Has anyone read or heard this from Pastor Dever (Baptist)

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

What I CAN and CANNOT Live With as a Pastor - 9Marks

Excerpts:

1. Organs. I can live with an organ. I can live without an organ. I can even live with an organ that’s too loud. But I don’t want to! Organs are not in the Bible. Congregational singing is. Any accompaniment which smothers and thereby discourages congregational singing should be reformed or eliminated. Given the financial and emotional commitments that are represented in organs, movement for change here should be slow.

4. Altar calls. I can live with altar calls. This is a longer conversation, but you must first realize how your congregation views them. If they are lightly invested in them, you can probably remove them fairly soon and easily. If they are the emotional highpoint of the service, then you probably need to spend some time changing the language you use about them, and then, over time, educate the congregation that Jesus called people to repent of their sins and to trust in him. The physical motion to which he called them was not walking down an aisle but taking up the cross.

Lastly

11. Infant baptism. I cannot live with infant baptism. Having said that, if I were the pastor of the only church allowed in Mecca, maybe… But even then, I simply lack the authority to admit someone to the Lord’s Table who has not been baptized. It is, as one said not too long ago, “above my pay-grade.” I have many dear paedo-baptists friends from whom I have learned much. Yet I see their practice as a sinful (though sincere) error from which God protects them by allowing for inconsistency in their doctrinal system, just as he graciously protects me from consistency with my own errors.

__________________
Gil Garcia
Rehoboth Reformed Church (RCUS)
La Habra, CA

"Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity." - Calvin's successor


"By the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning...?"
-Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

He's living without the wrong thing!...he is missing some of the sacrament that is commanded and which is such a blessing!

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

Hadn't seen it Gil but not surprised as I have heard that Mr Dever is staunchly opposed to paedobaptism. At least he's consistent. I couldn't live without infant baptism and consider those who refuse Baptism to their Children as being in sinful error as well. So although on opposite ends of the matter both of us are being consistent in the application of our doctrine.

__________________
Wayne Whitmer
Member, Rio Rancho OPC
Albuquerque, NM

I've enjoyed lectures and sermons by Dever (but then again i'm also baptist).

I couldn't tell 100% from the intro, but it seems like the article is about what kinds of issues he's willing to work through when considering pastoring a new church and which are not negotiable. So I can understand, that he'd be willing to work through issues like the music: organs or drums, short sermons, altar calls, or humor; but there are other more central issues, which he wouldn't want to deal with: female elders, universal atonement, paedobaptism. I think it makes sense. Could you see a baptist pastor taking care of a congregation of paedobaptists? Credos attending a paedo church is probably awkward but probably not as much as the reverse, since paedo baptism includes credo baptism (adult baptism after a profession of faith). It doesn't work the other way around.

__________________
Alex
Member of Carmel Baptist Church (SBC)
Matthews, NC

Yes, I see his human dilemma, but I pray his spiritual dilemma of credo baptism is fixed by God. I say this with loving concerning. I used to be a credo also...so I know his dilemma.

Just as I pray your error of paedo-baptism is corrected. Seriously, what else do you expect from a Baptist? I would have absolutely zero respect for a paedo-baptist that would not be wholly convinced that their baptismal position is correct. I'd feel the same way about a Baptist who lacked passion regarding the subject.

I agree with Pastor Dever. I consider paedos to be in sin, just as they consider me to be in sin. But I also agree that the Lord allows us certain doctrinal inconsistencies within the larger frame of theology.

and btw, Mark Dever does not struggle with his baptismal position. He is an avowed credo. Based on what he's written and what he's said, he'd fall on his sword over that issue.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Conversion?

Ok... I think we can assume credos hope paedos change their ways and vice versa. But I think Dever's point is that it's too big an issue to remain united as a local church body, and that a young pastor should find a church that matches his stance on baptism...makes sense to me.

He's right.

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

Yup.

__________________
We shall not adjust our Bible to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, we shall adjust the age to the Bible. - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Lawrence Underwood, Jr.
Pastor - Providence Family Fellowship / Mobile, Alabama
1644/46 LBC
My Blog - Imprimis

We are all wrong on some point of doctrine or practice (hopefully secondary) in God's eyes. We are not excluded for not scoring 100% on the test. Thankfully we are saved by GRACE alone through FAITH alone in CHRIST alone.

__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA
Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25

Gil, I noticed you didn't comment on what Dever said about the KJV!

Seriously, I have tremendous respect for Mark Dever and what he has done for the church. But I also find it very interesting that infant baptism is the sword he chooses to fall on. Not female eldership. Not altar calls. Not 10 minute sermons. Sure, he is in principle against these things, but I also noticed he doesn't call these "sinful" as he does infant baptism.

I also find it odd that he even mentions this in the article. I know he's a baptist, and I know he doesn't practice it. So why even mention it? Is it a particular problem in his denomination on the same level as these other things? I would much rather see his opinion on "baby dedications" and whether he even considers Reformed churches to be true churches since he believes them to be practicing a false ("sinful") sacrament/ordinance. It is highly insulting, imho.

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

Prof. R. Scott Clark responds: For What It’s Worth: This Paedo is Not Offended Heidelblog

I like his last sentence.

Tim, he mentions it because it's the white elephant in the room for many Baptists who embrace the reformed faith. Calvinism is the first domino to fall. For those Baptists who become Calvinists, they are going to be exposed to differing arguments on the reformed faith. Some of those arguments are going to threaten their Baptist beliefs. We see that on the PB all the time. We've seen credos go paedo and paedos go credo. It's a wise and prudent pastor who deals with the issue up front.

As to your other questions, ask Mark Dever.

P.S. My screen name used to be "Baptist in Crisis." Why? Because I struggled with my Baptist beliefs after I became a Calvinist. I was close, so very close, to becoming a paedo baptist. Ultimately I was convinced by scripture of the credo position. I know what this internal conflict is like.

One of the reasons I left the Baptists after 23 years was this kind of stuff. Imo, to deny a christian the Lord's spupper because of a difference on baptism is stupid and wicked.

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 12:08:26 EST-----

What did mr. Dever say about the KJV?

__________________
Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
Members of Redeemer Church ARP, Blacksburg Va.
http://www.redeemerblacksburg.org/

Bill I truly appreciate your candid comments. But I do not believe this was a "Calvinism" issue that Dever posted. Aside from universalism and possibly altar calls, that list was distinctly non-Calvinistic in nature. And he specifically called one and only one item (unless I'm overlooking something) as sinful. That's just not helpful. That causes division in the Reformed community; it doesn't promote unity among Reformed brothers and sisters.

Dever speaks regularly at Reformed conferences with paedobaptists. He has no problem appearing at a Ligonier Conference or a Together for the Gospel Conference, even though he knows that other speaks there (in his eyes) are engaging in open sin in their worship services. And he says he CANNOT live with this. The pastor doth protest too much methinks.

Nothing inflammatory, imho. Just this:

Like I said above he is consistent. His denomination is named after the very Sacrament in question here "Baptism". Mark Dever has ALWAYS been staunchly opposed to paedobaptism and I believe has seen folks from his congregation and others convert to paedobaptism. He doesn't see it as a small matter. When I was a BAPTIST at BJU I wrote Dr Bob III criticizing the schools non denominational stance by permitting Free Presbyterians and Methodist to attend the School. I understand the man's passion, concern, and clarity.

I just think he's WRONG and Sinfully so but I respect his consistency.

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 12:40:42 EST-----

I can see your point now as well Tim and understand where you are coming from but I guess I'm giving Dever more slack than most because of how passionate of a Baptist I once was before converting to the Covenantal Reformed Presbyterian Faith. I'm now just as passionate about Paedobaptism as I was of Credo Only Baptism.

Wayne, trust me, I don't expect the gentleman to be anything but a Baptist. But that comment of his was completely out of place and unhelpful. You might walk into various Baptist churches in this land and find things like organs, stained glassed windows, altar calls, etc., and a pastor needs to pick his battles and what hills he is willing to die on. I respect that. But someone please tell me what in the world this has to do with paedobaptism?!? Is there some rising group of Baptist churches in this country that have suddenly adopted this practice that I don't know about? If so, someone please enlighten me.

As you should be!

__________________
Jonathan Hunt

Elder holding forth the word of life at:
Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church (Confessionally Based)
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
-- Thomas Elsworth

Again, I wasn't 100% sure about the intent of the article but it seemed to me that he was using himself as an example of what kinds of issues other pastors need to think about before leading a congregation. For him personally, baptism is a huge issue (for me personally, not so big an issue). The article was clearly not meant to be a comprehensive list; just examples.

Are there credo believers in your church? How is the situation handled? Do you think they're sinning by not baptizing their children?

On what basis does he label it sinful?

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

The issue is not mine but Dever's. Once again, are there Baptist churches out there somewhere that are baptizing infants that I don't know about? And why single this one thing out as "sinful" but not say that about altar calls, universal atonement, or female elders?

I don't believe there are currently any credo believers in our church. Our standards allow for Sessions to admit members into membership who have a scruple on that issue. However, they must agree that the doctrines taught by our denomination are founded on Scripture, even if they personally don't agree with that one. They can be members in good standing, but they are barred from holding a church office (elder or deacon). And the duty of the Session is to encourage them (and exhort them) to have their children presented for baptism. And obviously, we do not exclude those from membership who were baptized as adults, even if they were immersed. For example, I was immersed in a Baptist church many years ago. That seems far more unifying than Dever's position.

Tim,

The reason I mentioned Calvinism is because it is the entre into reformed theology for most Baptists. I thought I made myself clear on that. Once a new Calvinistic Baptist starts examining reformed theology, he is going to encounter the baptism issue. It can't be avoided. While Dever may not have had Calvinism in mind, he is right to address the baptism issue. Baptists need to know what they believe regarding baptism or they will be easily swayed by compelling (but not necessarily accurate) arguments.

James, if the reason you abandoned being a Baptist is solely because of the denial of the Lord's Supper to the unbaptized, then I think you short changed yourself. Please tell me you changed because you now agree with paedo baptism. I can buy that reason. FWIW, don't paedos deny the Lord's Supper to the unbaptized? The credo distinctive is that we do not consider paedo baptism a valid baptism...period. Therefore, a person who has been baptized as an infant has not been baptized. You may hate and despise it, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

You made yourself clear, and I understand your point. But Dever is not simply talking about Calvinism. The article is entitled "What I CAN and CANNOT Live With as a Pastor." If he is pastoring a Baptist church, then I fail to see how this is an issue ecclesiastically for him. You are correct in that a Baptist pastor may run into folks who move to a paedo position. If that is what he means, then it is completely out of parallel with everything else he talks about in the article. Unless I am forgetting or overlooking something, everything else he points to are church-wide practices that determine whether taking a pastorate is advisable or not. By tossing that one in, it makes it seem as if this is a personal axe for him to grind, it is offensive to other Reformed brethren, and it hurts an otherwise helpful article.

Now, if there are church-wide practices among Baptists that involve paedobaptism taking place, I will stand corrected. I have asked that several times and no one has corrected/enlightened me. I really don't know if this is the case. If it is, please tell me so I can know.

I generally like Mark Dever. He seems like a nice guy. He signed a book for me at a Ligonier conference once, and carried on a friendly conversation with me while he did so. But this posting is just a bit too much.

Oh, FWIW, and in defense of Baptists with regard to the Table of the Lord, not all prohibit paedobaptists from coming to the Lord's Supper. My wife and I worshiped on a Sunday evening a few weeks ago at a local Reformed Baptist church. We were invited to the table. It was expected that we were to be professing Christians and members in good standing of a Christian church. The pastor knew I was a Presbyterian minister. I was freely invited to the Table.

Now, having said that, there may be some Baptists that this would rub the wrong way. But there was a clear invitation to the Table, and a distinction between credo and paedo was never made.

Some two years ago or thereabouts, there was yet another kerfluffle on this issue on the Reformed blogs when Dever denied the Lord's Supper to Ligon Duncan... after the latter preached at his (that is, Dever's) church. That seems to be more inconsistent to me -- why allow someone into your pulpit to whom you wouldn't administer the Supper? I understand (and appreciate!) T4G, but the pulpit thing seems a bit odd...

Baptizoblogodebate Roundup

ETA: I would guess that he likely had this debate in mind when he made his comments.

__________________
Jennifer Petrik
Member, Grace Reformation Church
Associate Member, Escondido Reformed Baptist Church
Student, Westminster Seminary California (M.A.H.T.)
Woodland/Escondido, CA
per caliginem

You are missing my point. I'm not saying Calvinism or the threat of paedo baptism was on Dever's mind when he wrote this article. I am saying that I believe Dever understands the gravity of the baptism issue in Baptist pastorates. The baptism issue effects eligibility for the Lord's Supper in most Baptist churches; so the two are vitally important. Is that offensive to the larger reformed community? If so, than the only advice I can give is not to be a Baptist.

Not all Baptist churches are the same. Baptists know this all too well. I would not expect every Baptist church to be in lock step agreement.

I'm going to close making the same point I made when I opened. I am not attributing Dever's motivation as protecting Calvinistic Baptists from going paedo. I added that as a valid reason for appealing to Baptist pastors to take an active role in properly teaching baptism. No. I don't want Baptists becoming paedos. Why would I? Accept them as brothers if they do? Of course. Fellowship with them and remain friends? Absolutely. I suppose I'm taking the ball from Dever and running with it. I want Baptist pastors to be unashamedly Baptist, in the reformed tradition. I have little tolerance for apologetic Baptists in the pastorate. Fish or cut bait.

If all Dever meant is that committed credobaptists shouldn't pastor in paedobaptist churches, more power to him. I even agree with him; I just don't see how this is a problem in Baptist churches. It is obvious that he is whole-heartedly committed to the issue. I hope he becomes just as committed in his stand against female elders and altar calls.

Tim, spend some time in Baptist churches who have almost no conception of the ordinances/sacraments and then you'll understand the importance of this issue.

One thing at a time. And if you read that article he did not defend altar calls.

If you're an ecclesiastically sound Baptist pastor, and you are assigned to a church that has had the tradition of altar calls for a long time, you first educate in order to change. If you don't, you'll probably be tossed out on your ear in short order. I believe he is committed in his stand against altar calls.

As far as female elders, you tell me where he agrees with the idea?


"I might be able to live with female elders, but not for long..." It's hyperbole, another way of saying, "Not in my church." Dever is clearly addressing churches that have this practice in place already. He calls a spade a spade too. "If a church accepts female elders, has been clearly instructed to the contrary, and will not change, that seems like a battle you won't win. So I probably wouldn't even begin with such a church." I have no problem with his level of conviction.

I would think a lot of Reformed Baptists might be a little fiercer against female elders than against paedobaptism. After all, no Reformed person can get away without feeling a certain debt to several paedobaptists, but I've never felt indebted to a female elder or her male supporters.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Has anyone in this thread actually read the article in full?

Jen, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this. If I am understanding everything correctly, an Arminian pastor (complete with altar calls and universal atonement, the who nine years) in favor of female elders is welcome to the Table in Dever's church, but Lig Duncan is not, as long as he was a credobaptist?

I have. And nowhere does he call altar calls or female elders "sinful," which was my point.

I was probably not clear with my pronouns here. The "this" refers to paedobaptism, as in "I just don't see how paedobaptism is a problem in Baptist churches." I don't know of any that practice it.

I think I agree with your comment, though, if I am correctly understanding you. Christians in general have a low view of the sacraments. That's not just a problem in Baptist churches. I think we are in agreement here, even if it doesn't shake out the same in the end.

The fact that your own church prohibits credos from holding office (even deacon, which isn't a teaching position) shows that it considers baptism to be a doctrine of high importance and that credos are seriously mistaken and in sin by not baptizing their children. So that position doesn't seem to be that different than Dever, except for how it impacts the Lord's Supper. I'm sorry if his words were offensive to you, but I think his point was that young pastors should be clear in their own mind what issues they think are negotiable and which aren't; and for Dever this is a non-negotiable. For your church, it's also clearly non-negotiable, but to a different degree.

I've read the full article. I don't think paedobaptists should be unduly offended - not if they are of the variety to say that baptists are in sin for not baptizing their children, certainly.
But I disagree with Dever's exclusion of godly paedobaptists (if they were baptized as infants) from the Lord's Table. But look at the situation he sets up where he could try to live with female elders - if the congregation was willing to learn. And if a paedobaptist church called him as a pastor on the understanding that he wouldn't be requested to baptize infants? Not an ideal situation, surely, but then churches shouldn't be recovering from having had female elders either.

I have read the article and agree with most of what he says. Every pastor needs to determine what areas of theological departure he is willing to work with. It's rare to find the perfect place - we all have warts and we all probably have some holes in our theology. I have often felt that I would prefer to teach a group of sincere, serious, and loving believers that have some theological holes than to teach a group that has the theology figured out but gets nothing accomplished due to strife and bitterness.

I pastor a calvinistic Baptist church and our church requires salvation as the prerequisite for church membership. We would be willing to admit convinced paedobapstists as church members, providing they would be willing to submit the doctrine of the church. (By submit, I mean simply that they would not be contradictory and combative. We also teach that communion is for the saints of God and would be willing to participate with and include paedobaptists in our Lord Supper service. We would not be willing to permit someone who has not been baptized at all, nor would we feel he should properly partake of the Supper until he has been baptized. This is all theory, I could say, for all our members are credobaptists.

This is a rare position to be held by baptists. John Bunyan wrote a couple of treatises, one which is called something like "why baptism is no bar to communion." Sadly, the man was roundly criticized by paedobaptists and credobaptists alike! I found his arguments rather compelling.

This issue is perplexing to me. I know Godly men and enjoy rich friendship with individuals on both sides. I marvel that we can agree on so many points of theology and practice but when the subject comes around to baptism, we stare at each other across the table thinking "Why don't you get it, stupid?!"

What is marvelous to me is that God is so gracious to use ignorant sinners to accomplish his purposes. All would agree that God has greatly blessed the labors of both paedo and credo alike. Someone must be wrong! Thank God that He is pleased to use his saints in spite of their imperfections.

__________________
Bob Leverton
Elder, Faith Baptist Church
Family Blog: http://levertonfamily.blogspot.com/

Rick Phillips adds a few thoughts at Universalism, Racism... Paedobaptism? - Reformation21 Blog

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

When men are ordained in our denomination, they must affirm a statement that says the doctrines of the ARP are founded on Scripture and an expression of their own faith. That should be a perfectly reasonable expectation. We don't publicly bring people in front of the church that don't answer the affirmative and say they are being "sinful." Nor do we say they cannot come to the Lord's Table. Hence, it's much more than simply different degrees.

I agree with you when you say "young pastors should be clear in their own mind what issues they think are negotiable and which aren't." If that's all he had said, fine. Even if he had used the issue of baptism, fine. I don't expect him to agree with me on it. But to call that specific one "sinful" and hold it higher than the rest (including Arminianism, feminism in the church) is just a bit too much. He should have chosen his words more carefully.

That's an excellent article, and far better than my uncouth ramblings. I would encourage everyone on this thread to read it.

And Rick Phillips is no relation. I'm sure he's thankful for that!

If we, credos, aren't in sin by not baptizing our children, then what would you call it? I thought paedos consider baptism of children to be commanded by God, like circumcision? So if i'm neglecting a command from God, aren't I sinning? I'm not offended by this line of reasoning; let's "call a spade a spade".

Now personally, I'd love for credos and paedos to all get along, but at the level of running a local congregation, it would be awkward at best for a pastor to have a large mix of credos and paedos together.

The topic of thread centers on Mark Dever's comments, not what various churches practice. The topic has devolved enough without engaging in a tu quoque argument on top of that.

I'm still having trouble wrapping by brain around not serving the Lord's Supper to a Reformed paedobaptist brother and whether the same would be applied to an Arminian who practices the ordination of female elders. That just baffles me.

I suppose I wouldn't be as offended by the "sinful" comment if he hadn't reserved that for infant baptism. Perhaps if he had referred to the other practices that way, it might have slipped below the radar. Or better yet, if he had simply spoken against practice without using the "s" word, that would have been fine. But the way he wrote it, he seems to be feel more strongly about this than those other practices (and others more wise than I have detected this as well; e.g., the Rick Phillips article linked above).

Joe, a pastor from out of town, visits a local Baptist church. Joe's church has female elders and Arminian theology. The pastor of the church Joe is visiting fences the table with the following statement, "All believers who have been scripturally baptized, are not living in unrepentant sin or currently under church discipline are welcome to partake." The pastor has no idea what Joe believes. For that matter he has no idea what Sally believes, who is also a visitor. Joe and Sally partake of the Lord's Supper. Is the pastor and elders supposed to know the vocation and theology of a visitor before they partake? Those who advocate a strict closed table would probably say "yes." But for those churches that practice a modified closed table, how are they supposed to know what Joe believes?


For the sake of argument, lets say that I am made aware of Joe before he visits. I know he has a church with female elders and that he is Arminian in his theology. I would have less of a problem with his Arminian leaning theology than his female elders. I will not deny a person from the table who is not a Calvinist. IMHO that is not a requirement for partaking. The female elder issue raises a lot of questions. Arminianism, depending on it's severity, is a sin because it denies the absolute sovereignty of God. But being a shepherd of the flock, and abiding female elders, is a gross sin. For that reason, if I knew Joe and his ecclesiology, I would consider him in gross open sin and not let him partake. Why deny him for his aberrant ecclesiology and not his denying the sovereignty of God? His ecclesiology has placed the church in peril. It is the sin of Genesis 3. It is a grave error that must be rebuked among those who name Christ.

Now, do you have a specific situation you can point to regarding Mark Dever in this regard?