Part 3 - In a new church, where there are different views about Baptism - what's the policy going to be? Discuss!

Introduction

My view is that this area of discussion on baptism is not a major doctrine that should be the basis of division.  This is why it was not crucial to sort out before the launch of Gateway.  Sadly it has been divisive over the centuries within and across churches and denominations.  For Gateway it is an opportunity to set an example of mature leadership, even if it means leaving aside our own personal preferences.

It is a doctrine where the two opposing views (infant baptism and believer’s baptism) are held by genuine Christians who hold to the supreme authority of the Bible as God’s Word for belief and practice.  The heart of the matter is that both views can be argued from the Bible – hence the disagreements over the centuries between evangelical Christians!

I guess that each of us will lean to our ‘default’ position, that view which we have personally practised and perhaps been ‘conditioned’ by the previous church/es we have belonged to.  Of course, one may change position over time, as long as submission to the teaching of God’s Word is evident.

What we should all agree on:

1)   The New Testament (NT) clearly teaches that Baptism is closely connected with Christian conversion (repentance, faith, receiving the Holy Spirit) – indeed it is almost simultaneous, e.g. Acts 2.38, 8.12, 8.35-38, 16.14-15, 31-33, 18.8.  The longest period recorded in New Testament between conversion and baptism is 3 days (Saul - Acts 9.9, 9.18).  Baptism signifies repentance (washing away of sins, Acts 22.16), and faith in Christ (old sinful life buried and raised to new life, Romans 6.4, Colossians 2.12). 

2)   Baptism is not necessary for salvation (unlike the view of our Roman Catholic friends who believe that baptism is an essential means of salvation).  The NT teaches overwhelmingly that our salvation is secured in Christ alone, by faith alone (nothing else) – see Ephesians 2.8-9, Romans 6.23.  Otherwise it is a different gospel, Galatians 1.6.

3)   Whether we hold to infant baptism or believer’s baptism, parents of both positions should fervently pray for their children’s salvation and discipling.  God has placed us in families, and He does not usually work in a ‘vacuum’, rather God’s love is shared and taught through families.  Whilst only a small percentage of children live in ‘Care Homes’, a third of inmates in our prisons today come from ‘Care Homes’ (quoted by ‘Care for the Family’).  The outcome of a child’s life is highly dependent on the influence and teaching of mum and dad (for better or for worse).  Whilst none of these things are ‘absolute’ and we can never ‘pin down’ God’s grace or ‘box it up’, the commitment of mum and dad is very significant, whether expressed in the baptismal or thanksgiving promises they make.

Argument for baptism including babies and infants (infant baptism)

1)   It could be interpreted from the NT that children of believing parents were included, because of reference to families/households, see Acts 2.39, 16.15, 16.33, 1 Corinthians 1.16.  It would be difficult to conceive these, possibly large households of the first century having no infants.

On the other-hand, it could be argued on closer examination of the texts (with exception of Acts 16.14-15) that there was also the exercising of household faith.  Furthermore, we have no passage in the Bible that speaks specifically of a child being baptised.  However we do have passages where Jesus blessed children (Matthew 19.13-15, Mark 10.13-16, Luke 18.15-17).

2)   There is an Old Testament argument about ‘Covenant’, e.g. Genesis 17.9-14.  This includes families and their children, e.g. the parents having their infants (male at 8 days old) circumcised.  This is a sign of ‘belonging’ to God’s people and nurturing their young in the faith of God’s people.  This is the OT equivalent to infant baptism and so is a forerunner to Christian teaching in the NT about baptism.

3)   Baptism is a sign which can work forward and be ratified by conversion in the future, or work backwards ratifying conversion that’s already taken place.  It’s a sign, not the means of salvation in Jesus.

However, the NT does not speak in these terms of baptism being a sign of something to take place in the future, it looks back at what’s already happened.  The NT writers do not say, e.g. “Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water who probably will be saved someday in the future”? (Acts 10.47)

Argument for believer’s baptism (evidence and profession of faith by individual – which may include a child who is old enough to profess!)

1)   The Greek word baptizo used in the New Testament (NT) means “to plunge, dip, immerse” something in water.  It does not mean to sprinkle or pour.  Romans 6.3-4 and Colossians 2.12 speaks of baptism as symbolising death to one’s old way of life, dying and rising to a new kind of life in Christ.  This illustrated by going down into the waters and being raised up.  Baptism by sprinkling or pouring misses this symbolism!

2)   There are specific examples of believer’s baptism in the NT.  See Acts 2.41, Acts 8.12, Acts 10.47-48.

3)   There are also NT indications that baptism is combined with outward faith (which a baby is not capable of showing).  See Galatians 3.27 - to ‘clothe yourself with Christ’ means you are living out the Christ-life.

Conclusion

My own position, after prayerful consideration and no longer functioning as a minister of the Methodist Church is still ‘open’!  However I have concluded:

1)   We have to show respect for both positions, especially for whichever is the opposing view, because individuals and churches have come to that conclusion prayerfully and biblically.

2)   I think I now lean towards believer’s baptism only (which may still include children – if appropriate).  My main reasons are a) that is where I think the NT emphasis is b) too much confusion is caused by infant baptism.  However, this could be easily cleared up by the following point...

3)   If we did include a place for infant baptism, it would be for children of committed believers only (at least 1 parent) and married (unless a single parent) who have shown commitment to Gateway.  Godparents also to be committed believers (whichever church).  Alternatively we offer a Christian dedication/ thanksgiving ceremony which could be adjusted accordingly to Christian/non-Christian parents.

Conundrums:

1)   If we adopted a ‘believer’s baptism’ policy, what about adults who are new Christians, but have already received infant baptism and yet request baptism based on their own profession of faith?  Answers on a postcard!

2)   Lord’s Supper.  The general NT theme of the sacraments is that a) baptism is a sign of initial commitment to Jesus and entrance into the church and b) the Lord’s Supper is a sign of ongoing commitment to Jesus and the Church.  If we adopt a ‘believers baptism’ policy, what about children and Lord’s Supper?  The difficulty is, if children partake, it gives the indication that children have faith or at least part of the family of faith, yet have not been baptised?  I don’t think you can have one without the other.  We have to be consistent with both as a general rule.

Here’s a suggestion – we have to start somewhere.  It’s called ‘The Gateway Way’!!

1)   We encourage believer’s baptism, offering dedication/thanksgiving for babies/infants.  That’s our default position.

2)   We still recognise infant baptism, especially as this is the case for a number of Gateway people who have not been subsequently baptised as adults.

3)   If a committed Christian married couple (or single parent) belonging to Gateway really do prefer and urge that their child be baptised – then ok.

4)   If an adult who is newly converted, but previously baptised as an infant requests baptism based on his/her own profession of faith – then it could possibly be a renewal of baptismal vows.

5)   Lord’s Supper is for all who love Jesus and obey him or perhaps are seeking him (so Lord’s Supper is presented as an opportunity to believe).  This covers children who have some understanding, especially children of Christian families, baptised or not.  But it is the decision of parents whether their children receive or have a prayer of blessing instead.                                                                         

The above suggestions were agreed by a caring, thoughtful, wise, & selfless Leadership team on 18.01.2012 without any blood on the walls!  "For nothing is impossible with God" Luke 1.37, Bible.

Post-script:
And finally...
If you are (or in the future) a new Christian at Gateway in Barnsley, and you wished to be baptised - you have a challenge!  Our current venue, Oakwell Stadium - home to Barnsley Football Club - does not have 'baptistry' (swimming pool).  What venue would you suggest for your baptism (big enough for you to be fully immersed)?  Feel free to leave a comment...