Presbyterians vs. Delayed Baptism...Which is sin?

[12strings]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism. Assuming we believe the Bible teached immediate, post-conversion baptism, does that also mean that Presbyerians and other paedobaptists are also living in sin?

Or to put in in contrast:

a. Is a Baptist pastor who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, delays baptism for a few weeks with some new convert...is He sinning, or merely misundstanding scripture?

b. Is a Presbyterian who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, does not baptize adults at all if they have been infant-baptized....is He sinning, or merely missunderstanding scripture?

If you answers are different for these two...What is the difference in their sincere attempt to faithfully apply their understanding of scriptures?

I suppose a related question is how do we determine when someone's misunderstanding of scripture constitutes sin, and when it is simply a misunderstanding of scripture that does not constitute sin?

 

[Jerome]

What Scripture passage says those things?

 

[12strings]

What Scripture passage says those things?

Immediate baptism: It is given by example in the NT, though I would say not and explicit command. I beleive we have some leway regarding the timing. I would be one of those who things we have NT allowance to make wise decisions regarding the timing of baptism.

Paedobaptism: This is a baptistboard, so I assumed those on here would be those who disagree with paedobaptism.

But for the sake of this thread, I want to hear from those who hold to immediate baptism...is there a difference here, or are both in sin, or both not in sin because they are sincerely trying to obey scriptures.

 

[jbh28]

The root question should be looked at before we apply it to specific things. What is a sin? Is a sin anything that violates God's law, or is sin only sin if you believe it is sin. In other words, if you believe you are doing right, but you actually are doing the opposite of what the Bible teaches, are you sinning?

 

[Jerome]

. . .they are sincerely trying to obey scriptures.

What Scriptures?

What Scripture says baptism should be delayed?

What Scripture says nonbelievers should be baptized?

 

[AresMan]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[preacher4truth]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism.

You do the double-dunk huh? Does it "help?"

We typically baptize ours only one time, after a thorough washing in the blood of Jesus, upon profession of faith in Christ. We don't wait until they're mini-theologs, or until they understand a doctrine. Instead, we baptize them Scripturally, that is, we baptize them as believers. Nothing less, nothing more.

Are Presbyterians sinning because they allude to their paedobaptism as legit? Let each be convinced in his own mind. However, I see baptism after belief as the Scriptural method.

If a Baptist is waiting to baptize for reasons of availability, no, that is not sin. If a Baptist is waiting to baptize until a person knows a doctrine or two, knows what "taking up his cross" means, and is not willing to Baptize them based only on the fact they believe, which is the Scriptural mandate, then let them answer to themselves and God, Scripturally, why they wait. In a few cases in the NT there were those who manifested the Spirit at salvation. But not all were in this case. I believe this was God helping the apostles along, showing to them He had saved some, and they needed this help also to accept the Gentiles, as is seen in the case of Cornelius.

But there are other cases in Acts where some simply believed, and these are those whom we are instructed to baptize. Let us keep in mind that genuine belief in itself is the gift of God, and within that fact itself, this is also a manifestation of the Spirit of God within them.

Biblically, we are instructed to baptize believers. We are not taught to indoctrinate them and then baptize them as some sort of graduation exercise which is what some churches do. But to each their own. I follow a more Biblical model in that believers are baptized, THEN teaching them to observe/follow Christ &c. I don't get the cart before the horse here. I see it as preach, they believe, baptize them, teach them as the last order as per our Lord Jesus Christ.

Without arguing our logic, what is the Biblical model of chronology? 1) Preach, they believe, teach/class, baptize? -or- 2) Preach, they believe, baptize, teach/class? That is what I have to ask myself, and that is what I will follow in answer. The latter is unequivocally the Biblical pattern. Note that Philip followed this procedure. He didn't tell the Eunuch after request for baptism "Well, you need to go through our classes." Spare me with the "he was in a different culture" nonsense, culture doesn't dictate, or shouldn't dictate whether we follow the Biblical model or not. Phillip faithfully followed the script here and we are to do the same. I don't believe God needs me to edit this, nor does He need my help in this these days. I don't believe they need a lesson on different cultures, TULIP, who Cain married, or who the Jebusites were.

My personal opinion is that the former chronology above is making proselytes, and the latter above follows Scripture in baptizing believers. I've seen several go through classes, and then get dunked. But I see in this proselytizing, that is, those making a mental assent to the truth. I use proselyte in the sense and meaning that a person has changed opinion about a religion, or other, and joins another. i.e. religion practiced via mental assent.

I know my method really bugs some people, but that is OK too.

 

[JesusFan]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism. Assuming we believe the Bible teached immediate, post-conversion baptism, does that also mean that Presbyerians and other paedobaptists are also living in sin?

Or to put in in contrast:

a. Is a Baptist pastor who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, delays baptism for a few weeks with some new convert...is He sinning, or merely misundstanding scripture?

b. Is a Presbyterian who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, does not baptize adults at all if they have been infant-baptized....is He sinning, or merely missunderstanding scripture?

If you answers are different for these two...What is the difference in their sincere attempt to faithfully apply their understanding of scriptures?

I suppose a related question is how do we determine when someone's misunderstanding of scripture constitutes sin, and when it is simply a misunderstanding of scripture that does not constitute sin?

Is there a difference between what was recorded down during the transistion period in book of Acts as reagrds to baptism, when compared to the NT Epistles themselves?

Is there valid baptisms honored by God, based upon each seperate church understanding of the correct mode of it?

God honors baptists with immersion, presby by sprinkling etc?

 

[OldRegular]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism. Assuming we believe the Bible teached immediate, post-conversion baptism, does that also mean that Presbyerians and other paedobaptists are also living in sin?

Or to put in in contrast:

a. Is a Baptist pastor who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, delays baptism for a few weeks with some new convert...is He sinning, or merely misundstanding scripture?

b. Is a Presbyterian who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, does not baptize adults at all if they have been infant-baptized....is He sinning, or merely missunderstanding scripture?

If you answers are different for these two...What is the difference in their sincere attempt to faithfully apply their understanding of scriptures?

I suppose a related question is how do we determine when someone's misunderstanding of scripture constitutes sin, and when it is simply a misunderstanding of scripture that does not constitute sin?

The points you raise above show that the debate over failure to baptize immediately is ridiculous.

People don't become Christians when they join a church, or ask for baptism; they become Christians when God saves them

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism. Assuming we believe the Bible teached immediate, post-conversion baptism, does that also mean that Presbyerians and other paedobaptists are also living in sin?

Or to put in in contrast:

a. Is a Baptist pastor who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, delays baptism for a few weeks with some new convert...is He sinning, or merely misundstanding scripture?

b. Is a Presbyterian who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, does not baptize adults at all if they have been infant-baptized....is He sinning, or merely missunderstanding scripture?

If you answers are different for these two...What is the difference in their sincere attempt to faithfully apply their understanding of scriptures?

I suppose a related question is how do we determine when someone's misunderstanding of scripture constitutes sin, and when it is simply a misunderstanding of scripture that does not constitute sin?

Here is another spin for you....how about Baptist pastors who baptize for the sake of baptizing......I'm sure you've heard the stories before but the bottom line is there baptizing people who really are not regenerate. Are they sinning? Then and again, is there pressure for Pastors to baptize a number of people to retain his job?

 

[Iconoclast]

P4T,
I think baptists would agree that baptism of believers is scriptural and in order.

But there are other cases in Acts where some simply believed, and these are those whom we are instructed to baptize. Let us keep in mind that genuine belief in itself is the gift of God, and within that fact itself, this is also a manifestation of the Spirit of God within them.

Biblically, we are instructed to baptize believers

the question that arises in our day is.....a credible profession of faith

No one wants to make baptism into an obstacle course ,or maze that is impossible to attain.....and if that was the case it would be sinful.

Let me ask this.......if a professed believer is unable to articulate,basic truths,
The trinity, repentance, they speak of what they did...rather than what God has done to them......would you consider some instruction to be in order?

We see the scripture does teach.....believers baptism,counting the cost,repentance.....you have RC's with a works mentality and others who have no instruction as to who Jesus was and what he has done.
The baptized person is coming into membership in the local assembly as a member. Some instruction should be there.
we cannot be certain of a persons heart.....we do baptize upon credible profession......but some want to see or hear some fruit or evidence of the Spirit giving that person new life...the rough edges will be rounded off in time.

 

[Iconoclast]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism. Assuming we believe the Bible teached immediate, post-conversion baptism, does that also mean that Presbyerians and other paedobaptists are also living in sin?

Or to put in in contrast:

a. Is a Baptist pastor who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, delays baptism for a few weeks with some new convert...is He sinning, or merely misundstanding scripture?

b. Is a Presbyterian who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, does not baptize adults at all if they have been infant-baptized....is He sinning, or merely missunderstanding scripture?

If you answers are different for these two...What is the difference in their sincere attempt to faithfully apply their understanding of scriptures?

I suppose a related question is how do we determine when someone's misunderstanding of scripture constitutes sin, and when it is simply a misunderstanding of scripture that does not constitute sin?

Padeos say we sin by not giving the sign of the covenant to our children,based on the OT model of circumiscion. which they believe finds fulfillement in water baptism.

Credos believe they dis-obey the teaching of believers baptism upon credible profession.

Padeos say the discussion we are having on the other thread about delay/immediate baptism is proof that we have it wrong.

 

[psalms109:31]

If God can only write a S for saved or M for mine on them then we will have no question. Even better given men the right to decide in the path of His own when they should be baptizes. We are to do not to question.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T,
I think baptists would agree that baptism of believers is scriptural and in order.


the question that arises in our day is.....a credible profession of faith

No one wants to make baptism into an obstacle course ,or maze that is impossible to attain.....and if that was the case it would be sinful.

Let me ask this.......if a professed believer is unable to articulate,basic truths,
The trinity, repentance, they speak of what they did...rather than what God has done to them......would you consider some instruction to be in order?

We see the scripture does teach.....believers baptism,counting the cost,repentance.....you have RC's with a works mentality and others who have no instruction as to who Jesus was and what he has done.
The baptized person is coming into membership in the local assembly as a member. Some instruction should be there.
we cannot be certain of a persons heart.....we do baptize upon credible profession......but some want to see or hear some fruit or evidence of the Spirit giving that person new life...the rough edges will be rounded off in time.

As to the highlighted above, concerning the Trinity, repentance. The only thing I think a new believer should be able to articulate is that they are lost in sins, and trust only in Christ alone to save them, that they are doing this shows forth belief, and shows repentance, and that they are now a believer. I don't believe the prayer some pray with them is the clincher, nor is baptism.

If a person tells me they've believed, and have been saved, I won't argue them out of it, or doubt them. At times though we can tell whether one truly understands, and that is OK too. Such a person will need further help. The bottom line is this person hasn't believed yet, so it's not like we've taken this person who doesn't understand as a "believer" aside, we've taken an "unbeliever" aside to preach them the Gospel.

The fact that a person has heard the Gospel and wants to be saved, believes Christ saved them, to me is enough evidence of the person being saved in most cases, and evidence of the working of the Spirit also.

As time goes by these need to be discipled, instructed in the Scriptures and in the faith. But the sad thing here is that many persons just are not properly instructed in the Scriptures and hold to a lone ranger type of proof-text theology filled with error.

I do appreciate the wanting to know if ones profession is genuine though. We all want this, which is a desire to really want another saved.

We should keep in mind that there are many that cannot articulate theological truths, and that some are just not equipped with the faculties to retain these things, so we remember by these things that the only thing that saves is Christ.

I've known many persons with not a whole lot of theology, but their faith in Christ alone saving them was rock solid. This is all anyone needs, although you, others, myself do not like to remain theologically deficient, but instead love to explore doctrinal truths. I believe such a drive and desire to know more things concerning theology and God also comes from the Lord, yet none of this adds to nor diminishes from being saved.

- Peace

 

[Jerome]

Charles Spurgeon:

"No minister has any right to refuse to baptise any person who professes faith in Jesus Christ, unless there be some glaring fact to cast doubt upon the candidate's sincerity. I, for one, would never ask from any person weeks and months of delay, in which the man should prove to me that he was a believer; but I would follow the example of the apostle. The gospel of Christ was preached, the people were converted, and they were baptised, and all perhaps in the space of an hour."

 

[12strings]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism

1. I mis-typed my OP: My statement above should read "baptized immediatly after CONVERSION.

2. I don't believe this is a salvation issue, but rather what we can legitimately call a sin.

 

[JesusFan]

1. I mis-typed my OP: My statement above should read "baptized immediatly after CONVERSION.

2. I don't believe this is a salvation issue, but rather what we can legitimately call a sin.

Outside of Acts, what is the NT precident for timing of the baptism of newly saved?

 

[12strings]

What Scripture says baptism should be delayed?

None, that's my point.

What Scripture says nonbelievers should be baptized?

None, that's my point.

For those who say all who delay baptism are sinning, would you also say presby's are in a continual state of sin? If you say one is, and one isn't why?

If both, that's a very consistent position. A followup question would be, "how do you determine WHICH misinterpretations of scripture are sin, and which are just incorrect? Are all non-congregation churches also in sin?

If neither are in sin, does it mean we can interpret scripture wrongly, obey our interpretaion, and not be sinning?

 

[Jerome]

My point: It's kind of hard to "misinterpret"/"interpret wrongly" a nonexistent Scripture, isn't it?


9Mark Dever doesn't mince words in his article "The Sin of Infant Baptism":

denying of an action Scripture does require (believers baptism) is sinful

http://www.9marks.org/blog/sin-infant-baptism-written-sinning-baptist

 

[freeatlast]

Some have said it is a sin for a church or new believer to not be baptized immediatly after baptism. Assuming we believe the Bible teached immediate, post-conversion baptism, does that also mean that Presbyerians and other paedobaptists are also living in sin?

Or to put in in contrast:

a. Is a Baptist pastor who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, delays baptism for a few weeks with some new convert...is He sinning, or merely misundstanding scripture?

b. Is a Presbyterian who, seeking to be faithful to scriptures, and believing his practice to conform to scriptures, does not baptize adults at all if they have been infant-baptized....is He sinning, or merely missunderstanding scripture?

If you answers are different for these two...What is the difference in their sincere attempt to faithfully apply their understanding of scriptures?

I suppose a related question is how do we determine when someone's misunderstanding of scripture constitutes sin, and when it is simply a misunderstanding of scripture that does not constitute sin?

Let me ask you this. If a Christian who is seeking to be faithful to scriptures believes it is acceptable to have more then one wife, based on David, or a woman to have more then one husband is that person in sin or are they simply misunderstanding scripture and OK? May I point out the scripture never says thou shalt have only one wife or husband. So what say you?
In other words are we really wanting to go down that road that just because I am sincere my sin can be passed over as acceptable even for a time?