# Why do Presbyterian's and Baptists differ on the Mode of Baptism as well?



## Polanus1561 (Aug 16, 2017)

First of all, to make it clear *this is not about Baptism of Infants, it is about the mode*.

So, I was curious why both sides differ in the modes, is it related to the underlying theology behind their beliefs on infant/believersonly baptism? For example, Presbyterians see alot of old testament imagery of baptism and apply it to NT baptism, Priests sprinkling etc. While Baptists only see Baptism in light of NT and conclude that baptisms at rivers / Philip and Eunuch would rationally conclude immersion etc.

I just offered my thoughts on the above on why Baptists and Presbyterians differ also on the mode of Baptism, any historical resources would be appreciated.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2017)

The Greek word pictures full immersion or dipping/bathing/washing in the water. And the symbolism is of being buried and raised with Christ (Romans 6:4).

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 16, 2017)

According to Calvin:

"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> The Greek word pictures full immersion or dipping/bathing/washing in the water. And the symbolism is of being buried and raised with Christ (Romans 6:4).



That is what I am talking about, why would Baptists and Presbyterians see a word differently in just its meaning?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2017)

Probably because sprinkling already had wide acceptance and the ones pushing for immersion-only were often somewhat unhinged and cultish.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 16, 2017)

John Yap said:


> *this is not about Baptism of Infants, it is about the mode*.



_Here's a decent article the OPC has posted_

Is Immersion Necessary for Baptism?
By: William Shishko
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH00/0007b.html
_
Below are the first two paragraphs of the article:_

You have finally gotten your Baptist friends to join you for worship. “Now they will hear a good Reformed sermon and experience real biblical worship conformed to the regulative principle!” you say to yourself.

The hoped-for Sunday arrives. You and your Baptist friends are seated and ready for worship. Then you notice in the bulletin that there is to be a baptism that day. Gulp! What will your friends say?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2017)

Show me one place where _rantizo_ is ever used of water in the NT.

Shisko needs to reread Romans 6:4. We are plainly told there what baptism symbolizes. 

To say bapto means to dip or immerse or bathe but the imagery is really of being cleansed through the sprinkling of blood is a logical leap the Apostle Paul did not make when he plainly said it symbolizes being dead/buried and raised to new life in Christ. Christ was totally inside a tomb, immersed in the earth, not just dirt sprinkled on him.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> And the symbolism is of being buried and raised with Christ (Romans 6:4).


Brother, Romans 6 teaches us that baptism symbolizes union with Christ, which includes (but isn't limited to) union with him in his death, burial, and resurrection. Further, no part of baptism by immersion looks like death on a cross or burial in an above-ground sepulchre.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 16, 2017)

It's hard to dunk babies, for one. Jokes aside, yes, we usually adopt sprinkling or pouring, but not because of rote tradition (common Pergy!! Give us a little more credit than that). Check out the connection between John's baptism with how Scripture relates it to OT purification rituals in John 3:22-25; those OT ritual cleansings took place via sprinkling. As to pouring, we go to Acts 1:5, where Jesus tells the disciples that they will be *baptized* with the Spirit not many days from then. What did that *baptism* look like? We read of Peters own description/account of it in Acts 2, where he quotes Joel: "And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will POUR FORTH of My Spirit. . .Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days POUR FORTH of My Spirit." (vv17-18). Jesus said they would be baptized by the Spirit, but they weren't immersed; it was poured forth upon them. At the end of the day though, this isn't an issue I want to be a martyr for. I'd much rather give my life standing for justification than the mode of baptism


----------



## Jake (Aug 16, 2017)

There are paedo-baptists who immerse, at least some times. For example, many (most?) Eastern Orthodox immerse when convenient, especially infants. I don't know of Presbyterians who immerse though, to your question more specifically (well, I've seen some more evangelical/less confessional churches in denominations like EPC and ECO who give a choice of mode).

There are credo-baptists who sprinkle. There are Methodists who teach credo-baptism to the exclusion of paedo-baptism but have retained sprinkling as the form. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is an example of a Methodist who was credo-baptist, yet he wrote in favor of sprinkling as the mode. I've met some Methodists that do the same here in the South. I've heard there were early Baptists who did this likewise, but I don't have a citation handy.


----------



## BG (Aug 16, 2017)

We have different hermeneutics. 

We allow scripture to interpret scripture particularly in cases of religious words like baptism. 
The only place were Baptist practice a hermeneutic that allows secular Greek to determine the meaning of a religious word is concerning the word for baptism, you never see them claiming the Greek word for God actually means Apollo or Zeus you also never see them agreeing with N T Wright that the reformers were wrong about the word justification because after all secular Greek gives us a different understanding of justification.

As Tyler pointed out immersion and crucifixion hardly go together.

There are plenty of scholars that agree that baptism does not always mean immersion but sometimes can.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 16, 2017)

If you take Romans 6 to be a description of baptism, you must take it to mean that baptism regenerates. Understanding it as a text about our union with Christ far better fits its context in the theological stream if Romans and the overall teaching of scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 16, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> If you take Romans 6 to be a description of baptism, you must take it to mean that baptism regenerates. Understanding it as a text about our union with Christ far better fits its context in the theological stream if Romans and the overall teaching of scripture.



This... thread is not to debate which view is right, it is asking why Baptists and Presbyterians believe in different modes..


----------



## BG (Aug 16, 2017)

One group looks at Roman six and concludes that it is talking about salvation and our Union with Christ. 

One group looks at Romans chapter 6 and concludes that crucifixion entombment not underground and a three day period in the grave somehow indicates the mode of immersion.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 16, 2017)

John Y.

Your question is why do P and B differ on the modes of baptism. This is not quite accurate as a question.

Presbyterians are not confessionally committed to a mode. This is seen in WCF 28.3. No Presbyterian would regard immersion as an invalid mode of baptism. He may prefer another mode (for a variety of reasons), but he does not regard immersion as invalid. You may note this above in both the Calvin quote and my good friend Bill Shishko's article. 

The more accurate question respecting mode would be: Why do some insist that immersion is the only proper mode? I have no problem accepting as valid immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. However, I have dear brothers who believe that immersion is the only valid mode and that one baptized otherwise is not truly baptized. 

It is not Presbyterians who are hung up about the mode. Your question is really to immersionists who insist on immersion (there may be those who favor immersion, just as others do sprinkling, yet who accept other modes; this does not apply to them). 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 16, 2017)

Alan D. Strange said:


> John Y.
> 
> Your question is why do P and B differ on the modes of baptism. This is not quite accurate as a question.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your input, I have no idea on how Presbyterian denominations in the USA would handle churches who insist on a mode or perhaps handle a person who wants to be immersed as a baptised believer. And I will take your word for it that immersionists are more prone to only view immersion as the proper mode, that was something I suspected.

Pardon me folks, I am quite alien to this topic!


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 16, 2017)

John Yap said:


> And I will take your word for it that immersionists are more prone to only view immersion as the proper mode, that was something I suspected.


Here's the Westminster Confession on the Subject:


> Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. --XXVIII.iii.


----------



## Timotheos (Aug 16, 2017)

BG said:


> One group looks at Roman six and concludes that it is talking about salvation and our Union with Christ.
> 
> One group looks at Romans chapter 6 and concludes that crucifixion entombment not underground and a three day period in the grave somehow indicates the mode of immersion.


I do not find this genuine at all. I believe both Presbyterians and RBs interpret Rom. 6 as referring to union with Christ. Baptism is the symbol of our union. 

The 2LBC 29:1 says, "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

I recently baptized 2 adults (1 a former Presbyterian, sorry guys), and in my sermon, I made this very point. And I also made the point that only baptism by immersion can adequately communicate the idea of death and resurrection. The form doesn't have to walk on all 4s to envision crucifixion and entombment in a cave. Sprinkling doesn't do that either. I argued that immersion simply pictures union w/ Christ (as the water conforms to the person in the water making a perfect union or bond), that death and burial are best pictured in going under the water (since death could ensue if one stays too long under), and coming out of the water is a beautiful picture of resurrection from the death and entombment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG (Aug 16, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> I do not find this genuine at all. I believe both Presbyterians and RBs interpret Rom. 6 as referring to union with Christ. Baptism is the symbol of our union.
> 
> The 2LBC 29:1 says, "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
> 
> I recently baptized 2 adults (1 a former Presbyterian, sorry guys), and in my sermon, I made this very point. And I also made the point that only baptism by immersion can adequately communicate the idea of death and resurrection. The form doesn't have to walk on all 4s to envision crucifixion and entombment in a cave. Sprinkling doesn't do that either. I argued that immersion simply pictures union w/ Christ (as the water conforms to the person in the water making a perfect union or bond), that death and burial are best pictured in going under the water (since death could ensue if one stays too long under), and coming out of the water is a beautiful picture of resurrection from the death and entombment.



You're right I could've been clearer. I was simply trying to point out that Presbyterians do not see mode in the passage and Baptist do.


----------



## Timotheos (Aug 16, 2017)

BG said:


> You're right I could've been clearer. I was simply trying to point out that Presbyterians do not see mode in the passage and Baptist do.


That is fair.

The argument, as I frame it, is not that Rom. 6 says immersion is the mode. Rather, it is that the function of the mode (if the form is important, which by the level of disagreement here, it seems so) is best expressed based on the picture of union that baptism symbolizes (please don't read into this that I only believe baptism as a symbol). This is why Paul refers to baptism in Rom. 6 to make use of the picture of immersion as a demonstration of our union with Christ. So to cherry pick from the WCF, immersion is taught from Rom. 6 as a good and necessary consequence.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 16, 2017)

John Yap said:


> Thanks for your input, I have no idea on how Presbyterian denominations in the USA would handle churches who insist on a mode or perhaps handle a person who wants to be immersed as a baptised believer. And I will take your word for it that immersionists are more prone to only view immersion as the proper mode, that was something I suspected.
> 
> Pardon me folks, I am quite alien to this topic!



John- You are not an alien! This is not to say there aren't aliens.....there are. Most of them reside in Washington D.C. with high concentrations in New York, Chicago and California


----------



## Cymro (Aug 16, 2017)

Perg, I would recommend a short article by Pastor J.J.Lim of Singapore Covenant Church. It's under Study Resources, click on Weekly articles, and the one for August 6th,on, Ten reasons why they as Presbyterian baptise. It would contradict your contribution biblically.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 16, 2017)

If you've ever watched one of those videos of the Orthodox immersing infants, you can probably imagine why sprinkling is preferred among many. As a Baptist, I believe that immersion is best, but I would agree with others that mode is not really the crux of our disagreement. While I believe that the picture of death and resurrection that immersion paints is very beautiful and powerful, a case could also be made for the powerful imagery associated with sprinkling. At the end of the day, i would agree with Calvin that the subject of baptism is of much greater importance than the mode, although I obviously disagree with Calvin on who those subjects should properly be.


----------



## Tyrese (Aug 16, 2017)

It's probably unwise to immerse an infant. Wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the reasons Presbyterians reject immersion only.


----------



## timfost (Aug 16, 2017)

Both Hodge and Ursinus teach that the mode is irrelevant. Personally, though I think the image of sprinkling is appropriate, the mode does not concern me too much.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 16, 2017)

From what I understand the word for Baptism in the New Testament was also used in the Septuagint when houses, walls, or other Priestly cleansings were required. Can anyone tell me it that is true?


----------



## Cymro (Aug 16, 2017)

Randy , check the website I mention above, the Pastor deals with it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parmenas (Aug 16, 2017)

Tyrese said:


> It's probably unwise to immerse an infant. Wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the reasons Presbyterians reject immersion only.



It was previously mentioned that the Eastern Orthodox practice infant baptism by immersion. Watch this.
It is my understanding that infants reflexively hold their breath when put underwater.


----------



## Parmenas (Aug 16, 2017)

I strongly believe affusion (or aspersion, I haven't done much research into that yet) to be the biblical, apostolic, and regular mode of baptism. I recommend the articles on the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church's website.

I plan to read W. A. MacKay's book _Immersion Proved to be Not a Scriptural Mode of Baptism_ some time.

Edit: I certainly recognize baptism by immersion to be valid, but highly irregular. I was immersed myself!


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Brother, Romans 6 teaches us that baptism symbolizes union with Christ, which includes (but isn't limited to) union with him in his death, burial, and resurrection. Further, no part of baptism by immersion looks like death on a cross or burial in an above-ground sepulchre.


Romans 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his DEATH?
4 Therefore we are BURIED WITH HIM BY BAPTISM into death: that like as Christ was RAISED UP FROM THE DEAD by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been PLANTED TOGETHER in the likeness of his DEATH, we shall be also in the likeness of his RESURRECTION:"


Looks pretty plain to me. We are united with Christ, yes, but how...by being buried with him in baptism and raised with him to new life, of which water baptism by immersion is a fit picture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2017)

BG said:


> One group looks at Roman six and concludes that it is talking about salvation and our Union with Christ.
> 
> One group looks at Romans chapter 6 and concludes that crucifixion entombment not underground and a three day period in the grave somehow indicates the mode of immersion.


He was totally surrounded by earth and not merely sprinkled with it.


----------



## BG (Aug 17, 2017)

Don't forget air he was surrounded by air, at least on three sides.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 17, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Show me one place where _rantizo_ is ever used of water in the NT. Shisko needs to reread Romans 6:4. We are plainly told there what baptism symbolizes.
> To say bapto means to dip or immerse or bathe but the imagery is really of being cleansed through the sprinkling of blood is a logical leap the Apostle Paul did not make when he plainly said it symbolizes being dead/buried and raised to new life in Christ. Christ was totally inside a tomb, immersed in the earth, not just dirt sprinkled on him.



It's hard to dunk babies, for one. Jokes aside, yes, we usually adopt sprinkling or pouring, but not because of rote tradition (common Pergy!! Give us a little more credit than that). Check out the connection between John's baptism with how Scripture relates it to OT purification rituals in John 3:22-25; those OT ritual cleansings took place via sprinkling. As to pouring, we go to Acts 1:5, where Jesus tells the disciples that they will be *baptized* with the Spirit not many days from then. What did that *baptism* look like? We read of Peters own description/account of it in Acts 2, where he quotes Joel: "And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will POUR FORTH of My Spirit. . .Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days POUR FORTH of My Spirit." (vv17-18). Jesus said they would be baptized by the Spirit, but they weren't immersed; it was poured forth upon them. At the end of the day though, this isn't an issue I want to be a martyr for. I'd much rather give my life standing for justification than the mode of baptism


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 18, 2017)

Those who insist baptizo *means* to immerse ought to consult a lexicon.

4 καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ⸆ ἐὰν μὴ* ⸀βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων ⸋[καὶ κλινῶν]⸌* 

Aland, K., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition, Mk 7:4). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

The Jews did not *immerse* their couches and yet the word βαπτίσωνται is used for ceremonial cleansing throughout the Septuagint.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 18, 2017)

Can it be said that the Greek word translated "buried" in Romans 6:4 is used the same way as "interred" or "entombed?" Even now people speak of being "buried" in a mausoleum, which of course is above ground. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 18, 2017)

It should be noted that not all Presbyterians have a problem with an adult convert from say, Hinduism, undergoing immersion. Most of us would accept it as a valid baptism if the person moved into our church's geographical locale and sought membership. However, most (many?) of us, myself included would not immerse an adult convert. Each Presbytery may decide on exceptions by a TE. In Ascension Presbytery (PCA) a TE may take an exception to the presbytery's view that immersion is not the proper mode, but he may not teach his view and contradict the presbytery. This is going to sound persnickety on Ascension's part but we take the semi-colon in WCF 28.3 as a serious line of demarcation. 

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

We disagree on mode with the Baptists because the mode is an essential aspect of our understanding of what is signified in the act of baptism. I must say that the lines are blurred in 2017. I've seen adults immersed in PCA churches.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 18, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Those who insist baptizo *means* to immerse ought to consult a lexicon.
> 
> 4 καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ⸆ ἐὰν μὴ* ⸀βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων ⸋[καὶ κλινῶν]⸌*
> 
> ...



Well noted. It can mean "immerse" but not in every instance. Its semantic range is greater than many brethren will afford it.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> In Ascension Presbytery (PCA) a TE may take an exception to the presbytery's view that immersion is not the proper mode, but he may not teach his view and contradict the presbytery.



So if a TE takes an exception on this issue does he not administer the sacrament of baptism? Or does does he practice against his conscience here?


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 18, 2017)

earl40 said:


> So if a TE takes an exception on this issue does he not administer the sacrament of baptism? Or does does he practice against his conscience here?



It's only occurred 1x in my 15 years here. No, of course he administers the sacrament. He doesn't assert that immersion is the only valid mode for an adult convert, only that it is acceptable. He has no problem with sprinkling pouring as the normal way to do things, but if a church, or an individual wanted immersion, then it would be okay.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 18, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> It's only occurred 1x in my 15 years here. No, of course he administers the sacrament. He doesn't assert that immersion is the only valid mode for an adult convert, only that it is acceptable. He has no problem with sprinkling pouring as the normal way to do things, but if a church, or an individual wanted immersion, then it would be okay.



I simply seem to not understand what you are saying, and I apologize for this. I am thinking you said a pastor may take an exception to the mode (sprinkling) and still act against his conscience in good conscience?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 19, 2017)

Couches and tables can also be immersed. The normal way one takes a bath is, after all, by dipping themselves in the water and the normal way to cleanse pots and pans is to dip:

"The Greek word is klinon, from the root kline, a bed, couch, or resting place. The kindred term, klino, simply means to incline, bend, or bow.

Kline can denote an item which is used for sleep, or for reclining at a table for eating (as the custom was among the first-century Jews), or for transporting the infirm. It may thus denote a bed, couch, or pallet (Ibid. 437).

These items came in various sizes and forms, and it is not at all impossible that such an object could have been immersed in the Jewish ceremonial cleansing process."

And:
"Dr. James MacKnight, eighteenth century Moderator of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), commented on Romans six: ... the baptized person is buried under the water, as one put to death with Christ on account of sin....Moreover, in the same rite the baptized person being raised up out of the water, after being washed (84)."


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 19, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I simply seem to not understand what you are saying, and I apologize for this. I am thinking you said a pastor may take an exception to the mode (sprinkling) and still act against his conscience in good conscience?



Sorry if I'm not writing with much clarity. My inner ear vertigo has been running strong for 3 days; hopefully when I preach tomorrow the room won't be spinning.

1. Obviously, as a PCA pastor he must believe in infant baptism. The PCA isn't in the habit of immersing infants.

2. In Ascension Presbytery the prevailing view is that the semi colon in WCF 28.3, followed by the word "but" indicates that sprinkling or pouring are the proper modes of infant or adult baptism. 
_Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary*; but *baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
_
3. The prevailing view in Ascension is that the immersion of adult, or non-infant recipients of the sacrament, is a a faulty practice based upon baptistic presuppositions, as well as linguistic foibles. So, for instance, I've only ever sprinkled adult recipients. This is done after instruction in the proper mode of baptism and what the sacrament signifies. 

4. So, in summation, if a gentleman TE in Ascension believes it's proper and acceptable to IMMERSE AN ADULT CONVERT (caps just for emphasis--not meant as a slight) he must take an exception to WCF 28.3 and promise not to teach, nor practice, adult-convert immersive baptism. The adult-convert is to be baptized via sprinkling or pouring as per Ascension's strict interpretation of WCF 28.3. To the best of my knowledge, few PCA churches even have the cold jacuzzi in the sanctuary normally used for in Baptist churches. 
_
_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Aug 19, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> 4. So, in summation, if a gentleman TE in Ascension believes it's proper and acceptable to IMMERSE AN ADULT CONVERT (caps just for emphasis--not meant as a slight) he must take an exception to WCF 28.3 and promise not to teach, nor practice, adult-convert immersive baptism. The adult-convert is to be baptized via sprinkling or pouring as per Ascension's strict interpretation of WCF 28.3. To the best of my knowledge, few PCA churches even have the cold jacuzzi in the sanctuary normally used for in Baptist churches.



I hope your vertigo passes soon.  Of course if a TE wants to practice what he believes is proper, I see no way he could practice this in your presbytery, in that he would be acting against his conscience, and I would assume he would not be allowed to be a TE in the Ascension Presbytery. PS. If what I assume is correct then I am glad you are so "strict".


----------



## Edward (Aug 19, 2017)

I am aware of adult immersions that have taken place in North Texas Presbytery. So the practices of 


Clark-Tillian said:


> Ascension


don't appear to be universal. 

Thinking through the implications of the Ascension presbytery rule, if dipping is invalid, would a former Baptist who had been dipped who joins a PCA church in that presbytery need to be re-baptized by sprinkling, or would the former baptism be recognized?


----------



## earl40 (Aug 20, 2017)

Edward said:


> I am aware of adult immersions that have taken place in North Texas Presbytery. So the practices of
> 
> don't appear to be universal.
> 
> Thinking through the implications of the Ascension presbytery rule, if dipping is invalid, would a former Baptist who had been dipped who joins a PCA church in that presbytery need to be re-baptized by sprinkling, or would the former baptism be recognized?



I seriously doubt they are that strict.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 20, 2017)

Earl, the point is that Ascension Presbytery judges immersion to be an invalid mode. You may not agree with that Presbytery. But could you be a TE in it? Yes, as long as you promised not to teach the validity of immersion nor practice it. That would in no way prevent you from baptizing by sprinkling or pouring. The point is that Ascension is understanding the Confession to _repudiate_ immersion as a valid mode. Others take it that the Confession is repudiating the notion that _only_ immersion is valid. But presumably no one in a Presbyterian context is going to believe that baptism is immerse or bust.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 20, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I hope your vertigo passes soon.  Of course if a TE wants to practice what he believes is proper, I see no way he could practice this in your presbytery, in that he would be acting against his conscience, and I would assume he would not be allowed to be a TE in the Ascension Presbytery. PS. If what I assume is correct then I am glad you are so "strict".



Thanks, the vertigo did subside for Sabbath activities. I guess, I'm still not being clear. The brother doesn't believe that adult-immersion is "proper" but "acceptable". There is a vast difference in the two terms. He took an exception to Ascension's understanding of WCF 28.3. The exception is deemed acceptable as long as he doesn't teach/practice that exception. It has been no plague of conscience to him, and the church he serves does not, as most PCA churches do not, have the cold jacuzzi needed to immerse. It hasn't posed a problem for anyone involved.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 20, 2017)

Edward said:


> I am aware of adult immersions that have taken place in North Texas Presbytery. So the practices of
> 
> don't appear to be universal.
> 
> Thinking through the implications of the Ascension presbytery rule, if dipping is invalid, would a former Baptist who had been dipped who joins a PCA church in that presbytery need to be re-baptized by sprinkling, or would the former baptism be recognized?




1. Our understanding of WCF 28.3 is likely a minority view, in fact. Far from universal. Even the Ascension presbyters aren't in full agreement; but its the official/prevailing view. I;d rather not comment on North Texas as I'm unfamiliar with the views down there. 

2. I'm fairly certain I handled your second point earlier in the thread. I know of no church in Ascension that doesn't accept a previous immersion as "valid". Might be wrong. My own take is that, while it's "valid", it isn't optimal. "Re-baptism" is, technically, a misnomer; one either receives a valid baptism or not. For example, a Mormon "baptism" is no baptism at all. In Ascension there is disagreement on the validity of Roman Catholic baptism; each Session may decide for itself. I, and the Session of Middlesex PCA, accept RC baptism. We usually have spirited debates on this issue when a candidate comes for ordination.

Hope the helps.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Aug 20, 2017)

I'd like to add two more things. 
1. If the OP thinks the thread has been hijacked that was not my intention.
2. Ascension Presbytery is far from monolithic on some issues, although we do lean towards Old School Presbyterianism, there are a diversity of views on some subjects. Personally, I think that's fine, especially when we're discussing "fine" points, which is something we've been historically adept at!


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 22, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> According to Calvin:
> 
> "Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church."


Probably the best answer to this issue, as Calvin recognized the biblical pattern in the NT was by immersion, as per the Greek terms used to describe it, while also saw Christian liberty in allowing for other viewpoints regarding this issue.

My Baptist church allows for one to have been baptized as an infant to see that as valid IF done in/in a church that is biblical based, and we do not allow for Roman Catholics baptism to be valid, but a reformed would be. We would though advise them to at least consider adult rebaptism.


----------



## Held Fast (Aug 30, 2017)

Not to bake anyone's noodle, but I have witnessed air immersion baptism in a place with very little water while serving in international church planting. The indigenous church had determined the symbolism of burial and resurrection in Romans 6:4 as displayed by immersion to be the important part; the medium of water was neither practical nor hygienic. A pit was dug, and the movements of immersion baptism were performed. As they are neither sacramental nor landmarkish in their theology, it was considered a perfectly valid obedience by a believer to the commandment of Christ. Same church practiced a Presbyterian form of order, with Baptistic doctrines. They were birthed outside the Roman-Protestant or even Orthodox lines of heritage, but had a confessional life. Baked my noodle, and caused me to consider with humility my own outworking of my confessional commitment.


----------

