Two couples who were baptized as infants by sprinkling wish to join a congregation that baptizes only believers and always by immersion. The congregation's preacher, a gracEmail subscriber, regards these people as fully Christian and wonders if he can rightly refuse them fellowship although they have not been immersed.
* * *
Almost all Christian churches expect believing adult members to have been baptized in water. However, Christians differ in their understandings of the action of baptism, its proper recipients and its purpose. Whether these disagreements are due to biblical ambiguity or to human error, they will disappear when Jesus returns (1 Cor. 13: 12). For now, however, such differences remind us of the immaturity of the living Church.
Concerning its action or form, many Christians (Eastern Orthodox, Baptists, most Bible Churches, most charismatic churches, Churches of Christ, Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ) conclude that the word "baptism" itself means immersion. Many others (Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Reformed, Methodists and other Wesleyans) conclude that the Greek verb translated "baptize" is indefinite as to action and that baptism occurs whenever one applies water to another person in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in obedience to Jesus' parting commission (Matt. 28:19). Theologians in each camp point to Scriptures in support of their particular view.
Both groups agree that adults who come to faith should receive water baptism. Because the New Testament associates such baptism with repentance (Acts 2:38) and with faith (Mark 16:16), many Christians conclude that baptism is reserved for those who are old enough to repent and to believe in Jesus. However, many others conclude that infants born to Christian parents also ought to be baptized, based on Jesus' invitation for little children to come to him (Mark 10:14), the biblical record of household conversions (Acts 16:33-34) or their view that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign among God's people (Col. 2:11-12). When children who are baptized as infants later come to personal faith, they are expected to endorse the parents' decision to have them baptized by going through a process of confirmation.
Concerning its purpose or result, many Christians believe that baptism always and only mediates divine grace and salvation, citing such texts as Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 as proof. Others understand the Bible to teach that anyone who truly believes in Jesus receives salvation and remission of sins, quoting such passages as Acts 10:43 and Ephesians 2:8-9. These also teach, however, that believers should be baptized because Jesus commanded it and because he was baptized himself.
Two couples who were baptized as infants by sprinkling wish to join a congregation that baptizes only believers and always by immersion. The congregation's preacher, a gracEmail subscriber, regards these people as fully Christian and wonders if he can rightly refuse them fellowship although they have not been immersed.
* * *
I personally understand "baptize" to mean "immerse," but I also acknowledge that scholars of great piety and learning have concluded otherwise. I believe that baptism (along with a verbal profession) is the biblical way new believers declare their faith in Jesus as Savior and that they ought to do so as quickly as possible, usually in public. I take Peter's promise in Acts 10:43 at face value that "whoever believes in Jesus has remission of sins." However, I also believe that when baptism expresses repentance for remission of sins, it too may be said to be for the remission of sins (Luke 24:46-47; Acts 2:38; Nicene Creed).
I understand that you teach that immersion fulfills the original and literal meaning of "baptize" and that it best portrays the meaning of baptism in relation to the gospel. I believe that you regularly present such immersion as the privilege of those who personally believe the good news that Jesus' death and resurrection set us right with God, and who wish to commit themselves to God based on that gospel promise. In short, you (as I) both teach and practice baptism only of believers and only by immersion.
Suppose these unimmersed couples say to you: "We are persuaded by your teaching that baptism is immersion, that it is for every believer and that Jesus wants us to be immersed. However, our parents had us baptized as infants and they would be upset if we were to be immersed now. For that reason, we will not do so, even though we believe that Jesus commands it of us." Surely that would reflect a rebellious and disobedient spirit and you would have reason to doubt their claims of discipleship and professions of faith. But that is not the only possibility, as we will see in the next, concluding gracEmail on this topic.
Two couples who were baptized as infants by sprinkling wish to join a congregation that baptizes only believers and always by immersion. The congregation's preacher, a gracEmail subscriber, regards these people as fully Christian and wonders if he can rightly refuse them fellowship although they have not been immersed.
* * *
But what if your unimmersed visitors say, "I also believe that baptism is commanded by Christ. Indeed, I was baptized as an infant. I believe that was a sacred rite and I cannot in good conscience deny its meaning or do it again, even by immersion." How should we view people who say this -- people of an obedient heart and a willing spirit, people seeking to live in good conscience, yet people whose understanding of God's will certainly differs from my own?
Surely we must welcome such folk into the full fellowship of the local church -- not because we believe they were baptized "properly," but because that is a judgment of personal conscience which only the affected individual finally has a right to decide. We must faithfully teach what we understand about baptism and practice accordingly. We are not required or authorized to judge the obedience (including the baptism) of others who trust in Jesus as Savior and seek to follow him.
Would such acceptance of these believers be inconsistent with our stated teaching and practice? Perhaps so. However, it is surely inconsistent also to recognize such believers as Christians, yet to refuse to admit them into our local fellowship. I would not be surprised to see such believers, warmly received and lovingly taught, eventually decide to be immersed -- not to please us, but because they conclude that is what Jesus wants them to do.
True obedience always comes from the heart, and it must flow out of one's own perception of God's will for him or her. Otherwise one does not really obey God from the heart, even if one performs some action that God has commanded. If our teaching on this subject is correct, surely we can trust God to make it clear in the minds of others who also seek to know his will. Meanwhile, how can we dare to refuse to admit into our own fellowship any person whom we believe God has received into his?