What I CAN and CANNOT Live With as a Pastor by Mark Dever

[Herald]

As to why Ligon was allowed to preach, why not? He wasn't applying for membership at CHBC.

Baptists are in the practice of allowing those who are not "members of the visible church" to fill their pulpits? Do they, perchance, have a higher standard of the Lord's Supper than the ministry of the preaching of the word?

It's not normative. I know the Duncan and Dever are friends. Both have appeared together at the Ligonier conference. I can't answer for Mark Dever as to why Lignon Duncan preached at CHBC.

 

[rescuedbyLove]

I have alerted Rev. Denver of the offense in question on a blog post. Assuming he sees it, we'll see where he personally stands regarding both my and Tim's concern.

I hope you posted on the correct blog. I'm not aware that Rev. Denver has an opinion on this topic. I think Pastor Mark Dever does, but I'm just guessing.

 

[kvanlaan]

I sent an email myself, but it kicked back something to the effect that "We may or may not answer, we get a lot of emails; thanks!"

I would like to hear what he says on this myself - it's taken a while to read all the posts on this, but I just can't fathom his perspective.

Lig Duncan would have to become an Anabaptist to take communion at Dever's church - I just can't wrap my head around that.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Bill, don't give Andrew too hard a time--you misspelled Ligon in 91, I believe!

 

[Marrow Man]

Can someone from the Baptist perspective answer my question in # 87. I am genuinely seeking understanding on an ecclesiastical distinction, not trying to cause further dissent.

 

[Herald]

Bill, don't give Andrew too hard a time--you misspelled Ligon in 91, I believe!

Giving a hard time is what I'm good at.

 

[Marrow Man]

Bill, don't give Andrew too hard a time--you misspelled Ligon in 91, I believe!

Perhaps Rev. Lignon Denver can start his own church where both Baptists and Presbyterians can be members!

 

[lynnie]

Tim/MM...

I can't speak for all Baptists. I am sure some would say the child is not saved until evidence of regeneration and saving faith, and therefore not in the visible church.

However, one way Baptists can look at children is that we do baby dedications, according to the pattern of Joseph and Mary dedicating Jesus at the redemption ceremony of the firstborn (the time where they met Simeon and Anna). It was commanded to redeem the first born, and scripture calls us the church of the firstborn. So Baptists believe the child is set apart by the faith of the parents in a special way and is part of the visible covenant community, the church of the firstborn. But they don't dunk until the conversion seems evident.

I don't have the faintest idea what Dever thinks about the visible church though. And I sure hope you won't judge credos by his idiot comments. Anybody who would not go to Iain Murray's church, or Ligon Duncan's or RC Sprouls or J Edwards' church, needs to be dunked a few more times for several minutes each, in real cold water, until his brain clears

 

[Marrow Man]

However, one way Baptists can look at children is that we do baby dedications, according to the pattern of Joseph and Mary dedicating Jesus at the redemption ceremony of the firstborn (the time where they met Simeon and Anna). It was commanded to redeem the first born, and scripture calls us the church of the firstborn. So Baptists believe the child is set apart by the faith of the parents in a special way and is part of the visible covenant community, the church of the firstborn. But they don't dunk until the conversion seems evident.

I think this has multitude problems since Jesus also received the covenant sign, but I think we've done enough of this on this thread, and I don't wish to push this part any further:

I don't have the faintest idea what Dever thinks about the visible church though. And I sure hope you won't judge credos by his idiot comments. Anybody who would not go to Iain Murray's church, or Ligon Duncan's or RC Sprouls or J Edwards' church, needs to be dunked a few more times for several minutes each, in real cold water, until his brain clears

Careful, Lynnie, don't make me break out the wig! Seriously, Dever is still a minister of the gospel, and we shouldn't use words like "idiot" in relation to him (I see you are only referencing his comments, though). Question, though: did he refuse to go to those church's you mentioned? Do you have a link or something about this?

I remember him at a Ligonier conference a few years ago. We went on Wed evening to Sproul's church and Derick Thomas preached. I don't recall whether Dever was there or not.

 

[Herald]

Can someone from the Baptist perspective answer my question in # 87. I am genuinely seeking understanding on an ecclesiastical distinction, not trying to cause further dissent.

Tim, if you want to join my church two things are needed:

1. Articulate a credible profession of faith
2. Give proof (by letter or statement) of being scripturally baptized, or submit
to scriptural baptism.

You're correct in pointing out that the term "visible church" is not in the 1689 London Baptist Confession. "Visible saints" is the phrase used. You quoted part of CHBC's statement of faith:

We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers.. (Article 13)

I am confident that CHBC views the only valid form of baptism as believers baptism by immersion. I am in agreement with that position. How dogmatic should Baptists be in determining whether Presbyterians are visible saints in visible churches? Speaking only for myself, I'd have to say that Presbyterians are displaying an ecclesiastical inconsistency to biblical teaching. I'm quite sure you'd say that same about us. I'm not too hung up on the visible church phrase when comparing Baptist ecclesiology to Presbyterian ecclesiology. In the end my chief concern is with my flock. That's not meant to be mean spirited towards my Presbyterian brethren, but my pastoral duties are limited to the members of my church. If a person wishes to be a visible member of my church, they will have to satisfy the requirements listed earlier in this post.

 

[Whitefield]

All in all, I'm not really sure what relevance to my life there is in what Dever can live with and without.

 

[Marrow Man]

Thanks for the response, Bill. You do see my point (I hope I explained myself well) hopefully. Presbyterians have a broader view of the visible church than Baptists (if I understand this correctly). Baptists originally seemed to have a broader view (the "visible saints" phrase in the LBC), but now that view seems to apply only to the local church. Part of my intensity before had to do with the Presbyterian view (including the "no ordinary possibility of salvation" part), but I see you are not adopting anything of the sort. When you say, "not part of the visible church", you are doing so with an eye more to your local congregation than the worldwide church? Is that a fair assessment? Please forgive my ignorance if I have misstated you.

 

[Herald]

When you say, "not part of the visible church", you are doing so with an eye more to your local congregation than the worldwide church? Is that a fair assessment? Please forgive my ignorance if I have misstated you.

Tim, correct. "Visible church" seems like it's more of a Presbyterian term. I used it in this thread because there's a logic to it when defining it from a purely Baptist perspective. I need to remember that defining terms is often necessary.

I have to admit that I am rather sectarian. I'm a Baptist because I believe Baptists are more right than other Christian denominations. Why would any of us willingly join a church that we believe to be in error? Even though I have a pronounced sectarian streak, it doesn't mean I lack charity or affection towards Christians of different persuasions. I've been on this board long enough to have proved that.

 

[fredtgreco]

Can someone from the Baptist perspective answer my question in # 87. I am genuinely seeking understanding on an ecclesiastical distinction, not trying to cause further dissent.

Tim, if you want to join my church two things are needed:

1. Articulate a credible profession of faith
2. Give proof (by letter or statement) of being scripturally baptized, or submit
to scriptural baptism.

You're correct in pointing out that the term "visible church" is not in the 1689 London Baptist Confession. "Visible saints" is the phrase used. You quoted part of CHBC's statement of faith:

We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers.. (Article 13)

I am confident that CHBC views the only valid form of baptism as believers baptism by immersion. I am in agreement with that position. How dogmatic should Baptists be in determining whether Presbyterians are visible saints in visible churches? Speaking only for myself, I'd have to say that Presbyterians are displaying an ecclesiastical inconsistency to biblical teaching. I'm quite sure you'd say that same about us. I'm not too hung up on the visible church phrase when comparing Baptist ecclesiology to Presbyterian ecclesiology. In the end my chief concern is with my flock. That's not meant to be mean spirited towards my Presbyterian brethren, but my pastoral duties are limited to the members of my church. If a person wishes to be a visible member of my church, they will have to satisfy the requirements listed earlier in this post.

Not to be ornery , Bill, but I think your last sentence is the point. Should a person come to your church having been baptized as an infant, and having made (and able to back up with his life) a credible profession of faith, you are left with only two options: (1) bind his conscience, or (2) show him the door.

I am thankful that I have better options, and even tomorrow will minister the Word to dear people who have not yet come to understand baptism as I do, and yet are not separated from me by it. That is the chief weakness of the baptistic ecclesiatical position, in my opinion. It is why many times (even on this Board) I have trotted out my quotes from Dagg, which most Baptists don't like.

I am also thankful that I can be frank and straightforward because of our love for each other.

 

[Herald]

Can someone from the Baptist perspective answer my question in # 87. I am genuinely seeking understanding on an ecclesiastical distinction, not trying to cause further dissent.

Tim, if you want to join my church two things are needed:

1. Articulate a credible profession of faith
2. Give proof (by letter or statement) of being scripturally baptized, or submit
to scriptural baptism.

You're correct in pointing out that the term "visible church" is not in the 1689 London Baptist Confession. "Visible saints" is the phrase used. You quoted part of CHBC's statement of faith:

We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers.. (Article 13)

I am confident that CHBC views the only valid form of baptism as believers baptism by immersion. I am in agreement with that position. How dogmatic should Baptists be in determining whether Presbyterians are visible saints in visible churches? Speaking only for myself, I'd have to say that Presbyterians are displaying an ecclesiastical inconsistency to biblical teaching. I'm quite sure you'd say that same about us. I'm not too hung up on the visible church phrase when comparing Baptist ecclesiology to Presbyterian ecclesiology. In the end my chief concern is with my flock. That's not meant to be mean spirited towards my Presbyterian brethren, but my pastoral duties are limited to the members of my church. If a person wishes to be a visible member of my church, they will have to satisfy the requirements listed earlier in this post.

Not to be ornery , Bill, but I think your last sentence is the point. Should a person come to your church having been baptized as an infant, and having made (and able to back up with his life) a credible profession of faith, you are left with only two options: (1) bind his conscience, or (2) show him the door.

I am thankful that I have better options, and even tomorrow will minister the Word to dear people who have not yet come to understand baptism as I do, and yet are not separated from me by it. That is the chief weakness of the baptistic ecclesiatical position, in my opinion. It is why many times (even on this Board) I have trotted out my quotes from Dagg, which most Baptists don't like.

I am also thankful that I can be frank and straightforward because of our love for each other.

Fred, I have thick skin. I appreciate and welcome your criticism. I'll use you as an example. We are theologically on different ends of the baptism and ecclesiology spectrum, yet I love you dearly in Christ. You've proven, in the short time I've known you, to be a dear brother and friend. It's for that reason I can take the bruises you inflict in discussion because I know they are intended for my good. I hope my "blows" are received the same way.

Of course, I don't believe we are binding the conscience of anyone in regards to baptism. If a person who has been baptized as an infant wants to join our church, they will be informed of what we believe the bible teaches about baptism. If their conscience is bothered by the requirement to be scripturally baptized, they don't have to join our church. In our area that are more than a few Presbyterian churches they can attend.

 

[fredtgreco]

Yes, Bill. The point is that you have made mode and time of baptism of the essence of the Church. Presbyterians reserve that for things like the Trinity and inerrancy.

By the way, I misspoke above. I meant to say quotes from Hiscox (Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches) not Dagg. Sorry.

Nearly all Baptists in the United States, and a large part of those in foreign lands, are strict communion in practice (Hiscox, 448)

The second class of open-communonists assert that the ordinances sustain no necessary relation to each other; that baptism can claim no priority over the Supper, and, therefore, it is not a condition, nor prerequisite to it. Consequently, unbaptized persons, if believers - for they do make faith a condition - may partake of the Supper as lawfully baptized persons. Therefore immersion or sprinkling, either or neither, is equally indifferent. This theory virtually denies the memorial and symbolic character of the ordinance...this course of argument, however plausible, is rejected and condemned by the great body of Christians the world over, both Baptists and PedoBaptists. (Hiscox 449)

And here is from this thread where I discuss the issue with my good friend Phillip Way:

Phillip,

I have said before that you are far more gracious than most baptists. If you have a copy of Hiscox "Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches" (a standard manual), look at the section on the Lord's Supper. Specifically on p 452:

Quote:

3. Baptists insist that they neither may, nor ought to, invite to the Supper any except persons converted, baptized, and walking orderly according to gospel rule. They believe the Church is bound to judge of the fitness of those admitted to its ordinances as well as those admitted to its membership. To invite, or permit persons to receive the Communion without conditions, is to allow the vile and the profane, the carnal and the impure, to mingle with God's spiritual people, and eat and drink, unworthily, the symbolic flesh and blood of Christ. For, if the rule be allowed, to this extent will the abuse be sure to go.

4. Baptists are firmly convinced that, to maintain the purity and spirituality of the churches, it is absolutely needful to restrict the Communion to regenerated persons, baptized on a profession of faith, and walking orderly Christian lives in Church fellowship. To adopt any other rule, or allow any larger liberty, would break down the distinction between the Church and the world; would bring in a carnal and unconverted membership, with which to over-shadow the spiritual, and control the household of faith; would virtually transfer the Communion from the house of God to the temple of Belial. To keep the churches pure, the ordinances must be kept pure and unperverted, both as to their substance and their form.

So paedobaptists are "the world" and "Belial;" and even more to the point:

Quote:

5. Baptists give the following reasons in justification of their course in the following cases:

a. They do not invite Pedobaptists to their Communion, because they do not regard such persons as baptized; they having been only sprinkled. The fact that they think themselves baptized, does not make it so. If they desire to commune, let them be baptized according to Christ's command.

b. They do not accept invitations from Pedobaptists to commune with them, for the same reason; they do not consider them baptized Christians. Therefore their churches are irregular churches according to the New Testament standard, both in the misuse of the ordinances, and in the admission of infant Church membership. Therefore to commune with them would be disorderly walking, and would encourage them in disorderly walking, by upholding a perversion of the ordinances.

c. They do not invite the immersed members of Pedobaptist churches to their Communion, because, though such persons may be truly converted and properly baptized, they are walking disorderly as disciples, by remaining in churches which hold and practise serious errors as to the ordinances, as such persons themselves judge. These churches use sprinkling for baptism, and administer the ordinance to infants; both of which are contrary to Scripture, as such persons themselves allow. And yet, by remaining in these churches, they give their countenance and support to uphold and perpetuate what they confess to be errors, and thus help to impose on others what they will not accept for themselves. This is not an orderly and consistent course for Christians to pursue.

and

Quote:

2. Our Pedobaptist friends say they invite us to their Communion, why should we not in like man-ner invite them?

We answer: They can well afford to invite us, since they acknowledge that our baptism is valid and scriptural; but we do not acknowledge theirs to be either scriptural or valid.

Again, Hiscox is a standard.

Al Mohler cites him (a different section): http://www.founders.org/FJ41/fj41.pdf

The Southwest Baptist Seminary lists him as one of the "Essential Books for Ministry":
http://www.swbts.edu/departments/ess...st_history.htm

I'm happy to say that you are not an "ordinary baptist." But that is why I love ya!

 

[Herald]

The point is that you have made mode and time of baptism of the essence of the Church. Presbyterians reserve that for things like the Trinity and inerrancy.

Okay, Fred. If you want a discussion on mode and time of baptism, let's start another thread.

meant to say quotes from Hiscox (Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches) not Dagg. Sorry.

Burn the heretic. That's a work I need to read. Thanks for citing it.

 

[asc]

I am thankful that I have better options, and even tomorrow will minister the Word to dear people who have not yet come to understand baptism as I do, and yet are not separated from me by it. That is the chief weakness of the baptistic ecclesiatical position, in my opinion...

Well, this hasn't always been the case with Reformed folks, though, has it? Weren't Baptists often not welcomed in the Reformed church, like Baptists being persecuted in New England by the Puritans?

 

[Herald]

Yes, Bill. The point is that you have made mode and time of baptism of the essence of the Church. Presbyterians reserve that for things like the Trinity and inerrancy.

By the way, I misspoke above. I meant to say quotes from Hiscox (Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches) not Dagg. Sorry.

Nearly all Baptists in the United States, and a large part of those in foreign lands, are strict communion in practice (Hiscox, 448)

The second class of open-communonists assert that the ordinances sustain no necessary relation to each other; that baptism can claim no priority over the Supper, and, therefore, it is not a condition, nor prerequisite to it. Consequently, unbaptized persons, if believers - for they do make faith a condition - may partake of the Supper as lawfully baptized persons. Therefore immersion or sprinkling, either or neither, is equally indifferent. This theory virtually denies the memorial and symbolic character of the ordinance...this course of argument, however plausible, is rejected and condemned by the great body of Christians the world over, both Baptists and PedoBaptists. (Hiscox 449)

And here is from this thread where I discuss the issue with my good friend Phillip Way:

Phillip,

I have said before that you are far more gracious than most baptists. If you have a copy of Hiscox "Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches" (a standard manual), look at the section on the Lord's Supper. Specifically on p 452:

Quote:


So paedobaptists are "the world" and "Belial;" and even more to the point:

Quote:

and

Quote:

2. Our Pedobaptist friends say they invite us to their Communion, why should we not in like man-ner invite them?

We answer: They can well afford to invite us, since they acknowledge that our baptism is valid and scriptural; but we do not acknowledge theirs to be either scriptural or valid.

Again, Hiscox is a standard.

Al Mohler cites him (a different section): http://www.founders.org/FJ41/fj41.pdf

The Southwest Baptist Seminary lists him as one of the "Essential Books for Ministry":
http://www.swbts.edu/departments/ess...st_history.htm

I'm happy to say that you are not an "ordinary baptist." But that is why I love ya!

Fred, you added this quote and discussion with Phillip to your post as an edit. I didn't see it the first time. I haven't argued against paedos partaking of the Lord's Supper. My objection was to membership. Tim brought up a "what if" to test the Baptist resolve in this area. What if an Arminian Baptist pastor, who had female elders in his church, visited Dever's church. Would/should Dever allow him to partake of the supper? My answer was that he should not be allowed to partake. The reason? Female elders would be a gross sin within the church of Christ. If this was known to Dever before hand, he should forbid this pastor from partaking. I would.

 

[Herald]

btw why does it seem I am one of the few Baptists taking all the body shots? Where are my kindred?

 

[Athaleyah]

btw why does it seem I am one of the few Baptists taking all the body shots? Where are my kindred?

Quickly paedo-baptists! Get him! He's calling for backup.

 

[Marrow Man]

btw why does it seem I am one of the few Baptists taking all the body shots? Where are my kindred?

"'Tis only a flesh wound."

 

[lynnie]

I am in the PCA and in years past they have had some ruling elders who were personally credo but were submissive to the church. Many members are the same. There are PCA churches I've heard of that are as much as half Baptist. My hub got his MDiv at WTS and fully understands the paedo position (with respect for those who hold to it) but remains personally credo.

But anyway, the last few years they started cracking down in my Presbytery (Metro NY) and do not want any new ruling elders who are credo, no matter how respectful or submissive they are. It is not a problem to be a continuist (Grudem style, not new revelation type prophecy) for elders so we heard, but it is a problem to be credo.

 

[Herald]

btw why does it seem I am one of the few Baptists taking all the body shots? Where are my kindred?

"'Tis only a flesh wound."

 

[Herald]

I am in the PCA and in years past they have had some ruling elders who were personally credo but were submissive to the church. Many members are the same. There are PCA churches I've heard of that are as much as half Baptist. My hub got his MDiv at WTS and fully understands the paedo position (with respect for those who hold to it) but remains personally credo.

But anyway, the last few years they started cracking down in my Presbytery (Metro NY) and do not want any new ruling elders who are credo, no matter how respectful or submissive they are. It is not a problem to be a continuist (Grudem style, not new revelation type prophecy) for elders so we heard, but it is a problem to be credo.

Lynnie, that seems perfectly reasonable. If a Presbyterian church subscribes to the WCF, the elders should be in agreement.

 

[kvanlaan]

btw why does it seem I am one of the few Baptists taking all the body shots? Where are my kindred?

(Maybe you'll make Foxe's next edition!)

 

[fredtgreco]

I am in the PCA and in years past they have had some ruling elders who were personally credo but were submissive to the church. Many members are the same. There are PCA churches I've heard of that are as much as half Baptist. My hub got his MDiv at WTS and fully understands the paedo position (with respect for those who hold to it) but remains personally credo.

But anyway, the last few years they started cracking down in my Presbytery (Metro NY) and do not want any new ruling elders who are credo, no matter how respectful or submissive they are. It is not a problem to be a continuist (Grudem style, not new revelation type prophecy) for elders so we heard, but it is a problem to be credo.

It is against the PCA Constitution to be credo and be either an elder or a deacon. It is completely impermissible.

 

[fredtgreco]

Fred, you added this quote and discussion with Phillip to your post as an edit. I didn't see it the first time. I haven't argued against paedos partaking of the Lord's Supper. My objection was to membership. Tim brought up a "what if" to test the Baptist resolve in this area. What if an Arminian Baptist pastor, who had female elders in his church, visited Dever's church. Would/should Dever allow him to partake of the supper? My answer was that he should not be allowed to partake. The reason? Female elders would be a gross sin within the church of Christ. If this was known to Dever before hand, he should forbid this pastor from partaking. I would.

Bill,

I did not mean to imply that you had said anything about the Lord's Supper. Actually, Phillip does not think paedos who have not been immersed after profession should be denied either.

I just meant to say that historically Baptists have been very strict about baptism, to the extent that Hiscox (author of the manual) states that only those who have been immersed after profession should partake of the Supper.

Sorry for confusing the matter.

 

[lynnie]

"It is against the PCA Constitution to be credo and be either an elder or a deacon. It is completely impermissible."

Well, I guess they finally got around to cracking down on it. When you are busy dealing with FV and NPP and deaconesses and fights about Enns, and posting on blogs about which direction WTS should go (Machen training pastors or Dallas Redeemer) you have to set priorities I suppose. At least that is the general impression I've gotten but I don't really know for sure. Even Machen's Warrior Children can't battle every front at the same time, hard as they try

 

[KMK]

Sorry Bill, but this is one of those threads that moves so fast I can't keep up.

I agree with those who have said they would die on the hill of male headship before the hill of baptism. Male headship is explicit whereas baptism requires a great deal of systematics.