Baptism

I must be missing something because even in your quote here, I don't see anything about "promptly" or anything similar to it.

Essentially, yes. If they have not repented of sin, I won't baptize them. It would indicate that they aren't saved.

That is my position as well. The text does not say how soon that should be done. And it does not say we should baptize people who are living in unrepentant sin.

I don't think I denied that you quoted Scripture. I denied that the Scripture you quoted said what you say it does. I think you have shown that I am correct. The Scripture you cited does not say "promptly" or "as soon as feasible." So the question remains, do you have any Scripture that says what you say?

Please identify these two wrongful accusations. I am not aware of them.

As I pointed out before (and perhaps you missed it), I have no authority in this forum. My authority is elsewhere.

 

Pastor Larry, I think with what I quoted in Acts 2 verses 5 and 6 and we could go on down to verses 7,8,9 were it tells the countrys that all those present were from and what Darron has quoted for you in Matthew 28 its time to step up to the plate and admit that maybe you dont have all the answers and that maybe you are wrong. Its quite clear to me that you are. When Im wrong I will admit it but on this IM not wrong nor is Darron. We are to Baptize them and then teach them as its laid out in Matthew and from Acts 2 they are baptized into THE CHURCH and not just a local church. Its actually both local and ALL Churchs that believe on Jesus no were do you see anything about they have to adhere to your doctrine. But I will say this they have to believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. So that would leave out your Jehovahs Witness, Muslims, and so forth. I believe that Catholics, Methodist, Baptist, Church of God, and others that Im not going to list out, all these people are my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, they just dont hold the same doctrine as I do and thats fine, its a good thing Jesus said to believe on him and not a particular doctrine. As long as the basic docrine is sound and built firmily around the word of God, its ok to disagree on minor things that are not quite crystal clear.

 

You did the former, but if you wish to change to the latter, that is fair. If you want to now acknowledge that I did quote Scripture, but deny that the passages teaches what it looks like to me, that is fair and reasonable.

I pointed them out in my prior posts. The first was that I was "playing fast and loose with the Scriptures" when I believe in handling Scripture faithfully.

The second was the one you just reneged on and replaced with a more accurate statement. Thank you.

 

It should have started already.

Do I check? As in ask them directly? No. But often that type of stuff will come up in discipleship. I won't baptize someone who looks at pornography and doesn't deal with it as sin.

Those clearly are not the same type of sins, but if someone flaunts civil law, and I know about it, then no, I won't baptize them.

Same as above.

If I know about it, and they do not repent and deal with it as sin, then no, I won't baptize them.

Same.

Same.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what baptism is. It is a public confession of Christ as Lord that joins one to a group of those who have professed Christ as Lord. It is not a game that we play with people to increase numbers on church reports. It is a serious matter.

In prior times, when people got baptized they took it seriously. They didn't play games with it because baptism could cost them their family, friends, job, and even their lives. It wasn't something you entered into lightly.

Today, our misunderstanding of baptism coupled with the success syndrome that seeks after numbers causes us to baptize all kinds of people who have not confessed Jesus as Lord.

If someone is living in sin and has no intention of repenting from it and following after Christ, why should we let the make a public confession of Christ as Lord? I don't think we should.

 

Nothing in Acts 2 says that those people were transient. V. 5 says there were living there. Furthermore, I don't have all the answers. I keep asking you guys for answers, but you aren't giving any.

Then show me how. Show me where the Bible gives the time frame between conversion and baptism. Show me where we should baptize someone who is living in open unrepentant sin.

I agree.

So they weren't baptized at Jerusalem?

It says they "received the word." That means that they believed what the apostles were teaching. We see this later confirmed when they "continued in the apostles doctrine."

This is true.

They could be. They might not be.

 

Well Pastor Larry I guess you just dont want to believe the bible in Acts 2 for what it says.

Act 2:5-11 And dwelling at Jerusalem there were Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven. (6) But this sound occurring, the multitude came together and were confounded, because they each heard them speaking in his own dialect. (7) And they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not these who speak all Galileans? (8) And how do we each hear in our own dialect in which we were born? (9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, (10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya around Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking the great things of God in our own languages.

Its clear to me that they were from all over the place and not just Jerusalem but you keep to your stance if its going to make you FEEL better.

 

Really? What does it say that I don't believe?

Yes that is clear. I never disputed that. In fact, I already said that. What is also clear is that they were "living there" meaning in Jerusalem. Which part of that is confusing for you?

My stance is that the people in Acts 2 were from many different countries. Should I not keep to that stance?

You apparently aren't reading either my words or the words of the Bible.

1. The Bible says they were living there (v. 5).
2. I acknowledged that they were of different nationalities in post #40.

So please read more carefully and don't say things that aren't true.

 

Where? I think what I said what that you had not supported your claim from Scripture. I don't recall saying you didn't quote Scripture.

That was the claim all along, that Scripture doesn't say what you say it says.

You were playing fast and loose with Scripture by adding words and ideas. You claimed that Matt 28:19-20 taught that we should baptize "promptly" which you defined as "as soon as feasible." Yet Matthew 29:19-20 says nothing of the sort, so far as I can tell. It looks to me like you added things.

And yet you didn't show the original charge that I denied you quoted Scripture. Again, I don't recall saying that and I can't find it in my posts, though perhaps I overlooked it.

You're welcome.

Now, if you want to make these charges against me, please do so by quoting where I actually said these things, and identify the post so that I can look it up. If I am wrong, I will certainly apologize.

 

This is from comentary on Esword copied and pasted for you on Acts 2 scripture that Im referencing. Its a lot of reading but maybe it will open your eyes a bit.

Act 2:5
Dwelling (κατοικοῦντες)
Denoting an abiding; but here it must be taken in a wide sense, since among these are mentioned those whose permanent residence was in Mesopotamia, etc. See Act_2:9.

Henry
Act 2:5-13
We have here an account of the public notice that was taken of this extraordinary gift with which the disciples were all on a sudden endued. Observe,
I. The great concourse of people that there was now at Jerusalem, it should seem more than was usual at the feast of pentecost. There were dwelling or abiding at Jerusalem Jews that were devout men, disposed to religion, and that had the fear of God before their eyes (so the word properly signifies), some of them proselytes of righteousness, that were circumcised, and admitted members of the Jewish church, others only proselytes of the gate, that forsook idolatry, and gave up themselves to the worship of the true God, but not to the ceremonial law; some of those that were at Jerusalem now, out of every nation under heaven, whither the Jews were dispersed, or whence proselytes were come. The expression is hyperbolical, denoting that there were some from most of the then known parts of the world; as much as ever Tyre was, or London is, the rendezvous of trading people from all parts, Jerusalem at that time was of religious people from all parts. Now, 1. We may here see what were some of those countries whence those strangers came (Act_2:9-11), some from the eastern countries, as the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia, the posterity of Shem; thence we come in order to Judea, which ought to be mentioned, because, though the language of those in Judea was the same with that which the disciples spoke, yet, before, they spoke it with the north-country tone and dialect (Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech betrays thee), but now they spoke it as correctly as the inhabitants of Judea themselves did. Next come the inhabitants of Cappadocia, Pontus, and that country about Propontis which was particularly called Asia, and these were the countries in which those strangers were scattered to whom St. Peter writes. 1Pe_1:1. Next come the dwellers in Phrygia and Pamphylia, which lay westward, the posterity of Japhet, as were also the strangers of Rome; there were some also that dwelt in the southern parts of Egypt, in the parts of Libya about Cyrene; there were also some from the island of Crete, and some from the deserts of Arabia; but they were all either Jews originally, dispersed into those countries; or proselytes to the Jewish religion, but natives of those countries. Dr. Whitby observes that the Jewish writers about this time, as Philo and Josephus, speak of the Jews as dwelling every where through the whole earth; and that there is not a people upon earth among whom some Jews do not inhabit. 2. We may enquire what brought all those Jews and proselytes together to Jerusalem at this time: not to make a transient visit thither to the feast of pentecost, for they are said to dwell there. They took lodgings there, because there was at this time a general expectation of the appearing of the Messiah; for Daniel's weeks had just now expired, the sceptre had departed from Judah, and it was then generally thought that the kingdom of God would immediately appear, Luk_19:11. This brought those who were most zealous and devout to Jerusalem, to sojourn there, that they might have an early share in the kingdom of the Messiah and the blessings of that kingdom.
II. The amazement with which these strangers were seized when they heard the disciples speak in their own tongues. It should seem, the disciples spoke in various languages before the people of those languages came to them; for it is intimated (Act_2:6) that the spreading of the report of this abroad was that which brought the multitude together, especially those of different countries, who seem to have been more affected with this work of wonder than the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves.
1. They observe that the speakers are all Galileans, that know no other than their mother tongue (Act_2:7); they are despicable men, from whom nothing learned nor polite is to be expected. God chose the weak and foolish things of the world to confound the wise and mighty. Christ was thought to be a Galilean, and his disciples really were so, unlearned and ignorant men.
2. They acknowledge that they spoke intelligibly and readily their own language (which they were the most competent judges of), so correctly and fluently that none of their own countrymen could speak it better: We hear every man in our own tongue wherein we were born (Act_2:8), that is, we hear one or other of them speak our native language. The Parthians hear one of them speak their language, the Medes hear another of them speak theirs; and so of the rest; Act_2:11, We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. Their respective languages were not only unknown at Jerusalem, but probably despised and undervalued, and therefore it was not only a surprise, but a pleasing surprise, to them to hear the language of their own country spoken, as it naturally is to those that are strangers in a strange land. (1.) The things they heard the apostles discourse of were the wonderful works of God, megaleia tou Theou - Magnalia Dei, the great things of God. It is probable that the apostles spoke of Christ, and redemption by him, and the grace of the gospel; and these are indeed the great things of God, which will be for ever marvellous in our eyes. (2.) They heard them both praise God for these great things and instruct the people concerning these things, in their own tongue, according as they perceived the language of their hearers, or those that enquired of them, to be. Now though, perhaps, by dwelling some time at Jerusalem, they were got to be so much masters of the Jewish language that they could have understood the meaning of the disciples if they had spoken that language, yet, [1.] This was more strange, and helped to convince their judgment, that this doctrine was of God; for tongues were for a sign to those that believed not, 1Co_14:22. [2.] It was more kind, and helped to engage their affections, as it was a plain indication of the favour intended to the Gentiles, and that the knowledge and worship of God should no longer be confined to the Jews, but the partition-wall should be broken down; and this is to us a plain intimation of the mind and will of God, that the sacred records of God's wonderful works should be preserved by all nations in their own tongue; that the scriptures should be read, and public worship performed, in the vulgar languages of the nations.
3. They wonder at it, and look upon it as an astonishing thing (Act_2:12): They were all amazed, they were in an ecstacy, so the word is; and they were in doubt what the meaning of it was, and whether it was to introduce the kingdom of the Messiah, which they were big with the expectation of; they asked themselves and one another ti an theloi touto einai; - Quid hoc sibi vult? - What is the tendency of this? Surely it is to dignify, and so to distinguish, these men as messengers from heaven; and therefore, like Moses at the bush, they will turn aside, and see this great sight.
III. The scorn which some made of it who were natives of Judea and Jerusalem, probably the scribes and Pharisees, and chief priests, who always resisted the Holy Ghost; they said, These men are full of new wine, or sweet wine; they have drunk too much this festival-time, Act_2:13. Not that they were so absurd as to think that wine in the head would enable men to speak languages which they never learned; but these, being native Jews, knew not, as the others did, that what was spoken was really the languages of other nations, and therefore took it to be gibberish and nonsense, such as drunkards, those fools in Israel, sometimes talk. As when they resolved not to believe the finger of the Spirit in Christ's miracles, they turned it off with this, “He casteth out devils by compact with the prince of the devils;” so, when they resolved not to believe the voice of the Spirit in the apostles' preaching, they turned it off with this, These men are full of new wine. And, if they called the Master of the house a wine-bibber, no marvel if they so call those of his household.

 

The bible says nothing of them living there, it says they were dwelling there as I laid out in my post above. Im very careful with the things that I say and I havnt said anything that I have not backed up with scripture. They came from all over and stayed there a while. When you go on vacation you dwell in a hotel for 1 or 2 weeks and return home dont you.

 

Pastor Larry, I would like to say that my analogy of the Church being a Country Club was probably over the top but I was trying to drive a point across. I dont view the church as a Country Club and when I referred to the Church as being laid out in the Bible it covered all those things that you presumed that I overlooked. That includes WORSHIP, all the things you laid out are included in WORSHIP. I dont spend my time on the Youth Committee and Teaching Youth Sunday school, nor being a Deacon lightly. I wish people would get active in there churchs and see the Church for what it really is a place to WORSHIP GOD, to teach, to learn, to fellowship, to help, to be helped and I could go on and on and on. But in the real world that we live in, you have 20% of your members doing 100% of the work and 80% of your members wanting to be served. Seems to me like my analogy was pretty close with me calling it a COUNTRY CLUB, but out of respect for you, I will say that it was probably over the top. I know I see things differently than alot of people but I have been told by many, many people that I have a strong gift of discernment and I dont sugar coat things, I call it like I see it. If I have offeneded you I am sorry, that was not my intention, it was my intention to point out a few things and in a strange way I guess.

 

Your wrongful accusations are

At Post #33 "Your willingness to play fast and loose with the Scriptures is unacceptable for a believer."

At Post #37 "So where does Scripture say this? It doesn’t, and you know it, or you would have quoted it by now."​

I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I will NEVER pretend that I think Scripture teaches something when I think it does not.

I want to make a second thing abundantly clear: I will NEVER present the Bible in an attempt to deceive anyone on its contents.

The Bible is God's written Word. I treat it as such. I respect it and honor it as such.

Winning arguments is not worth playing games with God's written Word. If someone convinces me that I made a mistake in how I understand Scripture, I will promptly change my mind.

If I posit that Scripture teaches something, it is what I think Scripture teaches. I would not dare do otherwise.

If we want to play games where we make thoughtless accusations of each other's intentions, I could posit that you are more interested in following Baptist norms than just following the Bible. I have not done so, and I will not do so. Why? Because I do not really think you would ever knowingly toss aside Scripture for Baptist norms. I think you assume that they are one and the same. I do not leap to pejorative judgments on your intentions toward Scripture just because we disagree.

I ask the same courtesy from you. I am not going to argue much with moderators if they are going to repeatedly accuse me of dishonesty -- especially with God's Holy Word. If my request seems good to you, I will gladly return to the discussion over this thread's topics.

 

Allow me to quote: Acts 2:5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.

I am not sure what kind of proof you would accept, but it appears that anything that contradicts your position is deemed wrong, regardless of the facts. This is a case where doing your homework will help. Look the word up in a lexicon. The word is κατοικοῦντες. The lexical form is κατοικέω. You will find it in your lexicon under the lexical form. You typically don't κατοικέω in a hotel for 1 or 2 weeks. Just look up the word and look up the uses of it. The predominant meaning is to live somewhere.

There may have been some who lived elsewhere and were just there visiting (as described in 2:9), but that doesn't mean all of them were. We know from Acts 6:1, there there were many foreigners living in Jerusalem, and it should not surprise us that Acts 2:5 says the same thing.

Exactly, which was what I poitned out at the beginning.

Only in the very broadest sense.

Being a member of both, there are virtually no similarities that I know of.

You didn't.

 

That isn't a wrongful accusation since you added words to Scripture that aren't there. That is playing fast and loose with the Scripture. You can't add "promptly" even if you think sincerely that you should. There is a reason that God didn't inspire "promptly." He had a word for it such as eutheos and didn't use it. He doesn't need you to supply it for him.

How is this false? You quoted no place where Scripture says what you claimed it did. If you read carefully, you will see that this is not a claim that you didn't quote Scripture, but that you didn't quote a place where "Scripture says this" (meaning what you claimed it said). I assume you were simply reading too fast and not reading carefully.

I wouldn't expect you to.

I wouldn't expect you to.

then don't add "promptly" to it, even if you are sincere.

And I would answer by defending my beliefs from Scripture, as I have. I am not bothered by that accusation, at least at first. After I have shown my point, it would get bothersome for someone to repeat that I haven't.

I think Baptist polity is what the NT teaches. I don't think Baptist tradition is what the NT teaches. I can compromise on Baptist tradition.

You already have it. My statements were not based on disagreement with me, but on your adding the word "promptly" to the text of Scripture where it did not exist.

I don't recall accusing you of dishonesty (other than saying that the Scripture doesn't say what you claim it says).

I renew my point: If you can show where Scripture connects the idea of "promptly" to baptism somewhere, I will be glad to take a look at it with you. But as of now, I must conclude that Scripture doesn't connect "promptly" to baptism in the way you say it does. (I could make your point better than you can because I know where I would go to if I were trying to argue your point. But I changed my mind on those passages for other reasons.)

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that we should baptize people who knowingly are living in sin and intend to continue to live in sin?

I don't have any problem baptizing someone quickly, but it ought to be only after we make sure they understand what baptism is and make sure they have repented of sin.

 

No I did not.

I never quoted the passage as if it had the word "promptly" in it. I simply indicated what I believe the passage teaches: we are to baptize Christians promptly.

I do not think I have quoted the passage as if it had the word "promptly" in it.

I have tried.

Here it is, yet again:

• Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything that I have taught you,| and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NASB|NCV|NASB).

To me, it is a no-brainer: we do not delay instruction of new Christians. We do not say `not yet' to teaching new Christians. We do not withhold instruction from new Christians. We dare not do the same with baptism -- at least, I do not.

The `promptly' follows readily from the text. We begin teaching converts without delay. As the directive to baptize is presented before that directive, it is evident that we are to baptize without delay -- hence, promptly.

This is confirmed by the fact that every example of baptism in Scripture shows no delay; baptisms were done, and expected to be done, as soon after conversion as feasible. This fits what Jesus Christ told His church to do at Matthew 28:19-20.

Depends. Are we discussing Christians?

If we are discussing Christians who have shown intention to live for the Lord, yet have a few areas they are not letting go of yet, then we are to baptize them. I see no permission in Scripture to do otherwise.

If we are discussing non-Christians, then we cannot baptize them. One has to be a Christian for a ceremonial immersion to be a baptism. There is no point in even trying to baptize a non-Christian.

 

No, you didn't quote it that way (which was my point, in part). When you were asked for proof of "prompt baptism" you cited Matt 28:19-20 as if it supported you. But it doesn't. It does not say anything about the time involved. You read that into it.

Here you are doing. You say that we are to baptize promptly and you cite for proof a verse that has nothing about promptly in it. We perhaps should baptize promptly. But we cannot use Matthew 28:19-20 as proof of that because it isn't in there.

We delay the teaching of some things to new Christians.

This is actually the far better argument. Matthew 28:19-20 doesn't support you at all.

Now, to this argument, I respond that we have no evidence of baptizing Christians in the NT who were still living in known sin and unrepentant about it. And that is what is under discussion here.

But I would remind you that Matthew 28:19-20 says nothing about the speed or timing of baptism.

Of course, we wouldn't baptize anyone else.

So you would baptize someone that you would immediately have to exercise church discipline on? I have a real struggle with that. If someone is "not letting go of sin" then don't baptize them until they do.

 

If you cannot see that we should baptize new Christians promptly from this express statement of Jesus Christ:

• Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything that I have taught you,| and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NASB|NCV|NASB)

then I do not know what else I can say to you.

I cannot see how this is not placed beyond doubt by the examples of baptism in Scripture. Baptisms were done, and expected to be done, as soon after conversion as feasible.

It boggles my mind that anyone would suggest that we ever `hold off' on doing what Jesus Christ told us to do.

 

Deleted by poster.

 

I don't see it there because it doesn't seem to be there. Any words indicating immediacy are not found in that verse so far as I can tell, and you have done nothing to disabuse me of that notion.

This is my point. If someone is living in sin, why should we allow them to put it off? Confess it, turn from it, get baptized, and follow Jesus.

Are you really going to baptize someone who says, "I know living with my girlfriend is sin, and I shouldn't be doing it, but I like it too much to stop. But I want to get baptized"?