# immersion for transfers into PCA & other?



## Wayne (Nov 9, 2009)

It's late in the day and my brain's not ticking--could use some help here.

What is the proper response for/to those adults transferring into the PCA or other Presbyterian churches, who want to be immersed?

I seem to remember some discussion or statement on this in the past, but just can't dredge it up right now and need an answer by tomorrow.

Thanks!


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 9, 2009)

Wayne, you are more familiar with our polity than am I.

Using the term "transfer" would seem to mean between PCA particular churches and would not involve baptism (as they would already be baptized members).

If we are speaking of new members, who were baptized in another evangelical denomination, their previous baptism would be accepted, whether it was by immersion or sprinkling.

If you have a new member, new Christian, they would need to be baptized by the PCA under our distinctive method, sprinkling to join as a member, at least that's what I assume from the BCO.

Is this getting at your question?


----------



## Wayne (Nov 9, 2009)

I did say I wasn't thinking clearly.

Situation is prospective members who haven't been baptized, but who want immersion. Like I said, I seem to remember seeing something that spoke to that, that said mode wasn't a real problem. But need to be able to point a patron to chapter and verse, if such exists. Usually I search these things out, but he needs it quick and I'm frazzled with much else on my plate.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 9, 2009)

Wayne,

Here's a thread that discusses this.

Some very reputable PCA people confirm that baptism by immersion, while rare, and while most particular churches do not have provision for it, is acceptable.

(I'll let you confirm the credibility of the sources)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptism-pca-28605/


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 9, 2009)

My pastor has immersed upon request on at least one occasion that I know of.


----------



## Wayne (Nov 9, 2009)

Thanks, Scott.


----------



## Nathan Riese (Nov 9, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> If you have a new member, new Christian, they would need to be baptized by the PCA under our distinctive method, sprinkling to join as a member, at least that's what I assume from the BCO.



False. They do not _*need*_ to be sprinkled in the PCA. The child administration of baptism requires sprinkling or pouring (56-6), but as per the Westminster Confession of Faith, immersion is accepted as well as practiced in the PCA, for transfers as well as for new adult Christians who are becoming new members of a local church for the first time. In other words, coming in to the PCA, immersion is fine, whether being transferred from a Baptistic denomination or whether joining for the first time.

I was actually immersed as an adult believer and became a member of the PCA. My PCA pastor baptized me by immersion in a pond. It was my request. It is not a usual circumstance.


----------



## Archlute (Nov 9, 2009)

Indeed. There is nothing in the confessional standards that would prohibit immersion, although I have heard attempts by some ministers to read WCF 28.3 in an uncharitable light. It says that immersion is not necessary to the sacrament, but it does not say that it is to be prohibited. The wording is reflective of a polemic that would counter arguments saying that immersion is the only proper mode. 

The didache mentions all three modes, and I would think that for a minister to reject any mode other than pouring/sprinkling would be to follow the same error as the Baptist, but on the other end of the spectrum.

The only men who I have seen attempting to argue _against_ the validity of immersion have been those PCA/OPC ministers who came from a Baptistic background, and who are attempting to create the greatest distance possible between their past and their current vocation.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 9, 2009)

Nathan Riese said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a new member, new Christian, they would need to be baptized by the PCA under our distinctive method, sprinkling to join as a member, at least that's what I assume from the BCO.
> ...



So it looks like our BCO requires sprinkling or pouring for infants, but not absolutely requires it for adults.

Although I've never heard of our denomination doing an immersion baptism, any idea how the particular church does an immersion baptism since we do not have immersion tanks and the related equipment?

Also, any idea if every session would permit baptism by immersion, merely to accommodate the wishes of a new member?


----------



## Edward (Nov 9, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> If you have a new member, new Christian, they would need to be baptized by the PCA under our distinctive method, sprinkling to join as a member, at least that's what I assume from the BCO.



No, pouring or dunking is acceptable.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 9, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Nathan Riese said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



As to how an immersion would be accomplished, the adult immersion I mentioned earlier happened in a river, I believe. Probably not all sessions would do it; some would consider immersion an "improper" mode, but not "invalid," and therefore they would insist on pouring or sprinkling.


----------



## Edward (Nov 9, 2009)

Wayne said:


> I did say I wasn't thinking clearly.
> 
> Situation is prospective members who haven't been baptized, but who want immersion. Like I said, I seem to remember seeing something that spoke to that, that said mode wasn't a real problem. But need to be able to point a patron to chapter and verse, if such exists. Usually I search these things out, but he needs it quick and I'm frazzled with much else on my plate.



Skip Ryan did a couple that I recall. Session called a special worship service for Sunday afternoon at a member's house, congregation invited, dunking in the swimming pool as part of the service.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 10, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Indeed. There is nothing in the confessional standards that would prohibit immersion, although I have heard attempts by some ministers to read WCF 28.3 in an uncharitable light. It says that immersion is not necessary to the sacrament, but it does not say that it is to be prohibited. The wording is reflective of a polemic that would counter arguments saying that immersion is the only proper mode.
> 
> The didache mentions all three modes, and I would think that for a minister to reject any mode other than pouring/sprinkling would be to follow the same error as the Baptist, but on the other end of the spectrum.
> 
> The only men who I have seen attempting to argue _against_ the validity of immersion have been those PCA/OPC ministers who came from a Baptistic background, and who are attempting to create the greatest distance possible between their past and their current vocation.



Adam,
I very much appreciate several points you make here.
1) Clarifying exactly what the Standards say
2) Pointing to an early church document that shows a breadth of church-habit

Personally, having been raised Presbyterian (from infancy), I struggle with the question of whether I would unilaterally consent to a person who said, "I want to join your church, and be baptized, but here's how you have to accommodate me and MY prejudices." What sort of initial attitude is being nurtured by the church? Should he get to dictate how many times he is plunged (1? 3?)? Are there any other incidental atmospheric considerations he would like us to have?

I think that in the first place, our decision on altering our ordinary mode should have as its basis a desire to witness, in some way, to the truth--and NOT to satisfy a person who will consent to walk with us, but only on his terms.

Presumably, our own preferred mode is _preferred_ because it is not only more convenient or promotional of worship decorum, but because we believe it happens to teach the truth BEST, and the most likely apostolic mode.

I have my own researched conclusions (negative) concerning how and why immersion came into the church, but I CAN conceive of some circumstances where I could apply the water in such a manner.

We should distinguish between what we CONFESS together in the Standards, and what we as individual ministers are willing to commit to, so far as biblical and best. The question in this case is indeed a "liberty of conscience" matter, the minister being bound to what he thinks is taught by the Bible. He should be prudent, and listen to his elders, but he is first of all Christ's agent, and he is duty bound to adhere to him.

A man can still object to immersion, normatively or without exception, and realize he is not necessarily standing shoulder to shoulder with his fellow ministers or elders. He can question its wisdom, and still perform the immersion, being in subjection to his brethren--with or without a protest.

I hope it's clear I'm not objecting to your post, or contradicting your excellent objective points, and personal observations.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 10, 2009)

> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> 57-5
> ...



It would seem to me, in light of the vows a member is taking, not really appropriate for a new Christian seeking to become a member to demand baptism by immersion.

Granted, differing modes of baptism are recognized as efficacious for the sacrament in the Westminster Standards and sprinkling or pouring are explicitly required only for infant baptisms by the constitution (Book of Church Order).

It would seem this is especially appropriate and comforting for those who were already baptized by immersion in a church where the gospel is preached- their previous baptism would be acceptable.

However, the vows one is taking as a new member, and new Christian, are, among other things to submit to the governance and discipline of the church and to peacefully study her peace and purity (doctrine).

I think this would likewise apply in a church that practices baptism by immersion. A new member would not there demand their own baptism by sprinkling or pouring as entry to membership.

It would not seem fitting, in line with the attitude and spirit of these vows to demand an unconventional form of baptism, particularly one that inconveniences the ordinary administration of the church- unless there were extraordinary circumstances, agreed by all, including the session.

One of the marks of a reformed church is a "high view" of the church. That is, that it is more than a loose collection of consenting adults- all independently reasoning out their own doctrines. It is bound by confession and agreed order, which in the Presbyterian denominations includes a Book of Church Order as well.


----------



## NRB (Nov 12, 2009)

I'm a new PCA member, I was baptized as an infant as a Catholic, and I was also baptised by immersion as a misled Baptist (they didn't consider my Catholic baptism as valid), but my PCA church considers my first Catholic baptism as valid, but my pastor light heartedly told me I had the blessings of both methods. 

My PCA church does not have the physical structure for a baptism by immersion. Not sure what whould happen here.
We have lots of rivers here though.

I agree with a few posters in that it would seem odd and unfounded and very In my humble opinion self pious for a new christian to want to join a PCA church and demand baptism by immersion alone. It would be like that person would have missed the entire point of a covenant baptism in the first place by concentrating on method instead of meaning.
I hope I contributed here.

Thankyou for listening.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 12, 2009)

NRB said:


> I'm a new PCA member, I was baptized as an infant as a Catholic, and I was also baptised by immersion as a misled Baptist (they didn't consider my Catholic baptism as valid), but my PCA church considers my first Catholic baptism as valid, but my pastor light heartedly told me I had the blessings of both methods.
> 
> My PCA church does not have the physical structure for a baptism by immersion. Not sure what whould happen here.
> We have lots of rivers here though.
> ...



Great to have you here, NRB

Regarding the validity of Roman baptisms, there have been some detailed discussions on Puritan Board.

You might find helpful a past thread where that was discussed:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/confessions-roman-catholic-baptism-39834/

and even a poll from which a lot of discussion flowed:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/validity-roman-catholic-eastern-orthodox-baptisms-37009/


----------

