Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some two years ago or thereabouts, there was yet another kerfluffle on this issue on the Reformed blogs when Dever denied the Lord's Supper to Ligon Duncan... after the latter preached at his (that is, Dever's) church. That seems to be more inconsistent to me -- why allow someone into your pulpit to whom you wouldn't administer the Supper? I understand (and appreciate!) T4G, but the pulpit thing seems a bit odd...
Has anyone in this thread actually read the article in full?
I just don't see how this is a problem in Baptist churches.
Tim, spend some time in Baptist churches who have almost no conception of the ordinances/sacraments and then you'll understand the importance of this issue.
Again, I wasn't 100% sure about the intent of the article but it seemed to me that he was using himself as an example of what kinds of issues other pastors need to think about before leading a congregation. For him personally, baptism is a huge issue (for me personally, not so big an issue). The article was clearly not meant to be a comprehensive list; just examples.
Are there credo believers in your church? How is the situation handled? Do you think they're sinning by not baptizing their children?
The issue is not mine but Dever's. Once again, are there Baptist churches out there somewhere that are baptizing infants that I don't know about? And why single this one thing out as "sinful" but not say that about altar calls, universal atonement, or female elders?
I don't believe there are currently any credo believers in our church. Our standards allow for Sessions to admit members into membership who have a scruple on that issue. However, they must agree that the doctrines taught by our denomination are founded on Scripture, even if they personally don't agree with that one. They can be members in good standing, but they are barred from holding a church office (elder or deacon). And the duty of the Session is to encourage them (and exhort them) to have their children presented for baptism. And obviously, we do not exclude those from membership who were baptized as adults, even if they were immersed. For example, I was immersed in a Baptist church many years ago. That seems far more unifying than Dever's position.
The fact that your own church prohibits credos from holding office (even deacon, which isn't a teaching position) shows that it considers baptism to be a doctrine of high importance and that credos are seriously mistaken and in sin by not baptizing their children. So that position doesn't seem to be that different than Dever, except for how it impacts the Lord's Supper. I'm sorry if his words were offensive to you, but I think his point was that young pastors should be clear in their own mind what issues they think are negotiable and which aren't; and for Dever this is a non-negotiable. For your church, it's also clearly non-negotiable, but to a different degree.
Rick Phillips adds a few thoughts at Universalism, Racism... Paedobaptism? - Reformation21 Blog
When men are ordained in our denomination, they must affirm a statement that says the doctrines of the ARP are founded on Scripture and an expression of their own faith. That should be a perfectly reasonable expectation. We don't publicly bring people in front of the church that don't answer the affirmative and say they are being "sinful." Nor do we say they cannot come to the Lord's Table. Hence, it's much more than simply different degrees.
If we, credos, aren't in sin by not baptizing our children, then what would you call it? I thought paedos consider baptism of children to be commanded by God, like circumcision? So if i'm neglecting a command from God, aren't I sinning? I'm not offended by this line of reasoning; let's "call a spade a spade".
I'm still having trouble wrapping by brain around not serving the Lord's Supper to a Reformed paedobaptist brother and whether the same would be applied to an Arminian who practices the ordination of female elders. That just baffles me.
We have credo-baptists in deacon positions at my church. I personally don't find it to be a deal-breaker. Absent a solid Presbyterian church, I'd attend a Reformed Baptist church.
I find Denver's comment abhorrent in light of the other things he spoke of, and I'm in agreement with Tim. Those of you who are toeing the Baptist line should at least acknowledge the significant slight in calling paedo-Baptism a sin, but not female elders. That's just downright nasty guys.
Those of you who are toeing the Baptist line should at least acknowledge the significant slight in calling paedo-Baptism a sin, but not female elders. That's just downright nasty guys.
It really doesn't bother me that Dever calls it sin. I actually think he should. But I can't understand how having female elders is not a deal breaker. I'd pump gas before I ministered in a church with eldresses.
Westminster Confession of Faith
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.
II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
IV. 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.
V. 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.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.
We have credo-baptists in deacon positions at my church. I personally don't find it to be a deal-breaker. Absent a solid Presbyterian church, I'd attend a Reformed Baptist church.
I find Denver's comment abhorrent in light of the other things he spoke of, and I'm in agreement with Tim. Those of you who are toeing the Baptist line should at least acknowledge the significant slight in calling paedo-Baptism a sin, but not female elders. That's just downright nasty guys.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church? Anyone else in PCA or other NAPARC denominations who have similar situations?
Rick Phillips adds a few thoughts at Universalism, Racism... Paedobaptism? - Reformation21 Blog
It really doesn't bother me that Dever calls it sin. I actually think he should. But I can't understand how having female elders is not a deal breaker. I'd pump gas before I ministered in a church with eldresses.
Fred, I won't speak for Mark, but I'm sure he'd be pumping gas right along with you.
2. Female elders. I might be able to live with female elders, but not for long, and probably not at all, so I probably just shouldn’t try. I want to allow for those situations in which you’ve had an ill-taught church that’s willing to follow your leadership, where even the female elders themselves are happy to step down. But normally, if a church accepts female elders, has been clearly instructed to the contrary, and will not change, that seems like a battle you won’t win. So I probably wouldn’t even begin with such a church.
We have credo-baptists in deacon positions at my church. I personally don't find it to be a deal-breaker. Absent a solid Presbyterian church, I'd attend a Reformed Baptist church.
I find Denver's comment abhorrent in light of the other things he spoke of, and I'm in agreement with Tim. Those of you who are toeing the Baptist line should at least acknowledge the significant slight in calling paedo-Baptism a sin, but not female elders. That's just downright nasty guys.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church? Anyone else in PCA or other NAPARC denominations who have similar situations?
If a church in the PCA had such, they should expect to be disciplined.
We have credo-baptists in deacon positions at my church. I personally don't find it to be a deal-breaker. Absent a solid Presbyterian church, I'd attend a Reformed Baptist church.
I find Denver's comment abhorrent in light of the other things he spoke of, and I'm in agreement with Tim. Those of you who are toeing the Baptist line should at least acknowledge the significant slight in calling paedo-Baptism a sin, but not female elders. That's just downright nasty guys.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church? Anyone else in PCA or other NAPARC denominations who have similar situations?
If a church in the PCA had such, they should expect to be disciplined.
No, it's not a theological treatise and he's not trying to appease paedo-baptists, which is why I'm so irked because it's probably a more telling look into what he really personally thinks than he'd let on if he were writing in either of those instances.
You act like I'm skewering the man for some simple mistake. He blatantly called a core doctrine of Presbyterianism a sin, something akin to murder, rape, lust, or blasphemy. You act incredulous that I'm somehow upset over this, as if it's no big deal. Surely you see the folly in your attitude and if you don't, I fear you can't be helped to see that which is in front of your own eyes.
We have credo-baptists in deacon positions at my church. I personally don't find it to be a deal-breaker. Absent a solid Presbyterian church, I'd attend a Reformed Baptist church.
I find Denver's comment abhorrent in light of the other things he spoke of, and I'm in agreement with Tim. Those of you who are toeing the Baptist line should at least acknowledge the significant slight in calling paedo-Baptism a sin, but not female elders. That's just downright nasty guys.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church? Anyone else in PCA or other NAPARC denominations who have similar situations?
If a church in the PCA had such, they should expect to be disciplined.
Really? Seems to me that the PCA has more than just credo-baptists in positions of authority that do not face any discipline.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church? Anyone else in PCA or other NAPARC denominations who have similar situations?
If a church in the PCA had such, they should expect to be disciplined.
Really? Seems to me that the PCA has more than just credo-baptists in positions of authority that do not face any discipline.
If a church in the PCA had such, they should expect to be disciplined.
Really? Seems to me that the PCA has more than just credo-baptists in positions of authority that do not face any discipline.
None that I'm aware of...can't hold an office in a PCA Church as a Credo-baptist..do you have specific examples Ben?