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

John Knox, Scots Confession (1560), went so far as to use a four letter word when referring to our reading of Scripture:

 

If you feel so strongly about it, why aren't you picketing Orthodox Presby & PCA churches & confronting them face to face?

 

:applause::thumbsup:
:thumbsup:Thanks for the clarification...you made several good points in it:thumbsup:

 

John Knox wrote against anabaptists with much zeal....some of what he was critical of ,unfortunately was true....so it clouds the issue even further.:type:

 

Here is the padeo counterpart;

. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

 

Your saying you cant be saved with out baptism????

 

For the same reason I don't picket Baptist churches who violate the principle.

 

Why yes I do.:wavey:

In the other thread I posted a link to the convoluted attempt to justify his bizarre edict.

Did you know Dever began as a minister in this decidedly paedobaptist United Church of Christ congregation?

 

No problem. :love2:

 

I'm just curious. How many of you were baptized in the same service where you made a profession of faith?

If on a Sunday morning, how many of you were baptized that Sunday evening?

If you confessed Christ on, say a Tuesday, did they bring you to the church and dunk you that same day or night? Or, did you wait until the following Sunday (five days) before public confessing Christ before the congregation and requesting baptism?

There's a point to my questions.

The point is, that it is not unusual for there to be a delay between conversion and baptism, for practical and logistical reasons. During the intervening time, there is opportunity for the pastor or deacons to visit the candidate and review his experience and his understanding of what happened to him spiritually. Given the easy believism practiced by many churches, this seems only reasonable.

Baptism delayed is not baptism denied. It is simply being a good steward of the keys to the kingdom which have been given to believers.

 

First off you are suggesting setting up a system not found in the bible instead of following the examples and then justifying it by calling it a good steward. If God wanted us to do what you are suggesting then I think it would be reasonable to believe He would have told the Corinth church not to baptize anyone until they had been screened. By the way a good steward of what, water or time? The problem is when it is all said and done after screening and or special teaching you still do not know. If you really want to be a good steward why not make them wait for let's say a year and make sure or how about 5 years or perhaps 10 years or if it is not a command like some are suggesting or how long we wait let's just forget about it and let the Lord figure it all out at the resurrection and then we can really be good stewards because we would never Baptize a lost person. That is if all this does not matter anyway and this is about stewardship.

If someone hears a message and comes receiving Christ they need to be Baptized right then and then disciple them not before Baptism.

Just because many are doing it wrong does not justify the wrong and that is what you seem to be suggesting. If my neighbors do it it must be alight. I don't think so!

 

How many have been dunked and gotten physically wet though, without having their sins forgiven and having been made new creatures in Christ first?

Wouldn't Infant baptism and Baptism of adults w/o confirmation/instruction be sinning from flip sides of same coin?

 

It is not ours to decide. Ours is to be faithful to what is given. Baptize only those making a confession of faith and do it at the time of the confession unless absolutely impossible.

 

Educating them so they can give mental assent to theological questions doesn't make them regenerate, nor does it prove it.

Belief is evidence, we are not told to baptize upon any other evidence than belief which is coupled with repentance.

In addition, if you're not preaching THE Gospel, but hovering around it, this could be what is causing the confusion of "dunking" people.

Tell us, how many have been "dunked" as you put it, that haven't been saved?

Getting them capable of answering questions doesn't mean they're saved. It means they've tickled ears with answers. It proves nothing.

However, in the NT example? Well, we simply see: 1) The preaching of the Gospel; 2) We take note that the Gospel is "The death, burial, and the resurrection of Christ"; 3) We see that those who believed this were then baptized at belief; 4) Then these believers were instructed in doctrine, as evidence is given in the epistles.

 

The Gospel of John, Chapter 4, records the passage of Jesus Christ through Samaria and the faith of the Samaritans. There is no record of these Samaritans being baptized!

 

There are many cases where belief was expressed and no record of baptism is found. Nicodemus, the woman with the issue, Mary the mother of the Lord, Lazarus, James the brother of Christ, ...