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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[votivesoul]

A JW I work with told me that they have a questionnaire with over 100 questions that a person must study and affirm the answers to before they are allowed to be immersed.

Personally, the only thing that I think needs to be addressed prior to immersion is:

Repentance from dead works
Faith toward God (which includes a basic confession: that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God)

If a person has not repented of sin and if they don't confess an accurate faith in the Lord, what's the point? Remission of sins won't likely occur.

[TrueBeliever]

Great insight LaFon

[Lafon]

Great insight LaFon

Thanks! :heeheehee:highfive

[Jermyn Davidson]

A JW I work with told me that they have a questionnaire with over 100 questions that a person must study and affirm the answers to before they are allowed to be immersed.

Personally, the only thing that I think needs to be addressed prior to immersion is:

Repentance from dead works
Faith toward God (which includes a basic confession: that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God)

If a person has not repented of sin and if they don't confess an accurate faith in the Lord, what's the point? Remission of sins won't likely occur.

Accurate faith in the Lord?
What does that mean?

[Luke]

IF a person has repented of their sins and proclaimed faith in Jesus as thier saviour then they should be baptized then.

[Pliny]

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.


I will disagree with you to a point. The two examples reveal a little different story.
Philip met up with the Ethiopian who was apparently a God fearer of some kind. He already had some kind of faith in God. When Philip told him about Jesus they came to some water and the Ethiopian said here is water. That implies that Philip taught him about baptism while teaching him about Jesus. Also, Philip made faith in Christ a prerequisite for baptism. So I come away with two conclusions on this narrative:
1) You cannot separate baptism from preaching about Jesus.
2) Baptism must be accompanied by faith.

Concerning the Philippian jailor, they, Paul and Silas, spoke to him and his household the "word" (logos) of the Lord. I cannot in this short post provide a study on the "logos" of God, but you are smart enough anyway. Once again we see that baptism cannot be separated from preaching Jesus as the jailor and his household were immediately baptized.

The points here are:
The baptizer must ensure the baptizee understands the basics, baptism is for the remission of sins and they place faith in Christ with all their heart. This IMO implies repentance. How one does this mat vary. I examine the individual before baptizing them. That does not mean a catechism but it does mean that I will ensure the individual understands the purpose of baptism. They may be immediately or it may require a short postponement.

I think we are on the same page but wanted to clarify because there are some who have abused the baptistry. They go out and will baptize anybody and then talk about how many baptisms they have performed. There is no real repentance and no real faith on Christ and no real conversions. Just sinners getting wet while they shout about "revival" where there is none.

[MarkBelosa]

I believe that a person who shows interest in getting baptized should be taught and baptized right away and not wait for the next scheduled baptismal class. I believe that the average person can get a basic understanding of the scriptures from a 30 minute "conversation" that will "qualify" him for baptism. We just need to ensure that:

1. The person believes and confesses that Jesus is Lord and Savior.
2. The person has repented of their sins and has made a decision to follow Christ.
3. The person understands the purpose of water baptism and the formula that we are using (to differentiate from other churches that use a different one). And maybe tie it with the concept of the Oneness of God.

Almost all (if not all) of actual baptisms that took place in the book of Acts were preceded by some type of teaching or preaching.

Following up on the new convert is a different conversation but we cannot overemphasize the importance of teaching before AND after baptism.

Matthew 28:19-20

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[n david]

"Baptism Sunday" events started a few years ago in a lot of churches I know. The church I attend adopted the practice a couple years ago and I hate it.

The reason we've been given is so that the person being baptized can have their family and friends there to witness the baptism.

If a person wants to be baptized, they should be baptized right then. Obviously, there are circumstances in which it may not be possible; ie, a minor whose parents do not attend church.

[Esaias]

Once again, history repeats itself. I have said many times that we are repeating the history of the original great apostacy which gave rise to catholicism.

In the early church teachers arose who slowly began modifying the monotheism of the apostles into a more "philosophical" theology that ended in trinitarianism, and it began with "Jesus is not the Father".

Today? Same thing. OPs trying to be theologically "edumacated" are now claiming Jesus is not the Father. Just a matter of time before they wind up in trinity-ville.

The early apostates like Ignatius began teaching an extreme hierarchical clericalism, so that no church or worship existed apart from the bishop. End result? Priests and popes, penance indulgences and confession, persecution of heretics etc.

Today we have OPs claiming you can't be saved unless you have a pastor to dictate to you whether you should have a beard or tell you how long your sleeves must be.

Early apostates introduced the catechumenate, requiring lengthy pre-baptismal classes and instruction. Ending in baptisms only done once a year and no evangelistic urgency, baptism became a spectacle of pomp and ceremony, and true conversions ended.

Today? Baptisms only on Sunday... maybe only once a month... a spectacle where friends and family can enjoy the pomp. I mean what's important, washing away your sins? Or having a good social time for family? What a dishonour to the importance of baptism! Why not wait for family to be there to see you get the Holy Ghost too?

We're repeating history.

[FlamingZword]

IF a person has repented of their sins and proclaimed faith in Jesus as thier saviour then they should be baptized then.

If a person has proclaimed faith in Jesus as their savior then they should be baptized in the name of Jesus. :D

[Raffi]

I agree with Flaming Sword. If we claim to be Apostolic we MUST follow Apostolic example. In Scripture there was the presentation of The Truth, and for those who believed and confessed, they were Baptized immediately. That is the Apostolic pattern. I believe in Expeditious Water Baptism.

[votivesoul]

Accurate faith in the Lord?
What does that mean?

I don't remember seeing this before, but am happy to answer.

An accurate faith in the Lord is predicated upon certain realities of who and what Jesus of Nazareth is and was.

Take this book by famed Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh:

https://www.amazon.com/Going-Home-Jesus-Buddha-Brothers/dp/1573228303

Ought we to suppose that this represents an accurate depiction of Jesus? If someone thought it did, do you suppose their faith in Jesus is based in reality (accurate), or in non-reality (inaccurate)?

That's the kind of thing I mean when I say "an accurate faith in the Lord".

So, a sample list might look like this:

Jesus, born of a virgin named Mary, and of God His Father, is the Son of God, the Christ, born in Bethlehem, fled to Egypt, raised by Joseph in Nazareth, was a carpenter/stone mason, was baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, ministered for three and a half years. Was crucified and died, was buried, was raised to life and ascended to the right hand of the Father...

These are the kind of accurate statements I believe a person needs to be aware of, generally speaking. Specifically speaking, when it comes to a person's immersion, they should certainly believe above all else that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, as Simon Peter declared Him, and as the Ethiopian eunuch professed in order to be immersed by Philip.

Consider a regular poster at Jason Dulle's blog, who goes by several names, one being LeotheGreater, who has repeatedly claimed that Jesus was an atheist, that the term Father simply refers to an inward reality of self, and that Jesus, through the Holy Scriptures was the one who revealed this to him.

I wouldn't immerse this dude no matter how much he begged or paid. His is not an accurate faith in the Lord, regardless of what he thinks about Jesus, believes about Jesus, or claims to have had revealed to him about Jesus, from "Jesus".

[Esaias]

Q: Did the apostles concern themselves with trying to determine the extent or "seriousness" of a person's commitment to follow Christ prior to baptizing them?

[Captain]

Q: Did the apostles concern themselves with trying to determine the extent or "seriousness" of a person's commitment to follow Christ prior to baptizing them?

It's only prudent to try and teach someone what they're doing before rushing them into a baptismal tank.

I've seen people snotting it up at the altar their first time in church and they were baptized that night and it was all good and they stuck. But I've also seen people baptized the first night they went to an altar and it was obvious they didn't really have a clue as to what they were committing to when they were baptized.

So it's a case by case basis that takes some wisdom and prudence.

[Dordrecht]

Is water baptism a condition for salvation?

[n david]

Is water baptism a condition for salvation?

Does a dog bark? :hmmm

[Dordrecht]

Does a dog bark? :hmmm

It's a valid question asked by many and your answer is just plain stupid.

[Esaias]

Is water baptism a condition for salvation?

Yes.

[n david]

It's a valid question asked by many and your answer is just plain stupid.
Asked by whom here?

[n david]

It's a valid question asked by many and your answer is just plain stupid.

Does a duck quack?
Is the sky blue?
Must one breathe to stay alive?
Did Old MacDonald say "e i e i o?"
Do eagles soar?

"Is water baptism a condition for salvation?"
YES!

[Amanah]

Is the Pope Catholic? even he would say yes . . .

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-necessity-of-baptism

[n david]

Is the Pope Catholic? even he would say yes . . .

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-necessity-of-baptism

:thumbsup

[Dordrecht]

Good bye.

Good thing I don't answer my friends like that.

[Esaias]

Good bye.

Good thing I don't answer my friends like that.

You asked, and I simply said "yes".

[Dordrecht]

I responded to the person who posted "Does a dog bark".

Anyhow they should take the "friends" part out of this Forum's name.

This place is going down hill rapidly.

Not many "friendly ones" around here.

If people would treat me like this in church I would run.

[n david]

I responded to the person who posted "Does a dog bark".

Anyhow they should take the "friends" part out of this Forum's name.

This place is going down hill rapidly.

Not many "friendly ones" around here.

If people would treat me like this in church I would run.
Oh good grief. People are so easily insulted these days. Seriously, over a common phrase...

smh

[Esaias]

I responded to the person who posted "Does a dog bark".

Anyhow they should take the "friends" part out of this Forum's name.

This place is going down hill rapidly.

Not many "friendly ones" around here.

If people would treat me like this in church I would run.

What's more important to you?

The answers to your questions?

Or the manners of those who answer?

[Amanah]

I responded to the person who posted "Does a dog bark".

Anyhow they should take the "friends" part out of this Forum's name.

This place is going down hill rapidly.

Not many "friendly ones" around here.

If people would treat me like this in church I would run.

sorry that you were hurt, people were just teasing I think.

[Dordrecht]

sorry that you were hurt, people were just teasing I think.

Thanks.

I guess it shows how concerned people are on this forum.

I'm not surprised because many churches are the same way.



Enough said.

[n david]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/small-violin.gif

[Esaias]

What's more important to you?

The answers to your questions?

Or the manners of those who answer?

bump