An Observation on the LBC

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

The LBC statement concerning the mode of Baptism is written like this:

4._____Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )

Dipping is necessary for the due administration of this ordinance. Does this mean that any other mode - such as sprinkling - is not proper, and, consequently, not a valid baptism?

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Herald]

Does this mean that any other mode - such as sprinkling - is not proper, and, consequently, not a valid baptism?

Blessings,

Rob

Yes, although there are some confessional subscribers who take exception to mode. But generally speaking, immersion or dipping is considered the biblical model.

 

[py3ak]

Hi:

The LBC statement concerning the mode of Baptism is written like this:

4._____Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )

Dipping is necessary for the due administration of this ordinance. Does this mean that any other mode - such as sprinkling - is not proper, and, consequently, not a valid baptism?

Blessings,

Rob

I think some people might question the premise that "not proper=not valid". So that it would be possible that the ordinance was administered unduly, but it is not necessarily invalid. I don't know if that is what the framers meant by using the word "due", but I am not sure that you can get so easily from it to the invalidity of other modes.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

I think I am looking at the phrase "is necessary." If dipping "is necessary" for the due administration of the rite, then any other mode of baptism is contrary to this "Biblical" mode.

It seems to me that the LBC is saying that only Dipping is necessary - anything else is wrong. Those, therefore, who are sprinkled have not received the "necessary" mode, and are not Baptized.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Herald]

Hi:

I think I am looking at the phrase "is necessary." If dipping "is necessary" for the due administration of the rite, then any other mode of baptism is contrary to this "Biblical" mode.

It seems to me that the LBC is saying that only Dipping is necessary - anything else is wrong. Those, therefore, who are sprinkled have not received the "necessary" mode, and are not Baptized.

Blessings,

Rob

Immersion or dipping (which is really the same thing).

Robert, this really isn't a novel idea among Baptists.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

I think I am looking at the phrase "is necessary." If dipping "is necessary" for the due administration of the rite, then any other mode of baptism is contrary to this "Biblical" mode.

It seems to me that the LBC is saying that only Dipping is necessary - anything else is wrong. Those, therefore, who are sprinkled have not received the "necessary" mode, and are not Baptized.

Blessings,

Rob

Immersion or dipping (which is really the same thing).

Robert, this really isn't a novel idea among Baptists.

Thanks Bill!

I would disagree about the definitions of "Immersion" and "Dipping" because immersion can mean to unite without removing.

Would you agree, then, that those who are not dipped are not baptized?

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Rich Koster]

"In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity."

I like that.

 

[KMK]

Hi:

The LBC statement concerning the mode of Baptism is written like this:

4._____Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )

Dipping is necessary for the due administration of this ordinance. Does this mean that any other mode - such as sprinkling - is not proper, and, consequently, not a valid baptism?

Blessings,

Rob

I think some people might question the premise that "not proper=not valid". So that it would be possible that the ordinance was administered unduly, but it is not necessarily invalid. I don't know if that is what the framers meant by using the word "due", but I am not sure that you can get so easily from it to the invalidity of other modes.

'Due' from OED:

6. Such as ought to be, to be observed, or to be done; fitting; proper; rightful.

7. Such as is necessary or requisite for the purpose; adequate; sufficient.

Both definitions were in use during the 17th century, but I don't think definition 7 works because it would be redundant. "Immersion is necessary to the necessary administration..." Therefore, it seems likely the divines meant 'fitting' or 'proper'. "Immersion is necessary to the 'proper' or 'fitting' administration.

Of course, testimony from the writings of the divines themselves would be decisive.

 

[py3ak]

Hi:

I think I am looking at the phrase "is necessary." If dipping "is necessary" for the due administration of the rite, then any other mode of baptism is contrary to this "Biblical" mode.

It seems to me that the LBC is saying that only Dipping is necessary - anything else is wrong. Those, therefore, who are sprinkled have not received the "necessary" mode, and are not Baptized.

Blessings,

Rob

But just as necessary qualifies dipping, due qualifies administration. In other words, dipping is necessary, but for what? For the administration of baptism? It doesn't say that: it says "for the due administration". The use of the modifier could suggest that baptism can be administered without dipping, but that this is not due - fitting, proper, regular. So that unless something can be brought forward to shed more light on what the framers meant, I don't see them as stating that non-immersive baptisms are invalid, though of course a Baptist will believe that they are irregular (much as in a Presbyterian context the Lord's Table might be administered unduly or irregularly if no teaching elder were present, but that wouldn't mean that it was not, in fact, the Lord's Table that had been administered).

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

So, Baptists would say that sprinkling is valid?

Blessings,

Rob

 

[KMK]

Hi:

So, Baptists would say that sprinkling is valid?

Blessings,

Rob

I am confused. Are you asking what 'Baptists' believe, or what LBC 29:4 means? Baptists seem to be of differing opinions on this subject.

See this recent thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/authoritative-interpretation-baptism-1689-a-55462/

 

[Herald]

Hi:

I think I am looking at the phrase "is necessary." If dipping "is necessary" for the due administration of the rite, then any other mode of baptism is contrary to this "Biblical" mode.

It seems to me that the LBC is saying that only Dipping is necessary - anything else is wrong. Those, therefore, who are sprinkled have not received the "necessary" mode, and are not Baptized.

Blessings,

Rob

But just as necessary qualifies dipping, due qualifies administration. In other words, dipping is necessary, but for what? For the administration of baptism? It doesn't say that: it says "for the due administration". The use of the modifier could suggest that baptism can be administered without dipping, but that this is not due - fitting, proper, regular. So that unless something can be brought forward to shed more light on what the framers meant, I don't see them as stating that not-immersive baptisms are invalid, though of course a Baptist will believe that they are irregular (much as in a Presbyterian context the Lord's Table might be administered unduly or irregularly if no teaching elder were present, but that wouldn't mean that it was not, in fact, the Lord's Table that had been administered).

Ruben, vielen dank, mein freund.

Robert, I think you're hitting closer to the answer with Ruben's explanation.

One modern English interpretation of the confession (1975 Carey version) reads thus:

Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance.

While the term "accepted but irregular" is never mentioned in the confession, I would expect that it is practiced more often than not.

And as to what immersion means, in the Baptist vernacular it does mean the same as dipping; completely submerging the body in water. That is one practice that is almost universal among Baptists of all persuasions. I believe the Carey version gets it right in that regard.

As to whether sprinkling is a valid mode; it depends on which Baptist you're asking. I believe Reformed Baptists would be more willing to accept a credo baptism by sprinkling, although it is not normative and would never be administered that way in a Reformed Baptist church. Now, ask that question to some of our fundamentalist cousins and you may have anathemas hurled your way.

More important than mode is when.

1689 29.2
Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.

This is where Baptists agree in toto. Take that away and you don't have a Baptist anymore.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

KMK:

If I were to go to a place where there is a general consensus on what Baptists believe, then I will go to their confession of faith. What an individual Baptist believes may be different, and there is nothing wrong with that. What I am looking for is the general consensus on the subject: "What most Baptists believe..."

Py3ak:

I agree with Bill that you have presented a clear point concerning that particular section of the confession, but it leaves me with another question:

If dipping is necessary for the "due" administration of the rite, then sprinkling would not be the right mode of administering baptism. An adult who comes to faith in Christ who is sprinkled rather than dipped - is such a person considered baptized? If that person then came to your church, then would you re-baptize such a person by dipping?

Bill:

I will not divert this thread into a semantical argument - the Bible definately does not use the term "immerse" to mean only "dipping":

Mark 7:4 - And when they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they (baptidzo) "immerse" themselves...

The preponderance of the evidence from the Bible is that the term used for "baptism" in the Scriptures (baptidzo) does not generally mean "to dip" but to merge together, to immerse. In Christian Baptism the person being baptized is being ceremonially united to Christ - a sign and seal of his union with Christ. The water is symbolic of the pouring out of the Spirit of God on all flesh.

But we can discuss this on another thread ... if you like.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Herald]

Hi:


Bill:

I will not divert this thread into a semantical argument - the Bible definately does not use the term "immerse" to mean only "dipping":

Mark 7:4 - And when they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they (baptidzo) "immerse" themselves...

The preponderance of the evidence from the Bible is that the term used for "baptism" in the Scriptures (baptidzo) does not generally mean "to dip" but to merge together, to immerse. In Christian Baptism the person being baptized is being ceremonially united to Christ - a sign and seal of his union with Christ. The water is symbolic of the pouring out of the Spirit of God on all flesh.

But we can discuss this on another thread ... if you like.

Blessings,

Rob

Robert, there is no semantical argument. I am simply telling you how Baptists have historically practiced immersion.

 

[py3ak]

Py3ak:

I agree with Bill that you have presented a clear point concerning that particular section of the confession, but it leaves me with another question:

If dipping is necessary for the "due" administration of the rite, then sprinkling would not be the right mode of administering baptism. An adult who comes to faith in Christ who is sprinkled rather than dipped - is such a person considered baptized? If that person then came to your church, then would you re-baptize such a person by dipping?

I'm no expert, and I'm in no position to make determinations about what baptisms are considered valid or not. But the whole point of highlighting the word "due" is to point out that while dipping is the Baptist way of administering baptism, it seems to leave open the possibility of recognizing baptisms that were administered in a different way. So as I understand it, if a believer was baptized, even if it was "unduly" there is the possibility of still seeing it as "valid" - and hence that person would not be baptized again. Actual practice may vary, of course, and I am simply telling you how I read the Confession, not supplying any argument as to its interpretation.

 

[KMK]

Hi:

KMK:

If I were to go to a place where there is a general consensus on what Baptists believe, then I will go to their confession of faith. What an individual Baptist believes may be different, and there is nothing wrong with that. What I am looking for is the general consensus on the subject: "What most Baptists believe..."

See Bill's answer. BTW, I don't think the words 'Baptists' and 'consensus' should ever be used together in a sentence.

 

[rbcbob]

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


Shift the emphasis to the medium and see how the debate would look!

Suppose olive oil is used rather than water.

 

[KMK]

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


Shift the emphasis to the medium and see how the debate would look!

Suppose olive oil is used rather than water.

Interesting. Does anyone have any source material?

 

[py3ak]

Bob, I'm not sure if I understand you. I take "dipping the person in water" to be in apposition to immersion. They used the term, and then made sure that people understood it. So the accent falls on immersion, as the following phrase is simply an explanation of that first word: and the "due administration" is still not the same thing as "administration" simply. In the historical context when the Confession was written I am unaware of anyone arguing that something other than water ought to be used, so it seems unlikely that the accent falls there.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hi:

So, Baptists would say that sprinkling is valid?

Blessings,

Rob

I am confused. Are you asking what 'Baptists' believe, or what LBC 29:4 means? Baptists seem to be of differing opinions on this subject.

See this recent thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/authoritative-interpretation-baptism-1689-a-55462/

Hello Rob,
Keep in mind that to most baptists they view baptism more as an ordinance to be obeyed by the new believer ,than as a sacrement to be externally placed upon the person.[although rightly administered by the church]
With that in mind, they go to Romans 6 and the language of buried with Him[speaking of what they profess has already happened to them] as you know,and have posted on several times .
Immersion becomes an obvious and readily available picture to those observing, more so than sprinkling,or pouring might.
So among baptists there is not as much discussion as to mode,unless perhaps the person being baptized is an invalid,crippled, bedridden etc.
The question presented to someone becomes more have you been baptized since you have believed.
I believe the professing padeos are brothers in Christ because of the Spirits work in them which they openly confess.[ The blood of Christ applied to them savingly by Spirit baptism] They will give account to the Lord as to why, when, and how they believe they are rightly related to the command to believe and be baptized.
It should not come to anyone as a surprise that baptist churches would require someone to obey the command to be baptized to be considered a member of the church- as far as voting,teaching,etc.
Although our confession uses the language of visible church, I do not believe we use that term in quite the same way as a padeo does,because of
how you would see placing the sign upon the infant as they did in Old Covenant times. Mode would not really matter as much to the Padeo,in that
they look to remain seperate from credos here as far as mode.
so, when we read "there was much water there" you would say that does not matter. Or when they went down into the water,or came up at of the water you might not see any significance to it because of the mode issue.

 

[JM]

Now, ask that question to some of our fundamentalist cousins and you may have anathemas hurled your way.

I'm a Fundie?

 

[Herald]

Now, ask that question to some of our fundamentalist cousins and you may have anathemas hurled your way.

I'm a Fundie?

You are?

 

[timmopussycat]

Hi:

I think I am looking at the phrase "is necessary." If dipping "is necessary" for the due administration of the rite, then any other mode of baptism is contrary to this "Biblical" mode.

It seems to me that the LBC is saying that only Dipping is necessary - anything else is wrong. Those, therefore, who are sprinkled have not received the "necessary" mode, and are not Baptized.

Blessings,

Rob

On whether sprinkling is a valid mode; here is an interesting situation. A longtime adherent of a Baptist church who is quadrapalegic, had a quickening in her spiritual life and wanted to be baptised and to join the church. The issue immediately arose: would the deacons risk limb if not life, carrying her wheelchair down into cramped steps into a baptismal font, or would baptism by sprinkling be practiced in this case?

I know the decision the people involved came to in this situation. I would be curious to see what others would do and why.

 

[KMK]

On whether sprinkling is a valid mode; here is an interesting situation. A longtime adherent of a Baptist church who is quadrapalegic, had a quickening in her spiritual life and wanted to be baptised and to join the church. The issue immediately arose: would the deacons risk limb if not life, carrying her wheelchair down into cramped steps into a baptismal font, or would baptism by sprinkling be practiced in this case?

I know the decision the people involved came to in this situation. I would be curious to see what others would do and why.

I have no idea why they would take the wheelchair into a baptismal font. Why not carry her and leave the chair? However, I did have an issue with my own son who has problems with his ears that makes it very difficult for him to submerge his head. In his case, I just got him as wet as I could and called it even.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Thank you - you have all answered my questions well.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[rbcbob]

Bob, I'm not sure if I understand you. I take "dipping the person in water" to be in apposition to immersion. They used the term, and then made sure that people understood it. So the accent falls on immersion, as the following phrase is simply an explanation of that first word: and the "due administration" is still not the same thing as "administration" simply. In the historical context when the Confession was written I am unaware of anyone arguing that something other than water ought to be used, so it seems unlikely that the accent falls there.

Hi Ruben.
Shifting the emphasis can sometimes diffuse the emotional baggage that we bring to debating a proposition. In the outlandish example of olive oil being the medium of baptism we may calmly consider whether we are dealing with a valid, albeit irregular baptism. So too with the mode. Our church regularly welcomes paedobaptists to the Lord's Supper as they are visiting us. We would not recognize such an irregular mode of baptism for church membership, but visitors who believe they have given the answer of a good conscience would not be turned away from the Lord's supper.

 

[LawrenceU]

Now, ask that question to some of our fundamentalist cousins and you may have anathemas hurled your way.

I'm a Fundie?

I reckon I am, too. . . . If mode is not important then let us just identify ourselves as Congregationalists. The attempt to make baptizo not mean immerse, plunge, dip is strained. (Not that they are the clincher in the argument, but isn't it strange how those to whom Greek is their first language do not have this debate-even though they practice paedobaptism?)

 

[timmopussycat]

Bob, I'm not sure if I understand you. I take "dipping the person in water" to be in apposition to immersion. They used the term, and then made sure that people understood it. So the accent falls on immersion, as the following phrase is simply an explanation of that first word: and the "due administration" is still not the same thing as "administration" simply. In the historical context when the Confession was written I am unaware of anyone arguing that something other than water ought to be used, so it seems unlikely that the accent falls there.

Hi Ruben.
Shifting the emphasis can sometimes diffuse the emotional baggage that we bring to debating a proposition. In the outlandish example of olive oil being the medium of baptism we may calmly consider whether we are dealing with a valid, albeit irregular baptism. So too with the mode. Our church regularly welcomes paedobaptists to the Lord's Supper as they are visiting us. We would not recognize such an irregular mode of baptism for church membership, but visitors who believe they have given the answer of a good conscience would not be turned away from the Lord's supper.

The same is true in our church.

-----Added 11/30/2009 at 08:33:46 EST-----

Now, ask that question to some of our fundamentalist cousins and you may have anathemas hurled your way.

I'm a Fundie?

I reckon I am, too. . . . If mode is not important then let us just identify ourselves as Congregationalists. The attempt to make baptizo not mean immerse, plunge, dip is strained. (Not that they are the clincher in the argument, but isn't it strange how those to whom Greek is their first language do not have this debate-even though they practice paedobaptism?)

Not really. Part of the explanation may be that they have a longer standing tradition based teaching authority and it is not formally set under sola Scripture. Also the Greek language has changed over the centuries between Koine and today. Anybody know if these changes include an affect on the contemporary meaning of baptizo?

 

[Pergamum]

Py3ak:

I agree with Bill that you have presented a clear point concerning that particular section of the confession, but it leaves me with another question:

If dipping is necessary for the "due" administration of the rite, then sprinkling would not be the right mode of administering baptism. An adult who comes to faith in Christ who is sprinkled rather than dipped - is such a person considered baptized? If that person then came to your church, then would you re-baptize such a person by dipping?

I'm no expert, and I'm in no position to make determinations about what baptisms are considered valid or not. But the whole point of highlighting the word "due" is to point out that while dipping is the Baptist way of administering baptism, it seems to leave open the possibility of recognizing baptisms that were administered in a different way. So as I understand it, if a believer was baptized, even if it was "unduly" there is the possibility of still seeing it as "valid" - and hence that person would not be baptized again. Actual practice may vary, of course, and I am simply telling you how I read the Confession, not supplying any argument as to its interpretation.

RUBEN,

You wrote:

I'm in no position to make determinations about what baptisms are considered valid or not

Who is the expert we need to go to then? Are there any evidences that would tell us the original intent of the authors of the 1689?



Would the Didache be an evidence that perhaps immersion was the ideal in the early church, but sprinkling was accepted as valid and accepted/but irregular and less-than-ideal?

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

 

[py3ak]

To make determinations about the validity of a baptism, you would have to go to the church where membership or admission to the Lord's table is being sought. The Didache would certainly be evidence for its own region and time.