# Necessary? LBC ch 29



## Scott Bushey (Jan 6, 2006)

LBC ch 29

IV. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.[6]

6. Matt. 3:16, John 3:23

Anyone care to define 'necessary'?


----------



## Puddleglum (Jan 6, 2006)

If you weren't dunked, you weren't baptized. 

(I am not saying that all Baptists believe this; only that this is what the Confession is saying - and some Baptists do agree).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 6, 2006)

This is from the 1689 LBC, right? 

Related question -- is there a commentary on the 1644 or 1689 LBC?


----------



## Mike (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> This is from the 1689 LBC, right?


Yes. That is from the 2nd LBC, written in 1677, called the "1689 Baptist Confession of Faith."



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Related question -- is there a commentary on the 1644 or 1689 LBC?


Not that I know of, but there is no reason I would know. A commentary on the WCF would be appropriate at most parts in the latter, though.

[Edited on 1-7-2006 by Mike]


----------



## Mike (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> LBC ch 29
> 
> IV. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.[6]
> ...


Necessary: required, totally requisite. 

However, I would think that "due administration" might rightly understood to make the point not as harsh as it could be.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mike_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Thanks. I was wondering if there was a Baptist who had commented on the Baptist distinctives of the LBC.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jan 6, 2006)

Sam Waldron has a commentary out on the 1689 Confession. On p. 357, he comments on 'due administration' as follows: "This may mean its 'proper, fitting, or suitable' administration. The Confession does not take up all the possible irregularities. It does not manifest a rigid, externalistic, or superstitious fascination with how much water is used."


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Sam Waldron has a commentary out on the 1689 Confession. On p. 357, he comments on 'due administration' as follows: "This may mean its 'proper, fitting, or suitable' administration. The Confession does not take up all the possible irregularities. It does not manifest a rigid, externalistic, or superstitious fascination with how much water is used."



Waldron's commentary is excellent. It is very useful, even for the Presbyterian. It is modern, so for example it deals with charismatism in the chapter on the Scriptures. Since so much of the 1689 coincides with the WCF, I would highly recommend it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> ...



I found it available at Grace & Truth Books: _A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith_ by Samuel Waldron. Thanks, gentlemen!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> If you weren't dunked, you weren't baptized.
> 
> (I am not saying that all Baptists believe this; only that this is what the Confession is saying - and some Baptists do agree).



This is what, I believe, Pipers leadership is struggling with.......


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 7, 2006)

Didn't the first Baptists 'pour'?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 8, 2006)

> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance



Correctly administered, it is _necessary_ to immerse the receiving person of this ordinance.

[Edited on 1-8-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puddleglum (Jan 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> ...



Isn't part of the issue that Baptists believe that if you weren't a Christian when you got wet, it doesn't matter how much water was used - you still weren't _really_ baptized?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Yes; it is part and parcel. See this article:

http://www.bbcmpls.org/What_is_the_Present_Status_of_the_Issue_12_29_05


----------



## Steve Owen (Jan 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Didn't the first Baptists 'pour'?



It depends whom you mean by the 'First Baptists.' There's no doubt in my mind that the baptisms in the NT were by immersion and I'm glad to have the support for this of both Luther and Calvin.

Pre-Reformation Baptists like the Paulicians appear to have baptized by immersion, but the first Anabaptists did it by affusion.

However, the Particular Baptists got it right from the start.

1646 London Confession:-
Art. XXXIX
*Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or that are made disciples; who upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and afterwards to partake of the Lord's Supper.*

ART. XL
*That the way and manner of dispensing this ordinance, is dipping or plunging the body underwater; It being a sign must answer the things signified, which is, that interest the saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ: and that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be raised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ* Matt 3:16; Mark 1:9 reads (into Jordan) in Greek; John 3:23; Acts 8:38; Rev 1:5, 7:14; Heb 10:22; Rom 6:3-6; 1Cor 15:28-29. *The word baptizo signifies to dip or plunge (yet so as convenient garments be both upon the administrator and subject with all modesty).*

Martin


----------

