Dr. David Mills is Assistant Professor of Evangelism and Assistant Dean of Applied Ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary at Fort Worth. Recently he preached a sermon at chapel (click here to access sermon manuscript) that focused on Hell. As Dr. Mills concludes, knowing the reality of hell, “We have got to be soul-winners who have great hearts of love carrying a great burden for souls, accompanied by a dynamic and growing prayer life focused upon the Word and the Spirit.”
In the sermon he talks about great reversals that happened in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. One of the reversals is how we should view religious leadership. Below Dr. Mills says:
Today, there are those who believe and preach false gospels, saying, that a christening or an infant baptism gives saving grace. Sadly, almost every person to whom I have ever witnessed that was christened or baptized as an infant placed hope for their salvation in that christening or infant baptism. Many a religious leader has misled many a religious person towards a false sense of security. Will such religious leaders go to heaven? Jesus warned religious persons and leaders that they could go to hell. Billy Sunday famously said, -You can throw a pitchfork in hell and hit a church member on every corner. And I would add, -And on one out of every four corners, you may hit a religious leader as well.
Shall I name some names? I would rather not. What I will do is describe the religious leaders of whom Jesus spoke. These leaders denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Their theology had no place for Jesus’ deity or the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. They also loved money and lived flamboyantly. They loved money. Finally, they preferred the miraculous over the Scripture. Any person with all or one of these characteristics ought to engage in rigorous self-examination. We may need to reverse how we view religious leadership.
This is an excellent sermon and I encourage all of us to read and think about our own motivation this coming year as we continue to minister for the Lord.
Any pastor who teaches what Dr. Mills illustrates is indeed a false prophet. However, in speaking with several pastor friends of Methodist and Presbyterian persuasion, none of them, not one, teaches that infant baptism is salvific.
I would like to know who Dr. Mills is referring that teaches such doctrine which is so far out of bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
Les
I would encourage Dr. Mills to not be afraid in naming those who teach a different gospel. By doing so, some hearts may become awake to what their being fed and they would subsequently leave the wide path that leads to destruction.
This is not the time for silence.
I would imagine that a lot of those Dr. Mills mentioned being christened were of a Roman Catholic background. But there are many in various Protestant churches who do hold to what amounts to baptismal regeneration i.e. that they were born Christians. There are many who can testify to being converted and reporting it to their liberal home church, only to be told patronizingly that they had always been a Christian.
I agree with Les that most Presbyterians of the PCA type do not believe in baptismal regeneration. However, when my niece was sprinkled in a United Methodist Church several years ago, the minister said that it actually conferred the “new birth.”
I agree with 1 & 2, but with the added point that I spent 1963 to 1981 as a Methodist or Presbyterian and never once heard any indication that what Dr. Mills said is true. Never once.
Infant baptism (sprinkling) was always stated to be a sign, usually of the Abrahamic covenant. Period.
Unfortunately such statements raise red flags in a sermon, for me, which cast a shadow on everything else the preacher says.
I’m sorry, have I missed something? I’ve read the post 3 or 4 times and did a quick read of the sermon itself, and I never saw where Dr. Mills referred to Methodists or Presbyterians. All he referred to where those who performed infant baptisms as a means of grace. Am I missing something or is this just another attempt to call into question anything from SWBTS? Les, are you fishing here or have I missed something specific in Dr. Mill’s sermon?
Grace,
Wes
WesInTex,
In my case, I was pointing out that I’ve been in two denominations that DO practice infant baptism, and neither of them claims what Dr. Mills says.
Do you know of groups that do what Dr. Mills suggested? Aside from Methodists & Presbyterians, I’m not personally acquainted with other paedobaptizers.
Wes in Tex
Thanks for pointing that out. I have been away from the computer all day.
WesInTex,
Presbyterians and Methodists are paedobaptists. Dr. Mills did not exclude them from his sermon, thus, my defense of them from my own experience.
Dr. Mills paints with a broad brush when he refers to christening and infant baptism. Don’t you agree?
Bob,
There are other denominations that are paedobaptists such as Episcopals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
Les
Brother Bob,
I do not know what you were taught in the Methodist church you attended. However, you need to remember that the Methodist church is not the church found at the local level. Also, the teaching at the local level is supposed to be the teaching advocated at the “church” level. Following is the teaching rational concerning Baptism and the Lord’s Table of the Methodist church. (You can find the full teaching here) It is very specific that a salvific grace is received when that act of baptism performed on an infant.
United Methodists believe that these sign-acts are special means of grace. The ritual action of a sacrament does not merely point to God’s presence in the world, but also participates in it and becomes a vehicle for conveying that reality. God’s presence in the sacraments is real, but it must be accepted by human faith if it is to transform human lives. The sacraments do not convey grace either magically or irrevocably, but they are powerful channels through which God has chosen to make grace available to us. Wesley identified baptism as the initiatory sacrament by which we enter into the covenant with God and are admitted as members of Christ’s Church. (Emphasis mine)
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Less,
While I know the PCA is strong on personal soul winning, they are weak on understanding Baptism. According to their understanding here, you can see from the following, they also believe that baptism invokes a salvific grace.
6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. (Emphasis mine)
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Les, Bob, and all others,
I am not saying that all people that go to Methodist or Presbyterian churches are lost. I do not believe that is what Dr. Mills is saying. I do not believe that everyone attending Baptist churches are saved. What I am trying to say, as I believe Dr. Mills sermon points to, is that pedobaptist denominations place such an emphasis on baptism that, according to their own doctrine, it involves a form of grace needed for salvation. This belief behind the doctrine of Baptism is what is unscriptural and extends a false sense of salvation.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Far, FAR more emphasis is placed on baptism among Baptists, than among Methodists and Presbyterians. It’s nowhere near close. So if that’s that he’s saying, he’s dead wrong.
Not that I agree with sprinkling; it’s not baptism at all IMO.
I don’t want to think of what God thinks about high-profile Christians using a pulpit to throw rocks at other Christians, either.
Les,
You write: “Presbyterians and Methodists are paedobaptists. Dr. Mills did not exclude them from his sermon, thus, my defense of them from my own experience.
Dr. Mills paints with a broad brush when he refers to christening and infant baptism. Don’t you agree?”
In actuality, Les, no, I don’t agree that Dr. Mills is painting with a “broad brush.” I think if you read the sermon again you will find that he is very descriptive of the false teachers who lead people into hell because of a false sense of security in a non-existent salvation. Why should he have to “exclude” anyone when he never technically “included” anyone? I don’t see that he lumps all “paedo-baptists” into the same category at all. You, however, have a tendency to see boogie-men behind almost anything that comes from SWBTS. You write in your first post: “I would like to know who Dr. Mills is referring that teaches such doctrine which is so far out of bounds of Christian orthodoxy.” He states clearly that he is not going to take the time to name names. Are you questioning his integrity?
As for your experience, it is different than mine. I have met several Methodists and Presbyterians who, because of their christening as an infant, believed they were included in the family of God (saved), even though they lived lives contrary to the Word of God. But then, I have also had to deal with some Baptists who, having been immersed as a four or five year old child because they “loved Jesus,” who were under the same delusion.
See, Les – I answer questions when people ask them of me.
Grace,
Wes
Brother Bob,
You ask: “Do you know of groups that do what Dr. Mills suggested? Aside from Methodists & Presbyterians, I’m not personally acquainted with other paedobaptizers.”
Not trying to avoid your question, but I think Les gives you an accurate answer in his post when he mentions Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics.
You also mention in a post to Tim that Methodists and Presbyterians don’t spend as much time talking about baptism as do Baptists. You’re probably right – and perhaps that’s a part of the confusion among many of their members that I have dealt with. Just a thought.
Grace,
Wes
Brother Robin,
It is hard to tell what Dr. Mills was trying to convey in the comment about baptism except that there are folks that confuse and teach things that are not found the Book. But, I was excited to find a brief view of the context of Jesus teaching exposited by way of his comment during the section on the miraculous when he said….
“In this text, Abraham offers an alternative to the merely sensational and miraculous. He offers the Word of God: ?They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. (Luke 16:29).Moreover, ?If they do not hear Moses and the prophets of the Scripture, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead. (Luke 16:31). Jesus said that Abraham insists that Scripture is sufficient for evangelism and converting people. He insists that miracles are of no use if the lost will not believe the Scripture. If people will not tremble at the Word, they will not trust because of a miracle. What many lost people need is not a miraculous display of power; what they need is more Bible. Sometimes, they have enough Bible, so some do not need more information or more proof. What they need is more humility before God and love for his truth (Matt 13:11–12). The text makes clear that the Word of God is sufficient for evangelism. Paul said, ?Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Rom 10:17).”
He said more in this one paragraph to expose the meaning of the text (Luke) than in all of the other parts of his message combined. This was exactly the point of Christ’s teaching to the disciples….that the Word of God has been before them, and it would not matter if a legion of dead guys (whether Baptist or Presbyterian Pastors) showed up at their front doors, they still would not repent.
Christ’s point in the teaching is that God knows your hearts “Luke 16:15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.
He goes on to expand his thought….. Luke 16:17 “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
The point of Christ’s teaching here is not how hot hell is…even though it is hotter and more Christless than anyone could ever know….. but more importantly the Word of God does not fail and it has been right in front of you.
Luke 16:30-31 “But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ (31) “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”
In fact Jesus is arguing to the “reverse”…. It is not the religiosity of the religious or their fervor as they are always justifying themselves in the sight of men….but in total reversal, it is the Word of God who is with you now.
I liked that paragraph by Dr. Mills,
Blessings,
Chris
Don’t confuse “means of grace” with “salvation”. In the language of paedobaptists they don’t mean the same thing. Also, be careful not to equate “part of the family of God” with “saved”. In the language of some paedobaptists they do not mean the same thing. Presbyterians, for example, use baptism to bring children in the covenant family but, in their theology, that is not the same as saving them.
Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutherans hold to baptismal regeneration.
Other than our disagreement with paedobaptists on the right recipients of baptism, it is unwise to speak of them as a group, because their baptismal theology differs amongst themselves.
I, too, know of Methodists and Presbyterians who believe that they are going to Heaven because they were “baptised” as infants. So, Dr. Mills is spot on, IMHO.
Bob, “throwing rocks” at other Christians? What? So, it’s wrong to point out errors in doctrine? Wrong to show how some teachings of other pulpits can lead people astray? even into hell? I’ll throw a rock at a pulpit for ya….Joel Osteen. I’ll tell my people and whoever that he’s a false teacher. I’ve heard too much of what he believes and doesnt believe, and I care too much for the Lord’s glory and the souls of people to not tell what he is.
David
Bill,
I don’t mean to ride this horse any further than necessary, but I am (and I would assume other such as Tim, Robin, et. al.) are well aware of the paedobaptist use of vocabulary. That is why I included the definition of “saved” when referring to the family of God. Like so many Baptists, I have found not a few in other denominations who don’t necessarily have a clear understanding of what that denomination actually professes to believe. Thus, while the official position of the denomination may indeed make the distinction between “means of grace” and salvation, many in their pews do not make that distinction.
That being said, I still have a hard time with baptism or the Lord’s Supper begin viewed as “a means of grace.” Scripturally speaking there is only ONE “means” by which God dispenses grace – Christ Jesus our Lord.
Chris (Johnson),
That is the crux of the matter isn’t it – the preaching of the Word of God. This past Lord’s Day our text was from the prologue of John’s Gospel. The Word became Flesh! That is the magnificence of our labor. For all of the miracles, it is the Word Himself that transforms lives. Thanks brother and I trust you will have a blessed celebration.
Grace,
Wes
To all,
In the process of upgrading our software and doing some general housekeeping, I inadvertently deleted the last nineteen comments on this post. Please accept my apologies.
As the author of this post, Robin received each comment by email, and on Wednesday he will attempt to reconstruct the thread as best he can.
Again, sorry for the inconvenience, and for the interrupted conversation.
Wes,
We both know you did it because you were told the last 19 comments were mine. I hope you get coal in your stocking tonight.
cb
From Chris Johnson
Dr. Mills does paint with a broad brush, I agree. But the tendency among paedos is that after several generations, what he describes is what often takes place, regardless of the denomination.
Re: comment no. 5. I spent three years in conservative Presbyterianism, specifically the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) which is consiered a little more conservative than the conservative PCA in some respects. They do see infant baptism and the sacraments in general as “means of grace,” a view that most Baptists throughout history have rejected (hence the Baptist reference to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as ordinances, not sacraments.) Referring to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms make this fact clear. This doesn’t mean that they have a Romish view that baptism, ex opere operato, confers the new birth, but they confess that for the elect, grace may indeed be conferred at that time, apart from the Word of God, as the portion of the WCF that Tim quoted in comment #10 demonstrates. (Of course Lutherans and others who have a higher view of the sacraments than Presbys generally do consider that language to be double-talk.) Now, just like some modern Baptists deride historic Baptist ecclesiology (i.e. close communion and restricted membership) as practiced by men like Keach, Kiffin and Benjamin Cox as Landmark because it is distasteful to them, I realize that many Presbyterians don’t really agree with what their confession teaches and see infant baptism as little more than a wet dedication. But those Presbyterians are referred to as “baptisterians” by those who have a more confessional view from the Presbyterian perspective.
I do believe that the Reformed, Presbyterian view of infant baptism does undermine sola fide (justification by faith alone) in subtle ways, and this along with my reading of the NT passages on baptism is why I switched to a Baptist position earlier this year and left Presbyterianism. See Shawn Wright’s article “The Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists” in “Believer’s Baptism” edited by Schreiner and Wright for more on this.
From Chris Johnson
Brother Wes,
I think Dr. Mills “sprinkles” on a lot of folks in both directions as he speaks of baptism and miscues (pardon the pun).
Baptism is a point of contention when systems of theology overshadow the principle of scripture. Interpretations of baptismal thought rest in the understanding of who is doing the work and the implication of what the work indicates and or conveys.
Baptism is a gracious identification with Christ, and as we obey its opportunity it has no yield of merit if Christ is Lord of our calling and salvation.
Ephesians 4:4-7 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; (5) one Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (7) But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
The thought of efficacious grace, salvific or prevenient, emanating as a result of the act of baptism of an infant or an adult is mythological and superstitious when compared to the Word of God and will only yield confusion.
I might add as well, post baptismal treats; privileges, inclusion in the club, etc. are just as damning, mythological and superstitious as their prevenient cousins. Truth tellers,… Pastors that tell the truth should warn of both and lead the flock to Christ alone.
After all, that was what Christ was teaching in this section of Luke’s gospel. He was telling the disciples exactly as Paul taught in Romans 9 and exactly as we were given in what we know as Ezekiel 34.
Ezekiel 34:7-15 Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: (8) “As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “surely because My flock has become a prey, My flock has even become food for all the beasts of the field for lack of a shepherd, and My shepherds did not search for My flock, but rather the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock; (9) therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: (10) ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.”‘” (11) For thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. (12) “As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. (13) “I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams, and in all the inhabited places of the land. (14) “I will feed them in a good pasture, and their grazing ground will be on the mountain heights of Israel. There they will lie down on good grazing ground and feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. (15) “I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest,” declares the Lord GOD.
Just as Christ was teaching in his gospel, Paul said the same in Romans 9….
Rom 9:1-6 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, (2) that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. (3) For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, (4) who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, (5) whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (6) But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
I was not so much grief and concern for Paul as such (even though I am sure he did have great sorrow). He was communicating something greater,…He certainly knew he could not be separated from Christ because at verse 6 he echoes what Christ was teaching the disciples at Luke’s gospel when he qualified the first five verses with that great Apostolic “BUT”….but, but, but, but…. “It is not as though the word of God has failed”.
There it is again. The Word of God…right in front of them. “I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest,” declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 34:15)
Join with me brother Wes,…and preach the Word! Have a great Christmas my friend!
Blessings,
Chris
From WesInTex
Chris,
“Join with me brother Wes,…and preach the Word! Have a great Christmas my friend!”
With all my heart dear brother – with all my heart.
As much as I would enjoy this discussion, I must depart. We’re are out for a short vacation and I’m afraid Rene’ will leave without me! 8->
To all: may the God of all peace and understanding grant to all His precious children, the joy and wonder of our Savior’s magnificant grace. Merry Christmas everyone.
Grace,
Wes
From Les Puryear
Bill,
Thank you for your point of clarification on Tim’s cut and paste from Methodists and Presbyterian websites. It’s obvious he nor some of the others here truly understand the terminology in the context of those denominations. That is why I have Presbyterian and Methodist pastors explain it to me.
Wes,
Thanks for your rebuke of my many deficiencies. If I don’t meet up to your standards of posting, then I need to be corrected because you, of course, are the standard of all that is correct in blogging and debate.
Is it me or are you kin to Peter Lumpkins? Naaaww. It’s probably me. :)
Merry Christmas to all.
Les
From Tom Parker
David:
Who else do you name from your pulpit to your people is a false teacher? Just curious.
From Tim Rogers
Brother Bob,
Far, FAR more emphasis is placed on baptism among Baptists, than among Methodists and Presbyterians. It’s nowhere near close. It certainly is, but it is not for the same reason. For Methodist and Presbyterians, the infant must be baptized in order to “wash away the original sin” in order for that infant to either enter into the family of God, or to make the individual open to entering into a covenant relationship at God’s appointed time. IOW, the infant must be baptized in order to bestow a portion of Grace on that individual. Please, where is that in the Scripture?
For Baptist, baptism is a conscious decision by an individual to identify with the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism for pedobaptist is the conduit to receiving God’s Grace. Baptism for Methodist is the means by which one enters into God’s Family. (As a side note. Methodist, because of this belief are “close” communionist) Baptism for Baptist comes as a result of God’s Grace.
Brother Chris,
I just realized we have two Chris’ in this comment stream. You are correct as to your assessment. I would like to strengthen your statement.
The article referenced in comment #10 also has this statement about baptism:
7. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.
If baptism has no salvific Grace, and Presbyterians believe in the Perserverance of the Saints; then why not baptize adults after entering into the covenant relationship? Also, would you say that according to Presbyterian doctrine, the baptism of the infant is the regeneration of the individual in order for that individual to repent and say yes to the covenant as an adult? If that is the case, then are we still not speaking about baptism being regenerational?
Blessings,
Tim
From WesInTex
Les,
Way to go, bro. Wait until I leave to reply. I wouldn’t expect anything more from you.
Merry Christmas all (again)
Wes
From Chris Johnson
Brother Tim,
I am taking my son to lunch just now…but I would like to respond to your post in #24, when I return. I will be eating low cholestoral laden foods!
:)
Blessings,
Chris
From David Worley
Tom,
Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Jimmy Carter, and a few others who used to be Southern Baptists.
Oh, and of course, you. :)
David
From David Worley
Chris J,
I will be eating fatty, delicious foods….only!
David
From Dr. David Mills
Thank you for your helpful comments on the chapel message. I would like to comment on some comments. First, thank you for holding to the biblical gospel. I am comforted by your objections to baptismal regeneration. I realize that some of you are paying a hefty price for your faithfulness, and you have my admiration and thanks.
Second, I apologize for leaving some you with the impression that I painted with a broad brush. We must be very careful not to make this mistake, for when we do, we are usually unfair towards those exceptional persons who should not come under the paint of our brush. I had hoped that the delimiters “those who believe and preach,” “religious leaders,” and “almost every person to whom I have witnessed” would have limited the content enough to avoid that mistake. I intentionally avoided the words “churches” and “denominations” in order to make my meaning more personal, and, therefore, applicable. My apologies for the inadequate way I delimited these items.
In truth, time permitted me to say some things and forced me to avoid others. What I was not able to say is that I recently participated in a funeral at an Episcopal church. In funeral liturgy, the priest asked me to recite a prayer that began wonderfully, even gloriously, but in the last third descended into baptismal regeneration. The offending line in the liturgy read, “She was washed at baptism and anointed by the Holy Spirit.” This line in the liturgy stunned me because this church was a “low church” among the Episcopal churches. Along with the biblical problems with the statement, the woman we memorialized insisted that her washing happened when she repented and trusted Christ as a little girl in a Baptist church in Houston. I changed the line when I prayed it, saying, “She was washed at conversion and anointed by the Holy Spirit.”
I also had in mind those individuals who have participated in misleading many persons to whom I have witnessed, and this I was able to address briefly in the message. These delimiters can be taken to mean pastors, priests, parents, Bible teachers, and perhaps others, but I intentionally avoided words such as “churches” and “denominations.” (Please do not misunderstand—I believe that some churches and denominations are in need to critical attention. I hope for the day when our Catholic and Protestant friends will repent of paedobaptism, sacramentalism, and legalistic approaches to salvation. I also pray for the day when we Southern Baptists will repent of our many sins, too).
My concerns were also the persons to whom I have witnessed since 1982 who were baptized or christened infants. With only one exception that I can recall, the persons to whom I have witnessed who had such an experience trusted that baptism/christening granted them eternal life. What burdened me was that these friends founded their eternal hope on nothing more than a few drops of water. Despite the official doctrinal statements they affirmed (or because of the doctrinal statements they affirmed?) the message many of these received is “your infant baptism/christening saves.” I wonder if this is what led the authors of the Schleitheim confession to label infant baptism the “abomination of the papacy.” Infant baptism is so powerful that it often deceives, and I have witnessed this in many of my evangelism encounters. It is hard for my soul to rest knowing that many Christian efforts have created this monstrous situation—people perishing because of the Christian’s instruction!
I must at this point sound an alarm among our own Baptist people. Time did not permit me to consider this when preaching the message, but I could have lamented a similar tendency I have witnessed among Baptists to place their hope for heaven in baptism, too. Perhaps I am alone in this, but for at least six years, I have noticed a growing tendency among some Baptists to place their hope in baptism.
When I was younger, my Baptist church “pushed back” vigorously against unbiblical baptism and legalistic salvation. The Catholics and Protestants (70% of our community) who surrounded us hoped their baptism and sacramental practices guaranteed them heaven. God loved (loves) them, too, and we did not allow denominational differences to hinder our evangelism. Much of the membership of our church consisted of former Catholics and Protestants who grew up with a false sense of security, and found Christ after a gospel witness from one of members or our pastor. In our context, paedobaptism signified a legalistic/sacramental approach to salvation. At that time, I was not sure of their denominational doctrinal stance; what I was sure of is that they approached salvation legalistically. Paedobaptism and sacraments, then, signified legalism in salvation. My witnessing experiences since 1982 confirm for me that often it still does.
I wonder (right now I only wonder) if our (Baptist) growing comfort with paedobaptist evangelicals has diminished our opposition to paedobaptism, and, thus, has weakened our ability and desire to clarify the gospel. I wonder if Baptist opposition to paedobaptism and sacramentalism has almost disappeared from among Baptists (Southwestern and a few others notwithstanding), and with it, the ability and desire to articulate a precise biblical gospel. I wonder, then, if these factors have created a mix that has made us in effect (not doctrine) ambiguous on the issue of baptismal regeneration, and thus, salvation. I am not aware of any Southern Baptist who teaches baptismal regeneration, of course, but I wonder if by failing to address these errors we may find ourselves out of touch with the cultural, religious, and carnal realities that lead people to embrace these errors. I wonder if, having neglected the dam of gospel truth, if we are just now beginning to see the first waves of an inundation of sacramentalism and legalistic salvation.
At this point, I am only “wondering” about these issues. If we in fact suffer from some of these troubles, it is likely that other influences besides paedobaptist evangelicals are a factor, although that possibility may not diminish paedobaptism as an partial influence.
For me, the larger issues are soul winning, evangelism, and getting people to the biblical gospel. Since 1982, I have viewed paedobaptism as one of many serious hindrances to true conversion. I sure hope these discussions will intensify our prayers and burden for lost souls whether they be unchurched, irreligious, cultic, Muslim, paedobaptist, or Southern Baptist. Please pray for me that I will be a more faithful witness as I pray for you to have abounding opportunities to share the God’s love today and every day.
From Bill MacKinnon
Dr. Mills,
Thanks for the clarifications. I too think Baptists have a problem with paedobaptism. I think we are pushing the limits when we baptize so many young children who are barely beyond infant stage. And like those you mentioned, who put their hope in their infant baptism, many of our own are putting their hope, not in their baptism per se, but in an aisle walk and prayer when they were 3, 4, 5yr of age.
As for legalistic salvation, I think that problem already exists amongst us, although not from the angle that you are coming from. But that’s a discussion for another day. Merry Christmas.
From Chris Poe
For clarification sake, I’m the same Chris who posted in comment # 19.
Also, for clarification sake, Presbyterians (confessional ones anyway) don’t baptize to wash away original sin the way that Romanists, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodists do. They defend their practice of infant sprinkling based on it being the corrolary to OT circumcision–basically that children of church members i.e. covenant members, are included in the covenant as well, just as they were in the OT. (They cite 1 Cor. 7:14 as well as Gen 17 and see a lot more continuity between the Old Covenant and New Covenant than Baptists do.) But not all in the covenant are saved. They believe the church is a mixed community just as OT Israel was. Baptized children are referred to as “covenant children” or “non-communicant members.” They are included in the church membership but cannot vote or partake in the Lord’s Supper. (Some Presbyterians are now arguing for paedocommunion as well–the idea that the “covenant children” should be made full members like everyone else and come to the table. All of the major churches have rejected this idea, rightly I believe since it would cause them to fall into even worse error. But I also think the conservative confessional Presbyterian practice of paedobaptism and credocommunion is inconsistent with what we see in the Bible and is the reason why I left Presbyterianism.) Typically what happens in these churches is that when the “covenant child” is ready to make a public profession of faith, he meets with the elders, answers their questions to their satisfaction and then becomes a communicant (or full) member of the church, meaning that he can now partake in the Lord’s Supper. Now many PCA and other similar confessional Presby and Reformed churches probably do a better job at administering church discipline with their communicant members than Baptists do, to our great shame. But they do NOT believe in Regenerate Church Membership since they don’t require a profession or evidence of conversion prior to admitting them (“covenant children”) to membership.
As to baptism not being repeated Calvin said baptism couldn’t be repeated because circumcision obviously couldn’t be repeated!
Regarding the mode of baptism, many of the Presbyterians down through the ages argue that sprinkling or affusion is indeed the Biblical mode and that there is actually no example of immersion in the NT. See Jay Adams “Meaning and Mode of Baptism” for a succinct argument of that point of view. So they see no need of an immersion upon profession of faith. It would also be a repudiation of their baptism, a very serious issue with many of them.
Many of them (particularly former Baptists) are also persuaded by the historical argument that the “visible church” through the ages has practiced infant baptism, even if for the wrong reason, and that the Baptist view is a recent view and therefore judged to be dubious. (Accepting arguments rom history like that is a good way to end up going RC if you’re not careful.) Some also just react emotionally against their Baptist upbringing and regard it as “sectarian” or exclusionary, something that we’ve seen in the false charges of Landmarkism against those who practice close communion and don’t let the unbaptized come to the table.
The bottom line is that I do think that the Reformed and Presby view of infant baptism does in some sense undermine sola fide. This especially comes out when you ask them what advantage their “baptized” child has over the Baptist child who is equally brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But however inconsistent their view may be, the view expressed in their confessions is not the same as the baptismal regeneration view of Catholics, Lutherans and some Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Methodists. In other words, they don’t believe the baptism washes away original sin or confers the new birth. As the WCF states, they believe the individual could be regenerated prior to the baptism (they cite John jumping in the womb for support), at the time of the baptism, or many years later. They also recognize that the person may be a reprobate and may never believe.
Hopefully this long response has been helpful for those with patience enough to read it :)
From Dr. David Mills
Bill,
I appreciate your concern. These are serious and real issues. In fact, between 1966-1989 the number of preschoolers baptized in SBC churches tripled (John S. Hammett, “Reclaiming Meaningful Church Membership: A Modest Proposal,” Faith and Mission 17 (Spring 2000): 3-14).
From Chris Poe
Dr. Mills,
Thank you for your response and clarification.
At this time I’ll merely add that the danger from our side of the fence is trusting in walking the aisle or praying a prayer or something similar. While many do genuinely respond and are converted at those times, it is to be feared that many place their hope in some outward act they performed rather than trusting in Christ alone and his finished work for their salvation. I have interacted with people whose assurance is grounded in something they did at the behest of a preacher years ago despite the fact that they have since then neglected church attendance, are living an ungodly lifestyle, etc. Of course this relates to the Regenerate Church Membership issue as well.
From Dr. David Mills
Chris, you are correct, and I lament these mistakes. In fact, you should read Dr. Fish’s book entitled How to Give a Good Invitation where he recounts that he walked an aisle 3 times in 3 different churches before anyone told him how to be saved. He has excellent recommendations on how to avoid similar mistakes.
From Chris Johnson
Brother Tim,
I made it back from lunch,…and didn’t see David’s tease until now…so I’ll have to get with him later about that.
I am glad to see Dr. Mills speak to the problems with baptism among Baptists, along with our other brothers in Christ that have allowed systems to cast a dark shadow over a simple but effective identification with Christ.
The other Chris has described well what our Christian brothers (Presbyterian, at least PCA) try to teach as their system of baptism..when they say is not salvific,…yet it does contain grace but not unto salvation. (I am supposing that the link to the command of Moses to circumcise would carry the same “grace”). It is very similar to the prevenient system of theology without the water.
Baptist’s have in their short history erred in adding mystery to baptism by including privileges, …or baptism being a cause for membership, etc. Those types of stretches are no different than prevenient grace, and could be labeled postvenient grace by the same application.
The right teaching on baptism is articulated by Christ and confirmed by the Apostle Paul;
Matthew 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Romans 6:3-4 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Colossians 2:9-12 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (10) and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; (11) and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; (12) having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Physical circumcision is typified with spiritual circumcision, not physical or spiritual baptism. Spiritual baptism is typified by physical baptism identifying with Christ alone. This is pretty simple stuff when you can get all the systems out of the way….go, make disciples and baptize!
Blessings,
Chris
From Chris Johnson
Brother Tim,
Additionally, comparing the two, …Circumcision and Baptism is important. The act of baptism is a much more distinctive identifier for those that are in Christ, for obvious reason. Circumcision was never placed into that same category as baptism throughout biblical record, but circumcision was relating to the same reality being circumcision of the heart, which Christ is the only one that can perform that act. So physical baptism commanded by Christ is certainly not a return to nation building, but it is a return to Christ alone who is building His holy nation. Certainly, one that identifies with Christ in baptism must know him,….all others are separated and under the wrath of the Almighty God. Baptism (spiritual, typified by the act) cannot exist where “Peace” is not present. (Acts 19)
I have empathy for my brothers and sisters in Christ that have depended upon tradition rather than the scripture where baptism is concerned whomever they may be, and I would simply encourage them to understand the simplicity of the scriptures. The Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, and Baptist Christian are not my enemy; they are my brother and sister in Christ. My goal is to teach, disciple and encourage them to greater understanding as I hope they would for me as well.
Blessings,
Chris
David Mills,
Preach on hell every time you get to preach in chapel. Tell those other boys to do the same.
I hope you get a raise for preaching on hell. I hope you get fired if you don’t.
cb