Refuse To Be Baptized?

[37818]

The Ethiopian was not in a church and Phillip didn’t refuse to baptize him if he wouldn’t join his church.

We beelievers are divided whether Acts 8:37 is to be accepted as Holy Scripture.

. . . And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. . . .

 

[JesusFan]

Us Baptists understand that faith is all that is necessary to be saved. We also understand that if faith does not compel an individual to be obedient to the commands of Christ, then we might question whether or not that person is truly saved.

So my question is this - Do you believe that a professing Christian who refuses to be baptized as commanded by Christ can truly be saved?

I understand that there are some who may be physically unable due to a medical condition. I’m talking about a person who is lazy about it and indicating that it is an inconvenience for them and giving other shallow excuses. They have no desire to be water baptized as a way of publicly declaring their faith in Christ.

Would tend to see this as what would happen if someone decided to believe in a limited inspired bible, as while we should hold to a fully inspired Original scripture, as well as should obey command to get water baptized, person would still be saved, but would be in a state where the Lord would not fully bless them and stunt their growth due to held opinions

 

[atpollard]

Actually, a better "what if" would be a person that converts from a secular Lutheran (just picking a denomination) to embrace both true Salvation (Romans 10:9-10) and the Baptist Distinctives as true.

Well meaning Baptist Brothers and Sisters insist that the 35 year old man (just picking a random age) should be "rebaptized" as his former baptism was "invalid". Yet in his heart, the man believes that God did indeed honor his infant baptism and made good on the promise to redeem him. His conscience tells him that being re-baptized is to dishonor what God has already done.

So is the Distinctive of "Believer's Baptism" demanding he be re-baptized greater than the Distinctive of "Soul Liberty" to obey God as his conscience demands?

He was obedient and "baptized" as a youth ... certainly more obedient than those adults that get baptized at every opportunity.

 

[JesusFan]

Actually, a better "what if" would be a person that converts from a secular Lutheran (just picking a denomination) to embrace both true Salvation (Romans 10:9-10) and the Baptist Distinctives as true.

Well meaning Baptist Brothers and Sisters insist that the 35 year old man (just picking a random age) should be "rebaptized" as his former baptism was "invalid". Yet in his heart, the man believes that God did indeed honor his infant baptism and made good on the promise to redeem him. His conscience tells him that being re-baptized is to dishonor what God has already done.

So is the Distinctive of "Believer's Baptism" demanding he be re-baptized greater than the Distinctive of "Soul Liberty" to obey God as his conscience demands?

He was obedient and "baptized" as a youth ... certainly more obedient than those adults that get baptized at every opportunity.

The supreme irony is that unless that person did redo the water baptizing, many Baptist churches would deny him membership or able to take communion, even though was now saved an God saw Him in the body of Christ

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Good point. I missed that passage.

How do you get from Peter telling people in the NT that they must be baptized, to saying that applies to all who believe, that they must decide to be baptized? There are many cases in the Bible where a man of God commands an individual or a group of people to do something (or not to), yet that command is not applicable to all believers. For example, Jesus told a young Jewish man to sell all he had (Matt. 19:21). Is that applicable to all? In Matthew 10, Jesus gave specific commands to the apostles: don't take money, or a change of clothing, etc., and do not rent a place to live. Should I have followed those directions when I took my family to serve God in Japan?

And do you agree with my point that the Great Commission in Matthew 28 commands the soul winner to disciple the new believer to baptism? This actually works just fine, unless you are one who does not believe in discipling a new believer. (There are people like that; I'm not saying you are one.)

Neither of the examples of commands by Jesus that you cite above were given to NT believers in the Church; Acts 2:38 and 10:48 were commands to be baptized that were given by an apostle who was obeying what Matthew 28 teaches must be done for all the nations. Moreover, Acts 2 and 10 record the two most important accounts of mass evangelism by apostles in the NT and were the events in which God officially gave the Spirit to Jews and Gentiles, respectively. At the Jerusalem Council, what happened with Cornelius and the others that were with him is specifically cited in establishing what was necessary for people to be saved, and by legitimate and necessary implication, what (water baptism) must take place after people are saved.

Acts 2:38 and 10:48 conclusively establish that all Jews and all Gentiles who repent and believe must be baptized.

 

[John of Japan]

Neither of the examples of commands by Jesus that you cite above were given to NT believers in the Church; Acts 2:38 and 10:48 were commands to be baptized that were given by an apostle who was obeying what Matthew 28 teaches must be done for all the nations. Moreover, Acts 2 and 10 record the two most important accounts of mass evangelism by apostles in the NT and were the events in which God officially gave the Spirit to Jews and Gentiles, respectively. At the Jerusalem Council, what happened with Cornelius and the others that were with him is specifically cited in establishing what was necessary for people to be saved, and by legitimate and necessary implication, what (water baptism) must take place after people are saved.

I see. So you don't believe that commands by Jesus are meant for the NT church, is that correct? I don't want to misrepresent you.

You appear to believe that the Great Commission in Matthew was only for apostles. Is that correct?

Acts 2:38 and 10:48 conclusively establish that all Jews and all Gentiles who repent and believe must be baptized.

Of course I agree with this statement as it stands. However...

I specifically asked if you agreed with me that the soul winner is responsible to teach the new believer about baptism, according to the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Do you then disagree with me about that?

If I go your direction, then apparently the soul winner wins someone to Christ, but then is not responsible to disciple them, teaching them about baptism and teaching them "all things" that Jesus had commanded. Do you believe in discipling people you've won to Christ? You don't seem to.

 

[JesusFan]

Neither of the examples of commands by Jesus that you cite above were given to NT believers in the Church; Acts 2:38 and 10:48 were commands to be baptized that were given by an apostle who was obeying what Matthew 28 teaches must be done for all the nations. Moreover, Acts 2 and 10 record the two most important accounts of mass evangelism by apostles in the NT and were the events in which God officially gave the Spirit to Jews and Gentiles, respectively. At the Jerusalem Council, what happened with Cornelius and the others that were with him is specifically cited in establishing what was necessary for people to be saved, and by legitimate and necessary implication, what (water baptism) must take place after people are saved.

Acts 2:38 and 10:48 conclusively establish that all Jews and all Gentiles who repent and believe must be baptized.

Do you see water Baptism then as Church of Christ. Jesus only do do, as necessary in order to complete the salvation process, must be in order to be really saved?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I’m not telling you to stop washing feet, but if you don’t serve the people whose feet you are washing you missed the point. I’m not saying that you missed the point unless the shoe fits. I personally don’t consider foot washing an ordinance. I do consider important to take care of the less pleasant needs of the brethren.

Why? Or are you accusing me of not serving the bretheren? Over the years, I’ve witnessed many insincere baptisms. In that case, I wouldn’t consider any ritual as legitimate and binding.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Who cares about your grand uncle or the RCC?

What about excommunication when it's done right? Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. - Matthew 18:15-17

I care…that guy fed us and put a roof over our heads. He was forever helping both his family and his community. However I don’t care about being called a heathen and a publican, whatever a publican is….btw my uncle didn’t give a shite either. Masons serve many communities in both Pennsylvania & NJ. That pipsqueak priest must have lost allot of my uncle’s contributions to his homosexual church which was a path in the right direction. In the end, his mentoring of my mother gave my mom the courage to give permission to me and my brother to both join genuine Christian churches thus ending the Catholic legacy in our family. Thanks Uncle Pat!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The church of which Christ spoke when He gave the commandment.


No, it's not an ordinance of the church, and there's no one in these parts standing in need of it.

What parts are you referring to exactly?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Why?

And so you reject Christs recommendation to foot wash? Perhaps you consider Christs recommendation irrelevant….is that it?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is not correct. Peter's command in Acts 2:38 is not the only command to be baptized. While Peter was preaching to Cornelius and all those who were gathered with him, God interrupted Peter's message by giving the Spirit to all the unbelievers who were there because they had repented and believed:

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Because God had supernaturally attested to their genuine salvation, Peter then commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord:

Acts 10:46c Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Baptism is commanded of all believers. A steadfast refusal to be baptized by someone who is physically capable of being baptized calls that person's salvation into serious question. At best, such a person who persistently refuses to be baptized is a very disobedient believer.

Shouldn’t that person make that decision for themselves. Or are these really just cloaked judgements?

 

[Ben1445]

Why? Or are you accusing me of not serving the bretheren?

Like I said, only if the shoe fits. I don’t know anything about you. I only meant to step on toes if the shoe fits. You be the judge and don’t confess to me.

Over the years, I’ve witnessed many insincere baptisms. In that case, I wouldn’t consider any ritual as legitimate and binding.

So you believe in baptismal regeneration?
If not, binding in what way?
I don’t consider any rituals binding.