Baptism - Our Approach in an Interdenominational Church!

In keeping with our commitment to interdenominational unity our church acknowledges real wisdom in the medieval maxim - IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY. Baptism is an area where we recognize limited diversity and are committed to bear with one another.

Meaning:
Baptism is at its heart a holy ordinance, instituted by Christ (Mat. 28:19-20), wherein water is applied in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as a sign and seal of our union with Christ and our betrothal to be His own. It signifies inward cleansing and remission for sin (Acts 22:16; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27). It is symbolic of Spirit-wrought regeneration (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Spirit of God, guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:13-14). The outward sign does not guarantee or automatically convey the inward grace signified, as evidenced by Peter's warning to the freshly baptized Simon Magus (Acts 8:13-24). Up till now we are all together. Where our church is a bit different than most is our recognition of and acceptance of diversity in baptism within bounds.

An unacceptable option: The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of all baptized persons, even infants. The phrase used to describe this is "ex opere operata" (or the action actually accomplishes the thing symbolized). They teach that the application of water with the baptismal formula using the three Trinitarian names of God imparts grace and saves. We as protestants do not believe or teach baptismal regeneration.

Mode:
A legitimate and convincing case can be made for immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, and all have been practiced by Bible-believing Christians. The Greek word for baptism (baptizw) can be found translated in all three ways: to immerse, pour, or sprinkle.The arguments have often turned bitter and antagonistic. We choose to allow diversity and not fight or divide over this issue. In our church among our leadership we will accommodate all three convictions. I as pastor am most comfortable with sprinkling or pouring, but will gladly immerse if requested to. Example: Heb. 9:10 - the word is baptizo, and can be connected with the "washings" of the O.T. (Num. 19: 17-18; Ex. 24:6-8; Leviticus 8:19; 16:14)

Candidates:
At its heart the dividing line over who is an appropriate candidate has to do with how we view church membership. Historically, the Reformed and Anglican traditions see children as part of the covenant community Baptists have seen church membership as exclusively extended only to those who are old enough to profess faith. It is a troublesome issue because both traditions feel a tension. Baptists, though reserving membership to professing believers, regularly "dedicate" their children in a church service. Reformed believers, on the other hand want to recognize their children as a part of the covenant community, but are forced to make a distinction between communing members (those who have professed faith and are welcome to the Lord's table) and non-communing members (those baptized as infants but not yet confirmed in the faith through personal profession of faith). Feel the tension? J.I Packer puts it this way, "Baptists view infant baptism as a wet dedication, and paedo-baptists view Baptist baby dedication as a dry baptism."

1. An Acceptable Option: Believer's Baptism: By far the most prevalent position on baptism in our region is believer's baptism. This is the belief that those to be baptized must have given a believable profession of faith in Christ. The pretty straightforward Biblical texts used to support this position include:

Acts 2:41, NIV

Acts 8:12, NIV

Acts 10:47-48, NIV

It is a reasonable reading of these verses to: 1) Believe 2) Be Baptized 3. An Acceptable Option: The Baptism of Infants of Believing Parents: This is the belief that the infants of believing parents can be marked as a part of the community of faith through infant baptism. It is not an assertion that the infant is "saved". It is a recognition that these children will be raised in the covenant community, hearing the Word, shown the gospel, and will be exposed to the community of God's people where they may some day personally embrace the faith. This view is embraced by Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans. Belief in infant baptism is a logical inference from the whole Biblical narrative. -The logical tie is to O.T. circumcision where infant males received the mark of the covenant. Even then it was not a sign of automatic salvation. Actually scripture does imply a connection between Circumcision and Baptism - Col. 2:11-12; Gen. 17:7 - Oblique references to "household baptism" in the N.T. are cited as possibly including infants, but this is a stretch. Acts 16:15, 33-34 ; Acts 2:38-39 What are we to do in view of the sincere differences that exist among people with equally high views of scripture? Draw swords and vanquish the foul foe? Split off into separate groups, unable to worship and labor together because of differences over this issue? The bottom line: -If a believer (professing and evidencing new life) has never been baptized they should be. -Immersion, sprinkling, or pouring is acceptable -It should be done "in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" -We will honor the convictions of our people whether for "believer's baptism" or "covenant infant baptism". - For those who hold to believer's baptism, we will offer a baby dedication service. "In Essentials Unity - In Nonessentials Liberty - In All Things Charity"