Can A Christian refuse believers baptism And not be Sinning?

Please quote who on the bb is "arguing away these truths." I haven't read any post on this thread of that sort.

My you paint with a wide brush!

Again, please quote the poster "who rejected..."

So you have the ability to look into the heart of a believer and determine what is rebellion and what is not? I thought that only the Scripture could divide between soul (what is fleshly) and spirit (what is of God).

Did someone elect you as the arbitrator between God and man that you determine what the Holy Spirit will prick the conscience of the believer?

It isn't merely the "answer of a good conscience toward God."

My but again we see the proclamation of salvation being validated by baptism.

Of course, there isn't any admission that a person can for political, family / peer, emotional persuasion or a host of other fleshly reasons be a fake. "Bless God, baptism is proof positive evidence of the person's salvation!"

The problem with your statement, "obedience can only come from genuine regeneration," is false.

Any person can obey, but that doesn't mean that they are saved.

Soldiers in the Muslim army would be an example.

 

Christians cannot lose fellowship with God.

 

I did.

I stated that the balance of the NT use of the word does not support it being a command.

Good, we agree on that statement.

For starting out good, you are slipping.

There are many reasons a person might refuse baptism.

> Perhaps they want to wait - reasons might be personal, or that a grouping might be invited, or many other such reasons.

> Perhaps there is physical/emotional distress in which time and growth may or may not assuage.

> Perhaps there is doctrinal misunderstanding that will need time for the person to work through.

There are many reasons why baptism might not happen or be delayed.

Has anyone on the board ever received the message, I am "most likely not being saved" - perhaps if they come from the easy believism, repeat after me, soul winning, types. But then the "saved" person is conditioned in to responding "yes" by the "soul winner." In that conditioning, they probably would get wet out of persuasion but not conversion.

Why? What scriptural proof of you of that view?

I have never read that John Huss, Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale were ever "immersed" in water as Baptists. Perhaps I am wrong, but I recall (though not quite old enough to be an eye witness) each being "sprinkled" and if they "doubted their salvation" there is no record of it.

 

Like I said anyone refusing Baptism would be suspect as to being saved. Baptism is a command and you have given no scriptural proof to the contrary.

 

Paul stated that he did not come to baptize but to preach the gospel. Obviously Paul saw the gospel as more important.

I would say that someone openly proclaiming Christ is more of a public statement today than "baptism" demonstrates in a church today.

 

[SIZE=+0]Well of course the preaching of the gospel is more important. I am not sure why you would even think it needed to be stated. However that does not mean that Baptism has little or no importance as it is a command. What has happened today is exactly what you are suggesting that Baptism has little value and this is just one reason the church is in such distress as it is in rebellion against the God it claims to honor. Baptism is a command and every instance in the scripture shows it coming immediately after conversion not to be done at our own convenience.
[/SIZE]

 

Having taught at the university I saw very few who went to church with their parents who could even give a half baked reason for their faith. When looking at those who came to Christ at the university who came from non-Christian homes compared to those who came from church going homes there was a huge difference in their boldness and commitment to Christ.

Making a public proclamation of their faith in Christ requires more of a cost (although not close to possible execution) than baptism in a church building being attended by the church choir. A public proclamation today would be closer to baptism in the NT.

My wife was baptized in the ocean and it was interesting to see what people on the beach thought.

The promotion of baptism over genuine discipleship is what diminishes the value of baptism.

 

1 Corinthians 3:8
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

John 3
John Testifies Again About Jesus
22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized. 24 (This was before John was put in prison.) 25 An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26 They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

27 To this John replied, “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven. 28 You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead of him.’ 29 The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30 He must become greater; I must become less.”[Some interpreters end the quotation with verse 36.]

John 4

1 Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

If Paul was not baptizing does that mean the converted believers did not get water baptized by someone else?

 

I still do not understand where you are coming from. Who diminished discipleship for the purpose of promoting Baptism?

 

An understanding of baptism is essential to understanding what it meant and what it means. It is to be much more than a dunk in the water.

 

If they are convinced that their infant baptism was valid, for them it would not be sin.

Only until God spoke to their heart (and I believe He would eventually), and they were convicted of their need to follow in this first act of simple obedience, would they at that point be called into question for wilfully refusing something that is traditionally expected.

However, with water baptism ranging from sprinkling to immersion, and the teaching of certain faiths also going to extremes, such as one faith teaching salvation cannot be accomplished without water baptism, and another teaching that it is a symbolic representation of Christ death, burial, and resurrection (which is my belief), is it not reasonable that some might, by that very teaching, be persuaded that salvation is not accomplished by water baptism, and himself go to the extreme...and not get baptised?

For example: a man sits under preaching that unless one be water baptised, they cannot be saved. Because this man has gained an understanding that this teaching is in error, and that salvation is accomplished through the death of Christ, he decides not to be baptised.

I would not consider that man to be sinning. But, as I said, because I have utmost confidence that God will instruct a man that is truly born again, I believe that eventually (and we all progress at different rates) God will convict him of even the fact that he is sitting under teaching that is in error, and will move that man to move on.

Then, we look at circumstances for this man, such as he fellowships in a place where his entire family fellowships, and feels that his attendance there helps to keep his family in the fellowship.

We could present many hypothetical situations for the diverse conditions for believers, but I don't think we can say that a man that refuses to be baptised can always be said to be in wilfull nor habitual sin.

God bless.

 

Compare how many have been dunked and how many are truly disciples who make disciples.

There are people who have been baptized multiple times. What was their understanding?

Look around in the church and notice how many have been baptized and how many are making disciples. Doubtful that happened in the NT much among believers.

Baptism is only one command among many (1207 times) in the NT.

 

Isn't it how John the Baptist did it, to prepare the way for Christ that symbolizes what comes from above did not Jesus continue it with His disciple's. It is a symbol of what comes from above. It clears our conscience before God it is important unless you have Jesus hung right besides you saying today you will be in paradise that gave the thief a clear conscience.

In my own experience and my own study baptism cleared my conscience before God and prepared my way to the path that God prepared for me to receive. I was saved at 11 stopped in my tracts until 26 when I was Baptized to come to a point realizing what I needed did in fact come from above.

I will not try to judge, but as for me water baptism is in my path that God prepared for me in advance for me to do. I never would believe this is coming from a Baptist area of the BB. I do believe anyone can make anything into a work instead of a desire given to us by Christ by His word.

 

I am still at a loss at what you are trying to say. Sorry.

 

I have not read the thread in it's entirety, but will just bring up a point that has probably already been mentioned.


We read here:



Matthew 28:19

King James Version (KJV)

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


A strict interpretation making this water baptism is held by groups such as you mention, and unfortunately is even held among the members of fellowships we would recognize as sound in doctrine. But what the preacher and teacher believes is not always the same thing that the individual member believes.

Here, Christ commands that they teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Would we limit that to water baptism, or would we see that the intent is to bring people into relationship with God through an association that goes beyond a public declaration of the individual of association.

Consider:



1 Corinthians 10

King James Version (KJV)

1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;


The "fathers" were found in association with Moses. I think this is the intent of Mathew 28:19 myself, though I do think that water baptism is an important step of public profession of Christ, and in picture, represents our death, burial, and resurrection with Him.


God bless.

 

Understanding Baptism is not the issue. Understanding how to be saved is. If the presentation of the plan of salvation is not proper then no amount of teaching on baptism will suffice. If a person says that they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior then they need to be baptized and it not put off.

 

Just knowing that God commands it is enough.

 

Yes, we shouldn't baptize anyone any longer, like many of us were, AT salvation. Rather, they should have a thorough understanding of the doctrine of baptism first, and take a course in what baptism means culturally. I mean, that is what Jesus taught, correct?

Maybe they shouldn't get saved either, until they understand the many theologies and angles of soteriology, then take a test after several classes.

Maybe they shouldn't join or go to church until they have a good theological understanding of ecclesiology, then they can go to a few classes, then they can come to church. You wouldn't want them to come unless they were knowledgable and genuine you know.

Perhaps they shouldn't repent of their sins, until they understand hamartiology, and the doctrine of repentance, then they can take a class, and we can examine their wool, and determine if it is to our liking.

Yes, none should be received, nor should their salvation be thought of as genuine or valid enough to follow the Lords command to baptize believers until they pass these rigorous tests we set in order.