Water Baptism Classes

[TrueBeliever]

I know of a few Apostolic Churches who have moved to conducting classes for those who are candidates for baptism. Has anyone encountered this or know a good reason as to why? It seems wise to me to do in order to make sure the candidate understands. Anyone know of any churches who uses this method before baptizing.

[obriencp]

I agree that it's a good idea. But, I know how some think and because of it's 'necessity,' often times the church puts them down in Jesus' name before they really understand what they're doing. Just my opinion.

[TrueBeliever]

True

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by TrueBeliever

I know of a few Apostolic Churches who have moved to conducting classes for those who are candidates for baptism. Has anyone encountered this or know a good reason as to why? It seems wise to me to do in order to make sure the candidate understands. Anyone know of any churches who uses this method before baptizing.

I totally disagree based on Biblical example.

Whenever there was a conversion in the Bible Baptism was usually done in the same day.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized by Phillip, right in the middle of the desert, after a talk with Philip.

The Philippian Jailer and his family was baptized in the middle of the night, Paul did not even wait till daytime to baptize them.

If we are going to be Apostolic, then we have to follow their example.
The idea of delaying baptism is a Catholic concept, for they delayed baptizing new converts until a certain day of the year and created very elaborate ceremonies for baptism.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TrueBeliever

I know of a few Apostolic Churches who have moved to conducting classes for those who are candidates for baptism. Has anyone encountered this or know a good reason as to why? It seems wise to me to do in order to make sure the candidate understands. Anyone know of any churches who uses this method before baptizing.

I don't believe you have to hold classes to get them a basic understanding

Also why do they really need to understand before being obedient?

[obriencp]

I know we're against taking the Lord's name in vain... I feel that if one doesn't understand baptism, does get baptized in Jesus' name, but chooses not to live for him, is one version of taking His name in vain.

I don't believe we should be teaching blind obedience.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by obriencp

I know we're against taking the Lord's name in vain... I feel that if one doesn't understand baptism, does get baptized in Jesus' name, but chooses not to live for him, is one version of taking His name in vain.

I don't believe we should be teaching blind obedience.

The Apostles baptized right away, they would not take their Lord's name in vain.

Yes there is the possibility that someone that has been baptized will choose not to live for him, but that still happens even with people have been in the Church for years, even ministers have left the faith.

Being baptized will not prevent someone from walking out on the Lord.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I totally disagree based on Biblical example.

Whenever there was a conversion in the Bible Baptism was usually done in the same day.

The Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized by Phillip, right in the middle of the desert, after a talk with Philip.

The Philippian Jailer and his family was baptized in the middle of the night, Paul did not even wait till daytime to baptize them.

If we are going to be Apostolic, then we have to follow their example.
The idea of delaying baptism is a Catholic concept, for they delayed baptizing new converts until a certain day of the year and created very elaborate ceremonies for baptism.

While I don't advocate classes for candidates prior to water baptism, nevertheless I think the example of Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch provides us with an excellent scriptural mandate/requirement of insuring that the candidate have an understanding of the "true" identity of Jesus Christ, that is, the Oneness of God, and this PRIOR TO BEING BAPTIZED. Please note carefully the words of the discourse which transpired between Phillip and the eunuch:

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized"? And Phillip 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."

Note what Phillip stated that the eunuch "believest with all (his) heart," i.e., his mind before he would baptize him. Was it not that the eunuch understand the "true" identity of Christ, that is, that He is the "Son of God"?

As for me, and I know there are others who will disagree, I believe that this is something every candidate for water baptism MUST understand PRIOR to being immersed in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Indeed, I believe it to be an essential thing, else the candidate is left ignorant of the "true" meaning of our Lord's words written in Matthew 28:19, to wit, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

I wonder just how many have been baptized, and are continuing to be so, without first understanding this. I think many, and that is an absolute shame!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The Apostles baptized right away, they would not take their Lord's name in vain.

Yes there is the possibility that someone that has been baptized will choose not to live for him, but that still happens even with people have been in the Church for years, even ministers have left the faith.

Being baptized will not prevent someone from walking out on the Lord.

Exactly

They baptized right away Jews, Samaritans, Disciples of John and Gentiles.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Exactly

They baptized right away Jews, Samaritans, Disciples of John and Gentiles.

Does not the biblical content represent a synopsis of things (and a very brief one), thus requiring the reader to locate, and take into consideration, as many passages as possible wherein a particular thing, event, or commandment is mentioned, prior to arriving at a definitive conclusion about that matter?

Albeit not explicitly stated in every instance where water baptism took place in the New Testament writings, should we not infer that the baptismal candidate was FIRST made ready, or prepared for baptism by insuring that they understood the "Oneness of God," that is, the true identity of Christ Jesus?

When one takes into consideration the written record of ALL such baptisms, I am persuaded that the one doing the baptizing FIRST insured that the baptismal candidate understood this important factor!

Did not Peter explain the "Oneness of God" to the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the "gift" of the Holy Ghost was first given to the 120 disciples of Jesus Christ? (see Acts 2:36)

What must one infer from the statement of Acts 8:5 which states that "Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them," if it be not that he taught them about the "Oneness of God," that is, the true identity of Christ Jesus?

Did not Peter explain the "Oneness of God" to Cornelius and his household prior to immersing them in water baptism "in the name of The Lord"? Isn't this what one must infer from the words of Acts 10:38?

It's possible to recite the written record of others who were instructed in the "Oneness of God" PRIOR to being immersed in the waters of baptism (e.g., Paul & Barnabas at Antioch - Acts 13; Paul & Silas delivering the gospel to the Philippian jailer - Acts 16) but these should suffice to make this point:

Your statement is indicative of "painting with a broad brush" for it doesn't relate the whole account of that which a candidate for water baptism "in the name of The Lord" MUST understand PRIOR to being immersed, namely, the "Oneness of God," that is, the true identity of Christ Jesus.

Pause and think on this: How does one that has been immersed in the waters of baptism "in the name of The Lord," go about explaining to another who has not yet done so, why this is necessary, yea, essential, when the other party's position is that it makes no difference whether one is baptized "in the name of The Lord" or "in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost"?

This is why I consider the record of Philip's response to the Ethiopian eunuch's question, "What doth hinder me to be baptized"? of such extreme importance. Although none of the other written records of water baptism in the book of Acts contains this factor, nevertheless I hold to the belief that it can be inferred in each instance.

Just saying.