TEXT: Romans 6: 1-11
INTRODUCTION:
Our Call to Worship reminded us that for the Christian community there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Yet, while the Christian community has been able to affirm the "one Lord and one faith" parts of that statement, we have debated since the Second Century over the issue of baptism. The argument has not been over the importance of baptism, for all are agreed that Christians should be baptized. The issues debated have been over what the scripture teaches about who is a proper candidate for baptism, just what baptism accomplishes, and what is the proper mode for baptism. The identity which we have as baptists arose out of how our forebearers in the faith answered those issues. But as hot as the debate has gotten¾even to the point that some early baptists were tortured and killed for their steadfast belief in what we call believer's baptism by immersion¾it has not been without its humor.
A Presbyterian and a Baptist minister were arguing over this issue¾the Presbyterian arguing that sprinkling was enough and the Baptist insisting that immersion was essential for baptism to be valid. The Presbyterian asked: "If the candidate gets into the water up to her or his ankles, is that enough?" "No!" replied the Baptist. "What about if the water comes up to the knees?" "No!" "What about if I get the candidate into the water up to chest?" "No!" "Then how about if I get the water up to the chin?" Again, the Baptist insisted that water up to the chin was not enough. "You mean to say that water up to the chin is not enough¾well what is enough?" "You've got to get their head wet for a baptism!" "Then what's the problem if getting the head wet is all that's required then that's what we do¾we get their head wet¾and skip getting all those non-essentials wet!"
With so much to do about baptism, the question is: "Is this much to do about nothing?" In a attempt to answer that I want us to look briefly at the biblical foundation for baptism, the divisive issues surrounding baptism, the historic baptist affirmation of baptism, and finally, offer a suggestion about how we, as members of Metro Baptist, may address the issues which face us regarding this topic.

I. FIRST, BAPTISM¾IT'S BIBLICAL FOR THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

As I entered the pastoral ministry twenty years ago, I soon discovered that although the Bible mentioned several issues which I held to be central to the performance of my calling, it did not include specific instructions as to how to accomplish them. For instance, marriages are part of normal church life, and are spoken of within the scripture. As a minister I am called upon to do marriage counseling, to encourage a high understanding of marriage, and to conduct marriage ceremonies. Yet, the only thing in the scripture that I can find relating to the marriage event itself revolves around the party after the ceremony. If I am to rely on scriptural guidance for how to conduct a wedding, then it would seem that my primary concern should be that the party is large, that there be lots of food, and that the wine doesn't run out before the party does.

Well, with baptism, I am certain that it is a scriptural practice. When Christ commissioned the first disciples, among the things he told them to do was the instruction to baptize those who would follow him in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When Peter preached that on that memorable first Pentecost, after his sermon the crowds demanded to know what they must do in response to the gospel message. Peter told them, "Repent and be baptized." The deacon Phillip baptized the Samaritan converts and the Ethiopian eunuch. Paul, we are told, was baptized following his conversion by Ananias. Peter baptized Cornelius and his household. The Philippian jailer was baptized along with his household, Lydia was baptized. Clearly the New Testament writers recorded that the practice of baptism was normative in the early life of the church. Yes, there was "one Lord, one faith and one baptism" within the confessing community of Christian faith. Yet, nowhere within the scripture is there a clear exposition of how to conduct a baptism. That information we have to glean from inferences and from tradition.

The description of baptism found in the New Testament was almost certainly that of the immersion of new converts to Christianity. It follows the pattern of baptism practiced within Judaism of converts to the Jewish faith where the pagan Gentile male submitted a ritual total cleansing in water and then circumcision. The word, itself, means to immerse or totally submerge an object in a liquid.

The New Testament writers alluded to three Old Testament types for baptism: the flood in I Peter 3: 19-20; the Red Sea experience in I Cor. 10: 1-2; and the ritual of circumcision in Col. 2: 11-12. These three passages compared the act of baptism to the divine covenant which God had established with the children of promise. However, Paul, in our text from Romans 6, speaks of baptism as a picture of the identification of the believer with death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Such an identification supposes the immersion of the convert in the water of baptism.

All of the New Testament texts which could be cited describe the celebration of baptism as a means whereby the convert is symbollically washed of one's past quilt, is ritually identified with Christ, and thereby initiated into the community of faith.

In all of my research, I have not found one writer who argued against baptism of new converts by immersion as being the New Testament model.

II. SECOND, BAPTISM IS DIVISIVE FOR THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
As early as the end of the second century, discussion was heated within the church over the proper candidates for baptism. Origen held that the baptism of the infant children of believers was handed down by tradition from the apostles as a substitute for circumcision. However, Tertullian argued strongly against the practice of baptizing infants holding that the NT taught that the ordinance was to be administered only to those who had professed their faith in Jesus Christ, and an infant could not believe what it could not understand. Regardless of whether the candidate was a new born infant or a new born adult, the mode of baptism remained that of complete immersion until the Middle Ages.

The principal arguments for the baptism of new born infants are built around arguments of silence. We are told that the "household" of such and such person was baptised. The inference is then made that the household must have contained children and since they were the children of new believers, they too were baptized as a rite comparable to that of circumcision. Soon to be included in this concept was the belief that baptism was a regenerative act, a sacriment, which in and of itself had the ability to save the person baptized based upon the faith of another.

On the side of baptism for believers only, we argue that no where are we told that infants were baptized, and that while the households could have contained children, those passages also indicate that the household believed--meaning all in the household believed--and thus infants were not included because although in the house they could not have been able to believe.

Thus, you see, this thing of one baptism has really gotten the Christian community divided.

We have divided over whether baptism is for only professing believers or whether it is an act of faith administered by parents on the part of their infant child. Even those communities which practice infant baptism have been sorely divided over whether any infant should be baptized or just the infants of parents who are professing Christians and are active in the church community.

We have divided over whether baptism is sacrimental.

And, We have divided over whether baptism is to be by immersion only. Some communities practice believers baptism by pouring or sprinkling of the professing believer.

III. THIRD, BAPTISM IS BAPTIST.

Convinced that the New Testament taught that only professing believers were to be baptized and that the proper mode of baptism was that of immersion, the early anabaptists sought to reform the church practice of baptizing all infants into a state supported church. These reformers were mockingly called "baptists" and that name stuck. Undergoing intense persecution by religious and state authorities for their contrariness, these early baptists staunchly held to their conviction, so much so that they became quick to question whether they could hold Christian communion with anyone who held to the practice of infant baptism.

As Baptists, we affirm the symbolic significance of immersion:
remission of sins
fellowship/union wiht Christ
cleansing and commitment to walk in newness of life

We affirm the significance of a professing church

However, even those communities of faith which practice infant baptism affirm the necessity of baptizing new converts. John Stott has pointed out that "Baptism is the way of entry into the visible Christian society."

IV. FINALLY, BAPTISM AND US.

* we stand in the historic tradition of our baptist family

* we will continue to practice baptism by immersion of any one who professes faith coming out of a background of non-belief

* Our official policy reflects that of the old New Hampshire Confession of Faith which states:
"we believe that Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water, in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit;, to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in a crucified, buried and risen Savior, with its purifying power; that it is pre-requisite to the privileges of a church relationship...."

* many of us are willing to recognize the testimony of those persons who profess their personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and who have been baaptized as infants when that baptism was within a faith community which practices the baptism of only the infants of believing parents and who hold that church membership is only for those who have confirmed the prior commitment of their parents as their own faith.

As baptists we have continued to believe that indeed there is but "one Lord, one faith and one baptism" and have come to recognize that our fundamentalistic attitude over the technicalities of this issue has done more to divide the Christian community than to make a strong stand over the holy unity which the church is to exhibit to one another and the world. I refuse to be a stickler, but I also refuse to quit being a baptist with a little "b". Our understanding of this important ordinance is part of the Christian picture which we must keep before the Christian community as a witness to the necessity of a church comprised of professing and confessing disciples of Christ.

CONCLUSION:
And so we come to the baptismal waters this morning to celebrate with Stephen Chou and all those who have preceeded him this wonderful picture of the faith commitment of the new believer in Jesus Christ.
With the Apostle Paul, we say: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized inot his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism inot death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be untied with him in a resurrection like his.... You must ... consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."