# The LBC and Anabaptism



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2006)

Ch 29 of the LBC states:



> I. 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;[1] of remission of sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3]
> 
> 1. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
> 2. Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
> ...



If a Presbyterian that was baptized as an infant came to a Baptist church w/ newly recognized credo convictions, does the above demand rebaptism and if so, isn't this what the anabaptists did in their day?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2006)

joshua said:


> Yes, but that point _alone _doesn't make credo-onlys _anabaptists_ in the historical sense of the word, seeing as how the Anabaptists were amuck with all sorts of abberant and heretical beliefs, and the Particular Baptists were Puritanesque in _much_ of their theology. _If_ that's what you're implying?



Not implying that at all. I just wanted to point out that the concept itself is drawn from the anabaptist practice. 

What do you think this says about the formula? It is the amount of water and not formula??? I find it hard to believe that there are no credo's that have been baptised w/ less than an _immersionable_ amount of water when that amount of water was NOT available.


----------



## brymaes (Dec 2, 2006)

> If a Presbyterian that was baptized as an infant came to a Baptist church w/ newly recognized credo convictions, does the above demand rebaptism



Generally, yes. The letter of the law, as it were, would demand that their original baptism was invalid because of the amount of water applied. For what it's worth, some in the RB camp would deny this language, and I myself do not think that one mode of baptism or other is what makes a baptism valid.



> isn't this what the anabaptists did in their day?


Yes. But that doesn't make Particular Baptists Anabaptists per se. There is more to Anabaptism than exclusive immersion.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2006)

theologae said:


> Generally, yes. The letter of the law, as it were, would demand that their original baptism was invalid because of the amount of water applied. For what it's worth, some in the RB camp would deny this language, and I myself do not think that one mode of baptism or other is what makes a baptism valid.
> 
> 
> Yes. But that doesn't make Particular Baptists Anabaptists per se. There is more to Anabaptism than exclusive immersion.



Brian,
So it's an 'amount of water' issue and not formula?


----------



## brymaes (Dec 2, 2006)

> So it's an 'amount of water' issue and not formula?


You mean for the Particular Baptists? I would assume so. The formula remains the same with the exception of the amount of water. Obviously, the objects of baptism are also an issue. As I said earlier, my position viv-a-vis immersion is the same as WCF 28.3.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2006)

theologae said:


> You mean for the Particular Baptists? I would assume so. The formula remains the same with the exception of the amount of water. Obviously, the objects of baptism are also an issue. As I said earlier, my position viv-a-vis immersion is the same as WCF 28.3.



So there's something restrictive in the idea; the HS cannot work outside a pool of water? 

The WCF reads:


> III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
> 
> 10. Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21; Mark 7:2-4; Luke 11:38



The WCF does not shoot itself in the foot like the LBC does in that it says that dipping is not _necessary_. If a person was dipped, it would not make that baptism void. I don't believe there are any Presbyterians that would say that an immersion would make null and void one's baptism, whereas the language used in the LBC is clearly excluding.


----------



## brymaes (Dec 2, 2006)

> So there's something restrictive in the idea; the HS cannot work outside a pool of water?


Remember that most Baptists do not understand baptism to be a means of grace, but rather a testimony to a watching church/world, "outward sign of inward reality" where the sign is to the witnesses of the baptism, not to the person being baptized. While the LCF does use similar language as two who the thing is being signified to, I think that it is inconsistant at this point. Hence my rejection of LCF 29.4.



> The WCF does not shoot itself in the foot like the LBC does in that it says that dipping is not _necessary_. If a person was dipped, it would not make that baptism void. I don't believe there are any Presbyterians that would say that an immersion would make null and void one's baptism, whereas the language used in the LBC is clearly excluding.


I agree fully, and believe that there will be much to answer for on the part of those who reject valid Christian baptism on the basis of the quantity and application of water.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2006)

theologae said:


> Yes. But that doesn't make Particular Baptists Anabaptists per se. There is more to Anabaptism than exclusive immersion.



I agree. I was referring to the practice of _rebaptism_.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2006)

FYI

Sam Waldron in his A Modern Exposition of The LBC, says:

The Confession does not assert that someone baptized by another mode is not
baptized. Immersion is necessary only to the 'due' administration. 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.

Page 358

The Confession does indicate that the mode of baptism is not irrelevant. It
asserts that immersion is at the heart of the symbolism involved. The
authors clearly believed that detailed obedience to God's commands is
important and that such obedience involves baptism by immersion.

-Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith


----------



## brymaes (Dec 2, 2006)

> I agree. I was referring to the practice of _rebaptism_.


Indeed. Immersionism is obviously not the only reason they would rebaptize the hypothetical new credo in your opening post. They would consider that baptism invalid on two fronts - no immersion and no preceding repentance/faith.


----------



## brymaes (Dec 2, 2006)

> Sam Waldron in his A Modern Exposition of The LBC, says:


Unfortunately, there was no provision made for handling unduly administered baptisms in any of the more prominent Baptist confessions, catechisms, or covenants.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 2, 2006)

theologae said:


> Indeed. Immersionism is obviously not the only reason they would rebaptize the hypothetical new credo in your opening post. They would consider that baptism invalid on two fronts - no immersion and no preceding repentance/faith.



Don't get me started............


----------

