More Mark Dever on the sin of infant baptism
March 19, 2009
by Les
The post immediately below references Pastor Dever’s earlier comments on us Paedobaptists and what he calls our “sinful practice” of baptizing babies. Now Pastor Dever has a post exclusively on the subject.
Now I’m not trying to pick a fight here. I greatly admire Pastor Dever and his ministry. I am extremely thankful to God for him and other Reformed Baptists. Let me say again. Thank God for pastor Mark Dever. But if anyone is picking a fight, so to speak, it is Pastor Dever.
Here are a few of his latest comments with my comments in ALL CAPS AND bold interspersed:
Some may think that such a “wrong” [INFANT BAPTISM] should not be called a sin. I understand a sin to be disobedience to God (regardless of intent). When I read Numbers 15:29-30 and Hebrews 9:7 I certainly see that Scripture presents some sins as being deliberate, and others as being unintentional. I certainly do not think my paedobaptist brethren are intentionally sinning in this. In fact, they even think that they are obeying God so, short of them changing their understanding of the Bible’s teaching on this, I can’t expect any “repentance,” because they lovingly but firmly disagree with the Baptist understanding of this.
Nevertheless, as I understand the words of Christ in Matt. 28:18-20 Christians are commanded to baptize and to be baptized [WE PAEDOBAPTISTS AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!] , and the practice of infant baptism inhibits the obedience of what I take to be a quite straightforward command [IT SURELY IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD COMMAND. BUT NO CREDOBAPTIST HAS YET TO DEMONSTRATE THAT BAPTIZING INFANTS INHIBITS THIS OBEDIENCE. WE IN PAEDOBAPTIST CHURCHES BAPTIZE ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 28 JUST AS OUR CREDOBAPTIST BROTHERS DO]. I understand explanations that have been given about the practice of infant baptism (Orthodox/Roman, Lutheran and Reformed) but am sincerely persuaded [WE ARE SINCERELY PERSUADED AS WELL] that none of them line up with God’s own Word [WE ARE PERSUADED THAT INFANT BAPTISM DOES IN FACT LINE UP WITH GOD'S WORD]. This does not cause me to doubt the sincerity of my reformed paedobaptist brethren, nor even their judgment in general. It is simply that on this point they’ve got it wrong [WE BELIEVE THAT YOU CREDOBAPTISTS HAVE IT WRONG, BUT WE DO NOT SAY THAT YOU ARE PRACTICING SIN IN THE MODE AND RESTRICTED RECIPIENTS OF CREDOBAPTISM], and their error, involving as it does a requiring of something Scripture does not require (infant baptism) [OBVIOUS TO US IT DOES REQUIRE IT], and the consequence of a denying of an action Scripture does require (believers baptism) [WE ACTUALLY DO PRACTICE BELIEVER'S BAPTISM] is sinful (though unintentionally so).
It is mystifying to me that Pastor Dever would 1) pick this to focus on when there are so many other more important matters facing the Christian church, 2) continue to preach in Paedobaptist pulpits and have Paedobaptist preachers preach in his own when, according to Pastor Dever, these men are in habitual sin. I wonder…when they are together (for the Gospel), does Pastor Dever call these men to repentance? Does he continually remind them of their error? I doubt it.
Last, and perhaps this gets to the heart of the matter, is it possible that the Paedobaptist position is the correct one? According to Pastor Dever and many other Credobaptists the answer is “No!” There is no possibility that their position on baptism is wrong.
Now if a preacher espouses a view that God is not a Triune God, or that the resurrection did not really happen, then I can see where Pastor Dever would call such men out as “sinning” in their theology. I would join him. But baptism? I do believe that Pastor Dever, of the 9Marks ministry, has on this one missed the Mark!
March 19, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I’ll repost my comment on this thread instead:
Les, would you say that to *not* baptize one’s infants is sinful? It sounds like you are saying that credo’s have it wrong but are not sinning? Am I understanding you correctly?
You mentioned above in your comments: “IT SURELY IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD COMMAND. BUT NO CREDOBAPTIST HAS YET TO DEMONSTRATE THAT BAPTIZING INFANTS INHIBITS THIS OBEDIENCE. WE IN PAEDOBAPTIST CHURCHES BAPTIZE ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 28 JUST AS OUR CREDOBAPTIST BROTHERS DO…”
If the command to baptize in Matt. 28 involves a believer and his/her household, and sin is “any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God” (WSC Q. 14), then wouldn’t the conclusion be that to *not* baptize one’s offspring is a want of conformity unto the command to baptize, and therefore, sin?
If we say that it is wrong but not sinful, could the conclusion of the other side just be to shrug off the practice of infant baptism, since at the end of the day to *not* do it is not sinful?
I’ve heard some paedo’s argue that to *not* is sinful and others say that it is wrong, but not sinful.
I’m not sure where I fall on the debate of wrong vs. sinful, so I thought I’d contribute a few thoughts.
March 19, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I forgot to include the other quote:
WE BELIEVE THAT YOU CREDOBAPTISTS HAVE IT WRONG, BUT WE DO NOT SAY THAT YOU ARE PRACTICING SIN IN THE MODE AND RESTRICTED RECIPIENTS OF CREDOBAPTISM
March 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm
My comments in the other post. More later…
Great question. I go with the language of the WCF which I subscribe to:
Chapter 28:V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,(n) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it;(o) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.(
So, for a member of a Paedobaptist church I believe it is a sin. Obviously for a member of a church such as Pastor Dever’s, the parents would not be sinning by withholding baptism from their children. Should the professing believers themselves refuse baptism in such a congregation they would be sinning.
In other words, the elders of the adult members of a paedo church have the oversight and thus pastoral care and responsibility to see to it that the parents not neglect the ordinance. Same for the elders of the credo churches who profess a different belief on the recipients of the sacrament.
What do you think?
March 19, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Yes, as the confession mentions. I guess I was looking for a clarification. You were taking issue with him for calling it a sinful practice. I guess, what are you taking issue with if we say that to *not* do it is sinful?
March 19, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I think on some issues we must allow for Christian brothers do disagree without labeling their view sinful. I can think of the differences in communion. The Zwinglian view versus the Calvinist view. I would not say that our Zwinglian brothers are sinning in offering that communion is commemoritive only. I would just say that they are practicing an incomplete communion and missing out on a great blessing.
So, while we confess infant baptism, others do not confess that and I stop short of calling their error as sinful. But hey. I coulod be wrong.
I welcome more thoughts on this.
March 19, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Ahh, I just re-read your first comment…
So you would say Ch. 28 applies to members within the church who refuse to baptize their children (obviously not themselves, otherwise they wouldn’t be members) and not generally to all believers whether in a paedo church or not?
March 19, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Yes. I am applying that portion to infant baptism in this case.
March 19, 2009 at 10:13 pm
So, you would say ramon is sinning because he is a member in the PCA, but he wouldn’t be sinning if he was a member in say, a baptist church?
March 19, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Short answer is no. Typing from my iPhone, so more tomorrow.
March 20, 2009 at 8:49 am
Back to it. No I would not say that ramon is/was sinning in his case. I should have made the distinction that, right or wrong, I think that some people have scruples about infant baptism which will not allow them to go forward with baptizing their young children, though they themselves are members of a paedo church. This issue gets prickly very quickly and should be handled with great pastoral care.
For instance, one can imagine a scenario where a couple joins a PCA church and at that time do not have children. Remember, they do not have to sign off on the WCF to be a member. Then they have a child and are faced with that infant baptism decision. Though I might think they should be persuaded to present their child for baptism, their scruples on the matter will not allow. I believe it is wise pastorally to both attempt to change their minds but at the end of the day not condemn as sin their decision to wait until a profession of faith.
Another scenario is where a family with small, unbaptized children presents themselves for membership. Again, I think it wise to try to persuade but finally respect their scruples.
I know there are other views on this. R. Scott Clark is very persuasive that it would be a sin:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/for-what-its-worth-this-paedo-is-not-offended/
I see where he is coming from, I just cannot take it that far.
Further, our confession allows for multiple ways and timings for baptism.
Our BCO provides for family A to proceed to membership with the parents and a couple of teens who were immersed post profession of faith. No harm, no foul. If that is so, then it seems inconsistent to allow that and disallow parents to exercise their scruples (family B) on the matter. i.e. Allow family A to join having “sinned” before coming to the PCA church and condemning as “sinners” on the matter family B because they are making the same decision on their children as family A, but doing so AT the PCA church and not prior to coming.
Finally, I think it is important that we distinguish betweem Ramon and his scruples on the issue and parents (or anyone else refusing baptism) in a contumacious manner. The latter would be “sinning” in their refusal.
But hey, I could always, and some would say I am always, be wrong in the matter.
March 20, 2009 at 1:34 pm
For whatever it’s worth, my conscience is absolutely clear on this subject and…I throughly enjoy the fellowship of my paedobaptist friends and appreciate the opportunity to serve alongside them in many ways.
DM Lloyd Jones has a good section in “What is an Evangelical” in which he deals with the issue of matters in which saints can graciously differ (I would presume without sinning)…and baptism is one of those matters.
Here’s a link to the OPC statement on exactly this issue…they leave a little wiggle room for folks with matters of conscientious objection:
http://www.opc.org/GA/refuse_bapt.html
I have never thought of myself as a “conscientious objector” before but hey…there’s always a new way of looking at this
March 20, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Ramon, this is exactly what I was getting at in my last comments. From the OPC you cited, at least one member of the committee studying the issue said that the discretion of whether to admit parents to membership in a paedo church who have scruples on the matter of infant baptism should rest with the sessions. I agree. He further cited the following:
I agree. And…I always find you conscientious.
March 20, 2009 at 9:17 pm
RFT,
I think that your thoughts on what the WCF means at Ch. 28 do violence to what they originally intended, especially since the idea was that the WCF would be adopted by the Church of England.
I found this blog because WP linked your previous post on this issue to mine as a “possibly related post.” Here are my latest thoughts on the issue:
http://onepilgrimsprogress.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/further-thoughts-on-the-reactions-to-mark-dever-calling-infant-baptism-sin/
March 21, 2009 at 7:52 am
Chris,
Thanks for commenting. Perhaps you are right. I do think this is not such an easy open and shut case on how we paedos view the situation.
However, I will stick with my interpretation for now and choose to view you and other credobaptists as exercising your best judgment on the matter and not see your scruples on the mode and recipients as sinful. I do not think, therefore, that you are neglecting the ordinance when you hold your position. You are actually very thoughtfully and with a theological framework awaiting the appropriate time as you understand it. I think you are incorrect. But I will not call your actions sin.