Baptism: Immediately After Conversion? Wait?

I agree, Tom.

The Hispanic culture is not Anglo thinking in a lot of areas. Congrats on Robert being wise and allowing his future wife to remain submissive and under the
"umbrella of authority" until they were married in which that honor was transferred to him.

 

FAL, I don't think anyone is going to argue with you that the scriptural model is that believers are baptized right after they are saved. I would agree that Paul got baptized as soon as he was able, and that the general pattern is people getting baptized as soon as possible.

The problem is you are building your case on examples in scripture, not on commands. The commands concerning baptism do not explicitly say you MUST do it right after conversion. And there-in lies the problem with stating that others who do not believe and practice it are definitely in sin.

A big question in this debate is whether the examples in the NT are to be taken as prescribed ways of doing things that to vary from is definitely sin. I would say there is room for disagreement on the things modeled in scripture that are not explicitly commanded (normative vs. regulative, I guess).

 

Paul being ordered to town and to wait shows that there can be and for good reason a delay between conversion and baptism. This delay has NOTHING to do with a judgment of whether one is "really saved" or not. Because there was a delay (as you admit) no matter the "why", your statement that "Baptism is to be done right after salvation as is every example in Scriptures" has by this example been shown false.

I once knew a man who was very consumed with evil. He was gloriously converted, and desired to be baptized, however he delayed the baptism for time to gather all the old crowd that would come. It took a few weeks, but the results were awesome. Watching the large group of heathens enter the church was almost humorous. I don't know who was more nervous the assembly, or the large group of heathen. Both were uncomfortable, and many most wonderful testimonies of later conversion resulted from that man's decision to invite his former friends.

By your posts, you would hold that such was placing the man in a state of sin.

But it is God who looks upon the heart and motivations.

 

Thank you for that post. It is very good.

I would ask if you consider baptism is a command or do you hold it as an ordinance?

 

I would say that if those scriptures, and in every case give the same example, are not the example to follow then there is no need for them. If we are to take Baptism in the frivolous manner as is being suggested then we do not need an account of something different. It was not an easy thing to baptize back then nor was it even safe yet it was done right away. There is no question in my mind that waiting just to wait because of convenience is not what is intended and is sin. I believe the reason that Baptism is dealt so frivolously with today is because of a lack of understanding what it is about and that too is because of sin.
If we take what your saying as correct then we better never speak against anyone who has more then one wife or husband at the same time as we say such is sin and yet there is no command against it.
2Tim 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

There is a "problem" when one builds a case on examples in Scripture?

Seriously? :laugh:

Baptism is a command. There are several examples that this was followed immediately at salvation, so we follow this Biblical model.

One is building his case on Scripture, yet, in turn this is attempted to be diminished by another, and also called into question as if invalid by implication?

What a most imprudent decision.

This is the same thing as saying those in Scripture trusted Christ alone for salvation, so we will do the same, while another says following this Scriptural example isn't valid because it's not a "command."

What utter nonsense, and what a ridiculous hermeneutic.

 

I'm not saying we should not follow scriptural examples, but there are other issues in which we do not exactly follow the scriptural examples...and we have other things that we consider when deciding which examples to follow. We don't wash each other's feet, we don't "share all things in common."

I simply think we must be very careful when we condemn others for sinning when there is not clear scriptural condemnation of such as a sin.

 

The foot washing and the sharing all things has no value if there is no need. That is the example being given and I think many if not most Christians follow the example. We feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help with bills, and in the case of a brother or sister I have seen entire houses built for them free of charge. So I don't think your example/excuse works.

[SIZE=+0]In the case of Baptism there is no substitute. There is no way to put it off for convenience and justify it. I agree that if someone is in the hospital hooked to tubes and bed fast you might have to wait, but not because we want to test them or wait until we can find a baptistery. Use a bathtub or lake or river even if as dirty as the Jordan, but get them baptized and stop making excuses to cover our comfort level.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]I mentioned someone in a hospital. Several years ago I knew a man who was saved on his death bed in the hospital. The doctors said he would never leave alive as he was eat up with cancer. He may have weighed 75 pounds soaking wet. After his confession of faith he wanted baptized before the church and was allowed to leave the hospital in an ambulance with tubes in him and brought to the church where he was helped into the baptistery by several men and baptized in the evening service then went back to the hospital and died. I am not saying it always needs to go that far but if the person requests it it does and we need to STOP making excuses and putting off baptisms where there is no real reason! It goes against the word of God and is sin unless there is an extreme case!
[/SIZE]

 

I think if you would read more carefully you'd see I was simply referring to the necessity of a ligitimate response to a genuine offer, meaning "you" written in Rom 10:9 calls for a real response not Determinist' excuses of inability (Rom 1:20), and how that "you" truthfully relates in regards to the Bible in whole.

 

I suppose we are going to have to disagree on this one, but one further question:

Are these baptism delaying pastors, whether for convenience or for further teaching/examination; as well as every paedobaptist... are they "practicing sin" and thereby giving evidence that they are not saved?

 

Some may be I don't know. To practice anything is to seek after something willfully. Those who practice sin are those who disregard the word of God as a practice for their own thing and are lost. Those who seek after the things of God as a practice are saved.

1 John 3:9-10
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit (practice) sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot (practice) sin, because he is born of God.
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not (practice) righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

 

She did not refuse. Her father who was over her refused. She has a command to obey/honor her father and she did. In other words she was forced not to be baptized by her father. It would be no different if someone rapes a woman. The sexual act was not sin on her part.

 

This post I totally agree with!!!!!


Lets see, how many was it??? Three??? I do wish there was some guide.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Ann I don't believe you obey it if it was in big black letters. Just keep that burger king mind set. "I want it my way."

 

Ann my point is that if you reject following the examples already written in black letters it would do no good to have something in big black letters.

 

I agree that you agree. Now we are in agreement. :laugh::wavey::thumbsup: