Dever on the danger of ‘tolerated non-involvement’

Greg,

1) presbyterians also would claim that they prayerfully search the scriptures for their position on baptism. Would that validate their position to you? I hope not. Claiming prayerful search isn’t the same thing as allowing the scripture to inform one’s view.

2) I have been consistently arguing for believer baptism. The best any church can do is to go off a credible profession of faith. If a child can produce that, then heaping extra requirements is not based on biblical evidence. I gave you two examples of where baptism took place without a time to observe the candidate. In the case of Simon, they baptized an unbeliever (unknowingly). If the church in Acts would baptize shortly after the profession, what makes you think your modern day wisdom is better than the apostolic practice?

3) Our church does practice the position of baptizing shortly after conversion. We have a bit of an issue with our water and our baptistry, so we have to have time to fill it.

Your position is based on scripture in that you are correctly arguing for believer baptism. However, the added requirements and refusal to baptize children is not based in scripture. That is more reaction driven rather than theologically driven.

[Jay]

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.

Actually Jay, my point is the baptism position. It is my belief that Dever and those who would agree with him see the voting issue as a contributing factor to delay the baptism. The irony of churches who claim that scripture is to be upheld as the authority preventing believers from being baptized so that they won’t mess up a man made practice. It is like one of those “when you see it…” pictures.

Perhaps the elders of CHBC studied the Scriptures carefully enough to learn that there is no account of any child being baptized. Perhaps they concluded that this omission is significant. They may have decided that if God wanted us to baptize children, He would have given us a clear precept, or at least one clear example out of the thousands of recorded baptisms in the New Testament. Some may study the Biblical evidence, and draw a different conclusion, but to insist that the CHBC elders lied when they said they studied the Scriptures is more than uncharitable. It is slanderous.

[G. N. Barkman]

Perhaps the elders of CHBC studied the Scriptures carefully enough to learn that there is no account of any child being baptized. Perhaps they concluded that this omission is significant. They may have decided that if God wanted us to baptize children, He would have given us a clear precept, or at least one clear example out of the thousands of recorded baptisms in the New Testament. Some may study the Biblical evidence, and draw a different conclusion, but to insist that the CHBC elders lied when they said they studied the Scriptures is more than uncharitable. It is slanderous.

I would agree with this. I cannot speak to Dever’s church specifically, but my church has a similar practice. It is ultimately rooted in the fact that baptism (as well as salvation) should be taken seriously. In addition, the elder’s take the shepherding of the flock very seriously. We have all seen the one side of this equation, where the buses bring in children for vacation bible school, pressure the kids to pray and then start baptising them, while at the same time tweeting about the thousands that are getting baptized. They feel that a child is pliable, may not have been saved and is still under the authority of the parents and not the church. There is no clear teaching is Scripture that outlines that a young child has to be baptized right away (there is also not any teaching saying they shouldn’t), and that they need to be careful. That one of the marks of a believer is a changed life, and that cannot be seen in a 5 year old most of the time. Our church does not set an age specifically, but I doubt they would baptize anyone under the age of 10. They state that evidence must be shown as to the individual being saved (just as it is done for an adult). And when that evidence is displayed, that child should be baptized.

I do not find this approach unscriptural, although it is very different from a typical fundamentalist church. I believe that the Bible gives the church latitude on these difficult areas. We would all say that we wouldn’t baptize a three year old because they prayed in Sunday School. But where would we draw the line. I think Dever’s church and others that follow this line of thought, follow it with laying a biblically based framework instead of just saying 5 years of age and older.

For me, I had one son that when he was saved at 5, straight out showed signs of fruit. It was clear as day and continues to be clear as day. My other two children it has not been as crystal clear. Because I struggle with it and take it seriously, I am glad that my church takes it seriously as well.

What about the people who were baptized along with their households? We are to believe that this was only servants, spouses and older children? It must not include 10 year old kids?

And I must “bingo” this snippet from James K:

The best any church can do is to go off a credible profession of faith. If a child can produce that, then heaping extra requirements is not based on biblical evidence. I gave you two examples of where baptism took place without a time to observe the candidate. In the case of Simon, they baptized an unbeliever (unknowingly). If the church in Acts would baptize shortly after the profession, what makes you think your modern day wisdom is better than the apostolic practice?,

Furthermore, I have to say to Jay, who sees James using this as an excuse to preach non-congregational polity, that the keep them from voting thing (not to mention prevent persecution thing—does Fox’s book detail only adult martyrs?) is germane to the basis of why we would or not baptize children, and so fair game for discussion. Or so it seems to me.

I’m dealing with this very issue in my church. An 11-yr old girl recently came to faith at church a few weeks back. She has been attending Sunday School and asking questions for months now. We have patiently been answering them and putting absolutely no pressure on her beyond a general “if anyone wants to talk about salvation after class, come see Mrs. Starla!”

A few weeks ago, the 11-yr old girl did just that. I explained the Gospel to her, she believed it and said she wanted Jesus to save her. Wonderful. Should I wait to baptize the girl until she shows fruit? I have decided not to wait. I’m going to be meeting with her parents, and the baptism will (Lord willing) be within a week or two. Baptism is a public testimony of what God has done in her life. I truly believe she understands the Gospel, and she wants to be baptized to show the church that she is saved. I don’t want to hinder her, and I don’t see Scriptural warrant that says I ought to.

• Incidentally, she only came and asked about salvation after she saw me baptize her grandfather. That picture and public testimony of salvation (dead to sins, alive to Christ - being born again) in baptism is what the Holy Spirit used to finally convict her heart.

Her sisters (both aged 7) now want to be saved and baptized. I’m taking a much more careful approach with them. I’ve given them simple passages to study and questions to answer, and we talk for about 15 mins after each Sunday morning about what salvation is and what Jesus did for them. I am maybe being too slow, but I don’t want these sisters just trying to copycat the other girl. In a week or so, I’ll move forward and see if they want to be saved. If they do, I don’t think I’ll wait for baptism them either. I think you need to take it case by case - the issue is whether they understand.

James - people can’t vote at our church until they’re 18, so children voting isn’t an issue with us!

[DavidO]

What about the people who were baptized along with their households? We are to believe that this was only servants, spouses and older children? It must not include 10 year old kids?

The Bible doesn’t say. What we do know is that in ancient times, children (just as they are viewed today), were viewed differently than adult members of the family. If the Bible is not dogmatic, why do we need to be. In addition, you mention we baptize once we get a credible profession of faith. Can you define what credible is? If an adult came to us who was living with his girlfriend and got saved in service, but was unwilling to move out from being under the roof of his girlfriend we would question whether he was saved and whether we should baptize him. How can we expect the same level of credibility from a 5 year old? What says a 5 year old was saved? The prayer? the fact that they feel good? The fact that they want to attend church because of their buddies and they like their teacher Mrs. Smith because she lets them color cool pictures during SS?

[dgszweda]

What says a 5 year old was saved? The prayer? the fact that they feel good? The fact that they want to attend church because of their buddies and they like their teacher Mrs. Smith because she lets them color cool pictures during SS?

Thanks Kevin, agreed.

I think we know credible when we hear it, and, if we’re going to err, we ought to do so on the side of accepting marginally credible professions. It seems a bigger error to forbid a genuine believer baptism than to baptize a non believer in “good faith” error.

[James K]

Greg,

1) presbyterians also would claim that they prayerfully search the scriptures for their position on baptism. Would that validate their position to you? I hope not. Claiming prayerful search isn’t the same thing as allowing the scripture to inform one’s view.

[James K] 2) I have been consistently arguing for believer baptism. The best any church can do is to go off a credible profession of faith. If a child can produce that, then heaping extra requirements is not based on biblical evidence. I gave you two examples of where baptism took place without a time to observe the candidate. In the case of Simon, they baptized an unbeliever (unknowingly). If the church in Acts would baptize shortly after the profession, what makes you think your modern day wisdom is better than the apostolic practice?

[James K] 3) Our church does practice the position of baptizing shortly after conversion. We have a bit of an issue with our water and our baptistry, so we have to have time to fill it.

[James K] Your position is based on scripture in that you are correctly arguing for believer baptism. However, the added requirements and refusal to baptize children is not based in scripture. That is more reaction driven rather than theologically driven.

I can assure you that my arguments are biblically and theologically based. You may not agree with me, and I might even be wrong, but to simply dismiss them as not being biblically or theologically based because you disagree with them does nothing to advance the conversation.

[DavidO]

Thanks Kevin, agreed.

I think we know credible when we hear it, and, if we’re going to err, we ought to do so on the side of accepting marginally credible professions. It seems a bigger error to forbid a genuine believer baptism than to baptize a non believer in “good faith” error.

[Kevin Miller]

dgszweda wrote:

What says a 5 year old was saved? The prayer? the fact that they feel good? The fact that they want to attend church because of their buddies and they like their teacher Mrs. Smith because she lets them color cool pictures during SS?

Couldn’t the same questions be asked of an adult, too? What says an adult is saved? Is it because they are attending church because they like the music or the preaching style of the pastor? Is it because they move out of their living arrangement because they feel they HAVE TO in order to prove their sincerity?

you need to understand that this idea of exercising care about who is baptized is not a new one.

I understand. Just newer than the original idea. :)

But, in seriousness, I would say requiring a credible profession is exercising care.

[TylerR]

I’m dealing with this very issue in my church. An 11-yr old girl recently came to faith at church a few weeks back. She has been attending Sunday School and asking questions for months now. We have patiently been answering them and putting absolutely no pressure on her beyond a general “if anyone wants to talk about salvation after class, come see Mrs. Starla!”

A few weeks ago, the 11-yr old girl did just that. I explained the Gospel to her, she believed it and said she wanted Jesus to save her. Wonderful. Should I wait to baptize the girl until she shows fruit? I have decided not to wait. I’m going to be meeting with her parents, and the baptism will (Lord willing) be within a week or two. Baptism is a public testimony of what God has done in her life. I truly believe she understands the Gospel, and she wants to be baptized to show the church that she is saved. I don’t want to hinder her, and I don’t see Scriptural warrant that says I ought to.

• Incidentally, she only came and asked about salvation after she saw me baptize her grandfather. That picture and public testimony of salvation (dead to sins, alive to Christ - being born again) in baptism is what the Holy Spirit used to finally convict her heart.

Her sisters (both aged 7) now want to be saved and baptized. I’m taking a much more careful approach with them. I’ve given them simple passages to study and questions to answer, and we talk for about 15 mins after each Sunday morning about what salvation is and what Jesus did for them. I am maybe being too slow, but I don’t want these sisters just trying to copycat the other girl. In a week or so, I’ll move forward and see if they want to be saved. If they do, I don’t think I’ll wait for baptism them either. I think you need to take it case by case - the issue is whether they understand.

James - people can’t vote at our church until they’re 18, so children voting isn’t an issue with us!

Thank you Tyler. You have rejected the artificial and favored substance. Blessings to you brother.

[Kevin Miller]

dgszweda wrote:

What says a 5 year old was saved? The prayer? the fact that they feel good? The fact that they want to attend church because of their buddies and they like their teacher Mrs. Smith because she lets them color cool pictures during SS?

Couldn’t the same questions be asked of an adult, too? What says an adult is saved? Is it because they are attending church because they like the music or the preaching style of the pastor? Is it because they move out of their living arrangement because they feel they HAVE TO in order to prove their sincerity?

I think we need to be careful. And the body of believers at Capitol Hill has chosen this route. A child’s comprehension and commitment may not be capable of handling a conversion (see Luke 14:26 and others). Every father that I have come into contact with is very careful with the salvation of their children. I even resisted my children’s call to get saved until they really understood what they were doing. A confession at 3 years of age, we can all agree is not a smart route to take to ensure that your child has been saved. What that age level is, should be up to each parent. A child is under the care, responsibility and authority of their parent. An adult who confesses must stand up under their own weight and are under the authority of the church.

They don’t have to prove their sincerity, but if you are baptizing people only on the fact that they said they got saved, with absolutely no evidence of a conversion, I think that is a risky approach. It is hard to view this only in Scripture, because we are looking at this from the other side of the lens. We know the family was baptized because they were saved, and we know they were saved because the Holy Scriptures breathed out by the Holy Spirit declared it. We have no further insight into it nor do we really know the timeframe between conversion and baptism in most cases. Was it seconds, minutes, hours, days? We just don’t have clarity on it. Even the 3,000 that were saved, if each was baptized in as little as a minute, it would still take almost 3 (24 hour days) to complete it, and if they needed to sleep it would take about a week non stop to baptize. So lets not assume that 3,000 people just walked down to river (which standing next to each other would stretch 1 mile) and they were all saved within a few minutes of their conversion.

Also, the stance that Capitol Hill is taking, historically is not that different than the historical church has taken. We could say that baptizing children at 5 is more of a recent phenomonen than a common church practice.