Baptism: Immediately After Conversion? Wait?

Nope. There is just examples of doing it when the person make the confession, but you don't follow that so why seek more?You remind me of children who are told to set down, but because they were not told to set down right now they keep standing.

 

This thread started out okay but it has now officially gone to pot.

 

WOW!!! AMEN!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Amazing ain't it???

 

And.......this is different, how?? :laugh: :wavey: :love2: :flower:

I call this "status quo".

 

Salty I fail to understand anyone arguing that Baptism can be put off for convenience. The scriptures never even hints of such being acceptable. It is nothing but rebellion. Yet at the same time so as not to be legalistic there are exceptions to immediate baptism as in Paul three days after conversion, and in fact there is an exception even being baptized at all, the thief on the cross.
When there is no one to Baptize certainty one cannot baptize themself as in the case of Paul. However three days after his conversion, if you accept he was converted on the road at the time of his vision, he was baptized immediately and healed on the arrival of Ananias. His baptism was not put off until his family could watch or until the river water warmed up, or because they wanted to do a group baptismal, or so he could be sent to a class or any other sorry excuse to put it off. He was Baptized as soon as someone showed up to do it.

 

Acts 9:18.

 

As to the question issue with the young girl I answered that in Post #93 She was forced not to be baptized by her father.

As to Paul being Baptized you can find that in Acts 9:18

 

No, what you said was this, which doesn't fly well, neither is it a proper attitude, true, or a good hermeneutical practice:

If that is your M.O. for others, you don't leave them any ground to stand on. Not everything is a commandment friend. Some things in Scripture are given as examples for us to learn from, follow and practice.

We're not talking here about washing feet, or sharing, which either one could be practiced anyhow and some do. We're talking a matter much more important than this, don't you think?

You're arguing away biblical examples by your own logic, yet your logic will never outweigh the Scriptures.

Do you rebuke people regularly for using the Scriptures as examples?

What I find in most of your posts is that you're dogmatic about exactly nothing.

 

I posted something similar on another thread.

There is no record of the Samaritan believers [John 4] being baptized, also no record of all the Apostles being baptized!

 

Are you asserting that some of the apostles were not baptized, or are you just making an observation of scriptural records?

 

The latter but to also refute the idea that immediate baptism is essential.

 

I am not certain that being a disciple "from the the baptism by John" would equate that they were actually baptized by John the baptizer.

Rather, it is the time frame of when Christ's ministry started. Christ was baptized and the disciples were selected. From that large group of disciples, Christ selected the Apostles.

Was this group (the apostles) all the one and only first disciples that followed Christ? Doubtful. Where all those disciples baptized by John the baptizer? Doubtful

There are only a few Apostles that it is recorded were disciples of John the baptizer.

Most were not.