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

[Jerome]

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

We confess and acknowledge that baptism appertains as well to the infants of the faithful, as unto those that be of age and discretion. And so we damn the error of the Anabaptists, who deny baptism to appertain to children before that they have faith and understanding.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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?

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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

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:

 

[Iconoclast]

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":



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

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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????

 

[freeatlast]

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

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

 

[12strings]

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?

That's not what I'm saying, but you said in another post:

FAL: My statements are based on someone who refuses the command, not someone who thinks they have carried it out even though not done properly. As you know Luther had many improper understandings, but he was repentant to the truth. Lacking improper understanding does not constitute willful rebellion which is what I am refering to.[/QUOTE]

I would say disobeying scriptures constitutes sin even if someone is sincere in their disobedience. I'm asking here if we should consider Presbyterians to be in a continual state of sin for their incorrect view of baptism.

 

[12strings]

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":

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

I Haven't come across this before, thanks...However, do you know that Mark Dever also doesn't baptize anybody when they first come to faith, but waits, teaches, and usually doesn't baptize ANY children?

 

[freeatlast]

That's not what I'm saying, but you said in another post:

FAL: My statements are based on someone who refuses the command, not someone who thinks they have carried it out even though not done properly. As you know Luther had many improper understandings, but he was repentant to the truth. Lacking improper understanding does not constitute willful rebellion which is what I am refering to.[/QUOTE]

I would say disobeying scriptures constitutes sin even if someone is sincere in their disobedience. I'm asking here if we should consider Presbyterians to be in a continual state of sin for their incorrect view of baptism.

My answer is in the question I asked you but you did not get it. Of course they are sinning but they do not know it. It is not willful disobediance but it is still wrong (sin).

 

[12strings]

My answer is in the question I asked you but you did not get it. Of course they are sinning but they do not know it.

Thank you for clarifying...I was simply having trouble reconciling your two statements.

 

[Jerome]

do you know. . .

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?

 

[freeatlast]

Thank you for clarifying...I was simply having trouble reconciling your two statements.

No problem. :love2:

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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!

 

[JesusFan]

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?

 

[freeatlast]

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.

 

[preacher4truth]

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?

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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!

 

[agedman]

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, ...