A question that many sessions in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) face is whether they should admit to membership those who refuse to offer their children for covenant baptism. The word “refuse” here is chosen deliberately, because our Confessions—in keeping with Scripture—recognize that this is an obligation of Christian parents, not an option. Nevertheless, sessions answer this question in different ways, largely because our Thirty-third General Assembly (1966) declared that “the admission to membership of those who cannot in good conscience present their children for baptism is a matter for judgment by sessions.” Unlike some of our sister churches that require lay subscription to our confessions, the OPC does not. Therefore, different standards have been applied in different circumstances and, quite naturally, a number of different arguments are adduced to defend sessions’ judgments.

In this article I would like to examine one slogan that I have heard in multiple contexts and argue that it conceals a very unhelpful misunderstanding about the nature of the church. This is the slogan that “the gates of the church should be as wide as the gates of heaven.” I believe it is fair, and most accurate, to call this a slogan because it does not reference Scripture or some other extra-biblical authority like the confessions or church fathers. Still, like all slogans, it arguably contains the elements of a logical proof that have not been carefully elucidated (this would reduce the slogan’s pithiness). Interpreting it charitably, however, the argument would seem to proceed like this:

1. We do not believe that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation any more than circumcision was, since Abraham was accounted righteous before receiving the covenant sign.
2. We are to judge as saved whoever, applying for membership in an OPC, makes a credible profession of faith, and charitably to believe that this person therefore will receive entrance into heaven.
3. Because we are compelled to judge that this person will receive entrance into heaven, it is therefore wrong to deny this person entrance into fellowship within the OPC—even if they refuse to present their covenant child for reception of the sign, disobeying the Scriptures and our doctrinal standards.

It is difficult for me to imagine a different or more charitable interpretation of this slogan than what has just been given, but I would be glad to receive such from a reader. The major and minor premises in this argument are true and therefore unobjectionable, even though we could draw out somewhat the implications they contain. For example, in the first premise, although we hold that baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation, by this we mean water baptism. A baptism of the Holy Spirit, the application of Christ’s merits by the Spirit’s sanctifying work, we do hold this to be necessary for salvation. It is the inward reality which the outward sign signifies and seals. And as for the second premise, we would want to clarify a little more carefully what a “credible profession” means. In particular, we would want to be careful not to exclude from the definition of “credible” the presence of a sincere desire to obey God’s Word. This is the content of our fifth membership vow.

But the question now arises: Is the argument that the slogan apparently contains sound? It is so only if three conditions are met: (1) the conclusion follows from the premises; (2) the premises are true; (3) the conclusion is true. If the first condition is met, then it is a valid argument, whether or not the premises are true. An example of this kind of argument is as follows:

All purple donkeys read the Wall Street Journal.
John is a purple donkey.
Therefore, John reads the Wall Street Journal.

This is a valid argument because the conclusion really follows from the premises, even though neither the premises nor the conclusion is true.

Another kind of argument is one that can have both true premises and a true conclusion but be invalid if the conclusion does not follow logically from those premises. Here is another argument to illustrate this type:

Some parrots can speak like human beings.
Penguins do not live at the North Pole.
Therefore, Flamingos are pink.

Both of the premises are true, and the conclusion is as well, but there is no necessary, logical relationship between the three propositions, and therefore the argument is not sound because it is invalid. The fact that both the premises and the conclusion deal with exotic birds may lead us to be deceived about the relationship between them, but that is merely a distraction to sound thinking. As I will seek to demonstrate, the argument supposedly contained in the slogan “the gates of the church should be as wide as the gates of heaven” fails because the conclusion is false and does not follow from the premises. Therefore, the argument is both invalid and unsound.

First then, why is the argument invalid? The reason is very simple, as it has to do with a subtle and overlooked equivocation of terms, specifically when it comes to the concept of “church.” When someone applies for membership in the OPC they are asking to be received into one instance of the visible church. Our confessions are very clear that there is a real distinction between the visible and invisible churches (WCF 25, WLC 61ff). Not everyone within the visible church is ipso facto a member of the invisible church. In fact, as the hymn writer says, echoing many passages of Scripture (e.g., 1 Cor. 10.5), there are “false sons in her pale.” When we as officers admit someone to membership in the visible church, we charitably take on faith, because love believes all things (1 Cor. 13), that he is also a member of the invisible church. Such a person continues in the visible church without undue scrutiny and suspicion of disbelief. This person may through unrepentant sin disprove the validity of his membership in any given visible church and then be removed from that visible church by excommunication. But he is not obligated to demonstrate that he truly belongs.

On the other hand, because God has not given us infallible knowledge as to who is elect (a prerequisite for membership in the invisible church), we emphatically are making no definitive judgment on that question. If we thought we knew that, we could never exercise the discipline of excommunication without consigning that person infallibly to eternal punishment. But this is precisely the error of Rome, to conflate the visible and invisible churches, overstepping the authority of the Holy Spirit as revealed in his Word.

It seems obvious to me that the term “the gates of heaven” is meant to refer to the invisible church. Certainly all and only those who belong to the invisible church will reside within those gates and not in the outer darkness. Yet while we believe that everyone who is a member of the invisible church is obligated to become a member of some instance of the visible church, we nowhere claim that such a person must be a member of the OPC, much less belong to any given congregation, in order to be a member of the invisible church. In charity we understand that individuals from many other confessions can belong to her, and some persons no doubt do, whether Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, etc. But this is very plainly a separate question from who should be admitted into an OPC, because in that question we are dealing only with membership in the visible, not the invisible, church.

In other words, the first premise is dealing with the question of who may belong to the invisible church. We charitably accept, unless there is unrepentant sin, that someone who claims faith in Christ belongs to that invisible church. But the second premise is dealing with who may belong to a specific instance of the visible church, namely, a given OPC congregation. As these two churches are not the same, the equivocation of terms invalidates the conclusion.

So, what is our obligation as officers in the OPC? I believe it is not in any sense to guard heaven’s gates (the error of Roman ecclesiology, and a denial of John 10:16), but only the gates of the particular congregation where we serve. Therefore, when we say that anyone with a credible profession of faith may join our congregation, we are not making an infallible judgment about his membership in the invisible church. Instead, we are making a provisional judgment about his suitability for membership in our instance of the visible church and taking the rest on charity. Even when someone is removed from membership in the visible church, we understand that this judgment is provisional and fallible (WCF 31.3), that the Lord knows who are his, and that he will square all accounts at the last day. To act as though we have a good sense of the width of heaven’s gates is therefore dangerous presumption and neglecting our real duty to guard those particular gates to which we have been assigned. To repeat, the error in the slogan about the gates of heaven is the use of the concept of church in different senses in the premises than in the conclusion. The first and second premises are referring to the invisible church. The conclusion references the visible church, and thus we have a clear case of equivocation: the use of the same concept (church) with different meanings because of important qualifications.

Perhaps a look at some biblical examples will bring greater clarity. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, even before he received the covenant sign. Before Abraham became a member of the visible church of the old covenant he was saved, and so presumably were Rahab, Ruth, Naaman, and many others. In each instance these saints of old, to the extent that they were able, sought membership in the visible church, which even then included many false sons (1 Cor. 10), and submitted to her ordinances. But none of these individuals, at the time, should normally have been admitted into the visible church—which has a different, temporal, fallible jurisdiction and whose gates are guarded differently—without submitting to the imposition of the covenant sign and the general ordinances, and presenting their children for the same. Abraham even circumcised Ishmael after learning he was not the child of promise, so that Ishmael could have the benefits of membership in the visible church (Gen. 17:23). This was quite apart from what Abraham may have known, or feared, about Ishmael’s election or reprobation. This is because a credible profession on Abraham’s part included a desire to obey, and circumcision was an ordinance, a command, like baptism. It was not a preference or option for parents of covenant children.

There is another implication of the equivocation between visible and invisible churches contained in this slogan. It is perhaps easier for us as church officers to believe that we are guarding the gates of heaven, as presumptions usually are easier than reality. But if those who do not present their children for baptism are admitted in part by appealing to this fallacious slogan, the real-world consequences fall first on the children of believing parents who, like Moses’ children before Zipporah’s intervention (Exodus 4), are denied the very real blessing of the covenant sign and all its attendant privileges. And there is a general devaluing of membership in the visible church among other members, as well as of their own baptism.

Guarding the gates of the visible church, the actual responsibility of officers in the OPC, is by contrast usually difficult and sometimes unpleasant. It requires us not merely to believe that a profession is credible, i.e., well-phrased and not doctrinally aberrant. It also requires us to address the question of whether there is some obvious, unrepentant sin that would tend to weaken or even nullify a credible profession (remember we are not speaking here about membership in the invisible church, i.e., whether a person is saved). Despising the ordinance of baptism, whether one’s own or that of one’s child, clearly falls into this category as our Standards plainly teach (WCF 28.5, WLC 151.1–2). This is because Christ’s command is not a matter of preference or conscience. Perhaps we should employ a substitute slogan: “enter by the narrow gate.”

David C. Noe is the pastor of Reformation Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was formerly professor of classics at Calvin University. Ordained Servant Online, February, 2025.