# Should Presbyterians ever immerse?



## Kevin (Sep 3, 2009)

Here is a (non-hypothetical) question.

A family of reformed baptist missionaries are home from the field for a while. Two of there teens make a profession of faith & desire to be baptised. The parents are willing to allow affusion, but this is all new to the kids who have only ever heard that baptism=immersion. They do not live within many hundreds of miles of a RB church.

Since the kids made their professions of faith in my teen bible study, the first option was for me to baptise. That was DOA, since I would not do it (unordained).

The father is not ordained. The G-fathers both are but are hyper-fundies & very anti-reformed. The family attends & participates in the life of a PCA congregation.


A couple of issues; 

1) The baptism should not be delayed unduely. (one option was to wait over a year!)

2) If the kids are baptised by affusion & then sent back into a RB world they will likely be forced into re-baptism.

A local PC of Canada minister ( a family friend) is willing to baptise by immersion, in this case. 

What do you all think?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 3, 2009)

Immersion isn't sinful. I think in this case it makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2009)

Although there has been backlash against immersion with some Reformed ministers as a result of the Baptist insistence upon it, the standards of the PCA allow for all three modes. When they say that it is not a "necessary" thing to immerse this not the same as saying it is never to be done.

I would defer out of Christian love to the family's background, and baptize by immersion if that would make it a more comfortable and joyous occasion for them. The mode of baptism is adiaphora according to our standards.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 3, 2009)

Only on Saturday night.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 3, 2009)

Are these teens joining the church? Or are they already members of a church? Usually profession of faith and baptism are accompanied by church membership in Presbyterian circles. 

As to mode, our Confession says immersion is "not necessary" rather than "not allowed." Though I would say historically that it wasn't promoting the method of immersion (hence the clarification) but merely conceding that the practice was sufficient. However I'm open to correction on this count from more able scholars.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Kevin said:


> Here is a (non-hypothetical) question.
> 
> A family of reformed baptist missionaries are home from the field for a while. Two of there teens make a profession of faith & desire to be baptised. The parents are willing to allow affusion, but this is all new to the kids who have only ever heard that baptism=immersion. They do not live within many hundreds of miles of a RB church.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Dao (Sep 3, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> Immersion isn't sinful. I think in this case it makes a lot of sense.


 I think we ought to have two choices: Immerse or Sprinkle. Then everyone would be happy. right? Or does that go against the Presbyterians?


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2009)

Now you've just offended everyone who wants to pour... (using one of those big, silver-plated soup ladles)


----------



## he beholds (Sep 3, 2009)

Someone told me that there is an actual reason that we sprinkle. I had thought it was for convenience's sake, but he said it had something to do with blood being sprinkled in the OT. 
Is that correct? 
Do we know how Jesus was baptized?


----------



## blhowes (Sep 3, 2009)

I've always said that Presbyterians are "all wet" regarding the baptism issue. So I think it stands to reason that...  ...never mind...

 "How to Lose Friends and Influence People"


----------



## Kevin (Sep 3, 2009)

he beholds said:


> Someone told me that there is an actual reason that we sprinkle. I had thought it was for convenience's sake, but he said it had something to do with blood being sprinkled in the OT.
> Is that correct?
> Do we know how Jesus was baptized?



We sprinkle (or pour) as the method of baptising since the scriptures teach that method.

And Jesus was baptised the same way everyone else in the bible was annointed, he had the water poured on his head.

My question has nothing to do with the biblical or theological reasons, only what was the wisest Pastoral decision.

-----Added 9/3/2009 at 04:10:04 EST-----

Scott you raise a good question. The "Home Denomination" in this case is a single indy bapt church on the other side of the country.

The view of membership of the home church is so loose that they are surprised that they don't just baptise on the next trip to the beach.

And yes, since I am a (ordained) deacon I may not baptise. The reason I qualified it as I did was that I am a student under care with my lisc. exam in 2 months, so the ordination on the top of my mind is TE.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 3, 2009)

It's unlikely that immersion was ever used in Scripture, as it would bespeak the judgment of drowning, see e.g. the Flood, and the destruction of Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea.

Some early baptisms, including maybe Christ's Himself, would have the baptisee sitting or standing in the water up to the waste and then the water applied to the head by pouring or sprinkling.

Presbyterian churches accept those who have been baptised by immersion out of charity, and because it avoids the confusion of two "baptisms", when the singleness of baptism is an important part of its symbolism.


----------



## Skyler (Sep 3, 2009)

Of course they should immerse. How can you wash away your sins with just a sprinkle of water?


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2009)

Anyone who would like to argue for the exclusivity of any one mode, including sprinkling, as being the only biblical way just needs to stop right now, go down to your local seminary bookstore, pick up a couple of books, and then get back to this thread in a few months time. 

While I realize that there is the odd Reformed minister out there who would like to argue against the Reformed consensus and assert that sprinkling (or for some, only pouring!) is the only hands-down biblical mode of baptism, they have really become no better theologians than fundy-baptists at that point. 

To make it simple, if there was not some scriptural support for all three of the modes (whether through symbolism, logic, or what have you) do you really think that we would still be sitting here arguing over it? There have been pages and pages of theological literature devoted to this issue, and it will not do merely to assert that "x" mode is "the only obvious biblical course of action".


----------



## Edward (Sep 3, 2009)

Our previous pastor did at least two by immersion that I'm aware of. 

The biggest drawback is facilities. Most Presbyterian churches aren't equipped. Our session called a worship service to be held at a member's swimming pool on a summer afternoon (no evening services back then). All members were, of course welcome. 

Because of the logistical drawbacks, it's discouraged, but certainly is permitted (and practiced) in the PCA.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 3, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Anyone who would like to argue for the exclusivity of any one mode, including sprinkling, as being the only biblical way just needs to stop right now, go down to your local seminary bookstore, pick up a couple of books, and then get back to this thread in a few months time.



Since you brought it up.... which books would you recommend?



> While I realize that there is the odd Reformed minister out there who would like to argue against the Reformed consensus and assert that sprinkling (or for some, only pouring!) is the only hands-down biblical mode of baptism, they have really become no better theologians than fundy-baptists at that point.
> 
> To make it simple, if there was not some scriptural support for all three of the modes (whether through symbolism, logic, or what have you) do you really think that we would still be sitting here arguing over it? There have been pages and pages of theological literature devoted to this issue, and it will not do merely to assert that "x" mode is "the only obvious biblical course of action".



Hee hee. I enjoyed this. You've got what it takes to make it as a sober minded Reformed chaplain in a pluralistic environment dominated by theologically anemic evangelicals.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 3, 2009)

Hey Ben, let me get back to you in a bit on that. I just had to go through the painful process of packing up all of my theology books that I am not currently reading to put them in storage and make room for our baby (who should have been here two days ago - that kid is wearing me out, and she is not even here yet!), and I don't have the titles embedded in my head yet. A number are older works, 19th century and such. I think Hughes Oliphant Old's work on baptism and the Reformation may have a discussion on this, but would have to double check that also.

Give me a day or two and I will try and get a bibliography posted.

(Btw, were you giggling tongue in cheek? Am I already in hot water??? Help me out, brother, I'm thick!)


----------



## Lady of the Lake (Sep 3, 2009)

Edward said:


> The biggest drawback is facilities.



A simple solution is to make sure the senior pastor has a home on a lake so he can invite folks to his sandy beach to be baptized.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 4, 2009)

I was baptized in Brackish Water in the Virginia Beach area. Just find a creek or pond. It is summer time.


----------

