Active Member
Jun 28, 2023
53
17
76
Pennsylvania
✟5,668.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I joined the Presbyterian Church after I went through a confirmation class as a young teenager. In my college years the church dropped me from its membership rolls because I no longer was attending. After giving the matter some serious thought, I decided not to bother joining any other church and have happily been engaged with various churches over the years. My engagement surpasses that of most members, so I am not concerned about what others think about me.
As a presbyterian I rarely... no, that is not accurate, I never attend any services any longer. But I still am Presbyterian.

I say that only because I was baptized by a Presbyterian minister, and I have never found another church that appeals to me more.

Why belong to one then??? Just suppose you were to marry and have a child. Would you not want that child, at some point in their life, to be Baptized? I feel , while not a necessity of salvation it is extremely important..... for reasons to complicated to go into here.

What about Holy Communion? You are obviously young enough and able enough to physically walk into a church to partake... Other then a Catholic who would not permit you.

My mother is not capable of attending church any longer.... but she does belong and makes her contributions by mail.

I have my own physical limitations, but more important is time needed for her care.

As a member of out PCEPC church... (we split from USA about 15 years ago over their moving more left and
becoming more woke.... though at the time that was not even a term in use)

As such , our congregation serves communion once a month... first Sunday... and they have a link to watch services
right here on the computer. And they give those who do not attend home communion bread and wine (I suspect it might be grapejuice, but maybe not cause it is a very bitter liquid..... shsss, dont tell anyone I said that...)

Well, I could go on and on as to why we call that church home... but wont.

You are my sibling in Christ and I wish only the best for you.

Joining one specific denomination will not enhance your growth in the faith as much as partaking in message boards like this one.... IMO.... however, there are things that belonging to a church home, whether or not one attends, is comforting.

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,310
13,522
72
✟370,037.00
Faith
Non-Denom
As a presbyterian I rarely... no, that is not accurate, I never attend any services any longer. But I still am Presbyterian.

I say that only because I was baptized by a Presbyterian minister, and I have never found another church that appeals to me more.

Why belong to one then??? Just suppose you were to marry and have a child. Would you not want that child, at some point in their life, to be Baptized? I feel , while not a necessity of salvation it is extremely important..... for reasons to complicated to go into here.

What about Holy Communion? You are obviously young enough and able enough to physically walk into a church to partake... Other then a Catholic who would not permit you.

My mother is not capable of attending church any longer.... but she does belong and makes her contributions by mail.

I have my own physical limitations, but more important is time needed for her care.

As a member of out PCEPC church... (we split from USA about 15 years ago over their moving more left and
becoming more woke.... though at the time that was not even a term in use)

As such , our congregation serves communion once a month... first Sunday... and they have a link to watch services
right here on the computer. And they give those who do not attend home communion bread and wine (I suspect it might be grapejuice, but maybe not cause it is a very bitter liquid..... shsss, dont tell anyone I said that...)

Well, I could go on and on as to why we call that church home... but wont.

You are my sibling in Christ and I wish only the best for you.

Joining one specific denomination will not enhance your growth in the faith as much as partaking in message boards like this one.... IMO.... however, there are things that belonging to a church home, whether or not one attends, is comforting.

Blessings
Thank you for your insights.

I attend an EPC church regularly, both for the adult education hour and for the service on Sunday mornings, which seems to be the standard level of involvement of the members. There is a men's Bible study very early on Saturday mornings, but I am not an early riser and the study actually consists of watching a video - which is something I am quite capable of doing at home, although without the fellowship of other men.

As for having a child baptized, my beliefs have shifted such that I see no advantage to any unbeliever to be baptized in an unbelieving condition. In fact, it led me to a false sense of spiritual security prior to God's intervention in my life in saving me. BTW, I am happily single and have no children, so it is really a moot issue for me.

My church practices open communion so partaking of communion is not an issue at all. In fact, if anything, I was surprised to have been encouraged to partake by the pastor after only a few weeks of attending and having had no significant interaction with him or any others there regarding my faith.

Yes, my church also broadcasts its services via the internet, which is a great blessing for those who cannot attend in person. It is a two-edged sword, however, because some who might otherwise be able to attend find it much more convenient to stay at home and watch. Sadly, churches are filled with too many spectators and not enough participants.

I see church membership as being organic and not merely formal. In my church, other than voting in congregational meetings and holding an office I do not have any other limitations regarding my activity. I encourage all Christian to become engaged in a church congregation, hopefully for building it up and encouraging others in the faith.

Thank you for your encouragement.
 
Upvote 0

seekingHiswisdom

Active Member
Jun 28, 2023
53
17
76
Pennsylvania
✟5,668.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
As for having a child baptized, my beliefs have shifted such that I see no advantage to any unbeliever to be baptized in an unbelieving condition. In fact, it led me to a false sense of spiritual security prior to God's intervention in my life in saving me. BTW, I am happily single and have no children, so it is really a moot issue for me.
Going through my files I ran into those I have that talk on the baptism of babies. LOL... glad I did for I have reached the age where I have forgotten a lot of things that are not frequently in front of me.

I AM NOT tryiing to convince you or anyone, but just putting some things into the mix for thought.

Full disclosure... I was, and then when I became 12 I attended communicant classes. In order to join the church as having achieved the minimum age of understanding and acceptance.

Communicants Class. After completing this six-week class, children profess their faith in Christ before the elders and declare their faith by participating in communion with the church. They become full "communing members" of our church. It is a deeply sacred and meaningful rite of passage in the life of a covenant child.

In a way... though totally opposite in almost everything... this is not unlike the RCC who have the babies receive their christening/baptism ceremonies and then when they come to the proper age they have an extensive ceremony for their first Holy Communion.

Anyway... I am opposting some links for all to read... as they are extensive in copy I am only copying a bit of what they say. IF there is any color change, that would be me for emphasis...

FROM the section : Clearing away clutter

Some supporters of infant baptism believe that baptism has almost magical power to save and that a baby who dies unbaptized cannot go to heaven. They think the water itself washes away the original sin a baby is born with and causes a baby to be born again into new life. This view, called baptismal regeneration, is not biblical. If you support infant baptism because you believe in baptismal regeneration, you need a sounder basis than that.

By the same token, if you oppose infant baptism because you oppose the idea of baptismal regeneration, you need a better reason for opposing it.

Here's a second piece of clutter: using Jesus' baptism as an adult as proof that baptism isn't for babies. Jesus was baptized at age 30 (Luke 3:21-23), and some folks claim that this disproves infant baptism. Sound convincing? Well, if Jesus' baptism at age 30 proves that babies shouldn't be baptized, it also proves that teenagers shouldn't be baptized, that twenty-somethings shouldn't be baptized, that anyone under 30 shouldn't be baptized. Even opponents of infant baptism know it can't mean that. They baptize committed Christian youth many years before they reach the age at which Jesus was baptized. In their view, baptism must be applied as soon as an individual makes a personal commitment to the Lord, and not before then. But they would never say Jesus waited till age 30 because he was not committed to his heavenly Father before that point. As Bible-believing Christians, they know there was not a moment of Jesus' life when he was not God's Son, fully committed to his Father.

The baptism Jesus received from John the Baptist in the Jordan River at age 30 was John's kind of baptism. That was different from the kind of baptism Jesus established. The Bible makes this clear. Therefore, the timing of Jesus' adult baptism by John has nothing to do with the timing of Christian baptism in the era after Jesus ascended to heaven and poured out his Holy Spirit. To say otherwise is confusing clutter.

A third kind of clutter is reasoning from silence, trying to score points on the basis of what the Bible doesn't say. If you oppose infant baptism, you might point out, "Nowhere does the Bible command infant baptism, and nowhere does the Bible mention a particular baby being baptized." That may sound convincing at first, but it's just as true to say, "Nowhere does the Bible command us not to baptize babies, and nowhere in the Bible is there a record of someone who grew up in a Christian family being baptized as a teenager rather than as an infant." Reasoning from silence doesn't prove much either way.

FROM the section Children of believers.

The Bible tells of people "bringing babies to Jesus" (Luke 18:15). The Lord's inner circle of disciples rebuked the parents for bringing the little ones. But what did Jesus do?

When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these..." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and bless them. (Mark 10:14,16).

This story doesn't mention baptism, but it does say a great deal about the status of believer's babies. Jesus embraces and blesses babies of believing parents and says his kingdom belongs to such as these. How, then, can the church refuse them the sign of citizenship in God's kingdom and membership in his family?

God told Abraham, "You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male who is eight days old must be circumcised" (Genesis 17:11-12). Abraham came to faith as an adult and was circumcised as an adult, as "a seal of the righteousness he had by faith" (Romans 4:11). His son Isaac and future children in their line were circumcised as infants and marked as members of the community of faith, even before they could consciously exercise faith of their own. That was the pattern God established for his people.

Circumcision was not just a physical ritual for a certain ethnic group. It had spiritual meaning, and it could include people who were not born Israelites. If a man grew up as a foreigner to the covenant community and wished to join it and serve the Lord, he was circumcised as an adult, and all males in his household were also circumcised (Exodus 12:48). From then on, any male born into that covenant family was circumcised as an infant, marking him as a member of the covenant.

God's covenant with Abraham was "an everlasting covenant," not a temporary one. That everlasting covenant remains in effect to this day. God doesn't change. The Lord who made promises to Abraham is the same Lord Jesus who embraced babies brought by believing parents, and still today this same Lord promises to be the God of believers and their children.

FROM the section From Circumcision to Baptism

God doesn't just decide one day to dump his covenant and come up with something entirely different. He remains faithful to the same covenant. But he has brought that covenant into a new and better era, and he seals it with a new and better sign. In the old era, God promised a Savior. In the new era, the promise has been fulfilled. Jesus' perfect life and bloody death and glorious resurrection fulfill everything necessary for salvation by faith. God "announced the gospel in advance to Abraham" (Galatians 3:8), but now that Christ has come, the gospel is clearer than it was in Abraham's day, and the blessings are poured out more abundantly.

The Bible links the meaning of circumcision with baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. There Scripture speaks of "the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." Circumcision pictured "the putting off of the sinful nature" (Colossians 2:11); so does baptism. Circumcision was the sign of becoming part of God's covenant community; so is baptism. Circumcision called for a heart in tune with God (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6); so does baptism. The spiritual meaning of circumcision is fulfilled in the new covenant sign of baptism.

FROM the section Family Baptism

On the day of Pentecost, the Lord poured out his Holy Spirit to launch the new covenant era. The apostle Peter told the people, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39). Those words of Peter echoed God's promise to Abraham, to be a faithful God to him and his children. About 3,000 people were baptized that day.

The gospel addresses households, and it's biblical to respond as households. Biblical faith declares, "As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). In the Old Testament, when the head of a household was circumcised, his boys were also circumcised. In the New Testament, when the head of a household was baptized, the rest of the household was also baptized. Today, too, churches should baptize individual converts and the children under their care.


Infant Baptism

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39, emphasis added). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and
wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults
. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

FROM the section Christ Calls All to Baptism

Opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

FROM the section In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus, in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same

FROM the section Were Only Adults Baptised

Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians.”.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

FROM the section Specific Bible References

But one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Additional interesting reading


SPRINKLING IS SCRIPTURAL

AND


Chapter XXVIII
"Of Baptism"

Plus scriptural references.


 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,310
13,522
72
✟370,037.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Going through my files I ran into those I have that talk on the baptism of babies. LOL... glad I did for I have reached the age where I have forgotten a lot of things that are not frequently in front of me.

I AM NOT tryiing to convince you or anyone, but just putting some things into the mix for thought.

Full disclosure... I was, and then when I became 12 I attended communicant classes. In order to join the church as having achieved the minimum age of understanding and acceptance.

Communicants Class. After completing this six-week class, children profess their faith in Christ before the elders and declare their faith by participating in communion with the church. They become full "communing members" of our church. It is a deeply sacred and meaningful rite of passage in the life of a covenant child.

In a way... though totally opposite in almost everything... this is not unlike the RCC who have the babies receive their christening/baptism ceremonies and then when they come to the proper age they have an extensive ceremony for their first Holy Communion.

Anyway... I am posting some links for all to read... as they are extensive in copy I am only copying a bit of what they say. IF there is any color change, that would be me for emphasis...



Additional interesting reading


AND

Thanks for the excellent information. None of it was new to me, but that is not a valid objection on my part, because others may benefit from it.

I only have a couple of passing comments, rather than belabor the point.

First, I understand the rationale for catethetical training prior to formal admission into membership. I think the Lutherans do it best, typically having serious weekly classes for three years prior to joining the church. I did the six-week communicants' class when I was at that age. It didn't do a thing for me, probably because the minister himself was not a believer - he held the Bible in extremely low esteem. When I met with the elders they asked me why I wanted to join the church and I told that it was my parents who wanted me to join and, therefore, I wanted to join. They were fine with that response and thus I became a member of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Dubuque, Iowa.

My second comment is in regard to the baptism/circumcision analogy. This is only found in a single verse and is not germane to the context of the passage. If the analogy is actually to be followed such that baptism is now substituted for circumcision, then only males could be baptized. It is quite impossible to circumcise females. More to the point, the first Christian council in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15 primarily addressed the role of circumcision in the church. Not once is there the slightest concept that baptism is to be substituted for circumcision. Instead, the conclusion was that circumcision was no longer a necessary rite of entry into God's covenant community and that Gentiles should refrain from idols and from eating blood.

By contrast, we have multiple reiterations of the command, "Repent (believe) and be baptized."
 
Upvote 0