Preparation for Baptism

[MattY]

It seems to me that the *description* of early church baptisms in the book of Acts - both Jew and Gentile - is that they were baptized immediately upon confession of faith. But there is no *prescription* for either immediate baptism or a time of preparation/instruction prior to baptism, which, according to the Didache and other early church writings, was a practice that began pretty early. As long as there is believer's baptism, instruction in the faith, and church discipline for wayward members, it seems that either way is fine and not prescribed.

If we had to do all things exactly the way the church in the early chapters of Acts did, then we would have to share all things in common. We'd also have to keep the Mosaic law - for that's what the church in the first chapters of Acts did - and go first to the synagogues when witnessing in a city. I watched a video recently where someone was talking about a conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses who came to his door. He told them he was a Christian, and they asked, oh, do you go house to house witnessing? Because it says in Acts 5:42 that the apostles went house to house. Now, first of all, it probably means they went from house to house among those who had believed, teaching and encouraging them. But he didn't argue that. Instead, he pointed out that Acts also says the apostles went to Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium. Have they gone to those places? The point is, it's descriptive, not prescriptive. That's a legalistic mindset - finding rules where God has not made them. Of course there are applications for us to make to our lives and churches. But Luke is describing how the church grew quickly in its beginning, not making a prescription.

[Josh]

I find it interesting when people making arguments for “we must do this thing because it was done this way in Acts” conveniently skip over Acts 2 & 4’s description of a common purse.

[Sudsy]

It seems to me that the *description* of early church baptisms in the book of Acts - both Jew and Gentile - is that they were baptized immediately upon confession of faith. But there is no *prescription* for either immediate baptism or a time of preparation/instruction prior to baptism, which, according to the Didache and other early church writings, was a practice that began pretty early. As long as there is believer's baptism, instruction in the faith, and church discipline for wayward members, it seems that either way is fine and not prescribed.

If we had to do all things exactly the way the church in the early chapters of Acts did, then we would have to share all things in common. We'd also have to keep the Mosaic law - for that's what the church in the first chapters of Acts did - and go first to the synagogues when witnessing in a city. I watched a video recently where someone was talking about a conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses who came to his door. He told them he was a Christian, and they asked, oh, do you go house to house witnessing? Because it says in Acts 5:42 that the apostles went house to house. Now, first of all, it probably means they went from house to house among those who had believed, teaching and encouraging them. But he didn't argue that. Instead, he pointed out that Acts also says the apostles went to Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium. Have they gone to those places? The point is, it's descriptive, not prescriptive. That's a legalistic mindset - finding rules where God has not made them. Of course there are applications for us to make to our lives and churches. But Luke is describing how the church grew quickly in its beginning, not making a prescription.

It is interesting to me how Christian faith groups chose which are prescriptive and which are descriptive and how dogmatic we can get over these details and make some very legalistic. My belief is that although man tends to stray back into ways of religious legalism in his/her ways of being obedient and holy that God is looking more on the heart. Even considering water baptism.

I am currently in fellowship at our local Salvation Army Corps, who do not treat water baptism as prescriptive and to consider them not to be born again would be, imo, a mistake. There are various scriptures that do not include water baptism in referring to salvation. I was born again embracing the truth of Romans 10:9-10 which desribes how to be saved. Not how Peter put it in Acts 2:38 but very few actually use Peter's words here as prescriptive like Oneness Pentecostals do.

Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:3 that what is of first importance or foundational to being saved is that Christ died for our sins was buried and then rose from the grave. When we embrace this truth we are born again and the Holy Spirit comes to live in us. This is my understanding of what is the prescriptive requirements to being saved. Many are relying on their water baptism, whatever form used, as an act that saves them and others use it as a prescriptive entry point into a formal membership in a local church.

When I was immersed as a young lad my understanding was that it was an act of obedience and outward testimony that I had been born again and was a follower of Jesus. In that sense it was regarded as prescriptive as a practise of that local church. Not prescriptive in the sense that it was a requirement to being saved. I don't know of any Anabaptists that view water baptism as prescriptive when it comes to salvation but perhaps some do and I am not aware of it.

[Josh]

German Baptists might have a belief in baptismal regeneration but in my experience are quite “Anabaptist” in their approach to it, and a sizeable fraction believe in universal salvation anyway.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I believe in a more NT way . There is no need for baptismal classes or formal church membership. Both are add-ons to the NT pattern. There is a church nearby where I live that immerses the same day or asap as possible after repentance.

Show me anywhere in the NT where there was any testing period or baptismal instruction classes or formal church membership with all of it's statement of faith, church covenant and rules and I might change my mind.

I suspect out of the 3,000 that repented and were immersed on the same day after Peter's sermon that some of these did not continue on in the faith.

I am not aware of any Christian faith group that really follows the NT pattern as is written in the NT.

OK, challenge is given. Change my mind.

The people we read about in Acts 2 were already God-fearing, observant Jews. Nominal, uncommitted people were not usually the ones who came to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Also, these people were already members of their local synagogues in their home towns. The only knowledge they were lacking was that Jesus was the Christ, crucified, risen, and ascended. Peter proclaimed the good news to them, and they believed. No further instruction needed, and no need to add them to the membership; they already belonged. Did they all continue on in the faith? Maybe a few of them stopped believing in Jesus but continued as observant Jews. It seems unlikely that many of them were pagans before or after.

This is an entirely different scenario than someone who has no previous knowledge of God and no connection to a church. There's plenty of instruction and discipleship training needed in that case, whether it's before or after baptism.

We might follow the NT pattern more precisely if our circumstances were identical to those in the NT.

This perspective certainly connects well to Acts 8:26-40, Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. The Ethiopian Eunuch appears already to be either a Judaic believer or on his way to becoming a believer. He was reading in Isaiah when Philip found him.

Quite true. Under Deut 23:1. He would have been excluded from Judaism and forbidden from conversion, and the immersion that would be a part of it. He was not permitted to be part of the people of God.

Debt 23:1No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.

If you look at the verses he is quoting it looks to a future time when he could be part of the people of God. Phillip approaches him, tells him of Jesus, and the fact that Jesus opened the way for all people to become one with God's family. He effectively links the passage he is reading to the coming of Christ, in short, "this is that." What the eunuch is requesting may well be a combination of christian and jewish versions of the initiatory rite, but he was probably better instructed that we may think. (I wrote an article on this awhile back)

[Heirbyadoption]

German Baptists might have a belief in baptismal regeneration but in my experience are quite “Anabaptist” in their approach to it, and a sizeable fraction believe in universal salvation anyway.

This is interesting! I'm certainly curious to know if you've actually talked to more than perhaps 10 or 12 who openly admitted to endorsing a final restoration / universal salvation position? I know of four or five vocal proponents among the main OGBB groups (Old Conference, New Conference, and the ultra conservative OGBC bunch that pulled out of OC back in 2020), but it's mostly died out among them, is not openly preached, and is rarely openly admitted or promoted by any OGBBs who might still lean that way.

[MaxPC]

I know of four or five vocal proponents among the main OGBB groups (Old Conference, New Conference, and the ultra conservative OGBC bunch that pulled out of OC back in 2020), but it's mostly died out among them, is not openly preached, and is rarely openly admitted or promoted by any OGBBs who might still lean that way.

OGBC?

[Josh]

German Baptists might have a belief in baptismal regeneration but in my experience are quite “Anabaptist” in their approach to it, and a sizeable fraction believe in universal salvation anyway.

This is interesting! I'm certainly curious to know if you've actually talked to more than perhaps 10 or 12 who openly admitted to endorsing a final restoration / universal salvation position? I know of four or five vocal proponents among the main OGBB groups (Old Conference, New Conference, and the ultra conservative OGBC bunch that pulled out of OC back in 2020), but it's mostly died out among them, is not openly preached, and is rarely openly admitted or promoted by any OGBBs who might still lean that way.

I didn’t know there were any in your circles; I was thinking of the horse and buggy group (Deer Creekers?) plus some Old Brethren (no idea which petition) who seemed to be very comfortable with universalism. And, of course, the Bayer group (Common Brethren is their official name, I think).

My original point was I have never encountered the hard-sell from GBs like CoC people will do. I have heard rumours it happened in the past.

[Sudsy]

My thought has often been that the way most of us born again Christians live is that most of us do believe in universalism or we don't believe in endless torment for the unsaved in hell like most say they do. How can any Christian say they care about the eternal destiny of the unsaved in endless torment and not be actively doing whatever they can to persuade them to turn to Christ for salvation ? Doesn't make sense.

Personally I don't believe in universalism nor in endless torment and still am troubled by my lack of concern I have at times to see others live forever in the heaven that scripture speaks about.

Just saying our actions should be a reflection of what we truly believe and what we say we believe means nothing if our actions show the opposite. And, yes, in this I have often fallen short.

Well, got off topic a bit so getting back on - it would seem to me that those who believe in water baptism as a 'sacrament' see water baptism more as necessary for salvation whereas those who see it as an 'ordinance' it does not have saving properties but rather was a practise by Jesus, taught by the apostles and followed by the early church. Anabaptists view it as one of their NT ordinances/practises.

As a sacrament, opposed to an ordinance - it has been defined as -

Baptism takes away original sin, all personal sins and all punishment due to sin. It makes the baptized person a participant in the divine life of the Trinity through sanctifying grace, the grace of justification which incorporates one into Christ and into his Church.

So, personally, I believe water baptism has no saving properties and see the early church examples as not requiring any special preparation other than repentance and belief in Christ and am not concerned over the salvation of Salvation Army and Quaker believers. I do see it as a symbolic way of testifying that one has already believed in Jesus for salvation, died to sin and has rose to new life in Christ. I don't see any connection to joining a local church in the NT scripture.

https://www.gotquestions.org/ordinances-sacraments.html

[Heirbyadoption]

German Baptists might have a belief in baptismal regeneration but in my experience are quite “Anabaptist” in their approach to it, and a sizeable fraction believe in universal salvation anyway.

This is interesting! I'm certainly curious to know if you've actually talked to more than perhaps 10 or 12 who openly admitted to endorsing a final restoration / universal salvation position? I know of four or five vocal proponents among the main OGBB groups (Old Conference, New Conference, and the ultra conservative OGBC bunch that pulled out of OC back in 2020), but it's mostly died out among them, is not openly preached, and is rarely openly admitted or promoted by any OGBBs who might still lean that way.

I didn’t know there were any in your circles; I was thinking of the horse and buggy group (Deer Creekers?) plus some Old Brethren (no idea which petition) who seemed to be very comfortable with universalism. And, of course, the Bayer group (Common Brethren is their official name, I think).
My original point was I have never encountered the hard-sell from GBs like CoC people will do. I have heard rumours it happened in the past.

That makes sense. It was a major point of contention among the Brethren in the mid-late 1800s, having come with us from our Radical Pietist background in the early 1700s Germany, and it got divisive enough that the final consensus from conference was for folks to stop agitating others over it through preaching or writing. As a result, it largely died out, except among splinter groups who often seem to have this inherent tendency to try to be "more original". We have a few left, but it's definitely uncommon. Between that and the strong emphasis which the evangelistic emphasis of Revivalism had on our theology, it made for some strange bedfellows at times. Thanks for clarifying.