# Baptism in the PCA



## JBaldwin

As I understand the Book of Church order for the PCA, for those individuals desiring to join the church as a communing member, the church recognizes immersion of an individual as long as it was done under certain conditions (I won't go into these, since they are not relevant to the discussion), otherwise as a practice, the PCA baptizes via sprinkling or pouring, whether it is of an individual joining the church being baptized for the first time or of an infant. 

1. So my first question to you PCA pastors and scholars, is this the case or am I mistaken in my understanding of the BCO? Please do not bring the westminster confession into this conversation. I am speaking strictly of the BCO. 

In a recent online discussion I have been having, more than one person has insisted that I am misunderstanding the BCO. Even though, I know there have been some excpetions, I simply can't find anywhere in the BCO that instructs a pastor to immerse if someone wants it. I have been told that as a practice PCA pastors both perform sprinkling/pouring and immersion. 

2. If the answer to my first question is "yes, I am reading the BCO correctly," then would it be right for me to argue that the PCA is does not immerse as a general rule? 

For further explanation: The argument I am encountering is that the PCA recognizes immersion for one joining the church as valid, so therefore it is ok for a pastor to go ahead and immerse someone if they simply can't accept sprinkling or pouring as a valid form of baptism? 

I've been in the PCA for over 20 years, and I was always led to believe that we are paedo baptists who perform sprinkling and pouring as a mode of baptism. Now all of a sudden, something I thought was settled is being questioned. Am I off base? 

3. My third question is for anyone, PCA or not. In the course of the conversation someone referred to immersing an infant as a possible form of baptism. I suppose theoretically that is possible, but has anyone ever heard of immersing an infant? Wouldn't that be contrary to the theology that goes along with infant baptism? 

I know I have probably opened up a can of worms with these questions, but I am not trying to cause a controversy. I just want a straight answer to some questions that have confused me. 

Thanks in advance for all the great answers I'm sure you fine people will give me. 

Joy


----------



## BJClark

JBaldwin;

The PCA does acknowledge Immersion as a form of Baptism, and there are some PCA Pastors who will, if asked, do an immersion baptism.

And yes, it would be correct to say that the PCA does not immerse as a General Rule..

And re: the immersion of infants, I've not known any churches who do that, not that there aren't any, I've just never heard of it..


----------



## fredtgreco

Bobbi is correct.

The BCO does not forbid a pastor from immersing, although it is rare (almost no PCA church has access to a baptismal tank, even if the pastor did want to immerse).


----------



## refbaptdude

> >3. My third question is for anyone, PCA or not. In the course of the conversation >someone referred to immersing an infant as a possible form of baptism. I suppose >theoretically that is possible, but has anyone ever heard of immersing an infant? >Wouldn't that be contrary to the theology that goes along with infant baptism?



The Eastern Church has continued the practice of immersion and they immerse infants.

Grace to you,
Steve


----------



## refbaptdude

Immersion of infant. 

Kinda odd for us in the West


Steve


----------



## ericfromcowtown

This is my understanding as well.

I was baptized as an adult in a PCA church, and I was told that the PCA did not consider immersion unbiblical, just unnecessary, and that if someone was adamant about being immersed that they would look into the means of doing so. 

I have neither seen an immersion baptism at my PCA church nor have I heard of an infant immersion in any church (although the picture above proves otherwise).


----------



## Gryphonette

I remember years ago when taking catechism lessons from a young priest (I was converting to RC at the time) we were talking about modes of baptism, and he said the priest who taught his class on it in seminary (well, something like that...don't suppose there was a whole class on the subject!) told of an adult convert who'd never been baptized and had his heart set on not only being immersed, but in a river or lake, to boot.

The priest was a bit taken aback, but willing to see what he could do, since it meant so much to the other man. Very sensibly he called a Baptist pastor and asked his advice, and was told just where to go and how to do it, so the RC convert was baptized by immersion in a river by a priest.

Who, according to the priest telling the story, got a real kick out of it. ;^)


----------



## sgs1973

I have been asked a number of times if I would, not by people who wanted it but some who just wanted to know if I would. My answer was no. We allow the reception of those immursed not because it is right but because it still falls within that which is required to be a Christain baptism. For someone to demand a baptism that is foreign to our church, while admiting it is not necessary for their salvation and at the same time vowing to submit to the government of the church...does not seem sincere. 

Also, it would seem odd that we would sign the covenant one way for children and another for adults.

The BOC is not intended to say everything and is not to be seen apart from the Confession and the system of theology our confession provides. What seems to some to be a "loop-hole" is, I belive our allowence to recieve those from other churches....not a reason to recieve their practices.

It is not we who make too much of the mode, if they expect us to abandon our practice and submit to their conscience they make too much of what they wish. It is not the mode that is my chief concern here but the expectation that we accominidate those from outside our tradition because they see things different. There are plenty of places to get immursed if that is what they require.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JBaldwin

Thanks everyone for answering my questions. That cleared up things for me. 

As to the immersion of infants. Does anyone know the history behind this practice? How far does it go back, etc?


----------



## Gryphonette

"...it would seem odd that we would sign the covenant one way for children and another for adults"

But you do, anyway, because an infant's sponsors make promises on his or her behalf, whereas an older child or adult makes his or her own profession of faith prior to being baptized.

Look, if you just don't want to be bothered by having to arrange for an immersion baptism, that's certainly your prerogative, but arguing that the sign isn't being applied in a strictly uniform manner isn't a valid objection, in my opinion.


----------



## refbaptdude

JBaldwin,

The Eastern Church has ALWAYS practiced immersion. Immersion goes back to the ancient church. In the early church document the Didache immersion is the preferred mode. Also John Calvin wrote, "The very word "baptize however, signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)

Concerning the Western church, Archbishop Cardinal Gibbons wrote, "For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by immersion; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by immersion (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)


----------



## MrMerlin777

Interesting.....


----------



## Contra_Mundum

1) I believe the Didache actually states a _preference_ for "running" water, not a bath. Which is itself indicative that mode was not considered critical.

2) The ancient church did come to practice immersion commonly, although it would be incorrect to state, as most modern baptists insist upon today respecting their mode, that the mode of baptism was anciently considered critical to the "right administration" of this ordinance (that is, unless you had been immersed, you had not been properly baptized).

3) It is not hard at all to demonstrate that there are uses of "baptizo" in the NT that absolutely rule out the notion of immersion as mode-in-view.

4) From there, it is no difficulty at all to show that whatever later practice may be found, sprinkling or affusion is demonstrable from Scripture. So, (as far as our own practice is concerned) whether practiced widely of narrowly, later immersions can be dismissed as a departure from our reading of Scripture. Baptists would agree with us that the Lord's Supper was adulterated with innovations. So, we have an agreement to begin with that adulteration took place quite soon regarding one sacrament. We seem to disagree as to which of our practices respecting the other sacrament is also picturesque of adulteration.

5) It is a known datum that the church grew to compete with the Greek mystery religions (Gnostics) for spectacle in "mysteries." The simplicity of the Christian ordinances was elaborated so as to prove the "superiority" of Christian rites of initiation (baptism) and confession (communion). Not even the Baptists would recognize, nor would they wish to imitate those common practices. Do you want to go through several hours of mandatory pre-baptismal rituals (all night prayers, etc)? Do you want to gather in a crowd of initiates in a baptismal hall? Do you all want to get naked together? Yes, Virginia, the church was adamant--you definitely had to be bathed/baptized in the NUDE.

At this point, it is easy for me, as a sprinkler, to dismiss not merely the WORST of these accretions as fanciful and useless additions. But to dismiss the LOT of them. Sprinkling is too SIMPLE, not enough WOW to it. Not enough water there to do much in the way of symbolic cleansing. Must have "water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink."

No, let's get back to the Bible. Act 10:47 "Can any man *forbid the water*, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" Sounds to me like the _application_ of water is in view, not the _immersion_ in it.


----------



## sgs1973

Look, if you just don't want to be bothered by having to arrange for an immersion baptism, that's certainly your prerogative, but arguing that the sign isn't being applied in a strictly uniform manner isn't a valid objection, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

It is not a question of being "bothered", but that if someone wants to join a PCA church and demands to be immursed she is making too much of the mode if she is not willing to submit to the government of the church in this matter. It is odd that those who accept no mode but theirs seem to think it unkind for us to practice no mode but ours. That which we do as parents for our children is no different than was done for the child who was circumcised...and when the adult came from outside of Isreal and made his profession, his sign was the same. The sign was the same for Covenant infant or professing adult.

But back to the issue, the question was not how Baptist or Bible Church and Presbyterians feel about the others practice but how BCO and Presbyterian practice address the odd practice of a presbyterian Immersion. While mode is important it is not vital, however a failure to submit to the church where you seek membership likely indicates one needs to keep looking for a church.


----------



## Pilgrim

fredtgreco said:


> Bobbi is correct.
> 
> The BCO does not forbid a pastor from immersing, although it is rare (almost no PCA church has access to a baptismal tank, even if the pastor did want to immerse).



Probably a swimming pool would be used, and I know of a Presbyterian pastor who has resorted to such when immersion is requested.


----------



## Pilgrim

ericfromcowtown said:


> This is my understanding as well.
> 
> I was baptized as an adult in a PCA church, and I was told that the PCA did not consider immersion unbiblical, just unnecessary, and that if someone was adamant about being immersed that they would look into the means of doing so.
> 
> I have neither seen an immersion baptism at my PCA church nor have I heard of an infant immersion in any church (although the picture above proves otherwise).



I believe the original Anglican Book of Common Prayer makes reference to infant immersion and If I recall correctly may refer to it as the preferred mode.


----------



## Pilgrim

JBaldwin said:


> Thanks everyone for answering my questions. That cleared up things for me.
> 
> As to the immersion of infants. Does anyone know the history behind this practice? How far does it go back, etc?



Depends on who you ask. Many Presbyterians will argue that immersion (whether of infants or adults) was a Romish innovation. Others will argue that immersion is of course the biblical mode, and the Greeks will say "we know what our language means" etc.


----------



## Gryphonette

Well, my intended-to-be-harmless anecdote referred to an older man who was joining the RCC, meaning it was an RC priest willing to accede to the convert's wishes, not a woman demanding immersion from a PCA pastor, presumably in a "Unless I get my way I won't be baptized at all, so _there_!" manner. 

Which would, admittedly, get my goat, too. Asking nicely is one thing; demanding is something else again.

It's possible there _are_ PCA pastors who would have no particular objection to performing a baptism by immersion upon request, so I can't see any harm in someone _asking_. They should, however, be prepared to be civilly told no.


----------



## Pilgrim

sgs1973 said:


> It is not a question of being "bothered", but that if someone wants to join a PCA church and demands to be immursed she is making too much of the mode if she is not willing to submit to the government of the church in this matter. It is odd that those who accept no mode but theirs seem to think it unkind for us to practice no mode but ours. That which we do as parents for our children is no different than was done for the child who was circumcised...and when the adult came from outside of Isreal and made his profession, his sign was the same. The sign was the same for Covenant infant or professing adult.
> 
> But back to the issue, the question was not how Baptist or Bible Church and Presbyterians feel about the others practice but how BCO and Presbyterian practice address the odd practice of a presbyterian Immersion. While mode is important it is not vital, however a failure to submit to the church where you seek membership likely indicates one needs to keep looking for a church.



On the other hand, like it or not, similar to the issue of members refusing to present their children for covenant baptism, this is not really an issue of submission since Presbyterian Churches like the PCA do not have confessional membership and only require assent to the 5 questions. (This is not to say you are under obligation to consent to the immersion.)


----------



## refbaptdude

Thought some of you guys would get a kick out of this. A video of an infant immersion – WOW!

Orthodox Infant Baptism - AOL Video


grace to all,
Steve


----------



## JBaldwin

Pilgrim said:


> sgs1973 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a question of being "bothered", but that if someone wants to join a PCA church and demands to be immursed she is making too much of the mode if she is not willing to submit to the government of the church in this matter. It is odd that those who accept no mode but theirs seem to think it unkind for us to practice no mode but ours. That which we do as parents for our children is no different than was done for the child who was circumcised...and when the adult came from outside of Isreal and made his profession, his sign was the same. The sign was the same for Covenant infant or professing adult.
> 
> But back to the issue, the question was not how Baptist or Bible Church and Presbyterians feel about the others practice but how BCO and Presbyterian practice address the odd practice of a presbyterian Immersion. While mode is important it is not vital, however a failure to submit to the church where you seek membership likely indicates one needs to keep looking for a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, like it or not, similar to the issue of members refusing to present their children for covenant baptism, this is not really an issue of submission since Presbyterian Churches like the PCA do not have confessional membership and only require assent to the 5 questions. (This is not to say you are under obligation to consent to the immersion.)
Click to expand...


For clarification: Memembership in the PCA is by testimony to the Session, answering five questions and baptism. Though no confession is mentioned in the five questions members to agree to submit to the government and discipline of the church: 

5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace? (BCO 57-5)


----------



## Stephen

JBaldwin said:


> As I understand the Book of Church order for the PCA, for those individuals desiring to join the church as a communing member, the church recognizes immersion of an individual as long as it was done under certain conditions (I won't go into these, since they are not relevant to the discussion), otherwise as a practice, the PCA baptizes via sprinkling or pouring, whether it is of an individual joining the church being baptized for the first time or of an infant.
> 
> 1. So my first question to you PCA pastors and scholars, is this the case or am I mistaken in my understanding of the BCO? Please do not bring the westminster confession into this conversation. I am speaking strictly of the BCO.
> 
> In a recent online discussion I have been having, more than one person has insisted that I am misunderstanding the BCO. Even though, I know there have been some excpetions, I simply can't find anywhere in the BCO that instructs a pastor to immerse if someone wants it. I have been told that as a practice PCA pastors both perform sprinkling/pouring and immersion.
> 
> 2. If the answer to my first question is "yes, I am reading the BCO correctly," then would it be right for me to argue that the PCA is does not immerse as a general rule?
> 
> For further explanation: The argument I am encountering is that the PCA recognizes immersion for one joining the church as valid, so therefore it is ok for a pastor to go ahead and immerse someone if they simply can't accept sprinkling or pouring as a valid form of baptism?
> 
> I've been in the PCA for over 20 years, and I was always led to believe that we are paedo baptists who perform sprinkling and pouring as a mode of baptism. Now all of a sudden, something I thought was settled is being questioned. Am I off base?
> 
> 3. My third question is for anyone, PCA or not. In the course of the conversation someone referred to immersing an infant as a possible form of baptism. I suppose theoretically that is possible, but has anyone ever heard of immersing an infant? Wouldn't that be contrary to the theology that goes along with infant baptism?
> 
> I know I have probably opened up a can of worms with these questions, but I am not trying to cause a controversy. I just want a straight answer to some questions that have confused me.
> 
> Thanks in advance for all the great answers I'm sure you fine people will give me.
> 
> Joy



I am not sure what reference in the BoCO you were refering to but I am not aware that it makes reference to immersion, but it does refer to sprinkling or washing with water (56-4 d). There are those occasions when someone was baptized as an infant and wants to be immersed because they felt their baptism was not valid, but the PCA does not encourage this. I will never rebaptize someone and no PCA minister would. If someone has never been baptized and requests immersion, I will not encourage it, but some may. The PCA as a general rule does not practice immersion. Many Reformed scholars make the case, and I would agree with it, that baptism is best pictured by pouring or sprinkling because it is a sign of the pouring out of the Spirit or the sprinkling of the heart.


----------



## JBaldwin

Stephen said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand the Book of Church order for the PCA, for those individuals desiring to join the church as a communing member, the church recognizes immersion of an individual as long as it was done under certain conditions (I won't go into these, since they are not relevant to the discussion), otherwise as a practice, the PCA baptizes via sprinkling or pouring, whether it is of an individual joining the church being baptized for the first time or of an infant.
> 
> 1. So my first question to you PCA pastors and scholars, is this the case or am I mistaken in my understanding of the BCO? Please do not bring the westminster confession into this conversation. I am speaking strictly of the BCO.
> 
> In a recent online discussion I have been having, more than one person has insisted that I am misunderstanding the BCO. Even though, I know there have been some excpetions, I simply can't find anywhere in the BCO that instructs a pastor to immerse if someone wants it. I have been told that as a practice PCA pastors both perform sprinkling/pouring and immersion.
> 
> 2. If the answer to my first question is "yes, I am reading the BCO correctly," then would it be right for me to argue that the PCA is does not immerse as a general rule?
> 
> For further explanation: The argument I am encountering is that the PCA recognizes immersion for one joining the church as valid, so therefore it is ok for a pastor to go ahead and immerse someone if they simply can't accept sprinkling or pouring as a valid form of baptism?
> 
> I've been in the PCA for over 20 years, and I was always led to believe that we are paedo baptists who perform sprinkling and pouring as a mode of baptism. Now all of a sudden, something I thought was settled is being questioned. Am I off base?
> 
> 3. My third question is for anyone, PCA or not. In the course of the conversation someone referred to immersing an infant as a possible form of baptism. I suppose theoretically that is possible, but has anyone ever heard of immersing an infant? Wouldn't that be contrary to the theology that goes along with infant baptism?
> 
> I know I have probably opened up a can of worms with these questions, but I am not trying to cause a controversy. I just want a straight answer to some questions that have confused me.
> 
> Thanks in advance for all the great answers I'm sure you fine people will give me.
> 
> Joy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what reference in the BoCO you were refering to but I am not aware that it makes reference to immersion, but it does refer to sprinkling or washing with water (56-4 d). There are those occasions when someone was baptized as an infant and wants to be immersed because they felt their baptism was not valid, but the PCA does not encourage this. I will never rebaptize someone and no PCA minister would. If someone has never been baptized and requests immersion, I will not encourage it, but some may. The PCA as a general rule does not practice immersion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, the BCO never mentions the word "immersion" to my knowledge. I hope I did not mislead in my statement. It only recognizes that if a person has been baptized that they need not be baptized again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Reformed scholars make the case, and I would agree with it, that baptism is best pictured by pouring or sprinkling because it is a sign of the pouring out of the Spirit or the sprinkling of the heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my belief as well. I was startled to hear two or three (who should know) say otherwise which is what generated my question in the first place.
> 
> I wonder sometimes, if there really is a clear understanding in some PCA circles of why we sprinkle. i.e. this sign of baptism is a picture of the "sprinkling or pouring of the Spirit or the sprinkling of the heart". In my part of the country (the south), so many members of the PCA have come from Baptist backgrounds and the issue of mode of baptism is not always explained clearly.
Click to expand...


----------



## Archlute

Time to take off some of the hard nose, men. From the stand point of Christian charity, and pastoral demeanor, it is just as wrong for a PCA minister to be belligerent in refusing to baptize by immersion when politely requested (and the means are readily available), as it is for someone to be a pain in the neck about requesting it. The bottom line is that the standards allow for it, although in defending against the baptist polemic they affirm that it is not _necessary_. They give no room to say that the mode is forbidden, nor an innovation, and the standards are the foundation of our practice, not reactive/sectarian opinions that can be found in whatever reformed tract you may have come across. The bottom line is that immersion is not foreign to _the Church_, which is a term much preferable for usage than _our church_.

For what it's worth, S. Welch, I know a PCA minister who has rebaptized, for very acceptable reasons of pastoral care, but as the situation was sensitive it will not be repeated for general consumption. The presbytery knows about it, and did not object. Again, it was pastoral charity and wisdom that made an unusual decision into the correct decision.


----------



## Pilgrim

JBaldwin said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sgs1973 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a question of being "bothered", but that if someone wants to join a PCA church and demands to be immursed she is making too much of the mode if she is not willing to submit to the government of the church in this matter. It is odd that those who accept no mode but theirs seem to think it unkind for us to practice no mode but ours. That which we do as parents for our children is no different than was done for the child who was circumcised...and when the adult came from outside of Isreal and made his profession, his sign was the same. The sign was the same for Covenant infant or professing adult.
> 
> But back to the issue, the question was not how Baptist or Bible Church and Presbyterians feel about the others practice but how BCO and Presbyterian practice address the odd practice of a presbyterian Immersion. While mode is important it is not vital, however a failure to submit to the church where you seek membership likely indicates one needs to keep looking for a church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, like it or not, similar to the issue of members refusing to present their children for covenant baptism, this is not really an issue of submission since Presbyterian Churches like the PCA do not have confessional membership and only require assent to the 5 questions. (This is not to say you are under obligation to consent to the immersion.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For clarification: Memembership in the PCA is by testimony to the Session, answering five questions and baptism. Though no confession is mentioned in the five questions members to agree to submit to the government and discipline of the church:
> 
> 5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
> of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace? (BCO 57-5)
Click to expand...


This would appear to some to be a catch-all similar to the US Constitution's "general welfare" clause. But has there ever been any instance of communicant members in the PCA being placed under discipline for not presenting their children for baptism?


----------



## moral necessity

sgs1973 said:


> It is not a question of being "bothered", but that if someone wants to join a PCA church and demands to be immursed she is making too much of the mode if she is not willing to submit to the government of the church in this matter. It is odd that those who accept no mode but theirs seem to think it unkind for us to practice no mode but ours...
> 
> ...While mode is important it is not vital, however a failure to submit to the church where you seek membership likely indicates one needs to keep looking for a church.



Surely you don't mean this, do you?


----------



## moral necessity

Personally, I would find it sad if Jesus would welcome with full fellowship and communion those who I myself would encourage to go somewhere else. It would almost sound like, "if you don't like the rules of my playground, then go find somewhere else to play." If someone is struggling with following their conscience before Christ regarding baptism, who am I to demand that they violate their own conscience in order to follow mine? And, who am I to encourage them to leave the ministry they desire to attend just because they haven't arrived to a similar area of insight that my congregation and I might have, by the grace of God, attained to. We all see through a glass darkly. Grace illumines us all, but all to varying degrees and on different schedules. If I turn a cold shoulder to those weak, unenlightened children of his who desire a cup of cold water, where does that leave me? Should I not bear their burdens of remaining depravity and darkened understanding? Where would I be if Christ didn't do the same for me, throughout my entire course of sanctification? The issue of mode for baptism must be considered a grey one, at best. At least, all would have to agree that it is more grey than the doctrine of the resurrection is. And, Paul himself didn't encourage those Corinthians to find another fellowship who didn't agree with this issue. He did correct them, for it was a black and white issue, for Christ had risen from the dead. But, he never made it an ultimatum to them, and never made it a point of fellowship with them. So, who would I be to do so?

Blessings!


----------



## JBaldwin

moral necessity said:


> Personally, I would find it sad if Jesus would welcome with full fellowship and communion those who I myself would encourage to go somewhere else. It would almost sound like, "if you don't like the rules of my playground, then go find somewhere else play." If someone is struggling with following their conscience before Christ regarding baptism, who am I to demand that they violate their own conscience in order to follow mine? And, who am I to encourage them to leave the ministry they desire to attend just because they haven't arrived to a similar area of insight that my congregation and I might have, by the grace of God, attained to. We all see through a glass darkly. Grace illumines us all, but all to varying degrees and on different schedules. If I turn a cold shoulder to those weak, unenlightened children of his who desire a cup of cold water, where does that leave me? Should I not bear their burdens of remaining depravity and darkened understanding? Where would I be if Christ didn't do the same for me, throughout my entire course of sanctification? The issue of mode for baptism must be considered a grey one, at best. At least, all would have to agree that it is more grey than the doctrine of the resurrection is. And, Paul himself didn't encourage those Corinthians to find another fellowship who didn't agree with this issue. He did correct them, for it was a black and white issue, for Christ had risen from the dead. But, he never made it an ultimatum to them, and never made it a point of fellowship with them. So, who would I be to do so?
> 
> Blessings!



You have a good point, but if you get back to my original question, I was trying to determine if the PCA had a policy about immersion, which it appears they do. In the case I was bringing up, the individuals were using the fact that the church recognizes the baptism of someone coming into the church from the outside to prove that the PCA both immerses and sprinkles/pours as a regular practice. I had not ever seen that. 

As far as the issue of grace goes, it seems to me that the PCA is already extending grace by recognizing both modes of baptism for incoming members. It would be rare to find that kind of grace extended in a Baptist church. There is a big difference between showing grace to someone who is struggling over the mode of baptism issue and someone (who has no intention of seeking out the Scriptures on the matter) coming in and demanding to be immersed (which I understand from the testimony of a few PCA pastors, it does happen from time to time). In the first case, I am sure that Christ would have shown grace to that individual, as we should. In the second, I think Christ would ask the ones demanding immersion to search their hearts as to why they are unwilling to extend grace and bend for the sake of the believers in the church they are joining. It does work both ways. 

I can't think of a PCA pastor I know who would throw someone out in the cold over the issue of baptism unless the individual was openly showing signs of causing dissention in the church. 

Blessings,


----------



## moral necessity

JBaldwin said:


> You have a good point, but if you get back to my original question, I was trying to determine if the PCA had a policy about immersion, which it appears they do. In the case I was bringing up, the individuals were using the fact that the church recognizes the baptism of someone coming into the church from the outside to prove that the PCA both immerses and sprinkles/pours as a regular practice. I had not ever seen that.
> 
> As far as the issue of grace goes, it seems to me that the PCA is already extending grace by recognizing both modes of baptism for incoming members. It would be rare to find that kind of grace extended in a Baptist church. There is a big difference between showing grace to someone who is struggling over the mode of baptism issue and someone (who has no intention of seeking out the Scriptures on the matter) coming in and demanding to be immersed (which I understand from the testimony of a few PCA pastors, it does happen from time to time). In the first case, I am sure that Christ would have shown grace to that individual, as we should. In the second, I think Christ would ask the ones demanding immersion to search their hearts as to why they are unwilling to extend grace and bend for the sake of the believers in the church they are joining. It does work both ways.
> 
> I can't think of a PCA pastor I know who would throw someone out in the cold over the issue of baptism unless the individual was openly showing signs of causing dissention in the church.
> 
> Blessings,



Thanks for the clarity. I was diverted from your original topic to the idea of encouraging others to relocate because of their convictions. I agree with you. If the one coming in has no conviction of his own regarding baptism, then he has no ground for a request of it being performed to him in a certain way either. And, if he has a certain conviction regarding baptism, but is not willing to pursue further study and prayer regarding his possible blindness over it, then he should not be attended to with much respect over the issue. Also, it is good that the PCA leads by example in welcoming brothers in their previous baptism, if administered in good faith, and a sad strike against others, if they do not.

Blessings!


----------



## Stephen

Noone was being a hardnose or uncharitable. Leeane was asking a valid question for clarification. I do not think it is a good policy to give people an option of how they want to be baptised. We use the mode we do out of conviction and not for convience sake. Jay Adams and others have made strong cases for baptism by sprinkling. There are some in the PCA that are unclear on this issue because of the lack of teaching. I do not know of any PCA ministers that would give the option for immersion. If we allow for immersion why not introduce submersion as well.


----------



## moral necessity

Stephen,

I was only responding to the remark that said "failure to submit to the church where you seek membership likely indicates one needs to keep looking for a chruch." I would find it more appropriate to say that failure to submit to Christ indicates that one needs to find a different church. If someone's conscience before the Lord demands that they be immersed, who am I to refuse them baptism? If I were a minister, I personally wouldn't lay before them options for baptism either, so as to let them choose or pick the one they like best. I would assume my convictions and that of our congregation until an issue arose. When it arose, I would deal with it on a case by case basis. It just sounded like the quote mentioned above implied that it is correct to slam the door in the face of someone who wants to honor Christ in the best and most clear conscience that they can. Is this what we are to do?

Blessings!


----------

