Read all posts in this series
here.
I gave in Parts
8 and
9 two accounts, respectively, of extreme declarations about baptism. Mark
Dever wrote that the baptizing of an infant was a sin. R. Scott Clark wrote that not baptizing infants was a sin. I received a reply (and a followup to another comment) from Dr. Clark himself in the
comments section of Part 9. I will use Part 10 as my response to Dr. Clark:
Dr. Clark,
Thank you for your comment and personal response. I'd like to clarify what I wrote in my earlier post in case I created a bit of misunderstanding. To answer your question, I actually find nothing at all "belittling and accusatory" about what Mark and you said to each other. I don't disagree with what you said in your comment, and I appreciate how you deal with each other in your relationship. A good dose of needling one another, in seriousness yet also in charity or as humor is healthy. I wish there were more relationships in the church like it.
However, my post had nothing to do with what you said to each other. It's what you said about the majority of American Christians in your series on
churchless evangelicals. You stated in no uncertain terms that Christian parents who refuse to baptize covenant children are sinning. You also made clear that Baptist and
baptistic churches are not true churches. You noted your own narrow acceptance even within Reformed circles. You even noted that Baptists had similar conclusions about you that you have about them. You also made implication, by including
part 3 of your series along with parts
1 and
2, that Baptists somehow shared the same status as autonomous
gnostics and church tramps.
Both you and
Dever are popular and influential leaders within the evangelical church. Your doctrinal conclusions affect a great many people. A good number of Christians, and especially new ones, can be greatly persuaded or affected by the use of the word "sin." People take sin seriously. When attached to baptism, and all the other doctrines that are intimately related to baptism, including the true church, true salvation, the Lord's Table, church membership, covenant, one's own children, etc., divisions can occur that tear even families apart. People do strange things that they regret later. Especially prone are new Christians who are tossed to and fro by doctrines. I know all these things all too well in my own life, and the lives of many other Christians I have known.
Proselytes sometimes become twice the children of hell as their teachers. (Please, I'm only using this as an analogy!) They take what their teachers teach and put them into practice to a greater extreme. As much as the following men or groups have positively influenced my life, I've had my share of
MacArthurites,
Westminsterites,
Piperites,
Rushdoonyites,
Chantryites and
Campingites to frustrate my life. I expect it is the same for many others out there and for these doctrines you believe. I know how doctrines that divide and diminish are used by those in "authority" and the suffering they cause, even when good intentions are behind them.
Between what you and
Dever have written in what I have linked to, obedience to the Great Commission, the definition of a true church, being in God's covenant and being a true Christian - among other things - all hang upon your opposing and often mutually
exclusive views of baptism. That you take a small point in one of your own church's confessions and with it
de-covenant a majority of America (I seriously doubt God has reached the same conclusion) shows, I think, that something is happening in reverse. Jesus said that all the law and prophets hung on the two great commandments - and not the other way around.
My series on baptism here deals with just this type of mutually exclusive thinking and its affect on people. Your two groups of writings are merely examples of what I've been saying all along, and that is why I commented on them. That each of you calls the other's practice sin - with many families caught in the crossfire - I believe is accusatory, not to each other, but to multitudes of people who want to do the right thing before God, and to relegate people to non-church, non-baptised or non-covenant status is, I believe, belittling. I hope this clarifies my thoughts.
Sincerely,
Steve Scott
Part 9 .
Labels: Baptism: A Third View, R Scott Clark