Presbyterians and baptists bicker like junior high school girls...
Sitting in presbytery ordination exams, many times I've heard the question, "What is the proper mode of baptism?" The required answer, of course, is "sprinkling," and that's what most every candidate says. Then the candidate is asked this follow-up question: "Will you baptize by immersion if asked to do so?" Well-schooled candidates respond with this shibboleth, "Well, I suppose an unusual situation could arise in which I would be willing to do so, but sprinkling is the proper mode and I would only deviate from that mode for an extraordinary reason." Some overzealous men, though, win brownie points by responding, "No and never! Live presbyterian or die!"
Presbyterians and baptists bickering with each other like teenage girls--that's what this presbytery ritual is all about. Assuming raising Covenant children is not the only form of evangelism presbyterians are doing in our day, we can expect adult baptisms in our work and in most of those cases it's our practice to immerse...
Why?Two reasons. First, it goes a long way towards protecting the peace and unity of Christ's Bride. Baptists are quite unreasonably opposed to sprinkling and pouring, so any adult I baptize by sprinkling who moves into an area where the only Biblical church is baptist will not be allowed to the Lord's Table unless he is rebaptized. Why should I jeopardize the future Table fellowship of believers in this way? When we're dealing with the weaker conscience of fellow believers, isn't it charitable to conform to their conscience when the conformity does not violate any Biblical principle?
And what Biblical principle is violated by baptizing new believers as Deacon Philip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch? Here's what Calvin says about that baptism by immersion:
They went down into the water. Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now (normally today) the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. We ought rather to fight even an hundred times to death for the ceremony itself of baptism, inasmuch as it was delivered us by Christ that that we should suffer the same to be taken from us. But forasmuch as we have as well a testimony of our washing, as of newness of life, in the figure of water; forasmuch as Christ representeth unto us his blood in the water as in a glass, that we may fet our cleanness thence; forasmuch as he teacheth that we are fashioned again by his Spirit, that being dead to sin, we may live to righteousness; it is certain that we want nothing which maketh to the substance of baptism. Wherefore the Church did grant liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat, excepting this substance. For some dipped them thrice, some but once. Wherefore there is no case why we should be so straitlaced in matters which are of no such weight; so that external pomp do no whit pollute the simple institution of Christ. (Calvin on Acts 8:38)
We should not be so "straighlaced" as to insist upon sprinkling, Calvin says; why get into "brawls" over mode of baptism when it's "such a small difference of a ceremony." (And by the way, that word 'ceremony' there should put Presbyterians leaning in the sacramentalist direction a little bit on edge.)
Second, the Westminster Standards agree that sprinkling is not necessary. Here's the statement:
Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
But you say it's "dipping" that the Standards declare not necessary? Right--that's the word used here, but the text of the Confession would mean the same if the word 'sprinkling' were substituted for the word 'dipping.' The point the Confession is making here is that there is not one single mode of baptism that is proper. At the time the debate wasn't over the legitimacy of baptism by immersion, so the Westminster divines didn't address that question. The debate was over the legitimacy of pouring and sprinkling and that's what they addressed.
But today, there are overzealous presbyterians who are having hissy fits over the baptists denying the legitimacy of baptisms by sprinkling and pouring, and they're responding giving tit for tat.
Enough already. If baptists refuse Table fellowship to those baptized by sprinkling or pouring, let's immerse those coming to faith as adults. Why use the sacrament of baptism to prolong bickering that sounds like junior high school girls on the playground?
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- June 2013 (16)
- May 2013 (28)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Ross on Hold me back...
- Steve Morris on Hold me back...
- Ross on Hold me back...
- Jacob Johnston on Hold me back...
- Andrew Halsey on Hold me back...
Comments
Seriously. You can't exclude us--we ought to exclude you! Between Presbyterians down here there is the occasional back and forth over wine or grape juice. I think you've already discussed this so any barking dogs can google your thoughts on that.
It's just easier to bicker about symbols than contend for substance. Same reason we spend so much time talking about sports and the weather.
Hmmm...so we immerse so that later, when the new member church hops elsewhere they will be accepted there?
It seems to me that the argument isn't ever started by the Presbyterians... We accept one who has been immersed as a brother or sister who went to a Christian church that had a different style. But, if I moved and the only church was Baptist, I would be forced to deny the Baptism that I received as a covenant child and pretend to be Baptized, as I was re-Baptized. :-/ Not even a public confession/ testimony would be enough...I'd need to be Baptized again. :-(
My Baptist friends tell me that Baptism doesn't save, that the belief in Jesus Christ saves...and yet...they will not accept me as a believer. I don't try to make them change the way they do things in their church, but why can't they accept me as a believer, the same way I would them?
I think the Presbyterians and Baptists at official church levels should agree to accept each other. We should be back to back/ fighting the evil in this world together and witnessing to the as yet unsaved. Instead, we fight each other. Ridiculous.
Actually if a Presbyterian can't find a Reformed church he should be looking at a confessional Lutheran church before he looks at a Baptist church. But you're right, that mode isn't that big a deal. Using a novelty like grape juice is much more egregious... :)
I appreciate the symbolism of immersion. But for folks so genetically anti-sacramental, I find it curious that they won't accept baptism by any other manner. They are the only ones who do so - even RC and EO accept any Christian baptism as valid.
>>so we immerse so that later, when the new member church hops elsewhere they will be accepted there?
Actually, it's not those we expect to hop churches later, but those we expect to flee church discipline--that's the sort of person we immerse so they won't have any problem getting Table fellowship in their new church.
Joke.
The rest of your comment is good.
Love,
>>he should be looking at a confessional Lutheran church before he looks at a Baptist church...
We think not, and that is likely the dividing line between F-V men and non F-V men.
Love,
Dear David,
I must say the exact opposite of what you advocate: find a good Baptist church and ignore any Lutheran or Reformed assembly that doesn't demonstrate the power of the Spirit in its life of obedience and faith before God. Absolutely, choose a Baptist church that honors the Word over a PCA or LCMS church that is confessionally orthodox yet spiritually dead.
It is by their fruit that we are to know them, not their confessions alone.
Love in Christ,
David
>We think not, and that is likely the dividing line between F-V men and non F-V men.
I feel better with Calvin on my side. He worked under the Augsburg Confession without remorse. And you ought to remember I'm not an F-V man. Was Calvin?
>>I must say the exact opposite of what you advocate: find a good Baptist church and ignore any Lutheran or Reformed assembly that doesn't demonstrate the power of the Spirit in its life of obedience and faith before God.
In all fairness that is NOT the opposite of what I said. There are loads of Baptist churches that don't demonstrate the power of the Spirit in its life of obedience and faith before God. And there are lots of Reformed and Lutheran churches that do. But if both show such signs anyone who accepts the WCF should, it seems to me, have a preference for the confessional over the novel and sinful. After all the WCF describes the Baptist attitude towards baptism as sin. The WCF is right.
>>Absolutely, choose a Baptist church that honors the Word over a PCA or LCMS church that is confessionally orthodox yet spiritually dead.
I agree.
>It is by their fruit that we are to know them, not their confessions alone.
No, but lacking the marks of a true church is not a small matter either.
And per the previous comment if prefering a good LCMS church over a good Baptist church is a sign of the FV then, once more, I have Scott Clark in my corner. Maybe he's FV and just doesn't know it?
>>Calvin ...worked under the Augsburg Confession without remorse...
Calvin and the Westminster Standards are to the PC(USA), PCA, RP, and CRC as Luther and the Augsburg Confession are to the ELCA, LCMS, and WELS. Which is to say we did not speak against the Augsburg Confession or Luther, but directing souls to choose today's Lutheran churches. There may be good ones, but they should be chosen for their marks and fruit. Never because they're part of a Lutheran rather than a baptist denomination.
Love,
>>the WCF describes the Baptist attitude towards baptism as sin. The WCF is right.
Calvin and the WCF describe the attitude of many Lutherans today towards baptism as sin, too--the attitude we've seen firsthand ourselves among many, many presbyterians, also.
Dead church fathers aren't the best predictors of the Biblical commitments of those claiming their names today.
Which is to say that, increasingly, denominational affiliation is more helpful as a predictor of socioeconomic and esthetic than Biblical and confessional commitments.
Love,
Pastors Bayly,
One quick question, when you have a child born and you are attending a Baptist church what would you recommend parents do?
In preparing for the upcoming ClearNote Conference, I ran into an argument among a few baptists about whether one must be baptized into the local church. One man says,
"we must not compromise... Biblical baptism was and still is the immersion of the individual under water."
But later he's hyperventilating about being forced to re-baptize people:
"the pastor that was asked to rebaptize his member because they were immersed by freewill baptists. The SB pastor rebaptized him but outside of a church service. This was also rejected, and he was re-re-baptized to please the IMB."
The irony was just too much for me. But it gets worse. He's actually the one arguing that baptism needn't be in (or into) a local church, or even done by a pastor.
Baptized by your dad (or mom)? No problem! We don't require you to be rebaptized. Baptized with no intention of being part of a church? No problem! Wait, did you say one of your hairs didn't get wet?!?!? Oh man oh man oh man! Don't you know your baptism isn't valid? We gotta get you in the drink, pronto!
Talk about having things backwards.
Ok, I know that's pointing out the idiocy of the baptists, when you were pointing out the idiocy of the presbyterians. I just wanted to share the love.
>>what would you recommend parents do?
Baptize the Covenant child.
Love,
>Baptize the Covenant child.
Not by the parents certainly. See if the Lutherans would do it for you?
And of course when the child ages he'll be preached at that he must be re-baptized if he wants to be part of the church. I was raised and baptised in the CMA so I'm good to go for most baptists but all of my children were baptised in infancy. Believe me, given where I live I've given this a lot of thought as there is only one decent Reformed church within 100 miles and it is a small church plant. I'm very fond of my local Baptist church. I like the pastor, I have family there and we've worshipped there on occasion. But can I let my children attend VBS there and be told that they are not Christians till they make their decision? That they still need to be baptised? Attending that church as a single adult or as an older couple whose children who've left the home would be much easier. But it is extremely problematic when you have small children particularly. I want them to be taught about the need for daily repentance and the to lean wholly on Christ and God's promises at whatever age they are not that they need to make their decision when they reach the age of accountability.
>>But can I let my children attend VBS there and be told that they are not Christians till they make their decision? That they still need to be baptised?
Yes and yes. This is the least of the bad doctrine your children will be fed and the sins that will be promoted by other Christians as they grow.
Love,
Would a Baptist identify himself as the weaker brother on this issue?
I am a presbyterian minister (PCA) living in what seems to be the heart of baptist/anabaptist land. For a long while we were looking for a church to call "home." Unfortunately no church would accept myself or my family due to our being sprinkled. Our dilemna though extended further though as we were all baptized as infants: a double whammy.
Currently though, I have had opportunity to worship at a "dual-confessional" church. That is, a church that accepts both the Westminster and London Confessions. So the presbyterians can do their thing and the baptists can do theirs.
Insisting on immersion is foolish. What about arguing over re-baptism, though? It doesn't seem right, and if someone were to get baptized annually as if it were an altar call that seems highly impious. But should someone baptized as an infant or sprinkled as an adult or immersed by the wrong kind of Baptist balk at being rebaptized if he finds himself in Baptistland with no other access to the Sacraments? (I'm really asking, not just being rhetorical.)
Dear Brandon,
The weaker brother would very rarely ever identify himself as the weaker brother.
Love,
Eric,
If it came to that I can't imagine a choice other than having my kids rebaptized rather than have them go long term without Table fellowship. I would not consider it repudiating the baptism of their infancy, and would teach the children that we were doing this to help our Baptist brothers understand that we have been baptized.
(And I would groan and cry to the Lord, How long O Lord?)
For what it's worth, some Anglicans will administer conditional baptism in cases where it is uncertain whether a baptism had been performed or if whether the alleged baptism was valid (e.g. done without the Trinitarian formula). In such cases, the deacon, priest, or bishop would say, "If you have not been baptized, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen." The mode could be immersion (dunked three times), pouring (the usual mode, three applications of water), or sprinkling (again, three times).
Conditional baptism, as described here, never alleges, even by implication, that a prior baptism was invalid. Rather, it seeks to insure a valid baptism where one cannot know for sure if a previous baptism was valid.
And, again, just FYI, Anglicans (like the Romans and the Orthodox) recognize as valid baptisms any done with the application of water using a Trinitarian formula, administered by any baptized Christian. Ordinarily, baptism would be administered by an ordained officer of the Church (deacon, priest, bishop). But, where circumstances make it difficult or impossible to administer baptism in the conventional way, it may be done by any baptized Christian and will be acknowledged as a valid (though irregular) administration of the sacrament.
Now as the father of two junior high aged girls, I think you're being awfully hard on them to compare them to bickering Baptists and Presbyterians! :^)
Seriously, on one side, you've got the "rantists" wondering why the other side insists on immersion, and on the other, you've got the "immersists" wondering what the big deal is that prevents the "rantists" and "affusionites" from getting baptized.
One thing to note, though, is that the Baptist will not refuse general fellowship to a "Sprinklist" or "Pourist," just the Lord's Table and full membership in a Baptist church. Some Baptists will even open the Lord's table to all believers, baptized or not.
And yes, there are some who will insist baptism saves (closet Lutherans?), and some who fence off the table and membership to all who are not properly "Landmarked," but the long and short of it is that my sweet daughters beg you not to compare them with feuding churchmen. :^)
>>my sweet daughters beg you not to compare them with feuding churchmen.
Right, please extend my apology.
Love,
#23, quoting Bert Perry
//One thing to note, though, is that the Baptist will not refuse general fellowship to a "Sprinklist" or "Pourist," just the Lord's Table and full membership in a Baptist church. Some Baptists will even open the Lord's table to all believers, baptized or not.//
Yes, agreed - I am from one of the baptistic traditions (Pentecostal, originally); and I have never seen the Lord's Table excluded to someone who had not been baptised by immersion. As well, I have had some exposure to Baptist churches while here in the UK, and I have never any exclusion even there. As Bert said, the Table is open to all who love and serve the Lord.
(Anyway, I just note that to point out that practice within the baptising tradition(s) isn't exactly consistent).
>>I have never seen the Lord's Table excluded to someone who had not been baptised by immersion.
It happens all the time.
Love,
Actually, Ross, I was trying to say that Baptists often do fence off the table to those who are not immersed. I've seen it both ways. Our host is correct in comment #26.
(more or less, my comment was regarding Ursie's comment about not being accepted due to infant sprinkling....no, that's not the case at the baptistic churches I've been a member of...the "fence" is limited to the Lord's Supper and full membership)
Reality is here, though, that there is a very important debate to be had here. Does salvation require one to have an idea when they came to faith--a conversion experience--or not? Does the word "baptizo"'s root meaning of "immerse" carry such weight that we ought to insist on immersion today for its other spiritual connotations ("we are therefore buried with him in immersion"), or are we free to sprinkle? Do the "household" passages indicate infants were baptized, or ought to be, or ought it be believers only?
Respectful, yes it ought to be, but we make a mistake in starting to mock the other position, I think.
Can anyone hear recommend me the strongest defence of infant baptism you know of?
I'm pretty much convinced of the baptist position after reading the treatment in Grudem's ST, but before I set my course for good I'd like to read what people recognise as the strongest infant baptist defence.
Recommendations would be much appreciated. And thanks for not being unreasonably hard on baptists in this post, unlike some Reformed. But I must confess I struggle to be as sympathetic with the infant baptist position at this point in time:)
*here* not hear
I'll start for Henry; one of those that I've heard and read is that when Acts describes the promise being for whole households, that would tend to include very small children, given short lifespans and an acceptance of full quivers. Hence it is inferred that faith is granted to very small ones who ought therefore to be baptized at a very young age.
Presbyterians, did I get even close?
#27
Oh, I see your point now. Where I was coming from, is that I have never seen anyone excluded from a Baptist Table for not being baptised by immersion; and I had not even heard of this happening, indeed, before it was mentioned on this blog. Mea culpa.
David (Gray),
I'm with the Baylys. If your child is being taught, consistently, who he is by baptism - a covenant child, holy, with the obligation to repent and believe each day, then a Baptist VBS won't harm them. I think it's akin to a long weekend at Grandma's house where they kids eat too much sugar, stay up too late, have no one reprove their sin but indulge them in every manner of self-centeredness, and the like. They come home, eventually, and "wake-up" to real life again... the one where they're NOT the center of the world and they're much happier.
Of course, this presumes that the children ARE taking to your instruction well AND that the Baptist church in question actually teaches and lives the truth in the fundamentals. If either of those two weren't givens, then the result may well be different, indeed.
I'm not sure that it is wise, particularly with young children, five for example, to consciously choose to expose them to false doctrine. When they're older and have a greater understanding it is a different matter. It is true that over time they'll be exposed to all sorts of false teaching but why actually choose to do it with small children? I'm fairly certain that the Bayly's weren't raised baptistic but I was and I am aware of the consequences of the emphasis on decisional regeneration. I don't wish to burden my children with that.
I'm sure I will teach them error as I'm a fallen man. But should I consciously choose to do so?
And an interesting question is what does it mean for the Baptist church to actually teach and live the truth in the fundamentals?
Brothers,
I appreciate your statements about immersing adults who come by profession. I must say we Baptists are (too) stubborn when it comes to this ordinance, but our church has at least consented to welcome all professing believers, regardless of denomination, to the Lord's Table (of which we partake weekly). Much of the fault for arguments between Presbyterians and Baptists lie with us, but your suggestion would go a long way to bridge the gap.
If a Baptist does not regard himself as the weaker brother in this case, but thinks the Presbyterian to be wrong in both doctrine and practice, why is it incumbent on the Presbyterian to do away with his distinctives?
>>why is it incumbent on the Presbyterian to do away with his distinctives?
Dear Brandon,
Two responses: first, it's not incumbent, but loving and irenic. Second, if sprinkling is a Presbyterian distinctive, it should never again be done.
Love,
David (Gray),
Are not Tim Bayly and his two associate/assistant pastors - Stephen and Max - united on the "fundamentals" even when they disagree on some aspects of church life? Of course they are.
Baptist (B) and Presbyterian (P)talking about baptism... P: Would the baptism be valid if the person got wet up to his ankles? B: No. P: How about up to his knees? B: No. P: What if the person got wet up to his waist? B: No. (Insert as many body parts in the progression you wish at this point) P: How about the eyes? B: No. How about the top of the head? B: YES! At this point the Presbyterian explains that he and his Baptist brother are agreed. Water on the top of the head constitutes a legitimate baptism.
>Are not Tim Bayly and his two associate/assistant pastors - Stephen and Max - united on the "fundamentals" even when they disagree on some aspects of church life?
I would say they are united on some fundamentals and divided on others. Which I think is the historic Reformed understanding, albeit generously interpreted.
Isn't the point of the WCC that the mode doesn't matter? The real heresy is to insist that the mode is a big deal. The Eastern Orthodox baptize infants via immersion. Is that a problem (other than for Mom)?
If you baptize adults converts by 'immersion' because they might attend a church in the future who might not accept 'sprinkling,' then what about infants who are sprinkled and grow up to attend the same kind of church? It would seem that they would have to be re-baptized. I'm not sure how you're avoiding the problem, although I must say I agree with your thoughts as regards adults and immersion. I would just want to be consistent. Clear up my thinking on this if you would.
We don't immerse infants (or I should say, we haven't thus far), so we're inconsistent. But really, what we do is allow the same diversity in mode of baptism that is recorded in the Didache as the practice of the first century Christians. Love,
Add new comment