Baptism: Immediately After Conversion? Wait?

[freeatlast]

So in other words, there's no command to be baptized within minutes of being saved, right?

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.

 

[Mexdeaf]

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

 

[convicted1]

Yeah, after de-programming them from the man-made systematic thoughts of Determinism Romans would be a good place to start indeed; I'd begin with 10:9 and show them what the Bible actually says about election:

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: You is used 4 times in this verse. You'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.

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

 

[convicted1]

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

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

I call this "status quo".

 

[Salty]

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.

So what you are saying is that she should disobey God?

and did we ever get an answer as to when Paul was Baptized?

 

[freeatlast]

So what you are saying is that she should disobey God?

and did we ever get an answer as to when Paul was Baptized?

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.

 

[Salty]

... 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 ...

1) Can you provide me the Bible reference where Paul was baptized?

2. Will you please answer the first question form post # 105 (So what you are saying is that she should disobey God?)

 

[preacher4truth]

1) Can you provide me the Bible reference where Paul was baptized?

2. Will you please answer the first question form post # 105 (So what you are saying is that she should disobey God?)

Acts 9:18.

 

[freeatlast]

1) Can you provide me the Bible reference where Paul was baptized?

2. Will you please answer the first question form post # 105 (So what you are saying is that she should disobey God?)

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

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

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

The problem is you are building your case on examples in scripture, not on commands.

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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!

 

[Zenas]

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?

 

[OldRegular]

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.

 

[Tom Butler]

In Acts 1, members of FBC Jerusalem had a business meeting to select a replacement for Judas.

There were two qualifications required: One, he must have been a witness of the resurrection (seen the resurrected Chris); and two, he must have been a disciple from the baptism by John. That is, during the entire time of Jesus' earthly ministry.

This suggests that one qualification for an apostle is that he must have been baptized by John the Baptist.

 

[agedman]

In Acts 1, members of FBC Jerusalem had a business meeting to select a replacement for Judas.

There were two qualifications required: One, he must have been a witness of the resurrection (seen the resurrected Chris); and two, he must have been a disciple from the baptism by John. That is, during the entire time of Jesus' earthly ministry.

This suggests that one qualification for an apostle is that he must have been baptized by John the Baptist.

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.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

I grant that it is possible to interpret the passage to mean they had companied with Jesus from Jesus' baptism by John.

We do know that those who followed Jesus were baptized by one of the twelve. (John 4:2 Jesus baptized not, but only his disciples). It doesn't make sense to claim that the disciples baptized, but were un-baptized themselves.

It does not make sense for Peter to command people to repent and be baptized, if he was not baptized.

Jesus himself set the example with his baptism by John. God approved John's baptism with the descending of the Holy Spirit as a dove; and God said He was pleased with his beloved Son.

I submit that the burden of proof is upon those who claim that some of the Apostles were not baptized.

I realize this is straying from the OP, but I just couldn't resist.