Preparation for Baptism

[Sudsy]

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.

[Josh]

The NT has a very clear principle that Christians attend church and worship and be part of a church body that practices regular discipline and communion.

[mike]

On the flip side, the vast majority of evangelical churches disconnect church membership from baptism. The end result is they are severely lacking in instruction of new converts, discipline, and their converts living distinctly Christian lives. It reduces baptism to a meaningless religious ritual, much like infant baptism.

I do not see any benefit for conservative Mennonites to dispense baptisms somewhat like a fast-food restaurant dispensing beverages to anyone who comes in and asks for one, and eliminating the obvious scriptural connection between baptism and being part of the church body.

I agree that there is no need to flip over to the evangelical model. I would argue that the New Testament model is that baptism is very closely associated with conversion, that one becomes part of the body of Christ immediately at conversion, and that accountability, participation, and fellowship with the local body of believers is also closely associated with baptism. There is no reason that all of this cannot occur in a relatively short amount of time as it did in the New Testament. Formal doctrinal instruction can follow as well, if needed.

#1, at least a brief amount of instruction prior to baptism (or prior to accepting a supplicant’s confession of faith, more accurately) seems appropriate.

To give you an example, a friend of mine and myself used to conduct a Bible study. A young lady started coming and eventually expressed a desire to be converted. A Baptist friend was present and immediately swooped in with the sinner’s prayer and then she got baptised at some random church the next weekend. The following week, on her Facebook she detailed how she was a Christian and saved me alongside how nobody needed to be concerned she’d be anti gay and that she fully accepted homosexuals, homosexual marriage, etc. - I would dare say she was not instructed properly. (She fell away from following Jesus within a few months by any reasonable standard.)

#2, I am perfectly fine with inducting supplicants into full membership much faster (3-6 weeks instead of 9-12 months). However, I am very much opposed to conducting baptisms at will, but still making formal church membership take months or years.

#3, one is hardly part of “the body of Christ” if one doesn’t attend church or isn’t a member anywhere. I see far too much of this. Much of what the NT described as Christian living is impossible to do when one is not part of an actual, visible church.

I essentially agree with what you're saying. What you suggest about a brief period of instruction prior to baptism seems perfectly fine to me and could depend on the circumstance. In a way, that is part of evangelism.

[mike]

The NT has a very clear principle that Christians attend church and worship and be part of a church body that practices regular discipline and communion.

Yes, nobody here is arguing otherwise.

[ken_sylvania]

The NT has a very clear principle that Christians attend church and worship and be part of a church body that practices regular discipline and communion.

Yes, nobody here is arguing otherwise.

I think Sudsy is....

[Josh]

I essentially agree with what you're saying. What you suggest about a brief period of instruction prior to baptism seems perfectly fine to me and could depend on the circumstance. In a way, that is part of evangelism.

As far as I know, German Baptists essentially do this.

I suspect much of the long terms of baptismal classes (plus the secret closed meeting where they decide whether or not to accept a new member, and then don’t tell that person why if they aren’t accepted) is really just gate keeping coupled with an inability to discipline errant members. So when outsiders come in, they just throw up walls to prevent them ever becoming members unless they’re really persistent.

[ohio jones]

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.

[MaxPC]

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.

[Sudsy]

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.

Thankyou for your input. I agree that it appears those baptised on the day of Pentecost were Jews and perhaps their proselytes. I also agree that 'there's plenty of instruction and discipleship training needed' but I view this as primarily after water baptism.

I believe what they needed to know to be baptised is what Peter preached about believing in Jesus. The same thing occurred in Acts 10 when Cornelius, a gentile and others were baptised after a similar message by Peter. So, my understanding is that there is no need for any instruction and discipleship training needed prior to water baptism if one understands water baptism to be a symbol and identification of Christ's burial and resurrection and immersion best pictures our dying to sin and being resurrected to new life in Christ.

I find it interesting that in early Christianity the Didache had included much belief and change of life required as well as a certain process including fasting prior to water baptism. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

As far as formal church membership and all of it's requirements (especially when they differ from one faith group to another within professing Christians), what scriptural support is there for most of these formal ways ? I thought Paul kinda shot this down back in 1 Cor 1:12-13 when he wrote

Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

I think Paul would be very disappointed today if he saw the mess created within Christian churches being so divided over things.

[Josh]

I agree there should only be one true, visible church.

The NT makes it very clear the church should practice excommunication including shunning, communion, church discipline in general, and appoint bishops/elders/deacons. Practically doing this means church membership.