View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 05:43 PM
Hippo's Avatar
Hippo Hippo is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 600
Thanks: 75
Thanked 213 Times in 133 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK View Post
Speaking from the Baptist Pastor's position, in the modern Amercan church, you simply have to take people at their word and do what you have to do with fear and trembling that you will be held to an account. Someone could tell me that he was baptized and be mistaken. Someone could tell me that he had not been baptized and be mistaken. There is no way to find out what the truth is. Therefore, most of us would err on the side of caution and baptize and ask the Lord to forgive any irregularities.

As to immersion, I confess that I do not agree with those who believe that baptism upon profession by affusion needs a 'do over'.

The LBC says, "Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance."

I take this to mean that on my end, as a Pastor, it is required of me to immerse. A man who has been sprinkled may have an 'irregular' baptism but I don't think it makes sense to 'rebaptize' in such a case because of the importance of baptism being a 'one-time' event.

Please correct me if I am in error!
To me your position makes sense.

I can understand an insistance that a profession of faith is required for a baptism to be valid, I can also understand why immersion is seen to be the desirable mode but I still do not understand why what is seen as an irregular mode renders the baptism void.
__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."