# Arguments for the Presbyterian mode of baptistm



## Weston Stoler (Jul 2, 2012)

My friend was wondering what are the best arguments for the Presbyterian mode (not who but how) of baptism.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 2, 2012)

A good (but older) overview of the various arguments can be found in the book _William the Baptist_ (found online here).


----------



## Tim (Jul 2, 2012)

Isn't it correct that Presbyterians do not place the same emphasis on the mode, as compared to Baptists? As such, there is not so much a _Presbyterian mode_ as it is not _necessary_ to immerse.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jul 2, 2012)

I disagree on the "who" with this author (a Reformed Baptist) but found his arguments in favor of sprinking vs. immersion to be interesting. I would be interested to hear any comments on his arguments from those with a better grasp of the original languages than me. Thus, you may find this to be of some use: Water Baptism


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Jul 2, 2012)

From my best estimates, the Presbyterian mode is with Water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, correct?


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 2, 2012)

Constantlyreforming said:


> From my best estimates, the Presbyterian mode is with Water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, correct?



I disagree. I cannot in good conscience immerse someone.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Jul 2, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> > From my best estimates, the Presbyterian mode is with Water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, correct?
> ...




What if enough water was poured over one's head to the point where they subsequently became immersed?

(I have read William the Baptist too)

I agree...the correct mode is by pouring water over one's head....


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 2, 2012)

Constantlyreforming said:


> What if enough water was poured over one's head to the point where they subsequently became immersed?
> 
> (I have read William the Baptist too)
> 
> I agree...the correct mode is by pouring water over one's head....


----------



## Weston Stoler (Jul 2, 2012)

Presbyterians tend to sprinkle/pour and do not immerse. Which is what I meant by mode.


----------



## jogri17 (Jul 2, 2012)

Personally I think pouring is the best. you get the sprinkle effects when the water falls down, and there is more water so it has the look of immersion.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 2, 2012)

I could be wrong, but I think the Presbyterian mode of sprinkling or pouring is meant to symbolize God's spirit being poured out. It also has a strong tie to the Old Testament water motif. Baptists on the other hand view baptism as being symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, thus the immersion followed by a rising back up out of the water.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 2, 2012)

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a Presbyterian mode of baptism, since "Presbyterian" is an ecclesiological term referring to a form of church government. Probably should say, "A Reformed mode of baptism..."

Joseph: if pouring is best because it looks more like immersion, then why not immerse instead?

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight. How you do it is not as important as what it means theologically.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 2, 2012)

Gentlemen, we are getting a bit 

Let's try to stick with the request in the OP. Thanks.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 2, 2012)

Immersion/plunging doesn't express what the sacrament is about.

With sprinkling/pouring you have the sprinkling/pouring out of the Holy Spirit. We are never said to be immersed in the Holy Spirit.

Sitting or standing in the water while having it poured or sprinkled over one? This is also acceptable as being the natural mode of bathing. It also puts one in mind of the Flood and the Exodus through the Red Sea, which are given as two eminent types of baptism. 

The judicial aspect of baptism expressed in the judgment of God in drowning the unbelievers in Noah's day, and in the drowning of the Egyptians in Moses' day are also expressed by this mode. Although it is not necessary to sit or stand in water for baptism, as e.g. Saul "rose and was baptised", it may sometimes be done this way by Presbyterians. 

It might bring some baptists into the Presbyterian fold , and break down barriers, if they were aware that this, latter, was a possible Presbyterian mode of baptism, as they like lots of water to be used, and they might be able to see the connection with what was often practiced in the NT and the first century.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jul 2, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I could be wrong, but I think the Presbyterian mode of sprinkling or pouring is meant to symbolize God's spirit being poured out. It also has a strong tie to the Old Testament water motif.



The Scots Confession (Presbyterian)
Chapter Chapter 22 states
That sacraments be rightly ministered, *we judge two things requisite*: the one, *that they be ministered by lawful ministers*, whom we affirm to be only they that are appointed to the preaching of the word, or into whose mouths God has put some sermon of exhortation, they being men lawfully chosen thereto by some kirk. The other, that *they be ministered in such elements*, and in such sort, *as God has appointed*; else, we affirm that they cease to be right sacraments of Christ Jesus.

Westminster Confession
Chapter 28:03
Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but *Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water* upon the person.

Westminster Larger Cat Q165 
What is baptism?
Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the *washing with water*[.... etc]

Westminster Shorter Cat Q94. 
What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, *wherein the washing with water* in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *doth signify and seal* our *ingrafting into Christ*, and *partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace*, and our *engagement to be the Lord’s.*

Catechism of the Church of Geneva (J. Calvin)
Q325 M. What resemblance has water with these things, so as to represent them? [_<-speaking of the water of baptism_]
S. Forgiveness of sins is a kind of washing, by which our souls are cleansed from their defilements, *just as bodily stains are washed away by water.*

Catechism of the Church of Geneva (J. Calvin)
Q327 M. *Do you think that the water is a washing? of the soul?* [_<-- speaking of a literal washing, not symbolic_]
S. *By no means*; for it were impious to snatch away this honour from the blood of Christ, which was shed in order to wipe away all our stains:, and render us pure and unpolluted in the sight of God. (1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7.) And we receive the fruit of this cleansing when the Holy Spirit sprinkles our consciences with that sacred blood. Of this we have a seal in the Sacrament.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 3, 2012)

Final reminder: the OP asked for arguments concerning the Presbyterian mode of baptism. This is NOT a thread to discuss the merits of or criticize the Baptist practice. That is off topic and any future posts which disregard this will be removed in their entirety, along with appropriate infraction penalties.

If someone wishes to start a discussion about the differences in modes, then please start another thread. If you wish to comment on this one, stick to the OP.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 3, 2012)

One of the arguments that we mostly hear is that the word “baptize” is derived from the Greek word “baptizo” or “bapto” which mean “to immerse” or “to dip”. Although it is true that these Greek words are often used in Greek literature to describe immersion or dipping, it can also be used to mean “washing” or “purifying”.

Here a few examples, the Greek word underlying “wash” is “baptizo” or a word from the same root.



> Mark 7:2-3
> 
> 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
> 
> ...





> Hebrews 9:10
> 
> 10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers *washings, *and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.




Here we can clearly see that the Greek word for baptism is clearly used in the context of cleansing, washing or purifying. 


Now with this in mind let’s look at a few verses that refer to baptism as being a cleansing or washing. Some of the verses refer to water baptism and other to spirit baptism but since water baptism points to spiritual baptism the analogy should be the same. The point being made here is that as water cleanses physical filthiness, the Holy Spirit cleanses spiritual filthiness; hence the new birth which is performed on the elects by the Holy Spirit is described in scripture as a cleansing or purification of the elect’s spirit/soul. 



> Titus 3:4-6
> 
> 4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
> 
> ...




Here's a few verses that refers to cleansing/purifying, baptism or the new birth/regeneration and uses the analogy of “pouring” or “sprinkling”.




> Numbers 19:20
> 
> 20 But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: *the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him*; he is unclean.
> 
> ...


----------



## Weston Stoler (Jul 5, 2012)

Fogetaboutit said:


> One of the arguments that we mostly hear is that the word “baptize” is derived from the Greek word “baptizo” or “bapto” which mean “to immerse” or “to dip”. Although it is true that these Greek words are often used in Greek literature to describe immersion or dipping, it can also be used to mean “washing” or “purifying”.
> 
> Here a few examples, the Greek word underlying “wash” is “baptizo” or a word from the same root.
> 
> ...



I shared your post if that's okay?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 5, 2012)

Weston Stoler said:


> I shared your post if that's okay?



sure, this is not confidential information


----------

