Baptism at Grace Community Church

Having taken some considerable space (and time in your reading) to outline two views concerning baptism, I want to give you a representation of what we teach and practice regarding this very important ordinance of the church.

We affirm with the faithful church through the ages that salvation is simply the work of grace through faith in the life of a believer. We add nothing to that – we take nothing from that. That said --- there is much that is accomplished, anticipated and even expected in the life of the redeemed believer. The faithful are called to join with a local church, be baptized and share in the fellowship of the Lord’s Table (Communion), and submit to the work of the Word and the Spirit for their sanctification and ministry. We are focusing in this study on one element of that expectation – baptism.

First, I should establish simply state that we teach believer’s baptism. We believe the Bible is clear in both its instruction (faith) and its model (practice) of the early church’s application of baptism. To that degree we would be considered “Baptistic” in our practice regarding baptism.

Because we believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone we also would not accept any form of baptism that claims to have any merit or saving effect. We would simply assume there had been no baptism in the case of that professing believer. This would include anyone seeking to unite in fellowship with Grace from a Catholic, Christian (Disciples of Christ), or Church of Christ tradition. That person’s faith might well be valid as/if it rests in the assurance of God’s grace alone, but their baptism would be considered invalid as it rests in the errant teaching of baptismal regeneration. We would ask that professing believer to be obedient to our Lord’s call to baptism and then welcome them into the fellowship.

Now, among others the matter becomes a bit more involved. I have asked you to read differing perspectives: one (from Dr. MacArthur) that holds to a “Baptistic” view of baptism which demands that saving faith (professed) precedes baptism and one (from Bob Vincent) that holds to a “reformed” view of baptism which allows children born to believing parents to be baptized into the fellowship of the church with the “hope” of future faith.

Assuming you have read and understood these two positions - - I want to use them to clarify our position in a sort of point-counterpoint fashion.

A Closer Look

Let’s begin with MacArthur’s five categories of reasons why some have not been baptized after faith (believer’s baptism) – I have responded to these reasons with the perspective we would hold …

1. One, ignorance --- we would agree that a person’s lack of biblical understanding would be one reason they have not followed believer’s baptism. However, that is not to say that after seeking to arrive at a biblical understanding all persons will agree concerning the proper mode or time of baptism. We would not want to suggest that a person coming from a reformed tradition of infant baptism was willingly being “ignorant” after the fact of Scriptural evidence. This would be, in our opinion, narrow and arrogant beyond what is expected from Christians who disagree over non-essential aspects of our faith.
2. Secondly, pride is an issue --- again, we would agree with the obvious here; pride might clearly keep a believer from following in obedience to the command to be baptized. But we would again say that those coming from a reformed tradition might still disagree and such disagreement might well come from a humble, not proud position.
3. It could be indifference --- I think this is many times an issue. Any fellowship, like our own, which holds to God’s sovereign work in salvation and limits carefully any human “motivation” to bring about a decision runs the risk of establishing an almost passive indifference to the matter of baptism. Many parents who want to be certain their professing children are mature in their understanding of the faith before they follow in baptism must be especially on guard against a heart of indifference settling in their child’s life. Clearly this would not be applicable to a believer from a reformed tradition --- they would not be guilty of indifference toward the matter of baptism.
4. And, then fourthly, could be the defiant people --- we would agree here completely. Any defiance on such a matter would be sinful. I should qualify that by saying, such sinful defiance would only be applicable where there had been rejection of baptism of any form – not to those whose mode/method differs from our own. I would also add that such a defiant position would, of course, exclude someone from membership in our fellowship.
5. Then, fifthly, it’s possible that you’re unregenerate --- we believe completely with this possibility as it applies to someone who has not been baptized at all. We would not suggest in any way, however, that a person’s different understanding of the proper mode/method of baptism, in itself, opens them to the possibility of being lost.

With that quick outline I hope you can see that our position is far less dogmatic regarding the mode/method of baptism than is Dr. MacArthur’s (at least as stated in his sermon). It is not our position to exclude membership from anyone who has a personal conviction regarding baptism that is different from ours, provided that conviction is born out of their personal study and understanding of God’s Word and is not a conviction born out of the grip of tradition. It is the elder’s responsibility to examine those presenting themselves for membership precisely at this point and we have gladly received believers into membership who were baptized in the reformed tradition as infants. These individuals understand fully what we teach and also that it would be our hope that they might come to desire believer’s baptism. There is no pressure for such a decision at any time.

Our position here is not unlike that of Bob Vincent - - he writes:

We welcome anyone who has a teachable spirit, Calvinist or Arminian, Reformed or Baptist, Charismatic or Cessationist. We get along quite well, even though my prayer and the aim of my teaching is, little by little, to convince my congregation of the truths of Scripture, applied to their hearts and lives. Diverse groups get along very well in our congregation, because they know that we hold the Bible as “the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy” God. (The Shorter Catechism, 2.) They know that they will be treated with respect and never forced to do something that they have not become convinced about from Scripture itself.

Of course while Bob Vincent would hope the Baptist would change his/her view and embrace infant baptism, we would hope for the opposite. But we come at this matter with the same attitude.

Some of you might be interested to read the careful working out of this very same issue among the elders at Bethlehem Baptist Church (Dr. John Piper). You can click here to read more: http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/baptism_and_membership.pdf

Tomorrow, we’ll continue our look at Baptism at Grace.