Why do Presbyterian's and Baptists differ on the Mode of Baptism as well?

[Pergamum]

One group looks at Roman six and concludes that it is talking about salvation and our Union with Christ.

One group looks at Romans chapter 6 and concludes that crucifixion entombment not underground and a three day period in the grave somehow indicates the mode of immersion.

He was totally surrounded by earth and not merely sprinkled with it.

 

[BG]

Don't forget air he was surrounded by air, at least on three sides.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Show me one place where rantizo is ever used of water in the NT. Shisko needs to reread Romans 6:4. We are plainly told there what baptism symbolizes.
To say bapto means to dip or immerse or bathe but the imagery is really of being cleansed through the sprinkling of blood is a logical leap the Apostle Paul did not make when he plainly said it symbolizes being dead/buried and raised to new life in Christ. Christ was totally inside a tomb, immersed in the earth, not just dirt sprinkled on him.

It's hard to dunk babies, for one. Jokes aside, yes, we usually adopt sprinkling or pouring, but not because of rote tradition (common Pergy!! Give us a little more credit than that). Check out the connection between John's baptism with how Scripture relates it to OT purification rituals in John 3:22-25; those OT ritual cleansings took place via sprinkling. As to pouring, we go to Acts 1:5, where Jesus tells the disciples that they will be *baptized* with the Spirit not many days from then. What did that *baptism* look like? We read of Peters own description/account of it in Acts 2, where he quotes Joel: "And it shall be in the last days, God says, that I will POUR FORTH of My Spirit. . .Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days POUR FORTH of My Spirit." (vv17-18). Jesus said they would be baptized by the Spirit, but they weren't immersed; it was poured forth upon them. At the end of the day though, this isn't an issue I want to be a martyr for. I'd much rather give my life standing for justification than the mode of baptism

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Those who insist baptizo *means* to immerse ought to consult a lexicon.

4 καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ⸆ ἐὰν μὴ* ⸀βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων ⸋[καὶ κλινῶν]⸌*

Aland, K., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition, Mk 7:4). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

The Jews did not *immerse* their couches and yet the word βαπτίσωνται is used for ceremonial cleansing throughout the Septuagint.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Can it be said that the Greek word translated "buried" in Romans 6:4 is used the same way as "interred" or "entombed?" Even now people speak of being "buried" in a mausoleum, which of course is above ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clark-Tillian]

It should be noted that not all Presbyterians have a problem with an adult convert from say, Hinduism, undergoing immersion. Most of us would accept it as a valid baptism if the person moved into our church's geographical locale and sought membership. However, most (many?) of us, myself included would not immerse an adult convert. Each Presbytery may decide on exceptions by a TE. In Ascension Presbytery (PCA) a TE may take an exception to the presbytery's view that immersion is not the proper mode, but he may not teach his view and contradict the presbytery. This is going to sound persnickety on Ascension's part but we take the semi-colon in WCF 28.3 as a serious line of demarcation.

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

We disagree on mode with the Baptists because the mode is an essential aspect of our understanding of what is signified in the act of baptism. I must say that the lines are blurred in 2017. I've seen adults immersed in PCA churches.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Those who insist baptizo *means* to immerse ought to consult a lexicon.

4 καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ⸆ ἐὰν μὴ* ⸀βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων ⸋[καὶ κλινῶν]⸌*

Aland, K., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition, Mk 7:4). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

The Jews did not *immerse* their couches and yet the word βαπτίσωνται is used for ceremonial cleansing throughout the Septuagint.

Well noted. It can mean "immerse" but not in every instance. Its semantic range is greater than many brethren will afford it.

 

[earl40]

In Ascension Presbytery (PCA) a TE may take an exception to the presbytery's view that immersion is not the proper mode, but he may not teach his view and contradict the presbytery.

So if a TE takes an exception on this issue does he not administer the sacrament of baptism? Or does does he practice against his conscience here?

 

[Clark-Tillian]

So if a TE takes an exception on this issue does he not administer the sacrament of baptism? Or does does he practice against his conscience here?

It's only occurred 1x in my 15 years here. No, of course he administers the sacrament. He doesn't assert that immersion is the only valid mode for an adult convert, only that it is acceptable. He has no problem with sprinkling pouring as the normal way to do things, but if a church, or an individual wanted immersion, then it would be okay.

 

[earl40]

It's only occurred 1x in my 15 years here. No, of course he administers the sacrament. He doesn't assert that immersion is the only valid mode for an adult convert, only that it is acceptable. He has no problem with sprinkling pouring as the normal way to do things, but if a church, or an individual wanted immersion, then it would be okay.

I simply seem to not understand what you are saying, and I apologize for this. I am thinking you said a pastor may take an exception to the mode (sprinkling) and still act against his conscience in good conscience?

 

[Pergamum]

Couches and tables can also be immersed. The normal way one takes a bath is, after all, by dipping themselves in the water and the normal way to cleanse pots and pans is to dip:

"The Greek word is klinon, from the root kline, a bed, couch, or resting place. The kindred term, klino, simply means to incline, bend, or bow.

Kline can denote an item which is used for sleep, or for reclining at a table for eating (as the custom was among the first-century Jews), or for transporting the infirm. It may thus denote a bed, couch, or pallet (Ibid. 437).

These items came in various sizes and forms, and it is not at all impossible that such an object could have been immersed in the Jewish ceremonial cleansing process."

And:
"Dr. James MacKnight, eighteenth century Moderator of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), commented on Romans six: ... the baptized person is buried under the water, as one put to death with Christ on account of sin....Moreover, in the same rite the baptized person being raised up out of the water, after being washed (84)."

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I simply seem to not understand what you are saying, and I apologize for this. I am thinking you said a pastor may take an exception to the mode (sprinkling) and still act against his conscience in good conscience?

Sorry if I'm not writing with much clarity. My inner ear vertigo has been running strong for 3 days; hopefully when I preach tomorrow the room won't be spinning.

1. Obviously, as a PCA pastor he must believe in infant baptism. The PCA isn't in the habit of immersing infants.

2. In Ascension Presbytery the prevailing view is that the semi colon in WCF 28.3, followed by the word "but" indicates that sprinkling or pouring are the proper modes of infant or adult baptism.
Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

3. The prevailing view in Ascension is that the immersion of adult, or non-infant recipients of the sacrament, is a a faulty practice based upon baptistic presuppositions, as well as linguistic foibles. So, for instance, I've only ever sprinkled adult recipients. This is done after instruction in the proper mode of baptism and what the sacrament signifies.

4. So, in summation, if a gentleman TE in Ascension believes it's proper and acceptable to IMMERSE AN ADULT CONVERT (caps just for emphasis--not meant as a slight) he must take an exception to WCF 28.3 and promise not to teach, nor practice, adult-convert immersive baptism. The adult-convert is to be baptized via sprinkling or pouring as per Ascension's strict interpretation of WCF 28.3. To the best of my knowledge, few PCA churches even have the cold jacuzzi in the sanctuary normally used for in Baptist churches.

 

[earl40]

4. So, in summation, if a gentleman TE in Ascension believes it's proper and acceptable to IMMERSE AN ADULT CONVERT (caps just for emphasis--not meant as a slight) he must take an exception to WCF 28.3 and promise not to teach, nor practice, adult-convert immersive baptism. The adult-convert is to be baptized via sprinkling or pouring as per Ascension's strict interpretation of WCF 28.3. To the best of my knowledge, few PCA churches even have the cold jacuzzi in the sanctuary normally used for in Baptist churches.

I hope your vertigo passes soon. Of course if a TE wants to practice what he believes is proper, I see no way he could practice this in your presbytery, in that he would be acting against his conscience, and I would assume he would not be allowed to be a TE in the Ascension Presbytery. PS. If what I assume is correct then I am glad you are so "strict".

 

[Edward]

I am aware of adult immersions that have taken place in North Texas Presbytery. So the practices of

Ascension

don't appear to be universal.

Thinking through the implications of the Ascension presbytery rule, if dipping is invalid, would a former Baptist who had been dipped who joins a PCA church in that presbytery need to be re-baptized by sprinkling, or would the former baptism be recognized?

 

[earl40]

I am aware of adult immersions that have taken place in North Texas Presbytery. So the practices of

don't appear to be universal.

Thinking through the implications of the Ascension presbytery rule, if dipping is invalid, would a former Baptist who had been dipped who joins a PCA church in that presbytery need to be re-baptized by sprinkling, or would the former baptism be recognized?

I seriously doubt they are that strict.

 

[py3ak]

Earl, the point is that Ascension Presbytery judges immersion to be an invalid mode. You may not agree with that Presbytery. But could you be a TE in it? Yes, as long as you promised not to teach the validity of immersion nor practice it. That would in no way prevent you from baptizing by sprinkling or pouring. The point is that Ascension is understanding the Confession to repudiate immersion as a valid mode. Others take it that the Confession is repudiating the notion that only immersion is valid. But presumably no one in a Presbyterian context is going to believe that baptism is immerse or bust.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I hope your vertigo passes soon. Of course if a TE wants to practice what he believes is proper, I see no way he could practice this in your presbytery, in that he would be acting against his conscience, and I would assume he would not be allowed to be a TE in the Ascension Presbytery. PS. If what I assume is correct then I am glad you are so "strict".

Thanks, the vertigo did subside for Sabbath activities. I guess, I'm still not being clear. The brother doesn't believe that adult-immersion is "proper" but "acceptable". There is a vast difference in the two terms. He took an exception to Ascension's understanding of WCF 28.3. The exception is deemed acceptable as long as he doesn't teach/practice that exception. It has been no plague of conscience to him, and the church he serves does not, as most PCA churches do not, have the cold jacuzzi needed to immerse. It hasn't posed a problem for anyone involved.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I am aware of adult immersions that have taken place in North Texas Presbytery. So the practices of

don't appear to be universal.

Thinking through the implications of the Ascension presbytery rule, if dipping is invalid, would a former Baptist who had been dipped who joins a PCA church in that presbytery need to be re-baptized by sprinkling, or would the former baptism be recognized?

1. Our understanding of WCF 28.3 is likely a minority view, in fact. Far from universal. Even the Ascension presbyters aren't in full agreement; but its the official/prevailing view. I;d rather not comment on North Texas as I'm unfamiliar with the views down there.

2. I'm fairly certain I handled your second point earlier in the thread. I know of no church in Ascension that doesn't accept a previous immersion as "valid". Might be wrong. My own take is that, while it's "valid", it isn't optimal. "Re-baptism" is, technically, a misnomer; one either receives a valid baptism or not. For example, a Mormon "baptism" is no baptism at all. In Ascension there is disagreement on the validity of Roman Catholic baptism; each Session may decide for itself. I, and the Session of Middlesex PCA, accept RC baptism. We usually have spirited debates on this issue when a candidate comes for ordination.

Hope the helps.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I'd like to add two more things.
1. If the OP thinks the thread has been hijacked that was not my intention.
2. Ascension Presbytery is far from monolithic on some issues, although we do lean towards Old School Presbyterianism, there are a diversity of views on some subjects. Personally, I think that's fine, especially when we're discussing "fine" points, which is something we've been historically adept at!

 

[Dachaser]

According to Calvin:

"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church."

Probably the best answer to this issue, as Calvin recognized the biblical pattern in the NT was by immersion, as per the Greek terms used to describe it, while also saw Christian liberty in allowing for other viewpoints regarding this issue.

My Baptist church allows for one to have been baptized as an infant to see that as valid IF done in/in a church that is biblical based, and we do not allow for Roman Catholics baptism to be valid, but a reformed would be. We would though advise them to at least consider adult rebaptism.

 

[Held Fast]

Not to bake anyone's noodle, but I have witnessed air immersion baptism in a place with very little water while serving in international church planting. The indigenous church had determined the symbolism of burial and resurrection in Romans 6:4 as displayed by immersion to be the important part; the medium of water was neither practical nor hygienic. A pit was dug, and the movements of immersion baptism were performed. As they are neither sacramental nor landmarkish in their theology, it was considered a perfectly valid obedience by a believer to the commandment of Christ. Same church practiced a Presbyterian form of order, with Baptistic doctrines. They were birthed outside the Roman-Protestant or even Orthodox lines of heritage, but had a confessional life. Baked my noodle, and caused me to consider with humility my own outworking of my confessional commitment.