Can A Christian refuse believers baptism And not be Sinning?

Was that not what Paul was correcting in the early Corinthian church?

I never said the ordinance could be polluted with sin, but when and where it is observed is up to the local assembly, as well as any modifications necessary by that assembly's approval.

I know that some give permission to the pastor to administer the ordinance of the Lord's Supper to shut in folks, and others who might be unable to attend the assembly. Personally, I think that is also no problem, for again it falls to the church to designate time and place and any modification (drink out of a straw, have the cracker softened, put it through a feeding tube ...).

The manor or just how the ordinance(s) are conducted are clearly spelled out in Scriptures and (as in the case of the Lord's Supper) corrected by the apostle Paul. Baptists corrected the baptism by immersion problem, however some "dunk" the elderly or physically affirmed by pouring water over them, or even by lowering them vertically rather than horizontally into the water.

For example. A person with such physical deformity as the John Merrick could not lay back or the weight of his head would snap his head off the spinal column. How was he to be baptized? He was sprinkled of course, but the illustration would fit with the assemblies ability to modify the ordinance without it being a sin.

The Baptists wanted folks to be immersed not because they didn't consider sprinkling as baptism (although some didn't) but because they placed baptism should follow conversion.

Personally, if a believer considers sprinkling after conversion baptism, it is between them and Christ. If the Holy Spirit is the "determining force" in that person's life, then that same Holy Spirit will guide, convict and do as He wills.

 

I think you are trying to play games with words. I am just using your words. There is no mention or example of how often to take the table. There is no mention or examples of open or closed communion, so those things are open although I do believe open is correct. Other wise no Apostle would be permitted to take communion who was not a member of that church.

You keep saying there is no command to baptize. However I would be willing to bet you tell people the proper way to baptize is submerging. Why do you do that if there is no command to submerge? Is it because there is an example bound up in the word? The same with baptizing right after confession. Baptism is a command and the evidence all supports immediate baptizing, not doing classes or waiting because not having a fancy baptistery.

I don't mean to be rude but your last statement is really not the sharpest statement. Have you really listened to what you said? You have the Holy Spirit telling one person the right way is to submerge and another to sprinkle. Are you sure that is what you want to say? You are trying to use the Spirit to justify differences and all the while making a mockery of how He works. He does not tell one person one way and another a different. Just listen to yourself. Your argument totally stands against scripture as well as logic and now you are saying things that make no sense to justify your position. That is what happens when we refuse to admit we are wrong in the face of truth. We are left with saying silly things.

Baptism is a commanded and every example in scripture is right after conversion, not days or weeks or months later.
By the way. If a person is so ill they cannot be Baptized properly just forget it. The thief on the cross was not baptized so don't make a mockery out of it by deciding one way for some and another for others. If we can do that then we can change the plan of salvation. By the way many already do right on this board.

 

No, the closest I am to a Romanist are those who would call me friend that attend that gathering.

I have only been inside a Romanist church a few times - never for a worship service. Once was when I was asked to attend the eagle ceremony of a boy scout, a couple times when I had to look at equipment problems, I do not recall any other times.

Unlike the First Baptist Church of Plano, who invited a local head priest of the area's large Romanist congregation to give the message on a Sunday morning, I have no fellowship with that group. Not only did the congregation enjoy the service, but plan future such joining of faiths. I have no fellowship with the folks of First Baptist Church of Plano, Texas, either.

But I should expect such out of the modern day Southern Baptists - I withdrew from them decades ago because of stunts just like this.


Are you not affiliated with any assembly of believers?

Is your church actually in your own home, as in starting a church (which my bride and I did for a short time in our home until more and better accommodations were found)?

 

I live in the woods backed up to a national forest. I am a member of a church about 25 miles from me that has an average attendence of about 200 people. Although it is a SBC church I agree they are on the downward slide. It is sad to see it. They got too big for their britches and opened the door too wide and the consequences are showing.

 

You could always go to the Roman Catholics. They have uniformity and a King, the pope. They baptize? infants real soon, after birth!

 

The Apostle Paul was not baptized for at least 3 days after he was saved unless someone would deny he was saved on the Damascus Road.[Acts 9:1ff, particularly Acts 9:9]

 

I do consider the appropriate way to baptize is to be "submerged" because the word "baptizo" has that as it's meaning (to make fully wet, immerse).

The word has no meaning within itself as to who, when, where, how often...

These are all concerns given by tradition and example to the early church's local assembly.

Of course some (as in the Corinthian gathering) had to be corrected, and so the example given to the Lord's Supper of it being a high holy worship experience and not a place of frivolity and excess, is by that same example placed upon the baptism.

I am most disheartened when I hear and see outbursts of the fleshly sort (evidenced by the body language) at the celebration of any ordinance.

I think you are placing the actual elements above their station. You mentioned that Romanist. They consider that the elements of the Lord's table to be the actual body and blood of Christ. Perhaps you are attempting to lift baptism to that standard. It is not. Throughout the ages, there are many causes that can be exampled (I gave you one) of why one could not be "immersed." That does not make the word or work of the Holy Spirit any less valuable to that assembly or that person.

Is immersion the best way. Yes, undoubtedly. The same as taking the unleavened cracker and juice is better than having it done through a feeding tube.

I hold that the Scriptures speak strongly against any non-prescribed intoxicant. However, if I held that assemblies serving the liquid intoxicant at the Lord's Supper is a sin because it isn't "following the Scriptures" I would be in violation of the spirit of the ordinance - the Holy Spirit. Who then would be in a "state of sin?" Besides not all would agree with my view of intoxicants.

My argument has be consistent with Scripture, and the earliest church assembly practices.

My but such arguments as you would offer!

There is no mockery made when one is immersed in a certain way other than horizontal.
The Scriptures teach that baptism occurred in various forms.

The children of Israel were "baptized" and they tread on solidly dry ground.

The Holy Spirit baptizes the believer through suffering.

Jesus asked the disciples, "Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"

Peter said it this way, "The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."

The idea that it is a picture - a "like figure."

How one is treated at death has little to do with them being dead.

The Egyptians mummified so did other groups, some embalm, some bury facing a certain direction, some buried and later dug up the bones so others could occupy the burial spot.

FAL, It isn't HOW ONE IS treated at death or even buried.

It is the "like figure" - it is the resurrection that matters. "Raised to walk in newness of life" is what the typical Baptist would state as they raise one up out of the water.

Just as an assembly can determine among their own group what constitutes the juice, they can also determine among themselves what constitutes the burial.


The rest of the post seems to be a desire to extreme the position into other areas. I don't know why.

 

I am so very sorry you are experiencing this happen.

I have certainly been in your shoes in this matter.

I long ever more each day for the Lord's soon return, because of the lack of really dedicated to the Lord, Holy Spirit filled and knowledgeable folks.

Not that it was any better 50 years ago.

 

I have no problem with him being converted by the second time he addressed Christ as "Lord."


Those who would hold that the Holy Spirit comes into the believer's life immediately at salvation's cry would have to wait until Ananias showed up for the salvation to occur.

hmmmmm

 

I fail to see why you do not get it. The Baptism of Paul was not purposely put off. There was no one to baptize Him. :BangHead: As soon as a Christian ( Ananias) was sent to him he was healed and Baptized. Every account is immediately upon conversion, not putting off of baptism until it is convenient.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

You are reading something into Scripture that is not there. How do you know it was not purposely put off?

You have bitterly criticized Ann because her church is unable to baptize immediately so just recognize that you do not speak with the authority of Scripture.

 

convicted1

Don't tell me that Old Regular Baptists baptize immediately, especially in the wintertime!

 

Well of course they do and especially when the lakes are frozen to at least 3 and 4 feet thick.

 

First the church Ann is part of it is not about not being able, It is about not wanting to use what they have or putting more importance on the issue and finding another way. Use a bathtub a horse trugh set up in someone garage or find a church that will allow the use of their baptistry.
As to the passage, based on the passage there is nothing there to suggest there was any delay. There is one thing about it no one can support long waits from the account of Paul's baptism. Every account is at conversion. :smilewinkgrin: