Credo-Baptism Answers Delaying Baptism

[TheInquirer]

For my Baptist brethren and sistren:

If you, or your church, advocates for a delay before baptizing a person, what Scriptural proofs are used to justify the delay?

Background, I've been a part of discussions on this topic in the past at the elder level and my current thinking is no delay in most circumstances after the pattern given in Acts. Exceptions would be simpy to make certain a person understood they weren't just reciting words but were actually expressing what they believed and understood what baptism does and does not do (i.e. no baptismal regeneration views). Currently, I believe the onus of accountability is on the person being baptized and making the profession, not upon the church to wait around for "fruit inspection" so I am more "open" when it comes to the ordinances.

Happy to be challenged on my thinking of the issue but looking for Scriptural warrant. Articles I have read in the past from opposing view were sadly devoid of Bible.

 

[Polanus1561]

Brother pardon my intrusion, but is there a credo slant to this question/ why not open it up to paedos too? Unless the particular focus is on children grown up.

 

[TheInquirer]

No worries - it is for credo baptist policy right now.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I see no reason to wait long; only long enough to see the answer of a good confession, which surely takes some time. I think the ministers tread the line between overcautious and overeager, and rarely is there a baptism that some don't think came too soon or too late.
Since baptism and joining the church often (always, in our church's case) go together, the candidate is always taken through all the pre-membership strictures first, and those themselves take time, since we require them to substantially assent to the LBCF and the church constitution in order to join; and at a bare minimum they must be read, and many don't enjoy reading.
I'm not sure if requiring assent to the LBCF should be a condition for membership, or merely a credible profession and baptism, but perhaps that's for another thread.

 

[Phil D.]

I think too many Baptist churches are too prone to delaying children's baptism. The folks in Acts 2:41 had less than a day's worth of catechizing, and had but a basic grip on, though full acceptance of the terms of the gospel before their baptism. Not sure why that template would have changed now, especially in cases where the children have been raised in a Christian home and the church. Also, Paul appeals for the need to bear good fruit based on one's recollection that they are already baptized, Rom. 6:1-3, which militates against waiting around too long for "fruit inspection" before its administration.

 

[arapahoepark]

I think too many Baptist churches are too prone to delaying children's baptism. The folks in Acts 2:41 had less than a day's worth of catechizing, and had but a basic grip on, though full acceptance of the terms of the gospel before their baptism. Not sure why that template would have changed now, especially in cases where the children have been raised in a Christian home and the church. Also, Paul appeals for the need to bear good fruit based on one's recollection that they are already baptized, Rom. 6:1-3, which militates against waiting around too long for "fruit inspection" before its administration.

I think "catechising" or lack thereof rather, is perhaps a reason in their eyes for delay. Might call into question some preaching. But its just a theory.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

Since baptism and joining the church often (always, in our church's case) go together, the candidate is always taken through all the pre-membership strictures first, and those themselves take time, since we require them to substantially assent to the LBCF and the church constitution in order to join;

Likewise in the case of my church.

Even after assent to the 1689 and church constitution is gained, there is (per church constitution) at least a two week period of "congregational advice" where the candidate is announced to the congregation and any objections or questions can be raised concerning the applicant's manner of life or doctrine. The reception of the individual into the church would be postponed until any objections are investigated and resolved, per Acts 9:26-29. (That is my paraphrase of the relevant paragraph of the constitution)

 

[TheInquirer]

Is it biblically justified to withhold an ordinance from a believer while putting non-biblical requirements in their way? (I.e. requirements for membership).

 

[Ben Zartman]

Is it biblically justified to withhold an ordinance from a believer while putting non-biblical requirements in their way? (I.e. requirements for membership).

It's an interesting question, and I think the answer revolves around whether the minister feels responsible for baptizing people--will his judgment or the churches' judgment be called into question if they baptize a whole slew of people who later turn out to be false professors?
But most would argue that there must be, not only requirements for membership, since the church has to maintain her purity, but a fencing of the ordinances, lest ministers fall into condemnation for carelessness in dealing with holy things. And most would not like the idea of someone being baptized and not joining a local church.
I don't know where the balance lies, but I'd rather err toward baptizing someone early and getting it wrong than witholding baptism and membership from someone who was truly a believer.