What I CAN and CANNOT Live With as a Pastor by Mark Dever
- Thread starter SolaGratia
- Start date
- Status
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Jen, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this. If I am understanding everything correctly, an Arminian pastor (complete with altar calls and universal atonement, the who nine years) in favor of female elders is welcome to the Table in Dever's church, but Lig Duncan is not, as long as he was a credobaptist?
I have. And nowhere does he call altar calls or female elders "sinful," which was my point.
I was probably not clear with my pronouns here. The "this" refers to paedobaptism, as in "I just don't see how paedobaptism is a problem in Baptist churches." I don't know of any that practice it.
I think I agree with your comment, though, if I am correctly understanding you. Christians in general have a low view of the sacraments. That's not just a problem in Baptist churches. I think we are in agreement here, even if it doesn't shake out the same in the end.
asc
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
I've read the full article. I don't think paedobaptists should be unduly offended - not if they are of the variety to say that baptists are in sin for not baptizing their children, certainly.
But I disagree with Dever's exclusion of godly paedobaptists (if they were baptized as infants) from the Lord's Table. But look at the situation he sets up where he could try to live with female elders - if the congregation was willing to learn. And if a paedobaptist church called him as a pastor on the understanding that he wouldn't be requested to baptize infants? Not an ideal situation, surely, but then churches shouldn't be recovering from having had female elders either.
But I disagree with Dever's exclusion of godly paedobaptists (if they were baptized as infants) from the Lord's Table. But look at the situation he sets up where he could try to live with female elders - if the congregation was willing to learn. And if a paedobaptist church called him as a pastor on the understanding that he wouldn't be requested to baptize infants? Not an ideal situation, surely, but then churches shouldn't be recovering from having had female elders either.
I have read the article and agree with most of what he says. Every pastor needs to determine what areas of theological departure he is willing to work with. It's rare to find the perfect place - we all have warts and we all probably have some holes in our theology. I have often felt that I would prefer to teach a group of sincere, serious, and loving believers that have some theological holes than to teach a group that has the theology figured out but gets nothing accomplished due to strife and bitterness.
I pastor a calvinistic Baptist church and our church requires salvation as the prerequisite for church membership. We would be willing to admit convinced paedobapstists as church members, providing they would be willing to submit the doctrine of the church. (By submit, I mean simply that they would not be contradictory and combative. We also teach that communion is for the saints of God and would be willing to participate with and include paedobaptists in our Lord Supper service. We would not be willing to permit someone who has not been baptized at all, nor would we feel he should properly partake of the Supper until he has been baptized. This is all theory, I could say, for all our members are credobaptists.
This is a rare position to be held by baptists. John Bunyan wrote a couple of treatises, one which is called something like "why baptism is no bar to communion." Sadly, the man was roundly criticized by paedobaptists and credobaptists alike! I found his arguments rather compelling.
This issue is perplexing to me. I know Godly men and enjoy rich friendship with individuals on both sides. I marvel that we can agree on so many points of theology and practice but when the subject comes around to baptism, we stare at each other across the table thinking "Why don't you get it, stupid?!"
What is marvelous to me is that God is so gracious to use ignorant sinners to accomplish his purposes. All would agree that God has greatly blessed the labors of both paedo and credo alike. Someone must be wrong! Thank God that He is pleased to use his saints in spite of their imperfections.
I pastor a calvinistic Baptist church and our church requires salvation as the prerequisite for church membership. We would be willing to admit convinced paedobapstists as church members, providing they would be willing to submit the doctrine of the church. (By submit, I mean simply that they would not be contradictory and combative. We also teach that communion is for the saints of God and would be willing to participate with and include paedobaptists in our Lord Supper service. We would not be willing to permit someone who has not been baptized at all, nor would we feel he should properly partake of the Supper until he has been baptized. This is all theory, I could say, for all our members are credobaptists.
This is a rare position to be held by baptists. John Bunyan wrote a couple of treatises, one which is called something like "why baptism is no bar to communion." Sadly, the man was roundly criticized by paedobaptists and credobaptists alike! I found his arguments rather compelling.
This issue is perplexing to me. I know Godly men and enjoy rich friendship with individuals on both sides. I marvel that we can agree on so many points of theology and practice but when the subject comes around to baptism, we stare at each other across the table thinking "Why don't you get it, stupid?!"
What is marvelous to me is that God is so gracious to use ignorant sinners to accomplish his purposes. All would agree that God has greatly blessed the labors of both paedo and credo alike. Someone must be wrong! Thank God that He is pleased to use his saints in spite of their imperfections.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
Rick Phillips adds a few thoughts at Universalism, Racism... Paedobaptism? - Reformation21 Blog
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
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.
I agree with you when you say "young pastors should be clear in their own mind what issues they think are negotiable and which aren't." If that's all he had said, fine. Even if he had used the issue of baptism, fine. I don't expect him to agree with me on it. But to call that specific one "sinful" and hold it higher than the rest (including Arminianism, feminism in the church) is just a bit too much. He should have chosen his words more carefully.
That's an excellent article, and far better than my uncouth ramblings. I would encourage everyone on this thread to read it.
And Rick Phillips is no relation. I'm sure he's thankful for that!
asc
Puritan Board Sophomore
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".
Now personally, I'd love for credos and paedos to all get along, but at the level of running a local congregation, it would be awkward at best for a pastor to have a large mix of credos and paedos together.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
The topic of thread centers on Mark Dever's comments, not what various churches practice. The topic has devolved enough without engaging in a tu quoque argument on top of that.
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.
I suppose I wouldn't be as offended by the "sinful" comment if he hadn't reserved that for infant baptism. Perhaps if he had referred to the other practices that way, it might have slipped below the radar. Or better yet, if he had simply spoken against practice without using the "s" word, that would have been fine. But the way he wrote it, he seems to be feel more strongly about this than those other practices (and others more wise than I have detected this as well; e.g., the Rick Phillips article linked above).
Joe, a pastor from out of town, visits a local Baptist church. Joe's church has female elders and Arminian theology. The pastor of the church Joe is visiting fences the table with the following statement, "All believers who have been scripturally baptized, are not living in unrepentant sin or currently under church discipline are welcome to partake." The pastor has no idea what Joe believes. For that matter he has no idea what Sally believes, who is also a visitor. Joe and Sally partake of the Lord's Supper. Is the pastor and elders supposed to know the vocation and theology of a visitor before they partake? Those who advocate a strict closed table would probably say "yes." But for those churches that practice a modified closed table, how are they supposed to know what Joe believes?
For the sake of argument, lets say that I am made aware of Joe before he visits. I know he has a church with female elders and that he is Arminian in his theology. I would have less of a problem with his Arminian leaning theology than his female elders. I will not deny a person from the table who is not a Calvinist. In my humble opinion that is not a requirement for partaking. The female elder issue raises a lot of questions. Arminianism, depending on it's severity, is a sin because it denies the absolute sovereignty of God. But being a shepherd of the flock, and abiding female elders, is a gross sin. For that reason, if I knew Joe and his ecclesiology, I would consider him in gross open sin and not let him partake. Why deny him for his aberrant ecclesiology and not his denying the sovereignty of God? His ecclesiology has placed the church in peril. It is the sin of Genesis 3. It is a grave error that must be rebuked among those who name Christ.
Now, do you have a specific situation you can point to regarding Mark Dever in this regard?
Zenas
Snow Miser
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.
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?
You really have your knickers in a twist about this, don't you?
Read the article. Does it look like a theological treatise to you? Who was the article written to? What was the intent of the article? Could it be it was pastoral advice to other pastors, or those who are desirous of pastoring? Is it possible that Mark Dever did not intend to cover all the theological bases on each aberrant practice in Baptist churches? Was he writing the article seeking paedo approval? I suggest you read the article carefully in order to determine his target audience and what he had to say to it.
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.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
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.
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.
Well, there you go. Baptists believe Presbyterians are in sin and vice versa. So what? Is that a revelation? We shake hands and go on with life.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church?
If a church in the PCA had such, they should expect to be disciplined.
Thanks Charlie! Excellent Article. I guess I was a little slow on the uptake with Dever's article. Met Rick Philips at a PCRT Conference in Mesa, AZ a few years ago. He's normally Spot On with his thoughts.
I wish, Bill, that he had been as forceful in his language on eldresses as paedobaptists:
I refuse to even visit my in-laws church with female elders on Lord's Days when there could be communion.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church?
If a church in the PCA had such, they should expect to be disciplined.
That's correct thus my
response Fred!
Zenas
Snow Miser
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.
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.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church?
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.
Paedo baptism IS a sin. Why does that shock you coming from a Baptist? YOUR own confession calls what I believe regarding baptism a sin. Should I tell you to see the folly in your attitude? Scott Clark doesn't have an issue with it. Neither does Fred Greco. Why is that?
asc
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think you guys need to take some things into perspective. These were very brief remarks on many different topics. I don't know Dever personally, but having heard some of his sermons, I'd assume he would call female eldership sin. Just because he didn't call it a sin in the 4 sentences that he mentioned it, doesn't mean much of anything. He is definitely not in favor of female eldership, please read his remarks carefully. He's basically saying that it's theortically possible he could pastor such a church, but only in a strange circumstance: basically a wayward church that is willing to repent and "female elders themselves are happy to step down..."; i don't see that happening at a liberal church!
>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.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church?
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.
It is settled case law that a non-infant baptist or a man who does not believe in limited atonement may not be ordained. If such were done and know, it would be a complete slam dunk, ecclesiastically speaking.
Wow! You have credo baptists in Deacon positions in an ARP church?
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?
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I may not have expressed myself as clearly as possible. My point was to say that the PCA has men (and "commissioned women") in positions of authority that hold aberrant positions that do not face discipline.
- Status
Similar threads
