Dever on the danger of ‘tolerated non-involvement’

You won’t purify the church God’s way if you add extra biblical requirements upon churches. Is 9marks helping? Probably some. Are they hurting? Probably some. As long as Mark can have his buddy Ligon helping with 9marks stuff, I just can’t take this kind of stuff seriously.

What next? Maybe Craig Blaising will get Vern Polythress to help advance premillennial theology.

[James K]

You won’t purify the church God’s way if you add extra biblical requirements upon churches. Is 9marks helping? Probably some. Are they hurting? Probably some. As long as Mark can have his buddy Ligon helping with 9marks stuff, I just can’t take this kind of stuff seriously.

What next? Maybe Craig Blaising will get Vern Polythress to help advance premillennial theology.

James, I actually attended this, and it was very convicting. All the speakers made a good case for why church membership is necessary, and talked about the consequences of churches not being strong on membership. Many of those statements in the article that came out of the conference are either implication or practical application from the scriptures preached.

Regarding Ligon being on the platform as one of the speakers, they were very clear in the panel discussions about the differences in church polity and baptism between Duncan and the others, and did not in any way gloss over it. Both sides made it clear that they couldn’t “do church” together, and Dever made it clear that he considered Duncan’s practices on baptism as sin (presumably Duncan would say the same about the practice of baptism in baptist churches, though I don’t remember a statement to that effect).

Nevertheless, despite the differences, all of the men were strong on church membership (the point of this conference). Though this was not actually said, I suspect if the conference had been on baptism, Duncan would NOT have been one of the speakers, so I don’t think your last point is really applicable here.

dcbii, if you don’t see the irony of your second paragraph and the first line of your third, then I don’t know what else to say. Was Duncan “strong” on church membership? Is his view of paedodunking helpful or hurtful to church membership? What about children who cannot take the Lord’s supper?

Let’s then review Dever’s point about not baptizing children. I missed that verse. They can be saved, but they can’t be baptized, because then we would have to recognize them as a member was his point. Where is this found in the NT? If it isn’t, then why is it a new standard to “help” churches?

There is no Biblical example of baptizing children by any means, including immersion, so limiting the practice to professing adults only makes sense.

Also, in many churches being baptized does not make a person a member of a local church.

Ron,

1. There is ample biblical evidence of believer baptism. If the child gives a credible profession of faith, who are you or anyone else to get in the way of obedience to Christ? Whose church is it exactly?

2. Again, whose church is it exactly?

Also with Dever, it is a sin for a church to require premillennialism, but it isn’t a sin to require them to obey the “Christian sabbath.” Rrrriiiiiiight.

Take his church counsel with a few truckloads of salt.

(Full disclosure: our church will baptize children who give a credible profession of faith upon the recommendationn of their parent(s) and a pastor, so I am not necessarily completely opposed to the practice.)

Until about the last 100 years or so, Baptists have historically not baptized children. In fact, as I understand it, in some parts of the world this is still the case because of persecution (they believe that someone who is making a public declaration of faith in Christ that could result in being persecuted should be an adult with full knowledge and understanding).

Have you listened to the talks that Dever has given about why his church doesn’t baptize children? I didn’t listen to this talk yet, but I have listened to two other presentations where Dever and the elders of CHBC explain their position on this issue, and they make some good points.

I think part of the confusion in Dever’s mentality is confusing baptism with membership. If they are the same thing, then baptism (which is mandated) becomes bundled with membership (which is at best implied in Scripture). Anyone who is saved should be free to be baptized, period, no matter what age. Voting membership (not necessarily membership) — should not be for children.

Ed,

Having been a member at Dever’s church, they wouldn’t baptize or let young children join. The elders determine on a case by case basis if a young person has reached an age of maturity to make important decisions like the commitment of baptism and joining, so in general the age might be closer to 16. For a quicker summary of their argument see: http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/we-equip/children/baptism-of-children/

Shayne

Quoted from Shaynus’ link:

We, the elders of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church, after prayerful searching of the Scriptures and discussion conclude that, while Scripture is quite clear that believers only are to be baptized, the age at which a believer is to be baptized is not directly addressed in Scripture.

How it should have read if they were being honest:

We, the elders of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church, after prayerful searching of the Scriptures and discussion conclude that, while Scripture is quite clear that believers only are to be baptized, the age at which a believer is to be baptized is not directly addressed in Scripture.

They didn’t search the scripture for this bit of “wisdom” at all. The scripture demands baptism of believers. Further, to deny certain believers full rights as others creates a schism not warranted by Scripture.

If you think the problems without 9Marks are bad, just wait till you see their solutions.

[Ed Vasicek]

I think part of the confusion in Dever’s mentality is confusing baptism with membership. If they are the same thing, then baptism (which is mandated) becomes bundled with membership (which is at best implied in Scripture). Anyone who is saved should be free to be baptized, period, no matter what age. Voting membership (not necessarily membership) — should not be for children.

Ah, the sacred cow to baptists, voting. That is what this is about. You don’t want children voting. Here is a radical solution to this nonsense: stop voting altogether (since it isn’t in scripture), and baptize believers.

[James K]

Quoted from Shaynus’ link:

We, the elders of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church, after prayerful searching of the Scriptures and discussion conclude that, while Scripture is quite clear that believers only are to be baptized, the age at which a believer is to be baptized is not directly addressed in Scripture.

How it should have read if they were being honest:

We, the elders of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church, after prayerful searching of the Scriptures and discussion conclude that, while Scripture is quite clear that believers only are to be baptized, the age at which a believer is to be baptized is not directly addressed in Scripture.

They didn’t search the scripture for this bit of “wisdom” at all. The scripture demands baptism of believers. Further, to deny certain believers full rights as others creates a schism not warranted by Scripture.

If you think the problems without 9Marks are bad, just wait till you see their solutions.

James, I will agree you that “the Scripture demands baptism of believers.” In fact, THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT. If you had listened to/read their explanations, you would know this is the whole point. There are two dangers for elders to avoid: 1) Not baptizing true believers who want to be baptized. 2) Baptizing unbelievers who want to be baptized. You seem to think that only the first is a possible problem, but as someone who has been a pastor of both teens and children/families, I can tell you without a doubt that the second is an issue as well. Haven’t we all heard countless testimonies like this: “I prayed a prayer when I was a child and got baptized, but I didn’t really understand what I was saying (or I just did it because my parents wanted me to), so now as a teenager/adult I know I truly trusted Christ so I want to be baptized as a believer.” Why does this happen so often?

In my previous ministry we instituted a program for fathers to mentor their children who wanted to be baptized, leading them in a Bible study of the Gospel, assurance of salvation/evidences of regeneration, and the meaning of baptism. We did not set a hard age, but we told the fathers is was more appropriate for JH/SH kids, and perhaps upper elementary kids. (We would make exceptions for the unusual child who had a crystal clear salvation testimony, clearly understood the meaning of baptism, and had the recommendation of their parents.)

The argument of the CHBC elders is NOT that children can’t believe and be saved (nor is that my argument, as I am confident I was regeneration at age 5), and it is also NOT that we should be ambivalent about baptizing believers. Their argument is that it might be better to wait to see if their profession of faith is indeed genuine, because kids often make “decisions” that they don’t fully understand. If anyone would doubt that to be the case, think about when you were asked as a child, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” How many of us are actually doing what we “decided” to do as a child? A few, perhaps. And thankfully salvation is different because the Holy Spirit can regenerate a child and give them spiritual understanding.

So to summarize, the elders of CHBC take very seriously their responsibility to baptize believers. They take very seriously their responsibility to BAPTIZE, and they take very seriously their responsibility to baptize BELIEVERS.

Greg, their conclusion was not based on prayerful searching of the scriptures. The position advocated is not based on the scriptures. While I don’t think Dever has the desire to deceive others, his choices serve that purpose though. I would rather chalk that up to his being deceived the same way he believes Ligon Duncan is in “sin” and deception on this matter.

Your defense is admirable and might appear to be wisdom except that nothing is based in scripture. Simon the sorceror was an adult who “believed” and was baptized in the presence of the apostles. After the fact, Peter rebuked him and said he was still bound up in sin.

The whole waiting period wasn’t enforced on pentecost either when you had a mob “believe” and were baptized. How did they know that some of those professions weren’t just going along with the crowd?

I have no doubt that you want what is best. I strongly disagree with the rationale though.

Blessings to you brother.

[James K]

Greg, their conclusion was not based on prayerful searching of the scriptures. The position advocated is not based on the scriptures. While I don’t think Dever has the desire to deceive others, his choices serve that purpose though. I would rather chalk that up to his being deceived the same way he believes Ligon Duncan is in “sin” and deception on this matter.

Your defense is admirable and might appear to be wisdom except that nothing is based in scripture. Simon the sorceror was an adult who “believed” and was baptized in the presence of the apostles. After the fact, Peter rebuked him and said he was still bound up in sin.

The whole waiting period wasn’t enforced on pentecost either when you had a mob “believe” and were baptized. How did they know that some of those professions weren’t just going along with the crowd?

I have no doubt that you want what is best. I strongly disagree with the rationale though.

Blessings to you brother.

1) James, how do you know their decision wasn’t reached after prayerful searching of the Scriptures? Were you in on the discussions?

2) I would be glad to conceded the point to you, James and Andrew, that Scripture is obviously on your side, if you can show me one clear example in the New Testament of a child getting baptized.

3) I’m just curious how things work at your churches. I assume from what you’ve said on this post that your churches baptize professing believers IMMEDIATELY upon profession of faith, just like in the New Testament, right? Because a delay of any kind would be unscriptural.

James, everything I said is based on Scripture. Scripture commands us to baptize, and it commands us to baptize believers. (I really don’t need to go through all the NT evidence for that statement, do I?) To state it one more time as clearly as I can, we don’t want to not baptize believers, but neither do we want to baptize those who are not believers. Sometimes in this American culture where there is confusion about what it means to be a Christian and what baptism means, it is good to give instruction and to understand a person’s level of understanding of the Gospel and of baptism. Many times, that will not take long at all. With children, I think it is wise to use caution.

By the way, it appears that the early church thought along the same lines, as they had a time of instructing new converts before baptism. Someone with a greater knowledge of church history can jump in here on that. And once again, Baptists have historically not baptized children generally speaking up until about the last 100-150 years.

I think James’ real issue here is expressed here:

Ah, the sacred cow to baptists, voting. That is what this is about. You don’t want children voting. Here is a radical solution to this nonsense: stop voting altogether (since it isn’t in scripture), and baptize believers.

James usually gets on SharperIron to discuss church polity and the idea that congregations hold elders accountable, not the baptism thing. That, at least, seems to me like the hot button issue for him.