Dr. R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, has been invited to respond to the controversy at the 9 Marks blog. Dr. Clark posts a lightly revised version of what he had previously posted on his own blog. Dr. Clark is not offended by Dr. Dever’s calling infant baptism sin and considers Dr. Dever to be in sin for not baptizing his own children.
Meanwhile, at Ref 21, PCA Pastor Richard Phillips and Dr. Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary weigh in. Dr. Phillips joins others in wondering why Dr. Dever calls infant baptism sin but doesn’t refer to those who favor women elders and other deviations as sinning. Dr. Dever is certainly capable of answering for himself, but my guess is that his initial article in the 9 Marks e-journal that led to this outcry was not conceived as a careful theological treatise and that he would indeed consider churches that violate the Scriptures and appoint women elders, etc. to be guilty of sin.
Pastor Phillips also revealingly tells us that “While we all hold our inferences dearly, it must be admitted that the Bible does not spell out the subjects or the mode of baptism in crystal-clear terms (with the direct language, say, of Paul’s prohibition of women elders.)” It is this idea, that the Bible isn’t really that clear on this issue, that would appear to be the root of much of the discomfort over the idea that one could be in sin for not getting baptism right. I’ll also note that it is a perspective not shared by many of Pastor Phillips’ fellow Reformed and Presbyterian brethren and one that doesn’t appear to be reflected in the Reformed confessions.
Bro. Phillips also questions how “Together for the Gospel” we can be if we can’t all gather together at the Lord’s Table. I think he may have a point here, although I do believe that orthodox Baptists and orthodox Presbyterians do have much in common and that Baptists are in most respects closer to conservative, confessional Presbyterians than we are to any other non-baptistic denomination. While I’m sure much good has been accomplished through T4G, given their strong Baptist convictions, one wonders whether Drs. Mohler and Dever might be better served to focus more attention on more explicitly Baptist efforts, especially considering that events like T4G appear to have the unintended consequence of giving the impression that ecclesiology is relatively unimportant. (One need not search the blogosphere long to find that view expressed by T4G fans.) For a robust and balanced (IMHO of course) articulation of Historic Baptist principles, see John L. Dagg’s Manual of Church Order.
Dr. Trueman merely gives us what I can at best describe as an ill executed attempt at humor and at worst a post that represents an eruption of the arrogance if not ignorance about Baptists that those of us who have spent much time among certain of the Reformed brethren have unfortunately come to expect at times.
May we assume by these responses that these leading lights among the Reformed disagree with the following from Chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith?
4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
5. 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.
I am a convinced Baptist. But when these kinds of disagreements arise, I say let a Baptist be a Baptist and a Presbyterian be a Presbyterian, and let’s not get too excited when one considers the other to be in sin when discussing the issue. However, it appears today that there are many otherwise sound men among both the Baptists and the Presbyterians who just aren’t that sure when it comes to ecclesiology, aren’t convinced that the Bible speaks clearly or authoritatively on some of the issues or think the issue to be relatively unimportant.
Indignation or outrage over Dr. Mark Dever’s or Dr. R. Scott Clark’s statements is a sign of the doctrinal indifference and in some cases, immaturity of our age. It seems that throwing out the “s-bomb” or “h-bomb” when when we believe that the practice of others clearly contradicts Scripture just isn’t politically correct these days. I mean, we wouldn’t want someone’s feelings to get hurt….
This subject has gained traction on a renowned reformed message board, of which I am a member. It seems that Mark Dever’s pastoral advice (basically that’s what his 9 marks article is) has been taken as a theological treatise. I have come out in defense of Dever, inasmuch as his article was not meant to be a scholarly work on ecclesiology.
Wow,
it is amazing what I miss when I stop paying attention to what calvinists are doing.
Peter Leithart made a good comment one time: given current presbyterian construals of meaning of baptism, it is amazing that more presbyies don’t convert back to Baptist-ism!
If baptism is defined as a sign and seal, which is a fairly western construal, then baptists when the argument easily. But if it is construed as a “rite,” then it is a new ballgame.
Even though I disagree with Dever, I understand him for saying that. It is perfectly logical thing for Baptist to say. I, for one, am not offended.
Dear Chris,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this. For clarity’s sake, let me explain my motivation. Over the last generation, a lot of effort has gone into building a ministry community of conservative Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists, on the principle of avoiding dispute over secondary matters of difference so as to join together on primary matters of agreement. My concern is not really that Mark would not pastor a paedo-baptist church (no surprise), but rather the effect of articles like this on our intra-baptist relations. If everyone knows that Mark wouldn’t pastor a paedo-baptist church, what is the point of such an article, in which paedo-baptism is lumped together with universalism and racism? I am one of the fervent paedo-baptist Reformed pastors who has gone out of his way to avoid needless dispute on this boundary. So I wonder what is up on the other side, and what really is the state of our working relationship.
Also, on the issue of the Bible’s direct teaching, my point is simply that there are no Bible verses that say, “When administering the sacrament of baptism, you must immerse the man or woman in a tank of water.” Nor does one say, “When administering the sacrament of baptism, you must sprinkle or pour the water over their head.” I am not at all denying the authority of the necessary inferences of Scripture — it was these that made me paedo-baptist. But I do fear that in our declarations regarding one another, we are being more dogmatic than is the text of Scripture. I do not really mind a Baptist holding his view of baptism. But I think their refusal to accept the validity of other modes of baptism is unconscionable, and if the implications of their rejection of our baptism are followed, it will make any working relationship impossible. This is what I fear from the tenor of Mark’s comments and others like them.
Lastly, let me say that I might have addressed all this through personal emails to Mark. I have not done so because 1) I think it is evident that all my comments are made from the perspective of sincere respect and brotherly affection for Mark, so going personal is not needed; and 2) given the public nature of the discussion, I think it most beneficial to others to express these concerns in the public forum.
Chris,
Excellent article, to which I am linking from mine.
Brothers,
Thanks for reading and commenting.
I have to actually step away from the computer and get some things accomplished offline, or IRL as they used to say. :)
Time doesn’t permit me to immediately compose the response that Pastor Phillips’ comment deserves, but I will respond either this evening or tomorrow, d.v.
Pastor Phillips,
The kind of cooperation you note goes back a long way, to the Fundamentals as well as with men like A.W. Pink (a Baptist) and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (a credobaptist who believed sprinkling was the biblical mode) who tended to avoid these divisive issues. As you have noted, we’ve seen much more of this cooperation between Presbyterians and Calvinistic Baptists since the late ’50′s revival of Calvinism. This includes things like the Banner of Truth Trust, the Ligonier Conferences, PCRT, The Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals, and Together for the Gospel (T4G) just to name a few. Of course none of this is news to you given that you have played a role in several (if not all) of these groups, but I thought I’d list them for the sake of some of our readers who may be unaware of the extent of the cooperation to which you alluded.
However, the line of cooperation has to be drawn somewhere, as most would admit given our differing views on ecclesiology. No doubt though we should not give unnecessary offense. I get the sense that Dr. Dever didn’t quite expect his article to be dissected in the way that it has been, but when something that has the potential to be controversial is put on the internet and given wide distribution, we can expect for it to be parsed to no end, especially if we precisionist Puritan types are involved.
There are some “Reformed” men among Baptists whose identity is much more Reformed (or universal/catholic) in outlook than it is Baptist. These men are antipaedobaptists, but to borrow a phrase from Mike Huckabee, they aren’t mad about it. Often it appears that these men may be Baptists by virtue of birth or circumstances and may remain so out of inertia or simply because they haven’t been convinced of paedobaptism.
There are others (like myself and Bill Brown who commented earlier) who find much to admire when considering our confessional Presbyterian brethren and will cooperate with them when able and appropriate, but who at the end of the day are convinced Baptists who affirm historic Baptist belief and practice (often including some form of close communion) and will occasionally engage in the kind of polemics that were more common during the period spanning the 16th-19th Centuries. (There is of course no shortage of Presbyterians who are all too eager to do this as well. My understanding is also that the Dutch Reformed have typically been quite a bit more restrictive than the Presbyterians have traditionally been with regard to confessional membership and restricted communion.)
There are also certain types of non-Calvinists that I could work with in ministry, whereas many Calvinists are unable or unwilling to do this.
It seems that Dr. Dever (as well as Dr. Mohler) are straddling both camps to some extent, a feat that is somewhat remarkable. Of course they take heat from both sides in the process, from paedos who at the end of the day still consider them to be sectarian for maintaining their Baptist convictions and from Baptists who wonder why they hang out with Presbyterians so much. (The last group doesn’t solely consist of non-Calvinist Baptists either.)
Of course you are familiar with the old TR/BR divide within the PCA and similar denominations. No doubt given what you’ve written on this subject and on others like the Federal Vision, there are people within your circles who think you’re too much of a TR (Truly Reformed) and others who don’t think you’re TR enough because you’re too nice to Baptists, etc.
While Dr. Dever stated that racism, universalism and paedoism were non-negotiables, given his track record of cooperation with paedobaptists, I think it’s fair to assume that he doesn’t consider all of these non-negotiables to be equally objectionable. As has been noted by some who object to what they view as ecumenism, 9Marks lists Presbyterian churches in their online church directory. (All that is required to be listed is affirmation of the 9Marks and the T4G statement.) There is some degree of inconsistency here, but no doubt Dr. Dever would remind us that 9Marks is not a church. These ventures seem to be more or less consistent with the concept of theological triage that Dr. Mohler has articulated. But when some of those who identify with things like T4G come away with the idea that ecclesiology is a matter of indifference or personal preference, there are those on both sides who will inevitably question what is ultimately being accomplished despite the gains we’ve seen among many with regard to sound doctrine, expository preaching, etc. (In fairness, many probably went there with that view to begin with.) Emphasis on certain issues (on which there is broader agreement) to the neglect of others often has the tendency to lead some to the opinion that they are a matter of indifference or relative unimportance. One need not look long to find T4G fans who are of that basic opinion. There is always the tendency to get out of balance or “go to seed” on one aspect of the truth to the neglect of others. It could also certainly be said that some go too far in reveling in their Baptist identity or their confessional Reformed heritage to the neglect of weightier matters.
Your reference to necessary inference ultimately gets us into issues of whether the WCF’s “good and necessary consequence” in Ch. 1 is legitimate, what the the London Baptists had in mind by jettisoning that language in the 1677/1689 confession and substituting “necessarily contained” etc. that I’m not prepared to elaborate on at this time but hope to address at some point. But suffice it to say that one way or another I’m not convinced of the case for Reformed paedobaptism or I wouldn’t have left Presbyterianism last year to become a Baptist. Neither am I convinced that the mode of baptism is unimportant.
As I’m sure you’re aware, asking a Baptist to abandon his convictions regarding the mode of baptism is essentially tantamount to asking a Presbyterian to abandon infant baptism or to abandon Presbyterian church government in favor of congregationalism (or episcopacy) or to grant some latitude for church officers who cannot fully embrace Calvinism.
I agree with you that public statements don’t necessitate a private response (although such may be advisable at times) and believe that Matt. 18 is often misapplied in these situations. It’s clear that a lot of the heat in this discussion (especially from the paedobaptist side) is due to the fact that Bro. Dever called infant baptism sin but didn’t state that having women elders is a sin. I doubt that he believes that the latter isn’t also sin. I’ve never met him and have had no interaction with him, but my best guess is that he perhaps believes that in some circumstances it may be possible to work with a teachable group that currently has women elders, but that it would be more difficult to persuade a church that is confessionally bound to paedobaptism to abandon that stance.
I do have a question for you. What are your thoughts on this post by Dr. R. Scott Clark on whether or not Presbyterians confess that refusing to baptize infants is sin?
There are a number of other rabbit trails I could chase, (including the Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper being a local church ordinance, which is somewhat foreign to the Presbyterian understanding) but I think I’ll stop for now.
Thank you for dropping in on my little blog and commenting, and I’ve enjoyed the interaction.
Thanks, Chris. I do think that tensions within our own camps affects how we deal with others in other camps. In my case, it is certainly true that many would view me as a TR conservative (would that I were worthy of being called TR!) and others say that I am a baptist because I am not hyper-covenantal. Likewise, I am well aware of the abuse heaped on Al and Mark for even knowing paedos like me. (I have to say that what these guys have to put up with in the SBC as far as irrational abuse goes far beyond anything I deal with in the PCA.) I sometimes wonder if they don’t feel some need to shore up their Baptist credentials by doing things like lumping paedobaptists with universalists and racists.
As for the sin issue, no I do not think this qualifies as sin, either way. Paul says that whatever is not of faith is sin. While someone is wrong, we surely need a more varied taxonomy than one in which every biblical error is sin. But that doesn’t bother me all that much. In all of this, I have not been offended and I am not upset that Mark is calling me a sinner (I am one). What troubles me is the closed table to brothers and what I see as a Christ+ view of table fellowship. I am just as opposed to my Reformed brethren who deny the table to Baptists as I am to my Baptist friends who deny the table to Presbyterians. It is Christ’s table, and his people should be invited. Obviously, there is a need to church membership, since Christ has given the sacrament for the church to steward. But Christians in good standing should all be brought together at the table of the Lord.
May He bless you.
Rick Phillips
In the following excerpt, Dr. Dever never mentions women elders, but I’m guessing it’s this type of situation he may have had in mind in which something worthwhile could come out of working with a liberal church, but one that allows some opportunity for the truth to be taught.
The following occurred when he was attending Gordon-Conwell Seminary. The opportunity he mentions came after he and his wife left a liberal Baptist church in the area:
“A ministry opportunity opened up for us at a church in our own town. This church was a Congregational church and, though theologically liberal itself, had an evangelical youth group. For three years, I worked with that youth group. In my second year there, in part because of conversions we had seen and the consequent need for teaching, and in part because of the desire of the few evangelicals among the adult members, I got permission to begin a Sunday evening service with expositional preaching. (At the time, there was no evening service.)
After a couple of years of this, and of growing frustrations with the Congregational church (e.g., Unitarian deacons, sermons preached against the idea that people are sinful and need saving), I agreed with the forty or so Sunday evening attenders that an evangelical church should be planted.”
Nettles, Tom J. and Russell D. Moore eds., Why I Am a Baptist. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001. pp. 125-126.
Dever then went on to explain why the choice was made to affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention instead of the Conservative Baptists or the Baptist General Conference.
Pastor Phillips,
I’m compelled to make at least one last comment since you’ve touched on one of my hobby horses. You posted the following:
I have to say that what these guys have to put up with in the SBC as far as irrational abuse goes far beyond anything I deal with in the PCA.
Although it may pain some of my Southern Baptist friends to see me make this concession, I agree with this statement, but only as far as it goes.
I’ve often seen the SBC and PCA compared, and in many cases there is much in common in that both are more or less “conservative.” Both have denounced the TNIV, both uphold inerrancy and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ alone, both have debated whether there should be an “exodus” from the public schools, etc. However to a large degree it is an apples and oranges comparison. It has pained me to see some men make what in my opinion amounts to a hasty comparison of the two and choose the PCA without considering all of the circumstances. Hence this being one of my hobby horses. It also has a lot to do with my own experience of joining the Orthodox Presbyterian Church a few years ago only to revert to my previously held baptistic beliefs last year while I was in the midst of transferring my membership to a PCA church after relocating.
The parameters of cooperation in the SBC are much broader than the PCA, and this doesn’t just have to do with Calvinism or polity.
The PCA is a denomination that originated when conservatives seceded from the PCUS (the old Southern Presbyterian Church) in 1973 when they felt that the PCUS was finally given over to liberalism and beyond hope of recovery. (The PCUS eventually merged with the Northern church in 1983 to form today’s PCUSA.) It is to be expected that a denomination that was largely founded by Bible believing Christians a mere 35 years ago would remain sound to this point, although there is concern even now over gender issues, strict subscription, etc. Much of this is the result of the “Joining and Receiving” of the RPCES in 1981, which was a broader church of essentially Northern origin, although one that was still quite sound on the essentials.
On the other hand, the Southern Baptist Convention is essentially the mainline Baptist convention. I know it pains some for me to call the SBC “mainline,” but I don’t use the term in the academic sense that defines mainline as the “Seven Sisters” who are members of the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches. I use it in the sense that the SBC dates to 1845 and has its roots in the Triennial Convention that began in 1814. I would imagine that some of the Baptist associations in the southeast may date back at least several decades earlier.
When people in this country think of Baptists, the Southern Baptist Convention is what is typically going to come to mind, and not necessarily just in the South. That to me is mainline. When people in general think of Presbyterians, is the the PCA what immediately comes to mind? Perhaps it might at some point a few decades in the future after the PCUSA continues its hemmorrhaging and the PCA perhaps overtakes it in terms of numbers. (My guess is that we may continue to see realignment among the Presbyterians, especially if women elders becomes a significant issue in the EPC with all of the former PCUSA churches now coming in. Prospects of a merger between the PCA and OPC would seem pretty dim at this point, although some “Old School” PCA congregations might ultimately be more at home in the OPC and a few “New Life” type OPC congregations would probably be better off in the PCA.)
Although many conservatives did leave or in some cases sort of checked out of the SBC and remained SBC in name only during the 20th Century, the Conservative Resurgence that began in the late 1970′s was successful in turning the seminaries around and regaining control of the Convention in general.
But there is still much work to do to overcome the influence of liberalism and doctrinal indifference and shallowness that resulted from the liberal and moderate hegemony in the SBC that lasted for several decades. I am optimistic and am of the opinion that things are generally moving in the right direction, or I wouldn’t have joined a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention in the first place, especially considering that I was not raised Southern Baptist and have had no prior connection with the SBC other than attending a Baptist college (while yet unconverted) and being an interested observer of it for the past several years.
[...] We welcome a new contributor today. Chris Poe is a recent blogger that has been linked to over at Praisegod Barebones. If you would like to comment on this article you can go to Praisegod Barebones or One Pilgrim’s Progress [...]
I did not read the interation between you (Chris) and Phillips. But reading Dever’s original post, which said “11. Infant baptism. I cannot live with infant baptism. Having said that, if I were the pastor of the only church allowed in Mecca, maybe… But even then, I simply lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord’s Table who has not been baptized. It is, as one said not too long ago, “above my pay-grade.” I have many dear paedo-baptists friends from whom I have learned much. Yet I see their practice as a sinful (though sincere) error from which God protects them by allowing for inconsistency in their doctrinal system, just as he graciously protects me from consistency with my own errors.”
What I would like to submit to any Baptist who would call infant baptism sin, is what do they consider baptizing the unsaved? I would charge that if infant baptism is sin, then so is baptizing unconverted adults (which occurs all too frequently in Baptist churches).
I personally would not go so far as to say infant baptism is sin, but I would say that is misguided. Just as I would not call baptizing unconverted adults sin but misguided.
Mr. Hyde,
Your reference to baptizing the unsaved is a red herring that is often thrown into the debate by paedobaptists.
The issue is knowingly baptizing the unregenerate. The Baptist position is that professing believers should be baptized, not that we can infallibly state that every person baptized is regenerate.
I don’t hesitate to say that any baptistic pastor who deliberately baptizes someone who he doesn’t have reason to believe is converted is guilty of gross sin.
It’s not surprising to see that that Orthodox Presbyterian elder Dr. D.G. Hart is not offended either.
He also makes what in my opinion are some valid points about the kinds of evangelical cooperative ventures that we have been discussing here, which tend to emphasize the lowest common denominator:
http://oldlife.org/2009/03/23/at-least-one-alliance-knows-where-it-stands-on-baptism/
Chris,
I don’t think my point is a “red herring.” Let me explain why. As a Baptist, I do not interpret the action of baptism to have any salvific significance. What I mean is that the action of baptism is not what saves the person. If someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, they have recieved salvation regardless even if they are never baptized. Because this is the case, I beleive the opposite to be true as well. Baptism does not make a saved person more saved or more righteous.
Therefore, your point, “That any baptistic pastor who deliberately baptizes someone who he doesn’t have reason to believe is converted is guilty of gross sin” brings out a point that I think could be better expressed than simply saying baptizing the unregenerate is sin. It is not the action of baptizing the unregenerate that I consider to be sin, it is leading the unregenerate to believe that because they have been baptized that they have recieved salvation.
My real complaint about baptizing unregenerate individuals is that I think Southern Baptist’s in general (this does not include each and every church obviously) have failed to do due diligence in determining whether a person has truly recieved salvation prior to baptizing them. My assumption is that this has happened because it is easier to simply accept the fact that they are requesting baptism as a sign of their having recieved salvation instead of sitting down and counseling with them to determine if they have truly recieved salvation or made an emotional commitment.
oops, I did not mean to address that last comment to Christ, I meant to write Chris! : )
Mr. Hyde,
No worry, I’ve edited the comment. If someone wants to address something to Jesus, I don’t think this blog is the best venue. :)
I think I may have a better idea now where you’re coming from.
I agree with you that there is a danger of presumption in both camps. The perennial danger with paedobaptists is to assume that a man is a Christian simply because he was raised in a Christian home, was baptized and lives an outwardly good life, etc. The danger in baptistic churches is to assume that a man is saved because he walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, signed a card or was baptized.
Our hope and our assurance for salvation is based solely on our trust in Him, and I’m not aware of writing anything that would convey otherwise. However, baptism is commanded of those who have been born again and should not be neglected either.
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.
Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.
Jacob wrote:
Peter Leithart made a good comment one time: given current presbyterian construals of meaning of baptism, it is amazing that more presbyies don’t convert back to Baptist-ism!
If so many Baptist churches weren’t such a mess, I have little doubt that this would be happening, especially considering that much of the growth of the PCA and similar denominations in recent years largely comes from disgruntled Baptists in search of sound teaching.
However, keep in mind that the sectarian or schismatic argument with regard to Baptist insistence on immersion is enough for some baptistic types who do not have strong convictions on the issue and who can swallow what often amounts to wet dedications in many Presbyterian churches to remain or become Presbyterians.
[...] Chris Poe wrote a post on this topic as well. His opening paragraph caught our attention: http://onepilgrimsprogress.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/further-thoughts-on-the-reactions-to-mark-dever-… [...]