The Baptist Faith and Message

Sunday afternoon, Brian (our Associate Pastor) and I will be going through ordination council to see if we are ready to be ordained for the gospel ministry on January 11th. This is a huge step in both of our ministries and both of our lives. While I have been licensed for the gospel ministry for about 5 years now (I'll have to check my certificate hanging on my wall at church) this is a huge calling.

Upon sitting down with my pastor about what to expect at the council, he suggested I know my testimony, the circumstances of my calling (when and how), and the Baptist Faith and Message.

Much smarter men and learned men in theology have debated these things and have come up with this doctrine of faith, but I have some questions about it. Let me go into the 3 that I found while reading it.

1) Article III, Man
Statement: "By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation."
Point of Question: "s soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation."
Question: This is a statement which lives by the assumption of the age of accountability and the innocence of children prior to this age. In my research of this, I have found more in favor of there being no age of accountability than I have for there being one. What I base my belief on is the understanding of the nature of God being a loving and fair God who would not condemn those who have not had a chance to make a decision one way or the other to follow Christ. I cannot back it scriptural and would like to know how they came up with it here. On the contrary, if you look at the verses they list below supporting the statement, one of them is Psalm 51:5 which states:
" 5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
I believe in the age of accountability but only because of hope and not because of Biblical evidence to support it. I cannot fathom the full nature or ways of God and would not dare call it unjust if those too young to know sin and truth were condemned also but I hope in a loving God who forgives and shows unmerited grace to those who never had a chance.

2. Article VIII: Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Statement: "Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."
Point of question: "it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."
Question: I understand the idea of close communion and the autonomy of the local church, but if a local church decides to offer opened communion (Open to all those who are believers), the idea that all partakers have to be baptized (as in water immersion) prior to partaking in the Lord's Supper seems out of order to me. Water baptism is a symbol of the baptism by the Holy Spirit that takes place immediately when someone becomes a follower of Christ. While I believe that water baptism is the first step of obedience in following Christ, it is not an extra step of salvation and should not be considered a prerequisite for partaking in the remembrance of our Lord and His sacrificial work on the cross. We are no more Christian after being baptized than we are while walking in the water or after we first commit to a saving faith.
Because baptism is the first step of obedience in a walk of faith, could the writers of the Baptist Faith and Message be trying to protect those who have not been baptized from taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, having not obeyed the first thing yet? I don't know if it is, but it would be a legitimate reason to restrict it.

3. VIII. The Lord's Day
Statement: "The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private. Activities on the Lord's Day should be commensurate with the Christian's conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ."
Point of Question: "The first day of the week is the Lord's Day."
Question: I do worship on Sundays, and have my entire Christian life, but is worshiping God corporately only valid on Sunday? Are the Seventh Day Adventist, or even the Seventh Day Baptist (yes, I didn't make that up) wrong for worshiping on Saturday? How about tons of worshipers who worship on Saturday night because it is more convenient, such as at Saddleback? Scripture tells us (again in the quoted in the Biblical references below the statement),
Romans 14:5-6
" 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord."
I have heard militant Seventh Day Adventist talk about those who worship on Sunday instead of the Sabbath and how they are wrong. This could be interpreted the same way.

I guess with all three statements, they seem like none of the proclamations should either be expanded upon or left up to the local church to decide outside of conventional politics.

Eyes getting too tired to stay awake. Time to visit my wife. :D