Can A Christian refuse believers baptism And not be Sinning?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The teach all nations is about Christ the baptism is if they accept the teaching and it follows right after the the teaching. Then they are to be taught to obey all things after that.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

Also Acts;
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There is the order of commands.

 

I think you are thinking about Muslims today, not what is in the bible.

 

It is Highly Unlikely...

...(IMO) that a believer can, or "would" refuse water baptism and not be in sin! :tonofbricks: The infant baptism issue is one I personally struggled with, but was convicted on, and followed Him in water baptsim several years after being saved. I can see both sides of this issue, and it is something the person must decide on.

Still, is it the blood of Jesus that saves us, or the act of following Him in-water baptism? That is a question I've encountered numerous times (in my ministry), and I've always responded by telling the person that if water baptism was good enough for our Savior, it should be good enough for us. Jesus demonstrated that baptism by immersion was essential in His ministry on earth, and we need to follow His example.

 

I think your solution is a perfect solution for the modern church, but for those of us who seek to obey the Lord's word baptism comes as soon as the person seeks such in the name of the Lord, not days, weeks, or months later or even after some class. What you are proposing is catechism before baptism. A new believers class can come after baptism not before.

 

Special case?!!! Who's name were you baptized in?

 

How many people do you think ask to be Baptized who have never heard the story of redemption?

 

It depends on if they are saved or not.

 

Would you provide a specific verse for this statement?

Where does the Lord state that a believer must be baptized or they have broken a commandment?

The reason I ask is because I wanted to make sure that God had added baptism to the ten commandments.

 

What? So if it is not in the 10 commandments it's not legit, right?

There are many commands of Christ in the NT that are not in the 10 commandments. Should we cast these aside also since they aren't within the 10 commandments?

The apostles commanded baptism. It's an imperative.

What we have going on here is a "I did it my way" form of soteriology that is not Scriptural in the least.

I find these teachings coming from Baptists shocking. They're nothing less than false teachings.

This reminds me, once again, of a fellow who went forward at a church I was invited to preach at, and this person wanting to be baptized, claiming he had then been saved, was told by the pastor of this church, in my presence, an SBC church, that he didn't need to be baptized. Foolishness. This fellow was never even pursued by this church or pastor, no follow up whatsoever. Subsequently after this, this church has no pastor and runs about 6 people at this time and are in serious trouble.

 

I am referring to FAL statement that believers keep the ten commandments and if they don't they are not believers.

He is making the same claim in this thread.

Where did the apostles "command" any believer to be baptized?

I see them instructing, but demanding such as "thou shalt be baptized" I haven't found.

Perhaps it is there and I just haven't read that part.

 

Do you know what the imperative mood means?

 

Yep, but again, show me a verse.

Of course, a question would be why the imperative mood is not also be applied to such verses as "women are to keep silent" or "men are not to touch a woman" or "women are to cover their head" ...

 

OK. So to you it's an option. Pick and choose.

I'll let you find this imperative in the Scriptures, then you can rend it yourself.

 

I'm not the one "picking" and choosing.

I asked a simple question about the strength of the argument FAL was putting forward.

If it is NOT a command, with the weight of a ten commandment, then the weight he is assigning to baptism and the salvation of a believer is faulty.

That in no way is diminishing the importance and the blessings those who have been baptized experience(d).

 

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


MB

 

The apostles are of Christ, and were under His authority. When they told others to be baptized, it was a command. For you to come up with how much weight this carries/is it as weighty as the 10 commandments is ridiculous and an incorrigible stance. I can't imagine how well received your questioning of their authority would have been concerning baptism as an imperative. I'm guessing you would have been in a dire predicament both doctrinally and positionally.

If it came, and it did, from the authority of Christ, it carries much weight.

That you, not fal, are calling into question just how much weight the command of baptism carries is unfortunate and fallacious.