Baptism: Immediately After Conversion? Wait?

[Benjamin]

Let me ask you this question.

Suppose a young couple come foward and were saved -
but they are shacking up -
Would you baptize them immediately ?

[sarcasm] Absolutely Not! As a matter of fact by the power invested in me I here by revoke the baptism of every believer that I note that so much as looks at the opposite sex wrongly. [/sarcasm]

Jesus Fan said his church will not baptize a pre-teen - I agree! Lets give some Biblical meat before baptism.

Why stop there? I propose we just wait until they get into their 30s as statistics show those of this age are more into the meat.

 

[freeatlast]

Let me ask you this question.

Suppose a young couple come foward and were saved -
but they are shacking up -
Would you baptize them immediately ?

Yes, but I would also set them down and talk to them about their relationship after they were Baptized.

Are you suggesting that a person has to get all the sin out of their lives before they are baptized? How about if they are alcoholics? Are you saying they should not be Baptized until they are in recovery? If so how long in recovery?
Waiting to Baptize people based on their past is a sin in my opinion as it violates every example in scripture. If a person is saved they need Baptized right away.

 

[freeatlast]

perhaps some wanted to wait intil later in year, to be baptise in local river
some wanted to wait in order to grow some in their walk, in order to better appreciate it
some wanted to be instructed in what it really means

Some belong to churches that have formal baptists say each quarter for new christians

Would you apply same standard to celebrating Communion, as some do it weekly/monthy some even only once a year!

Should the church doit 'every time" that we gather to procalim His returning?

Then they are in sin. Baptism is to be done right after salvation as is every example in scripture.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yes, but I would also set them down and talk to them about their relationship after they were Baptized.

Are you suggesting that a person has to get all the sin out of their lives before they are baptized? How about if they are alcoholics? Are you saying they should not be Baptized until they are in recovery? If so how long in recovery?
Waiting to Baptize people based on their past is a sin in my opinion as it violates every example in scripture. If a person is saved they need Baptized right away.

Exactly. Here we have those who would admit that there is no way one can tell who is regenerate, or who is not. Yet they want to examine the wool to determine if they are, then to baptize them only if they meet some criteria. You know, let's see just how spiritual and scriptural this brand new believer is. Afterall, they better be doctrinally sound, clean, knowledgable, pure and holy, and then, since they've earned it, I'll baptize them. What a load of bunk and it is quite Pharisaical, not to mention unbiblical.

Yes, I'm certain some can muster up some hypothesis, or some other situation that is meant to throw some wrench in this, but none of this reason supplants or transcends Scripture. It just goes to show man will argue his reason against the Word of God.

Nowhere in Scripture was there this waiting period. Simply, they preached and those who believed were baptized. They weren't examined, they weren't sent to a class to make the preacher happier in conscience for baptizing them. To do so is to practice religion and Pharisaism, not Bible. Instead, in the Scriptures, albeit imperfect, they were simply believers, and they baptized them as instructed.

We clean up our act after salvation and after following in obedience the command to be baptized, not prior to either.

 

[freeatlast]

Exactly. Here we have those who would admit that there is no way one can tell who is regenerate, or who is not. Yet they want to examine the wool to determine if they are, then to baptize them only if they meet some criteria. You know, let's see just how spiritual and scriptural this brand new believer is. Afterall, they better be doctrinally sound, clean, knowledgable, pure and holy, and then, since they've earned it, I'll baptize them. What a load of bunk and it is quite Pharisaical, not to mention unbiblical.

Yes, I'm certain some can muster up some hypothesis, or some other situation that is meant to throw some wrench in this, but none of this reason supplants or transcends Scripture. It just goes to show man will argue his reason against the Word of God.

Nowhere in Scripture was there this waiting period. Simply, they preached and those who believed were baptized. They weren't examined, they weren't sent to a class to make the preacher happier in conscience for baptizing them. To do so is to practice religion and Pharisaism, not Bible. Instead, in the Scriptures, albeit imperfect, they were simply believers, and they baptized them as instructed.

We clean up our act after salvation and after following in obedience the command to be baptized, not prior to either.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[JesusFan]

Exactly. Here we have those who would admit that there is no way one can tell who is regenerate, or who is not. Yet they want to examine the wool to determine if they are, then to baptize them only if they meet some criteria. You know, let's see just how spiritual and scriptural this brand new believer is. Afterall, they better be doctrinally sound, clean, knowledgable, pure and holy, and then, since they've earned it, I'll baptize them. What a load of bunk and it is quite Pharisaical, not to mention unbiblical.

Yes, I'm certain some can muster up some hypothesis, or some other situation that is meant to throw some wrench in this, but none of this reason supplants or transcends Scripture. It just goes to show man will argue his reason against the Word of God.

Nowhere in Scripture was there this waiting period. Simply, they preached and those who believed were baptized. They weren't examined, they weren't sent to a class to make the preacher happier in conscience for baptizing them. To do so is to practice religion and Pharisaism, not Bible. Instead, in the Scriptures, albeit imperfect, they were simply believers, and they baptized them as instructed.

We clean up our act after salvation and after following in obedience the command to be baptized, not prior to either.

So by that same bilical logic, wouldn't every church that refused to take the communion of the Lord every time they met be in sin against God?

 

[JesusFan]

Then they are in sin. Baptism is to be done right after salvation as is every example in scripture.

is EVERY Christian who refuses to get baptism due to it having been done as infants than living in contunually sin before God?

IF they keep resisting the baptist way to baptise, are they really saved?

 

[preacher4truth]

So by that same bilical logic, wouldn't every church that refused to take the communion of the Lord every time they met be in sin against God?

Isn't that a red herring?

I'm glad you see what I've said is biblical logic, not man made extra-biblical logic.

 

[JesusFan]

Isn't that a red herring?

I'm glad you see what I've said is biblical logic, not man made extra-biblical logic.

well, at least one good thing, can agree to disagree on this, still be brothers in the Lord, as least we have the "how" to salvation part right!

that we got saved by being elected by the Lord unto eternal life, and thank God he is the One that saves!

 

[freeatlast]

is EVERY Christian who refuses to get baptism due to it having been done as infants than living in contunually sin before God?

IF they keep resisting the baptist way to baptise, are they really saved?

Baptism does not save and the Baptist denomination is not the standard for truth, the bible is.

 

[annsni]

The key difference in our culture from the early church is that we no longer come to Christ counting the cost. In the early church, people were fully aware what becoming a Christian meant. It meant quick persecution and possible death. In a culture of, say, Saudia Arabia, I do believe that having baptism right away is more likely because they also will have counted the cost. But here in the US, we often have this "stamp the card" sort of thing when people come to the Lord. They raise their hand. They want what the pastor talked about. They want to go to heaven and see their friend again. They want to have a good and happy life. No where do they know "take up your cross". So in light of that, I do believe that it is good and right to disciple a new believer for a time before baptizing them.

Additionally, in some cases such as ours, we have no access to a baptismal so it has to be later.

 

[OldRegular]

Let me ask you this question.

Suppose a young couple come foward and were saved -
but they are shacking up -
Would you baptize them immediately ?

If Baptism were essential to salvation then it is obvious that one making a profession of faith should be baptized immediately. But it is not, therefore, some delay is prudent.

As for the "what if" illustration you presented Salty such people living either as fornicators, adulterers, or otherwise "shacking up" should obviously not be baptized. That goes for anyone who is living in such a manner to bring reproach to the Church of Jesus Christ.

A true illustration of how silly is the argument "baptize immediately":

1. A large Baptist Church outside Knoxville, Tennessee.

2. Sunday night a visitor joins the men in the choir

3. At the end of services the invitation is given.

4. The visitor asks, "Is this a Southern Baptist Church".

5. "Affirmative".

6. "That is good enough for me" said the visitor and presented himself for membership.

7. That church had a policy of visiting those requesting membership prior to voting.

8. When the committee went to the address given by the over enthusiastic visitor they found a motel but no prospective member.

 

[OldRegular]

The key difference in our culture from the early church is that we no longer come to Christ counting the cost. In the early church, people were fully aware what becoming a Christian meant. It meant quick persecution and possible death. In a culture of, say, Saudia Arabia, I do believe that having baptism right away is more likely because they also will have counted the cost. But here in the US, we often have this "stamp the card" sort of thing when people come to the Lord. They raise their hand. They want what the pastor talked about. They want to go to heaven and see their friend again. They want to have a good and happy life. No where do they know "take up your cross". So in light of that, I do believe that it is good and right to disciple a new believer for a time before baptizing them.

Additionally, in some cases such as ours, we have no access to a baptismal so it has to be later.

Very well said Ann!

 

[freeatlast]

The key difference in our culture from the early church is that we no longer come to Christ counting the cost. In the early church, people were fully aware what becoming a Christian meant. It meant quick persecution and possible death. In a culture of, say, Saudia Arabia, I do believe that having baptism right away is more likely because they also will have counted the cost. But here in the US, we often have this "stamp the card" sort of thing when people come to the Lord. They raise their hand. They want what the pastor talked about. They want to go to heaven and see their friend again. They want to have a good and happy life. No where do they know "take up your cross". So in light of that, I do believe that it is good and right to disciple a new believer for a time before baptizing them.

Additionally, in some cases such as ours, we have no access to a baptismal so it has to be later.

As usual Ann you always find an excuse for your liberal ways.

 

[annsni]

As usual Ann you always find an excuse for your liberal ways.

You're so right. I do. I work hard at it, you know! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[gb93433]

The large percentage of absentee church members is troubling. What does it say when a church of say, 500 members, thinks their having a good Sunday when 200 of them show up. The other 300 heard somebody's preaching or plan of salvation, walked somebody's aisle, prayed somebody's Sinner's Prayer, made a profession of faith, got baptized under somebody's preaching at somebody's Baptist church. Yet they give no evidence of conversion...if we can find them.

My opinion is that few are being discipled teaching them to observe all Jesus commanded. Baptism is a very small part of that. I have seen new believers give testimony of their faith immediately and baptized later. I have also seen many who were baptized who also lived like the world. It is the confession of faith that is so important.

 

[JesusFan]

As usual Ann you always find an excuse for your liberal ways.

You did mean her "Biblical ways", Eh?

 

[preacher4truth]

It's a rather romantic idealism that assumes Christians somewhere in the past had such a deep and immediate understanding of what it all meant. Nonsense. Then, this validates their immediate baptism, Scripturally? Is this what the Scriptures teach? Nowhere is this taught within the pages of Scripture. Anywhere.

I thought baptism was to take place based upon belief in Christ and the Gospel, not upon "spiritual depth and understanding." Are we to baptize because they believe, or because they have a deep understanding of "the cost?" Or, is it to "see how much they understand about discipleship?" Not at all! It's to be administered to those who believe the Gospel, understanding their need of salvation, not because they are mini-theologians in the making. Therefore it's not based upon how much one understands, its upon whether they've believed the Gospel. Only.

Let' see? Trust God's power and methods? Or, trust in my methods? Baptize when they understand about discipleship, or, baptize them because they've believed which is the biblical method? Hmmm.

Yes, I know, it all sounds so smart, these other methods, but the thing is, it's not Bible, it's man. So for me, I'll do the latter above, baptizing those because they believe.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

The one thing that is missing is the fact that water baptism is only a physical type of the true baptism of the Holy Spirit into the Church & Body of Christ. Entirely too much emphasis is placed upon water baptism to the exclusion of Biblical teaching on Spiritual baptism.

I must say that annsni makes an excellent point in contrasting the need to be aware of cultural differences concerning administration of baptism.

 

[Jim1999]

Remember, baptism in the early days could be deadly. The candidates took it seriously. To-day, there is no risk and we can wait to make certain the person is requesting baptism for the right reason.

Cheers,

Jim