If you haven’t seen SNL for the past few years, the title of this post may be lost on you. The head writer of SNL, Seth Meyers, frequently does a segment entitled “Really? With Seth” in which he points out funny inconsistencies in things people say. I’d check it out on Hulu if you haven’t seen them. They’re funny.
In that vein, I’d like to quote a section from Mark Dever’s recent article in 9marks eJournal.
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 (20-21).
He then goes on the radio show “Iron Sharpens Iron” and is asked what he meant when he said this. He states clearly at 42:42 that he believes paedobaptism is a sin because it leads to sinning (i.e., when people ‘get saved’ they don’t get baptized because they were already baptized as a child…which is a sin in Mark’s eyes). Really, Mark Dever? Really? Infant baptism is sinful? Really?
So you’re fine with speaking at conferences with people who you think are knowingly and willingly sinning? Not only that, but they are proud and defensive of their “sin,” write books about how the Bible supports their “sin,” and try to convince others that their “sin” is justifiable?
But you wouldn’t speak at a conference with homosexual ministers, would you? Here’s the big question: why not? You disagree with homosexuality, as you do with paedo-baptism. You don’t think the Bible justifies homosexuality, as you do with paedo-baptism. You think that homosexuals knowingly and willingly sin, and apparently you feel the same about paedo-baptists. Really, Mark Dever? Really? You think that homosexuality is on par with sprinkling a child who is born within a covenant home? Really?
And what about the pious church fathers that you quote in lectures and sermons? Augustine, Calvin, Luther…all willful sinners living and perpetuating a life of unrepentant sin? Really, Dever? Really?
How about taking a better line of thought here, Mark. Why don’t we say that you believe paedo-baptists are misinterpreting Scripture. That seems to be an accurate description of your thinking…unless you honestly think that Christ died for the sins of murder, rape, deceit, and paedo-baptism.
I’m all for someone holding strong theological convictions, but Dever is going the way of John MacArthur in this article (MacArthur, as you probably know, thinks that Calvinists cannot be Amillennialists and that Amillennialists should also be Open Theists). It’s one thing to say you disagree with someone’s interpretation of Scripture on an issue such as baptism. It’s quite another to say that someone who does not practice your view of baptism is sinning. That is so over the top that it’s hard to take someone like that seriously. I mean, come on Dever. Paedo-baptism a sin? Really?
18 March 2009 at 5.56 pm
Here’s an interesting comment from Rick Phillips to Dever on the subject of infant baptism that came up in this post from Dever. I especially appreciated this part of the comment:
Apparently that comment had little effect on Dever.
18 March 2009 at 6.00 pm
Great post – encapsulates everything I was thinking while this all went down, only I didn’t add the cool “Really?” part. Nice touch.
18 March 2009 at 6.15 pm
Great post. It seems that some have begun down the slippery slope of calling every doctrinal divergence a sin. God help us!
18 March 2009 at 7.00 pm
Art,
Mark Dever is a former pastor of mine, and I must protest. Dever said that paedobaptism is a sinful error, but sincere. Where does he say that paedobaptists are “knowingly and willingly sinning”?
Dever is one of the most irenic pastors I have ever met. He has good relations and fellowship with Christians of all types, including charismatics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Arminian-ish Baptists. He is a careful speaker, and I have never heard him say anything close to a polemic. He should be commended for speaking at conferences with people he disagrees with rather than criticized for inconsistency.
If his use of “sin” in this context is what bothers you, know that he is only echoing the following the language of the Westminster: “Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance” XXVIII.v.
Dever’s view distinguishes a sin committed by a sincere Christian in error. Conflating that with homosexuality is unwarranted and simply not kind.
18 March 2009 at 7.14 pm
elnwood:
I didn’t say that Dever said this, but it is the natural consequence of him saying that paedobaptism is a sin. If paedobaptists hold to their position willingly and knowingly, then it follows that one who believes their practice is a sin would say that they are sinning willingly and knowingly.
I’m not saying he’s is not a nice guy. I’ve met him and heard him lecture during my time at WTS. I agree with you that he is a kind man and has good relationships with people in other denominations. Yet one cannot help but see the inconsistency in his position regarding baptism. If he truly believes that those who he has good relationships with are sinning, teaching others to sin, and attempting to Biblically defend their sin, then it would be just as consistent for him to speak at conferences with homosexual ministers or have a homosexual minister preach from his pulpit. So while I commend him for crossing denominational lines, he is extremely inconsistent in this point.
Dever cannot be echoing the language from this portion of the WCF, because the WCF affirms infant baptism.
XXVIII.IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
XXVIII.V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
Where does he make this distinction? And, further, how does that make the ’sin’ any better? Cannot a Christian “struggle” with homosexuality?
18 March 2009 at 7.27 pm
Hi Art,
I do not agree that what you are attributing to Dever is a “natural consequence.” We need to be careful about this because those who criticize Peter Enns go nuts with the “natural consequence” of his views. We ought to do better than that.
I brought up the WCF because according to that, Baptists are sinning by not administering baptism to their children. Your critique, then, should also be directed to all who hold the WCF, including the people who invite unrepentant Baptists to their conferences.
I wasn’t saying that Dever subscribes to the WCF. I meant that Dever is using the same reasoning that the WCF gives to say that the other view of baptism is sinful.
From what I gather, Dever and the WCF teach that any doctrinal error is the result of sinful understanding, and I agree. One of us is wrong on the topic, and I dare say it’s the result of sin. If I am wrong, I pray that God will forgive me of my sinful ignorance.
I bring up that Dever is a nice guy and brother in Christ because I do not think that publicly criticizing a brother in Christ using the sarcasm of SNL (unless it is tongue in cheek, which SNL often is) is appropriate for Christians to do. In general we are to confront our brothers in private with love if we think they are wrong. Surely you could have questioned Dever’s view in a more respectful and irenic matter?
18 March 2009 at 8.12 pm
elnwood:
Fair enough. I’m willing to listen to you argument re: how you think this was unfair.
You are incorrect here. The WCF explicitly says that it is a sin to neglect this ordinance. Baptists do not neglect baptism. They simply, according to the WCF, practice it incorrectly.
Regarding publicly criticizing a brother in Christ, I do not see anything wrong with my post. Dever made a public accusation stating that I, and others, are living a life of sin. I critiqued that statement publicly. I did not say anything about Dever as a person, just critiqued his point. The “really” was tongue in cheek and was for entertainment value.
As for confronting our brothers in private, I wasn’t practicing church discipline, I was critiquing his publicly declared view point. I believe I was much more respectful than Dever himself, who has publicly called people sinners.
We can talk about respectful ways to deal with issues or irenic ways to approach a critique, but those seem like red herrings to the main point that I made in my post. More pointedly: do you honestly think that Dever’s viewpoint is defensible?
18 March 2009 at 8.20 pm
Art, as I wrote above, I do think that doctrinal error is sin, and that I will be judged on the last day for my credobaptist error if I am incorrect. Do you disagree?
Re: the WCF, the WCF says that baptism is rightly administered to infant children, and Baptists neglect this ordinance in those cases. I know — Presbyterians have made this argument to me, and I think it is the clear teaching of the WCF. Who do you think the Westminster Assembly was directing that statement toward?
18 March 2009 at 8.25 pm
I don’t think doctrinal error is ’sin,’ although some sin can lead to doctrinal error, such as pride. I think the source of doctrinal errors can be many things, but I would not say that doctrinal errors are always ’sin.’
I’m not well read when it comes to the motivations of the Westminster Assembly, so I cannot answer your question. I do find it interesting, though, that I don’t find the idea that credobaptism is a sin in any of the Reformed theologians that I have read. They say that it is an ‘error,’ but not that it is a sin. These theologians follow the WCF, so I will take their word for it: it is an error, but not a sin.
Question: if I knowingly and willingly hold to paedobaptism would you say that I am knowingly and willingly living in sin? If not, why not?
18 March 2009 at 9.05 pm
Hi Art,
When I have a chance, I will do research on what the Westminster Assembly meant by that. If it wasn’t directed at the Baptists and Anabaptists, I do not know who else it would have been directed to, but I will get back to you.
I would say that a person is “knowingly and willingly living in sin” if they know they are in sin and willfully continue in that sin. I would not apply that to your paedobaptism because you do not know that you are in sin.
18 March 2009 at 9.19 pm
elnwood: The problem with your second paragraph is as follows:
It is not that I “do not know” that I am in sin, it’s that I do not think that paedobaptism is a sin. I think there are arguments from Scripture that justify my point. You would say, as you did, that I am not knowingly and willingly living in sin because I don’t know I am in sin.
How does that apply, for instance, to Gene Robinson? (In case you don’t know, he’s the openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church.) His situation, in this instance, is the same as mine: it is not that he “does not know” he is in sin, it’s that he does not think homosexuality is a sin. He thinks that there are arguments from Scripture that justify his point. Would you extend the same courtesy to him and say that he is not knowingly and willingly living in sin? Would you call him a brother in Christ and allow him to speak from your pulpit?
If not, then there is a fatal flaw in your reasoning and in your position.
Both myself and Gene Robinson practice things that you believe would be sin (me: paedobaptism, Gene Robinson: homosexuality). We both “do not know” it is a sin and believe that we can justify our positions from Scripture. Any opposition that you would have against a homosexual person being a minister would fly out the window unless you also believed that paedobaptists should also not be allowed to be ministers.
Do you see the extreme inconsistency here?
19 March 2009 at 12.37 am
Art,
From what I’ve read, Gene Robinson does not hold the Bible as his sole authority. He would be excluded on that basis before we even got to the homosexuality issue.
Second, you are placing the “sin” issue in purely black and white terms as if a church must choose between letting every body they think to be in sin preach at their church, or letting none of them preach at the church.
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Certain things in Scripture are clearer than others. Certain issues are more divisive than others. It may be wiser to let certain types of Christians speak over others.
If you think that is an “extreme inconsistency,” so be it, but I think that God has given us wisdom and discretion in this area.
But since you bring up consistency, what is your basis to call credobaptism not a sin and a hypothetically evangelical Gene Robinson? Both would hold to non-biblical practices in ignorance.
19 March 2009 at 12.48 am
Unfortunately, my collection of Reformed systematics is not as extensive as I’d like, and the ones I have are mostly Dutch Reformed, not Presbyterian.
Nevertheless, here’s Robert Reymond:
The creeds … mandate that Christian parents are to recognize that certain rights, including the right to baptism, accrue to their children … These same parents are also to recognize that to deny their children these God-ordained rights is virtually to deny that they possess the status in the kingdom of God which God himself guarantees to them, and is to commit “great sin” against God.
- “A New Systematic Theology,” pg. 937
It seems like the most straight-forward interpretation. If anything, the Westminster Confession goes one step beyond Dever and calls neglecting baptism a “great sin.” Do you have an alternate interpretation of the confession?
19 March 2009 at 8.50 am
Art, I think it is pretty clear that the Reformed tradition understands infant baptism of children to be the duty of all Christian parents. To deny your children baptism is to sin. So I’m surprised that you can’t acknowledge that Dever is simply being consistent with his own view of baptism when he claims that infant baptists are being sinful. If we neglect to do something that is good and right, we sin. If we do something that is not good and not right, we sin.
What’s the real issue then? And, do you place sexuality on a different sin level to the right adminstration of the sacraments? Just as well you are going to PTS to suss out all these things. Barth will make it all clear to you,
19 March 2009 at 9.17 am
Three quick things, as I have a lot of work to do today.
First, elnwood, you are dodging the question by mentioning Robinson’s view of Scripture. So let me ask you straightaway so you can’t wiggle out of this one: if one was to hold Scripture as her or his sole authority, be orthodox in every way, and practice homosexuality while believing that homosexuality is not a sin and biblically justifiable, would you call this person a brother or sister in Christ and would you allow them to preach from your pulpit? If not, then unless you don’t think paedobapists can be ministers, then you have no justifiable argument against homosexual ministers.
Second, elnwood and Dave Shedden, I honestly have not read Reformed theology that claims that credobaptism is a sin. If its there in Reformed theology it is new to me and I wholeheartedly disagree with it. I believe they are wrong when they say such a thing. If that is what the Divines meant when they penned the WCF, then I stand corrected and I disagree with them.
Third, Dave Shedden, I’m not the one putting sexuality on the same level as right administration of the sacraments. That is what people who claim that any other practice besides their own is sinful are doing. That is what Dever did: paedobaptism is a sin, murder is a sin, lying is a sin, etc. To put something like this on the level of sin is absolute madness. You cannot (and should not) justify just nonsense. I understand you may have a knee jerk reaction to defend Dever, but take a moment to breath and get some perspective. This is not justifiable talk. It’s naive at best and arrogant at worst.
I echo Michael Bird’s recent comments about Dever on this issue (you can read the full post here):
Also, not quite sure why you’re slagging off PTS and Barth…
19 March 2009 at 9.34 am
Haven’t read the comments, but a thought…
Here enters the rationale of those (like me) who would claim that “Reformed” Baptists cannot really be considered “Reformed” in any meaningful historic sense. (This is not meant to be an insult by any means… I’m just trying to be honest about things.) How can one be “Reformed” while holding that the traditional Reformed churches *are unbaptized*? As I see it, and as the Reformers saw it, a church without Baptism is no church. Why would such folk even want to wear the label “Reformed” when they look upon the Reformed churches with such disdain?
And, just for the record, the feeling is mutual. The Reformed have always held that to withold Baptism from covenant children is a serious error, and that the practice of Rebaptism is schismatic *in principle*.
19 March 2009 at 9.35 am
There’s sin and then there’s sin. Sin can simply be missing the mark, or it can be a more high-handed, rebellious affair. In the Western tradition, and particularly in the Reformed context, the word sin is usually in reference to the latter.
That’s why Dever’s way of putting things is so unfortunate, and why I think Art is right to call him on it. Dever may not think paedobaptists are guilty of a high-handed attitute in their sin (given the testimony to his history of irenicism, I’ll assume he doesn’t), but he should know how people are typically going to respond to that word.
19 March 2009 at 9.48 am
I’m a PTS graduate, Th.M. One of the best nine months of my life. If you do any theology or church history at PTS you’ll be forced to think about all these issues in new ways, including two or three ways influenced by KB.
19 March 2009 at 11.30 am
Art, I already implied this in my last post, but I draw the line between paedobaptism and homosexual practice because, among other things, interpreting the Bible regarding baptism is less clear than the Bible’s interpretation of homosexuality. You are forcing Dever into a model in which all sin is sin, and he can’t discriminate between different types of sin.
I also asked how you are able to draw a distinction between credobaptists and homosexuality. Since both are violating Scriptural teaching in ignorance, why is credobaptism not a sin and homosexual practice?
Regarding the tone of your post, I can’t speak for anybody else, but I understood it to be very disrespectful of Dever, especially given that he is a faithful minister who should be treated, as the Scripture says, with double respect. I humbly ask that you inquire other people as to whether they felt that Dever was shown disrespect by your post.
19 March 2009 at 11.48 am
elnwood: I would say that you are incorrect when you state that Scripture’s teaching on baptism is clearer than its teaching on homosexuality. I could send you a few articles that show just how much we read our modern ideas of homosexuality back onto Scripture.
Sin is sin. All sin violates the holiness of God infinitely because he is infinitely holy. I prefer not to discriminate between sins (as if there is a difference between a ‘lie’ and a ‘white lie’). To be sure, different sins have different consequences and can lead to other sins or stem from a sinful heart. But all sin is sin. I don’t see how one can say there are ‘lesser sins’ and ‘greater sins,’ as if some sins do not violate the holiness of God as much as others.
Credobaptism, like I said earlier, is not a sin, but (I believe) a doctrinal error. No where in Scripture does it say, ‘Credobaptists cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven’ or any such language. That language, however, is there when it comes to homosexuality.
When it comes to reading a text, tone is a two way street. I told you that this was tongue in cheek and that the ‘really’ part was there for entertainment value, not to disrespect Dever. I would appreciate it if you took my word for it. On the topic of respect, that is a very relative term. Some would say that disagreement is disrespect, others would not. Some would not read this post in the way in which you chose to read it and laugh at it, but know that I wasn’t having a go at Dever as a person…because I wasn’t. I respect Dever as a person, but I think his viewpoint on this issue is nonsense. The two are not incompatible.
Yet again, though, this is a red herring and does nothing towards the main point. I think the hang up is that you want to differentiate between sins. So here is a question:
Is not all sin violating the holiness of God infinitely because God is infinitely holy? If not, why not?
And, perhaps the greatest question this post brings up, how can you maintain that paedobaptism is a sin? (The WSC defines sin as: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.)
19 March 2009 at 12.12 pm
Art, you keep writing that credobaptism is not a sin. But it is not clear what you mean by this. Everyone has to be baptised. The question is when and how should people be baptised. If people are baptised wrongly and at the wrong time, how is that not, well, wrong and sinful?
Either children of Christians ought to be baptised, or they ought not to be baptised. What altenative do you believe to be right? You will believe the opposite view to be sinful, because it goes against your view of God’s commands and regulations about baptism.
19 March 2009 at 12.25 pm
Dave: Well, not everyone needs to be baptized, but I understand what you are saying. I don’t think that credobapists deny this, as they baptize believers. If they did not baptize at all, then I would say that it is a sin because they are neglecting to do something that God commands them to do.
I believe that children of believers should be baptized because baptism is a command. It is baptism that is commanded. My interpretation of that command is that children should be baptized, as well as converts who have not been baptized. Credobapists interpretation of that command is that believers should be baptized.
Neither of us is violating the command to baptize. We are simply interpreting it in different ways. As much as I believe that the credobapist’s interpretation is incorrect, I also realize that they are not neglecting the command of God to be baptized, so I do not view it as a sin, but as a doctrinal error.
19 March 2009 at 12.32 pm
No everyone needs to be baptised. If baptism is still relevant today, and if it is the proper response of faith and repentance, I think that the command to baptism is one that people can sin against by not being baptised.
I think I understand your view a little better now. But any error is sin. I suppose you must be able to understand Dever’s position, even if you disagree so strongly with it.
Would you have a similar view on the different eucharistic practices across the spectrum of Christian churches?
19 March 2009 at 12.39 pm
Great chatting by the way. Thanks for the interesting and provocative blog. You’ll love PTS I suspect – though you might not find what you’re looking for.
Best – Dave
19 March 2009 at 12.40 pm
Dave: When I said not everyone needs to be baptized I was thinking in terms of the entire world. I think we can both agree that children of unbelievers do not need to be baptized if they are born into an unbelieving family and never come to faith. That is what I was referring to in that comment.
I don’t believe that any error is sin. When a child scores 95% on a math test because she answered that 35*3 was 120 instead of 105, I would not say that that child sinned on her test because she made an error.
Regarding the eucharist, would I believe that a Zwinglian was in sin because they viewed the eucharist differently than I? Absolutely not. Would I believe they were in error? Absolutely. But error and sin are different…unless every time a child colors outside of the lines in a coloring book they need to also pray for forgiveness.
19 March 2009 at 12.43 pm
The same to you, as well. I always enjoy the back-and-forth with people such as yourself. I’m glad that we can have our disagreements and questions, and yet remain cordial and friendly. That is, unfortunately, somewhat of a rarity in the blogosphere.
I am more excited than I could possibly convey to attend PTS. I think it will be a great fit for me. I’ll be sure to keep this blog updated while I’m there.
Now I must get back to my cumulative exams and I am taking today!
19 March 2009 at 12.57 pm
Hi Art,
You wrote: “And, perhaps the greatest question this post brings up, how can you maintain that paedobaptism is a sin? (The WSC defines sin as: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.)”
Let me turn your question around: do you think the law of God requires that believer’s children be baptized? Remember how God was about to kill Moses for not circumcising his child.
From a paedobaptist perspective that sees circumcision and baptism as parallel, how can you maintain that credobaptism is not a sin?
19 March 2009 at 1.14 pm
elnwood: You did not answer my questions. I’ll be courteous, though, and answer yours.
I think the NT commands baptism. If one does not practice baptism, then one violates a clear NT command.
How one goes about practicing baptism, however, is a matter of interpretation. I maintain that neither paedobapists nor credobapists are sinning because each are following the command of God to baptize.
Now, could you answer my questions:
Is not all sin violating the holiness of God infinitely because God is infinitely holy? If not, why not?
And, perhaps the greatest question this post brings up, how can you maintain that paedobaptism is a sin? (The WSC defines sin as: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.)
19 March 2009 at 2.31 pm
Art, I think you avoided my question. I didn’t ask you about baptism in general. I asked: “Do you think the law of God requires that believer’s children be baptized?”
As for your questions, yes, sin is violating God’s holiness, and I maintain paedobaptism is a sin because I do not believe paedobaptism is true baptism, and so therefore they are neglecting baptism.
19 March 2009 at 2.40 pm
elnwood: I answered your question in the best way I could because you have it worded very strangely. “The law of God”? I’m not quite sure there is a “law of God” in the NT that declares the proper way to practice baptism.
The NT commands baptism. Period.
How one interprets that command varies, but that does not mean that one, either credo or paedo, does not practice baptism.
Unless you can show me where there is a “law of God” regarding the particular practice of baptism in the NT, then I cannot answer your question about an entity that does not exist.
You still did not answer my first question (I’m not sure why, as this is the third time I am asking it):
Is not all sin violating the holiness of God infinitely because God is infinitely holy? If not, why not?
Please answer this question in your next comment.
As to your earlier comment regarding circumcision, there is obvious continuity and discontinuity between the two. For example, stoning one who is not baptized is not part of the new covenant. Another example, baby girls are to be baptized where they were obviously not circumcised in the OT.
19 March 2009 at 2.41 pm
Art, I’m with you on the Dever matter, but I don’t think you’re right to suggest that there are no degrees of sin. Some sin is a result of igorance or weakness; other sin stems from rebellion and hatred towards God. And, of course, there is the unpardonable sin.
I think just about every Christian tradition teaches that there are degrees of sin. Take the Westminster Shorter Catechism, for example:
Q. 83. Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?
A. Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.
Q. 84. What doth every sin deserve?
A. Every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come.
And the Westminster Larger goes further in explaining the degrees of sin:
Question 151: What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?
Answer: Sins receive their aggravations, From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them, or any other, and the common good of all or many. From the nature and quality of the offense: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.
19 March 2009 at 3.00 pm
Manlius: Thanks for those quotes. I am thinking along the lines of Q84 above; that is, that all sin deserves the same punishment from God as sin, all sin, is an affront to his holy character. That is what I am focusing on in my comments.
The reason I am focusing on that aspect of sin (i.e., that all sins deserve the same punishment) is because the idea of ‘different levels of sins’ can sometimes be used in a negative and relative way, such as saying that I will fellowship with someone who continually practices one type of sin, but not another. This is a perfect example: Dever will fellowship with those who he believes are continually and unrepentantly sinning in paedobaptism and even ask these people to fill his pulpit while he is absent (which is extremely odd to me: why would one allow someone who you believe in sinning and teaching others to sin preach to your flock?). Yet he would probably not do the same for homosexual ministers. The question of ‘why not’ has not been answered. Instead it has been brushed aside by ’some sins are worse than others.’ That is a cop out and that is why I’m stressing the ’sin is sin’ perspective.
I obviously believe that it would be worse for a minister of a multinational ministry to morally fail than it would for a newer Christian to morally fail. But both sins deserve punishment from God because it is sin and an affront to his holiness. Both sins violate God’s law. I’ve seen the idea of ‘greater and lesser’ sins used to justify too much wrongdoing to bear it much longer. I think it has its place, but it is far too often, at least in my experience, used in incorrect contexts to justify the ‘little sins.’ It makes me sick.
19 March 2009 at 3.33 pm
Art, I did answer your question in the affirmative. Did you overlook it? I wrote: Yes, sin is violating God’s holiness.” Bold print is not necessary.
Re: circumcision and baptism, could you flesh out where you see the discontinuity in the covenant signs in regard to this question? Are you saying that not circumcising your child under the old covenant is a violation of God’s law, but under the new covenant, not baptizing your child is not a violation of God’s law?
19 March 2009 at 3.38 pm
P.S. I am using the term the “law of God” because you yourself were quoted the WSC definition of sin which uses this wording. If I have worded it strangely, it is only because it was the wording that you yourself used.
19 March 2009 at 3.55 pm
elnwood: I can see that this conversation is, unfortunately, going absolutely nowhere. I am not going to dive into the intricacies of the continuity/discontinuity of circumcision and infant baptism. There are books and articles on the subject that you can refer to if it is an honest question. I have a lot of work to do this evening on my summative exam and since this conversation is not going anywhere, I don’t have much motivation to continue it.
Yes, I did use ‘law of God’ from the WSC. I used it because I do not believe that credobaptism or paedobaptism is a violation of such (partly because there is no ‘law of God’ in the NT regarding the specific practice of baptism).
To summarize:
—I don’t believe that variant practices of baptism should be considered a sin because they are all following the command of God to baptize. That is the explicit command given in the NT. The particularities are not spelled out and are a matter of interpretation. While one group may be in error in their interpretation, I find it arrogant and completely unwarranted to claim that they are in sin. I maintain that position and have seen no reason to change my mind.
—Error is not the same as sin. A child may color outside the lines in her coloring book, but that does not mean she must then repent and ask forgiveness for it. To claim that all error is sin is an untenable position to hold.
—It is still not clear why one would believe another to be sinning and teaching others to sin and, yet, have that person fill their pulpit while they are away. It makes no sense to have such a person feed the flock that God has placed you over to serve. Yet if one holds that other forms of baptism are truly sin, then one has little justification for allowing someone who holds a variant view of baptism to fill their pulpit.
Feel free to have the last word. I have work to do.
19 March 2009 at 4.28 pm
I’ll summarize on my end then:
1. I don’t think that God simply gave a command to baptize and give us freedom on how we choose to practice it. That wasn’t the case with circumcision. Moreover, the collective witness of Presbyterians from the 17th century today, as stated in the Westminster Standards, is that the practice of credobaptism is a “great sin.”
2. If you think that the Bible does not command paedobaptism, or that God intended to allow liberty in practice regarding it, then perhaps you shouldn’t consider yourself theologically paedobaptist at all.
3. I never claimed that all error is sin. All error is not sin, but error in regard to the commands and precepts of God is sin. If God had said, “you shall not color outside the lines,” then the child would be in sin. But he didn’t.
4. Regarding Christian unity, I subscribe to “in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity.” I do consider paedobaptist practice the result of sin, but it is not a doctrine upon which the gospel hangs, therefore I am not divisive over that topic. If someone denies that Jesus is God, or that the Bible is God’s Word, then that is another story entirely.
20 March 2009 at 6.18 am
Wow. You’ve got quite a conversation going! Great post.
Side request – could you provide video links other than Hulu? Hulu videos are not viewable outside the US.
21 March 2009 at 8.06 am
Wow, what a discussion thread. Not a chance I am reading all of it : ).
21 March 2009 at 8.06 am
…too much basketball to be watched.
25 March 2009 at 6.17 pm
Art, you are a fraud!
You do know that you aren’t British, right?
(“slagging off”?)
25 March 2009 at 6.19 pm
Are you having a laugh? Is he having a laugh?