This is great and what I love about the men you mention that you fellowship with and yourself and your ministry. The issue is a tough one and you each stand your ground with authority, you discuss it and work it out in your heart and your mind, and then you continue to fellowship together. I think it is shows the exact same of relationship that Paul shared with Peter over the issue of circumcision. It's not that they said it was no big deal let's not worry about it, yet they didn't let it divide the church to its core. As a Presbyterian pastor with some Baptist leanings I find this awesome.

Dr. Dever,

I appreciate your remarks here.

I'm not surprised that your previous remarks would cause consternation in some quarters. However, the fact that they do is a testimony to our latitudinarian age.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (28.5) asserts that Baptists commit a "great sin" because we "contemn or neglect this ordinance" in not baptizing "covenant children." That a Baptist would state that pedobaptists sin by doing so should not be surprising if we believe that the Bible has anything authoritative to say on the subject.

Dr. Dever,

On your list of what you can and cannot live with as a pastor, you wrote:

"I simply lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord’s Table who has not been baptized."

As a paedobaptist minister in the PCA, I also lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord's Table who hasn't been baptized. There are a few in our circles who believe in paedocommunion, but they are a small minority.

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. Are you suggesting that if you are a paedobaptist, you should logically believe in and practice paedocommunion?

Thanks for your time and all your good work.

-Darin

Dr. Dever
I am curious if you welcome paedo-baptist to the Lord's Table?

Dr. Dever,

I don't think paedos are surprised that we think infant baptism is wrong.

The surprise is to equate this specific theological error with sin (sin being rebellion against God, intentional or not).

To say, "...the practice of infant baptism inhibits the obedience..." surely is not an absolute statement. I was baptised as an infant (Catholic) then baptised properly upon my conversion. I have a friend that was baptised as an infant (Lutheran) and has, since his conversion, been properly baptised. That a practice (drinking alcohol) can lead to sin (drunkenness) does not mean the practice is a sin.

Of course we agree "It is simply that on this point they've got it wrong, and their error, involving as it does a requiring of something Scripture does not require (infant baptism)..." BUT is their practice of "baptising" infants truly baptism? If you believe paedobaptism and credobaptist are/represent the same thing, then i would condede that they are sinning by baptising those scripture has not commanded to be baptised (I do not know if you believe this) Most credobaptists would properly baptise someone who has been converted and wanted to join their church. i believe this is the historic credobaptist position - not recognising paedobaptist as true, biblical baptism.

Finally, you say you cannot do better than Mr. Reynolds but you have gone beyond him in that what you have called a sin he calls an error.

Dear sir-

You state: "It is simply that on this point they've got it wrong, and their error, involving as it does a requiring of something Scripture does not require (infant baptism), and the consequence of a denying of an action Scripture does require (believers baptism) is sinful (though unintentionally so)."

In my estimation this is a very misleading and erroneous statement. I am a Presbyterian minister, and I have never heard of anyone in my circles who would either "require" infant baptism or "deny" believer's baptism. I would hope that all ministers who baptize infants would also recognize the legitimacy of believer's baptism and be willing to baptize a professing adult. I also hope that all in my circles would respect the right of parents who wish to give their children that choice later in their life and not force infant baptism upon them, particularly since the practice of paedobaptism is neither explicitly affirmed or denied in scripture.

I respectfully ask you to do a more careful job of stating the position of those who differ from you on this subject.

Your distinction between intentional and unintentional sins is helpful. Thanks.

Dr Dever,

Thanks for your reply, but I find it wanting. Your definition of sin doesn't take account of all the biblical evidence.

That is, I suggest you need to take into account texts like 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14-15 which speak of differences that Christians have, but they shouldn't affect their *church* unity (i.e. they're in the same congregation). Each is to be convinced in their own mind, but be ready to allow the differing practice of others, "without passing judgement" (i.e. sin!). This is not lowest common denominator Christianity. This is a recognition that there is a hierarchy of doctrine.

Is it so difficult to believe that the credo v. paedo debate fits into this category? How can so many many Christians who are godly, reformed, and have so much in common differ on this *particular* issue? It would seem to me that's because Scripture isn't clear on it. Indeed, the Bible doesn't *directly* address the issue. SO many godly (reformed) wise people have looked at this issue throughout our tradition, and have landed on different sides. That's different from issues like penal substitution, and justification etc. (doctrines directly addressed). If the paedo / credo issue was SO important wouldn't we expect the Bible to deal clearly with it? Yes, we are to have our opinion on it, but respect the practice and position of others without erecting a church division--and certainly not call the other opinion "sin".

Can't we focus on something more important?

Every blessing,

Marty.

Marty,

"It would seem to me that's because Scripture isn't clear on it. Indeed, the Bible doesn't *directly* address the issue."

Actually it does address baptism quit clearly. We are explicitly told to baptize believers. What we are never told to do is baptize infants. So shouldn't our default be to do what the Bible commands and not do what it doesn't?

Darin,

I was just asking some friends of mine who attend Presbyterian churches why they don't allow children to the Lord's Table.

Why don't they?

Andy,

For several reasons, not the least of which being that we are to 1.) examine ourselves, and 2.) discern the body before we partake of the Supper (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). For obvious reasons, infants and young children cannot do either of those things. So there must be true faith in Christ, the maturity to do self-examination, and the ability to understand the Lord's Supper. This is why many Presbyterian congregations will take children through a confirmation process before the elders admit them to the Lord's Table.

Marty,

Just for the sake of clarification, Presbyterians believe - along with Baptists - that adult believers should be baptized if they were not baptized as infants or children. We agree that the Bible teaches adult baptism!

We just believe that there is plenty of Biblical warrant to apply the covenant sign to the children of believing parents as well, just as the sign of circumcision was applied to the infant sons of the covenant during the Old Covenant, prior to their profession of faith in Yahweh.

Blessings to both of you.

-Darin

Darin,

Thanks.

I think some are upset, not because you call it sin, but because of the other sins you are able to live with, but not this one( even if you think it is). You have lumped it with racisim and universalism. However, on the other hand you are willing to abide with women elders????

Dr. Dever,

I greatly appreciate the things you do to clarify the scriptural teaching concerning the local church. I, however, feel you are a little inconsistent when you readily admit that peadobaptism is a sin and yet have unbroken fellowship with peadobaptist. It seems to me that if this is sin then those involved in it are living in a state of unconfessed sin. How can they be permitted to take the Lord's Supper in or preach from the pulpit of your church. From the things I have read of yours, I don't believe you would allow an unrepentant adulterer to take the Lord's supper or to preach. What is the difference? How can a person who is unwilling to turn from sin, and in fact embraces and teaches others to embrace sin, be allowed open fellowship in a church?
I understand your dilemma. I love reading and listening to men like Sproul, Jensen, and Packer, but I do not believe we should be so comfortable with their sin that we allow them to take the Lord's supper or preach in our churches.

Mr. Dever,

I think Ronnie makes a good point. It is very odd that you are not able to live with this "sin" but work so regularly with those who continue in this "sin".

Also, I wonder if it is fruitful to make this a "sin" issue when generations of believers have left it to be a issue of conscience. I think you overstate you point here, and thus polarize people unnecessarily.

A couple questions for you brothers,

Do Presbyterians baptize adults by full immersion? If not, why not?

For Baptists, is it the practice of infant baptism that is sin or is it the principle of infant baptism that is sin or is it both? The practice being the act (and perhaps the mode) and the principle being the belief that the act merits something.

-Chris

There is a relationship between Deut. 6:4-6 and Matt. 28:18-20 that is as much symbolic as prescriptive. The common thread is response to God's grace acted out in the covenant family. We are to bringing intellect (discipleship), spirit (baptism) and body (obedience)under the yoke with Christ; all of this within the context of the fellowship lest it become dead ritual practice.

"I think some are upset, not because you call it sin, but because of the other sins you are able to live with, but not this one( even if you think it is). You have lumped it with racisim and universalism. However, on the other hand you are willing to abide with women elders????"

Dr Dever, that is indeed the issue at hand. If paedo-baptism is not scriptural and thus 'sin' and labelled as such, how is it that un-scriptural behaviour such as women elders does not receive the same level of condemnation?

Children of believers are covenant kids and should receive the sign of the New Covenant (baptism). Baptists know this, so many they do things such as: teach their children to call on God as "Father" when they teach them to pray, they take them to church and let them hear preaching, (although they cannot understand it), and some even go so far as to have a "baby dedication."

I'm curious as to why Baptists, or anticredobaptists, would withold the sign and seal that goes along with being in the covenant? Unless they don't believe their children are in the covenant, but then our anticredobaptist brethren have a serous problem with 1 Corinth 7:14 when it says, " For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (ESV)

sorry...I meant to say, "antipaedobaptist," rather than anticredobaptist."

So much for trying to be clever...

I appreciate the "likeminded" tone of this article, even though I disagree with your position on infant baptism. I'm surprised that some would be shocked at you calling infant baptism a sin, as I think paedobaptists would find from scripture that those who don't baptize their infants are sinning. Thank you for stating your case in such a gentle and loving manner. Articles like this are a benefit to the body of Christ.

I find it very grievous to the body of Christ that the likes of Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, Packer and Keller could never, and should never break bread with credo Baptists. By implication it demotes them all to a second class status as Christians, and thus a far greater sin is perpetrated than the possibility of paedobaptists being in error. I admire the way in which John Piper is seeking to amend this problem in his church, and thoroughly ashamed of the way Mark Dever continues to create shades of disharmony amongst believers.

I share the view that baptism is intended for believers -- those who are "reborn", not just "born".

However, I think the issue here is, what is our view of those who believe and practice paedobaptism? If their very baptism is, not just a wrong practice (like, say, exclusive psalmody), but a sin, then should they be considered unbaptized? If unbaptized, are they in fact really properly members of the body of Christ? Would we desire to "unchurch" them (to borrow a phrase used by some who would elevate other issues, such as continuity with an "apostolic succession", to sine qua non's of membership in the "true Church")?

It has always seemed curious to me that we go to great lengths to affirm a Zwinglian, "merely symbolic", view of the ordinances or sacraments, yet elevate the propriety of a particular form of their practice almost to the status of essentials of the faith (just like, from the other side, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, certain Anglicans, and others, who go so far as to affirm baptismal regeneration).

I am glad that, in the spirit of "Together for the Gospel", we can continue to say with Paul, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17).

An all around good post, yet the best is this:

"...and (I) look forward to heaven, where all our disagreements will be composed."

Amen.

Dr. Dever,
I'm with you. That's something that sin does to this world: it confuses our well-intentioned socialization. But the Bible is clear that we all have unintentioned sin. Otherwise, there would be no need for sanctification. The saving grace between such as paedobaptists and Baptists is that we each intend to be faithful to God. Therefore, our faith is counted as righteousness. So, although I think that paedobaptism is sinful in that it is against what I believe is the clear revelation of this ecclesiological ordinance according to the gospel of grace made possible by faith, not some familial covenant, I can understand the mistaken notion of my paedobaptistic brothers given that I certainly don't have all knowledge and might be sinfully mistaken on some point myself. I'll hold up Romans 12:9-21 as an example of the attitude I take here, and what I believe you are taking here.

God bless you. Stay strong in the faith.

I thank God for the Reformation, and my reformed brothers for their commitment to the bible. I just dont see WHY they baptize infants based on deductive covenantal theology thinking, instead of obeying scripture. What ever happened to Sola Scriptura ( Scripture alone). The New testament is so clear on the subject of WHO is to be baptized; Just look at ; Cornelius house (ACTS 10). The jailer house (ACTS 16). Crispus house (ACTS 18), LYDIA, Stephanas; All these people believed and were baptized. We cant assume that infants were baptized as well. Infants dont have the ability to believe what they hear. Even John the Baptist’s baptism was one of repentance. Let’s turn to scripture. Scripture is more true and precious than deductive covenantal theology and tradition. This is an area that indeed still needs reformation. Thoughts anybody????????

anyone want to talk about infant baptism?

Chris G.

hello,
you said "I'm curious as to why Baptists, or anticredobaptists, would withold the sign and seal that goes along with being in the covenant? Unless they don't believe their children are in the covenant, but then our anticredobaptist brethren have a serous problem with 1 Corinth 7:14 when it says, " For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (ESV)
this message is on marriage, is it not? so is my wife who is an unbeliever apart of the church? i believe Paul is saying do not seperate because God's blessings will pour out to them and they might be saved because of the marriage! i also read nothing here of baptism?!?!?

thanks,
tlm

eric,

i'll talk about it.

thanks,
tlm

I would like to talk about infant baptism!!!

tlm