Baptism during Lent

[dinkime]

i dont have a problem (nor have i seen someone having one) with what you have said about doing a baptism in the church, or immediately and then doing a ratification of some sort in the context of a church service, we wonder about the basis of waiting for the 40+ days of Lent to do a baptism in the church (or ratification for that matter)...

we know that you are doing the biblical thing and baptizing the child as we are commanded to do, but we wonder about the wait and want to know the scripture behind it (we know it was an early church tradition, why did they wait?)...

 

[Protoevangel]

In the end Rev, you (and anyone else who argued for waiting) failed to show me any scriptural basis for this idea to wait to baptize during lent. Saying "the Early Church did it this way" or it's good for order doesn't cut it. Like I said, Jesus himself had no problems telling the thief that he would be in paradise, so Christians should not be barred from celebrating, yes, celebrating, a baptism during lent.

she has asked (MANY TIMES) for scripture to back up the wait, NONE has been provided, while MUCH has been provided to have baptism quick, no matter the season...

First disclaimer: I am not arguing for the Orthodox perspective (the Orthodox do Baptize during Lent), but instead, just asking a couple of questions to better understand where you are coming from.

Another disclaimer for those who may be a little sensitive due to the history in this thread or other perceived offenses: I am not challanging anyone's faith. I am not claiming any one stance is right or wrong.


Now for the questions:

Admittedly, there is no Scripture that tells one to wait (any length of time) before Baptizing. There are however a number of examples in the Holy Scriptures when someone was Baptized immediately. This kind of evidence cannot be simply ignored, even if the examples are not followed strictly. However, is there any Scripture that actually commands all Baptisms to be done as soon as possible? If not, would this not fall somewhere in the realm of adiaphora?

In the same way, we see no Scripture that tells one to Baptize by pouring/sprinkling. There are, however, a number of examples of people being Baptized by immersion. However, there is no Scripture that actually commands all Baptisms must be done by immersion. I believe that this is typically looked on as a matter of adiaphora. Especially for those who hold only to the Bible, and not to tradition, how does this situation differ from the above situation?

 

[DaRev]

There is the Biblical basis in Acts 2 that older children and adults are to be instructed before their baptism, thus there is a mandate to wait for baptism in certain circumstances. The Scriptures also tell us, in Mark 16 among other places, that it is unbelief that damns one to hell, thus the Lutheran teaching that baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary. This doesn't mean that we feel baptism isn't essential, because it most certainly is. But, as Dan has said, there is no mandate for immediate baptism. It isn't like no one can have saving faith without it.

 

[dinkime]

thank you rev, i had heard the early church waited for the older children & adults so they could have proper instruction (as in the case of babyLutheran's 9-year-old daughter)...and that i really do not have as much of an issue with -- it is the infant that is being baptized later that i wonder about, and partially because we do NOT know what will happen for certain if they die without being baptized...

every other part of the year we would encourage parents not to wait for a special event, someone specific to come in town, etc, to baptize their newborns - do it as soon as possible in church (or hospital in the case of an emergency, etc), but for a month and a half they should wait for lent to be over? that is just confusing to me

 

[Protoevangel]

every other part of the year we would encourage parents not to wait for a special event, someone specific to come in town, etc, to baptize their newborns - do it as soon as possible in church (or hospital in the case of an emergency, etc), but for a month and a half they should wait for lent to be over? that is just confusing to me

Did anyone say they "must" wait?

Let me rephrase your statement, to look at it in a different light. I am sure that the way I phrase this is NOT what you really meant, but I just want to see if it rings of even a small amount of truth.

So do we Baptize the infant as soon as possible because we are failing to trust in God's great mercy?

Please understand, I am not promoting that y'all should wait. I'm just here for the interesting discussion, not to call you wrong (like I said, the Orthodox don't wait either).

 

[porterross]

Though we know the absolute necessity of it doesn't exist, as a parent, the thought of having to wait to have a child baptized is agonizing. I know I would probably not want to sleep for fear of something happening to the baby, which might be a bit irrational, but it doesn't change the effect.

As for any congregational celebration being inappropriate during Lent, that is perfectly understandable and could indeed wait. From my perspective, as a parent, the relief of knowing the child has been baptized is what matters most.

 

[RevCowboy]

i dont have a problem (nor have i seen someone having one) with what you have said about doing a baptism in the church, or immediately and then doing a ratification of some sort in the context of a church service, we wonder about the basis of waiting for the 40+ days of Lent to do a baptism in the church (or ratification for that matter)...

we know that you are doing the biblical thing and baptizing the child as we are commanded to do, but we wonder about the wait and want to know the scripture behind it (we know it was an early church tradition, why did they wait?)...

In regards to scripture, as far as I can tell, every baptism is preceded by instruction in the faith, none are immediate. Lent is the period that was for baptismal instruction... I don't see how tradition is being made up.

However, the reason that Baptisms were only once a year in the early church was that there were simply not enough Bishops to go around. Only Bishops baptized in the beginning, so people had to wait until the Easter Vigil.


All matters with waiting and Lent aside, I have question to throw out about baptism. I have read a few times that we don't know if unbaptized babies are saved.... but how do we know that baptized babies are saved? Does Baptism save us?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I have discovered that you only read out of things what you want to read and either ignore or discard the rest. I don't think I ever said I would withhold Baptism.

Okay, first of all, stop accusing everyone of not reading what you post when we disagree with you. You do that every time and frankly it drives me nuts because it's like you're calling everyone else stupid.

Secondly, the very fact that you would TELL a parent they should wait constitutes that you are basically withholding baptism. I don't know too many parents that want to sit and argue with the pastor about their kids baptism.

Sheesh, Rev...I'm looking at it from a layperson's view, not a clergy view. I can tell you that I would be pretty hardpressed to argue with a pastor who told me I should wait to baptize my baby. But, hey, maybe I'm just a weakling because of it.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Somewhere in the exchange it became a WELS vs. LCMS thing.

Actually, it didn't, because there were LCMS people in here posting that they had never heard of the practice.

No, I brought up the WELS because Rev specifically posted that the iturgical Lutheran churches were the ones practicing this. Like WELS isn't Liturgical or something.

 

[RadMan]

In regards to scripture, as far as I can tell, every baptism is preceded by instruction in the faith, none are immediate. Lent is the period that was for baptismal instruction... I don't see how tradition is being made up.

However, the reason that Baptisms were only once a year in the early church was that there were simply not enough Bishops to go around. Only Bishops baptized in the beginning, so people had to wait until the Easter Vigil.


All matters with waiting and Lent aside, I have question to throw out about baptism. I have read a few times that we don't know if unbaptized babies are saved.... but how do we know that baptized babies are saved? Does Baptism save us?

There are instances of people being baptized immediately. Ever after just a brief encounter. So saying none were immediate is a misnomer. None of the baptisms were preceded by extensive training in Christianity. Even though it might be adiaphora there is nothing saying that baptism can't be immediate. We can't speculate on what God's mercy is for unbaptised children so therefore it wouldn't be wise to take a chance and wait. We can't speculate on what is NOT written.

Acts 8:37-39 (New King James Version)

37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”[a]
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Acts 9:17-19 (New King James Version)

17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus,[a] who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.

Acts 16:32-34 (New King James Version)


32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

Acts 19:4-6 (New King James Version)


4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

 

[DaRev]

Okay, first of all, stop accusing everyone of not reading what you post when we disagree with you. You do that every time and frankly it drives me nuts because it's like you're calling everyone else stupid.

That is a totally unfair statement and I resent it.
My point is that I have stated as clearly as I can what my practice is, and you still come back time and time again with accusatory language as if you never read anything I posted. It feels like I'm constantly repeating myself and it's frustrating. If you have indeed read what I posted on the matter you wouldn't keep coming back with statements like I would "refuse" a baptism. If you have read what I posted repeatedly here, you would know that it isn't true. Either you aren't reading what I post or you are intentionally perpetuating the argument.

Secondly, the very fact that you would TELL a parent they should wait constitutes that you are basically withholding baptism. I don't know too many parents that want to sit and argue with the pastor about their kids baptism.

Again, if you read what I posted, I said that if they wanted to schedule a baptism, I would encourage them to do so after the Lenten season, but if the circumstances warranted an early baptism or if they didn;t mind the subdued nature of the Lenten season, then I would certainly do so. I never said I would "argue" the point with a parent. Here you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. This, too, is frustrating.

Sheesh, Rev...I'm looking at it from a layperson's view, not a clergy view. I can tell you that I would be pretty hardpressed to argue with a pastor who told me I should wait to baptize my baby. But, hey, maybe I'm just a weakling because of it.

First you insinuate that I'm calling you stupid and now you're insinuating that I think you're weak. I know you well enough to know that you are neither.

 

[DaRev]

None of the baptisms were preceded by extensive training in Christianity.

This is not true. In the early Church (which is part of Christanity) only bishops baptized. Families would undergo about three years of instruction and then be baptized by the bishop on the Easter vigil. Also, older children and adults are instructed prior to baptism. This has been a practice in Christianity for nearly 2000 years.

In the passages you quoted were cases where baptism was immediate in those particular circumstances, but that doesn't mean it was the case in all circumstances. Even the Ethiopian eunuch was instructed by Phillip before he was baptized.

 

[LilLamb219]

I'd like to close this thread for a 24 hour cool down.

 

[LilLamb219]

I apologize for not opening this thread after 24 hours as I previously said I would.

The thread is now opened for posting, but please keep the rules in mind when you respond!