In the book of Acts, why were all of the people in the examples of conversion  baptized immediately?

Some teach baptism is not necessary for salvation.  If this is the case, why did none of the converts eat, drink, or sleep before being baptized?  

In Acts 2, 3000 were baptized "that day".  Wouldn't it have been more convenient to schedule them over a number of days.  Saul had not eaten for three days, but he was baptized before he took food.  (Acts 9:9 & 18-19) Surely he was hungry.  The jailer was baptized about midnight. (Acts 16:25 & 33)  Surely it would have been more convenient to wait until daylight.  The eunuch stopped in the middle of a journey. (Acts 8:36-39)  He didn't wait till he got home or until his friends or family could watch.  If baptism is not necessary, why do all of these examples seem to indicate there was a urgency to obey that command immediately?

?2020-03-04T21:24:22Z

Favorite Answer

It is about the sense of urgency for baptism when the convert learns that baptism is "Unto the remission of sins", Acts 2:38 (past sins) No one should leave that matter to chance, due to the gravity of that ordinance.

10

wind rider2020-03-05T11:29:11Z

In one all was lost in one all was saved. The one brought death to all, the one brought life to all.

00

Paul2020-03-05T01:57:22Z

"Some" (Protestant denominations) teach just about anything you can think of. However, Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church that it would teach the fullness of God's truth until the end of time. That one Church has baptized new members since apostolic times , and will continue to do so forever.

00

keyjona2020-03-04T21:37:05Z

Much of Acts is fabricated. Luke borrowed Mark and Matthew's Gospels to write Luke and Acts. Neither Luke nor Paul was ever a disciple or an Apostle of Jesus. Luke became a disciple of Paul 17 years after Jesus' crucifixion in 30A.D.. Luke used Acts to introduce Paulism/Romanism which became Catholicism. When the last 5th of Mark was destroyed by a fire in Syria in 69A.D., a bogus 12 verse ending was added by Luke, Mark 16:9-20. Theophilus had Luke rewrite 'Mark' and 'Matthew' to please the Roman Government and never returned the original manuscripts to their rightful owners.

12

Anonymous2020-03-04T21:06:58Z

IF U WISH TO KNOW, ASK A TRINITY PASTOR SUCH AS METHODIST OR PRESBYTERIAN.

11
Show more answers (6)

Trending Questions

Why are there still people saying that Catholics are not Christians?34 answersWhat if it turns out Islam is true. What will you do?32 answersI am an atheist and when I die I discover that God really exists would I be punished for not believing in his existence? Why?13 answersHas anybody learned anything from Religion & Spirituality during the last 14+ years?92 answersWhy don't we correct the inaccuracies in the Bible?27 answers