A Statement of Southern Baptist Soteriological Unity

Together we affirm that all of the gospel of Jesus Christ is found in the Christian Scriptures—that is, the Old and New Testaments—which are uniquely the means chosen by God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to communicate His plan for salvation to mankind.

Together we acknowledge the universal sinfulness of mankind and the universal need for conversion.

Together we acknowledge that, as a result of our universal sinfulness, every person with a capacity for transgression against God is guilty of transgression against God.

Together we affirm that all who are saved will spend eternity in Heaven.

Together we acknowledge with sadness that all who are not saved will spend eternity in Hell.

Together we affirm that any who is saved will be saved by grace through faith and not of works.

Together we affirm that none will spend eternity in Hell who is not guilty of his own volitional transgression against God.

Together we affirm that all of those who spend eternity in Heaven will be able to describe themselves accurately as the elect.

Together we deny that any of those who spend eternity in Hell will be able to describe themselves accurately as the elect.

Together we affirm that all who spend eternity in Hell will do so at the displeasure of God and contrary to the initial design and desire of God.

Together we affirm that God, from eternity past, knew exactly who would spend eternity in Heaven and exactly who would spend eternity in Hell.

Together we affirm that none can be saved by any means other than Jesus Christ.

Together we affirm that Jesus Christ, in the sacrifice of Himself on the cross as our substitute, made atonement for our sins.

Together we affirm that all who through faith receive Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross will be saved.

Together we affirm that all who do not receive Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross are condemned already.

Together we affirm that salvation comes in conjunction with personal conversion, an experience closely correlated with and attended by repentance, faith, confession of Jesus as Lord, regeneration, justification, reception of the Holy Spirit, and adoption into the family of God.

Together we affirm that conversion does not come upon anyone without that person’s knowledge nor contrary to that person’s will at the moment of conversion.

Together we affirm that at conversion we were reconciled to God the Father because of His work in God the Son on the cross.

Together we affirm that at conversion we received justification of our sins as the result of God the Son’s sacrifice on the cross.

Together we affirm that at conversion we were born again to eternal life —resurrected with Christ to walk in newness of life, as it were—by the work of God the Holy Spirit.

Together we affirm that the symbol of conversion—that is, of the mortification of the old, condemned, sinful self and the birth of the new, justified self being sanctified—is the immersion of new believers in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Together we affirm that God commences at each respective moment of conversion the work of sanctifying the person saved.

Together we affirm that we cannot, apart from sanctification, make unto God offerings of worship in righteousness that glorify Him.

Together we affirm that the Law is just and that God uses it to restrain evil in the world, to show us our sinfulness, and to sanctify believers by showing them His standards of righteousness.

Together we affirm the churches’ duty of preaching and working for the sanctification of believers.

Together we deny that anything not both initially producing some evidence of sanctification and finally resulting in entire sanctification is or ever was true gospel conversion.

Together we affirm that God has called regenerate believers, and only such, to gather as New Testament churches.

Together we affirm that God has used as His means of saving us the proclamation of the gospel to us by those who were believers before us.

Together we receive as our duty the mission to be the witnesses of Christ throughout the extent of the earth to all peoples, calling upon each one to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ—that whoever is the elect of God has certainly been elected to embrace and do some portion of this task.

Together we affirm that although these statements bear witness to the teachings of the Christian Scriptures about the gospel, they do not exhaust them, and therefore, that many facts about the gospel beyond these few beckon us to consider them.

Together we affirm the importance of the gospel, our earnest desire to understand it more fully, and the value of studying and meditating upon the gospel.

Together we acknowledge that our respective studies and meditations have led us to differing opinions on some questions of the nature and operation of the gospel that lie beyond and behind the items delineated in this statement.

Together we affirm that, where we differ on further items of soteriology, we cannot all be right, and indeed, we may all be wrong to some degree, but that when we gain further light, God’s Word will be vindicated as true in all respects.

Together we affirm that, our differing opinions on other matters notwithstanding, our common affirmation of these truths and the other truths expressed in The Baptist Faith & Message constitute sufficient grounds for us gladly to acknowledge one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, to owe one another our love, to serve one another and to serve with one another in the Southern Baptist Convention, and to acknowledge the leadership of one another in convention work as God may grant it.

Together, desiring to know more fully the truth of God, we encourage one another to study, converse, write, confer, consider, and even debate among one another the further nuances of soteriology, so long as in doing so we are diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Next Week's Baptism

Next Sunday morning in our worship services, I will baptize my son, Jim. He's six years old.

It is an action that will bring down upon me (spoken or unspoken) the suspicion or scorn of others, all of whom I count as brothers in Christ and some of whom I count as friends. Some would delight in accusing me of being a paedobaptist. Some would wring their hands that such baptisms erode the regeneracy of the church. Some would argue that, even if there is no theological basis for waiting to baptize Jim (who stands in stead for others like him), there is ample pragmatic cause in the modern state of the churches.

If they are close to me at all, and if the topic has ever arisen between us, then they know of my longstanding (long before I had children) resistance to humanly devised age thresholds governing the Christ-ordained institution of baptism. Because few topics are as important, and because this is a dialogue worth having as Southern Baptists, I offer here my own convictions that lead me to baptize Jim next Sunday morning. I gather my thoughts around three primary questions.

1. Is there a mandatory minimum age for being converted?
2. What is the basis of eligible candidacy for baptism?
3. Who has the authority to set qualifications for baptism?

Is there a mandatory minimum age for being converted?

Certainly there are mandatory capacities that a person must master before being able to experience conversion. Repentance accompanies conversion; therefore, any person who is not yet capable of appreciating his own sinfulness before a Holy God, experiencing the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and demonstrating contrition and repentance—the person incapable of these things because of infancy is not yet old enough to experience conversion. Faith accompanies conversion; therefore, any person not yet capable of knowing the facts of the gospel and receiving them by faith is not yet old enough to experience conversion. In this sense, I affirm that there is a mandatory minimum stage for being converted.

If illness or other developmental incapacity caused a person not to acquire these capabilities until far into physical maturity, such a person could be ineligible for conversion until quite advanced in years, I believe.

But the question concerns not so much a minimum stage of conversion as it deals with the idea of a minimum age of conversion. To put it bluntly and specifically, would any argue that no six-year-old could possibly have experienced genuine conversion? I have not yet encountered anyone so bold as to make this argument. I would make it with regard to a six-month-old—no six-month-old exists, or ever has existed, who could possibly have experienced genuine conversion. But I would not make this claim with regard to a six-year-old. Would you?

You might think that I would take this question too personally to discuss it, since we're talking about my son here. You'd be only half right. I do take it personally, but not because of my son. I take it personally because of me. I was not six, but five years old (almost six) when I was converted. I testify today, God bearing witness with me, that I at that age understood that I was a sinner, understood that my sin was against God, understood that damnation awaited me for my sin, understood that I could not save myself, understood that Christ had died for my sin on the cross as my substitute, understood that Christ had risen from the dead after three days, understood that Christ wanted me to repent of my sin, understood that I needed to place my faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of my sins, and understood that I must confess Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. I consented to all of those things at that time.

What's more, I did all of this under the powerful conviction of the Holy Spirit. If that was not the Holy Spirit dealing with me in conviction when I was five years old, then I have never known His voice—not in my dramatic calling to preach when I was eleven, not in the many stirrings and reproofs and blessings that have happened since then. In my experience, that was the time when I met the One who has walked with me through so many mileposts along the way in my life.

So, if you would argue that no six-year-old could possibly have been converted, then I suggest that you bring your best game. You're going to have an uphill climb convincing me.

If not, then I'll be glad to enter a conversation with you about how frequently God births again human beings of various ages, as well as means that God might use to secure those earlier, less frequent, conversions when He so chooses. Certainly I do not believe that God converts every six-year-old, nor do I believe that every six-year-old is capable of conversion at that time. I would not even argue that the majority of six-year-olds are in a position to comprehend or experience all that conversion entails. I am merely advancing the point that there are some people even as young as five years old who genuinely do experience conversion.

What is the basis of eligible candidacy for baptism?

Along with most formal statements on this point from Baptists, I confess and believe that only "a believer" (BF&M Article VII) is the rightful candidate for baptism. The basis of candidacy for baptism is conversion, and only conversion. Churches hear the testimony of professed believers and baptize those who are (to employ the Puritan language here) "visible saints," or who appear to have been converted.

We argue for conversion as the basis of candidacy for baptism against the paedobaptists, who argue that, at least for some people, a milestone of physical development (i.e., birth) is the basis of candidacy for baptism. Those eligible for baptism are those, irrespective of whether they have been born again, who have attained to at least the age of zero. The historic Baptist idea (if not perfectly the historic Baptist practice) has not been to argue that paedobaptists have merely found the wrong age for at which to baptize people (zero rather than, say, thirteen, for zero is just too young), but rather to argue that age is the wrong basis entirely for baptism, which must be extended to all and to only those who have been born again.

When we credobaptists say that we will not baptize any younger than eighteen-year-olds, it seems to me that we have wandered away, yes, from our Baptist theological underpinnings, but so much more importantly, from the New Testament theology of baptism that makes the new birth the sole criterion adjudging whether one be eligible for baptism. "If you believe with all your heart you may [be baptized]." (Yes, I believe that Acts 8:37 belongs in the Bible).

So, to make it all specific and personal, if my son has legitimately experienced conversion, and if our church nonetheless were to forbid him to be baptized (or if I were to do so as his father), then by our actions we are stating that the new birth is not the basis of candidacy for baptism. At best, we are saying that new birth plus something else is that basis. In which case we need to amend all of our confessions of faith and start being more honest about our beliefs with regard to baptism.

Who has the authority to set qualifications for baptism?

Ultimately, this is a question for churches rather than for individuals to address, but I do not believe that even churches have been authorized by the Lord to make requirements for baptism that are not made in scripture. We have from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, a positive command in scripture that we are to baptize disciples. To determine that there are disciples whom we will not baptize, or will not baptize yet, is to set our own terms for when we will and when we will not be obedient to Christ's command.

Our theology of the Lord's Supper as expressed in the Baptist Faith & Message (that baptism is pre-requisite to participation in the Lord's Supper) is based upon the presumption that it is a matter of unrepentant sin for any genuine believer in Christ to persist in an unbaptized state. I say this not to open the argument in this thread with regard to the proper extent of communion (for we'll have plenty to discuss in the main point of this post, I imagine), but merely to attempt to demonstrate that Southern Baptists have indeed considered unbaptized believers (apart from some unavoidable incapacity such as faced the thief on the cross) to be persisting in sin.

If this be granted, and if my son has genuinely been born again, then for me to refuse him baptism for a decade is nothing more and nothing less than for me to obstruct his obedience to Christ. That's serious business. For one thing, that's not the lesson that I want to be teaching to my son. For another thing, I don't want to answer to the Lord for such an action. He has commanded baptism, and I do not believe that I have the authority to countermand his instructions. Nor do I believe that our congregation has that authority, even with all of the unique authority that the congregation has.

Conclusion

I think we have every reason to examine carefully candidates for baptism in order to be earnest about determining whether they have been born again. Frankly, I've baptized some 40-somethings who gave every appearance later on of being false professors. We Americans live in a spiritual terrain noted for rocky soil, if you get my drift, and it is a good thing that we want to be more circumspect about whom we baptize. Setting a minimum age for baptism is, in my opinion (and saying it as charitably as I know how without sacrificing clarity), an unbiblical, cheap, cop-out substitute for the difficult work of seeking evidence of genuine conversion in those who profess to have been born again.

The very young who profess conversion? Push back and resist them. (We have!) Make them persist adamantly in their profession. (We have!) Make them give you a testimony of conversion in their own words. (We have!) Cut absolutely no theological corners in making sure that they understand the gospel. In fact, none of those things are a bad idea for adult professors either, are they? But none of those reasonable actions require setting up arbitrary man-made barriers that negate what is one of the simplest and most evident truths in scripture: Those who have genuinely been born again have an immediate obligation to obey Christ's command to be baptized.

Noah and the Problem of Sin

I've recently concluded a brief sermon series on the story of Noah and the Flood. The story seems to me to say something profound about the condition of human sinfulness. If you could find the most innocent, most dedicated, most pious, most conscientious person on earth (probably not the category any of us are in); kill everyone else (THERE we are!); and start all over with just that rarified collection of super-saints, how much better would the world be?

Really not much at all, apparently. God did just that very thing, and Noah managed to be mired in sin in a mere three verses (if we can still agree that it is sinful to be wandering around naked in a drunken stupor).

The problem is not “out there,” but is inside each of us—including even the best of us. Divorcing your spouse will not solve your problems, even if you are the better half of the marriage. Throwing up a wall around the church and building some sort of commune or compound will not solve our problems. Leaving church A and driving down the street to church B will not solve your problems. Wherever we go, our often sinful and rebellious hearts go there with us. How will we escape our own selves?

And so, the ultimate solution was not just to get rid of some of the sinful people or most of the sinful people, but to get rid of them all and start all over—the entire destruction of fallen creation. But this time, we who are lost in the flood (“buried with Christ through baptism into death”) are, by the miraculous power of Christ, somehow the transformed survivors who are “united with Him…in the likeness of His resurrection” “not [through] the removal of dirt from the flesh, but [through] an appeal to God for a good conscience.”

All of which you already knew. But it stirs up good things in my heart to speak of it, and I trust that it does you no harm to hear it again, either.

With the Mouth?

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:8-13 (NASB)

What do you understand to be the role of the verbal profession of faith in salvation?

The Bible seems to presume verbal identification with Christ to be intrinsic to salvation. The block quote above is quite pointed: "with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Along with repentance and faith, articulation of that faith is described as having a causal relationship with salvation. The practice of verbally articulating one's faith is highlighted in 1 Timothy 6:12-13 (NASB), "take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate…" Here Paul uses the shorthand of election and confession to refer to Timothy's salvation experience. The New Testament church had good reason to emphasize public spoken acknowledgement of one's faith in Christ as significant: Jesus Himself had said, "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in Heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in Heaven." Matthew 10:32-33 (NASB)

As we were studying Romans 10 last Sunday evening, a member said, "My kids would ask this one: What if you can't speak? Will sign language suffice?" I do not believe that salvation is tied to any sort of physical ability on the part of humankind, nor, indeed, that salvation is contingent upon human capacity to achieve it at all. However, as one who seeks to be submissive to the Lord's commands given to us in the Scriptures, I find that the Bible marks as suspect and deficient any "faith" that does not bring forth the fruit of public articulation and do so incipiently.

Rather than the case of one who cannot speak, I offer this scenario for your perusal: A man is at home alone watching religious TV. He hears an appeal for the gospel. He "prays the prayer" internally in his own mind at the end of the program. He then turns off the TV, goes to bed, gets up the next morning, and goes on about his life without ever telling anyone about his "decision." Has this person received the New Testament gospel?