Baptism during Lent

[DaSeminarian]

They don't have to. I'm done with the matter.

Ok

 

[RevCowboy]

I believe this is the key phrase from your post ...
"The Church believes that whole season of Easter is only day, and that also that day is the very same day that Christ rose from the dead.".
Can you support this with the Scriptures and/or the Confessions?

This is a symbolic understanding of Easter.

Yet the real resurrection of Christ happened at a real time in history.
It is a historical resurrection.

Do you believe it is wise to mix the symbolic with the historical in the context we are talking about?

I don't see this understanding of Easter as symbolic. Scripture and the Confessions are largely silent on this matter, therefore we look to the Early Church Fathers, who are quoted the second most in the confession next to scripture. They are also the guys who decided on the books of the bible.

Christianity has a great deal of doctrines which fuzzy up time. For example ONE Baptism. Its not just that we are baptized once, but as Paul says we are baptized into the ONE Baptism of Christ. Through this baptism we are connected to the Body of Christ which exists outside of time, as Christ exists outside of time.

We also believe that Christ bore our sins on the cross. Therefore in someway part of us was present when Christ was crucified.

We also believe in one Resurrection. Therefore we are one Christ in His resurrection.

Therefore the Early Church believed that there was only one Easter, and in fact each Sunday we gather to celebrate that same easter. Each Sunday, the Lord's Day, the 8th day of Creation, is Easter.

Paul says that as the Body of Christ we are party to Christ's resurrection and I believe this to be true. We are party to this resurrection in a very real way, a way so real that our very understanding of time is changed. Time is a creature.

I don't see this as mixing symbolic and historical, rather the opposite. I see this a recognizing the very real power of God in Christ and what that means for us as the Body of Christ.

 

[RevCowboy]

You wrote: "If God is such that He would damn an unbaptized baby, then I don't want that God. However, the merciful God that we encounter in Bible and in the person of Jesus indicates that a God who is willing to die for our sins certainly wouldn't damn an infant to hell because it is not baptized."

It is true that one can become a believer without baptism. But God has in fact given us the sacrament of baptism, so why would anyone choose not to take it/use it?
We do not know if unbaptized children are believers, we don't even know for sure if baptized ones are. We don't know the hearts of men. If God would send an unbaptized baby to hell, he has every right to do so, and who are we to question God? "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Rom. 9:20
It may sound unrighteous and unfair and horrible to our human ears, but God's righteousness if perfect. We are not to judge God. Ever!
It is not the lack of baptism that sends anyone to hell. It is their unbelief, be it an adult or a baby.

First of all, I never said I would deny anyone Baptism. Denial is very different from scheduling. By this logic, I should force every newborn baby to be baptized the first Sunday they are in church, otherwise the parents might be denying their child God's grace. Or better yet I should wander the neo-natal units at hospitals with a super soaker...

I am sure Pastors forcing Baptism on folks would go over a lot better than asking parents to schedule baptisms for Easter.

As far as the unbelief of babies goes, it is not our belief that saves. It is faith given to us by God. Faith and belief are two very different things. Believe is intellectual assent to doctrine. Faith is, as Martin Luther put it, Trust. Trust is a relationship, and thus the gift of faith is the gift of relationship with God. Therefore the God that I know, the God of the Bible, is not a God who would withhold the gift of faith from a baby who cannot even know or understand enough to reject this gift.

It is not God who damns us, but rather we damn ourselves. God offers the gift of faith and salvation. Those who are damned are those who would reject this gift.

I apologize if this post comes across as snarky, but as like DaRev, I am feeling largely misunderstood and unfairly characterized.

 

[Edial]

I don't see this understanding of Easter as symbolic. Scripture and the Confessions are largely silent on this matter, therefore we look to the Early Church Fathers, who are quoted the second most in the confession next to scripture. They are also the guys who decided on the books of the bible.

Christianity has a great deal of doctrines which fuzzy up time. For example ONE Baptism. Its not just that we are baptized once, but as Paul says we are baptized into the ONE Baptism of Christ. Through this baptism we are connected to the Body of Christ which exists outside of time, as Christ exists outside of time.

We also believe that Christ bore our sins on the cross. Therefore in someway part of us was present when Christ was crucified.

We also believe in one Resurrection. Therefore we are one Christ in His resurrection.

Therefore the Early Church believed that there was only one Easter, and in fact each Sunday we gather to celebrate that same easter. Each Sunday, the Lord's Day, the 8th day of Creation, is Easter.

Paul says that as the Body of Christ we are party to Christ's resurrection and I believe this to be true. We are party to this resurrection in a very real way, a way so real that our very understanding of time is changed. Time is a creature.

I don't see this as mixing symbolic and historical, rather the opposite. I see this a recognizing the very real power of God in Christ and what that means for us as the Body of Christ.

Yet, you do realize that some church fathers had a definite bend towards mysticism.
That is why they are often referred to by the EO.

Also, church fathers often disagreed with each other, so their opinions really should be bounced off the Scriptures.

And concerning the fact that they contributed towards choosing of the books for the canon, the test for choosing such books really was more of a logistical matter and not spiritual.

There were several tests that were applied in order to choose which book is a part of a canon.

Off the top of my head ...

1. Is a book popular among the men and women of God?

2. Does it contain any historical errors?

3. Does it contradict any of the doctrines of Christ?

4. Was it written by an Apostle of Christ or anyone who was charged to write by an Apostle?

... I think there are 3 more.

If any of these did not pass the test, the book was disqualified from consideration.

They were more of the "secretaries" who assembled the books into one, than the ones who have decided based on an extrabiblical revelation on what books to choose.

Church fathers' opinion should certainly be considered, but not outside of the Scriptures, especially in the "gray" areas.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Flipper]

God' blessings to you and the soon to be adopted children. I hope you won't face any difficulties with your pastor when you decide to have the children baptized.

In the paperwork I just received today, I found out that chances are very high that they will already have been baptized in an Eastern Orthodox church, which last I heard is still a Christian baptism, so that's good enough for me.

 

[Edial]

In the paperwork I just received today, I found out that chances are very high that they will already have been baptized in an Eastern Orthodox church, which last I heard is still a Christian baptism, so that's good enough for me.

I heard of many instances of corruption in adoption process in Africa.

People adopt and bond with a child.
Then suddenly a father "appears" and wants the child back. Then he is payed off by the new parents not to claim the child.

This happened to movie stars and I guess also to regular people.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Flipper]

I heard of many instances of corruption in adoption process in Africa.

People adopt and bond with a child.
Then suddenly a father "appears" and wants the child back. Then he is payed off by the new parents not to claim the child.

This happened to movie stars and I guess also to regular people.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed, I know I say foolish things here, but don't take me for a fool. We investigated the heck out this over at least three years. I'm not confident of a lot of things, but I am confident that we don't have to worry about any of the above that you mentioned.

 

[Edial]

Ed, I know I say foolish things here, but don't take me for a fool. We investigated the heck out this over at least three years. I'm not confident of a lot of things, but I am confident that we don't have to worry about any of the above that you mentioned.

 

[Edial]

I asked my Pastor today concerning baptizing infants during Lent.
I also presented objections that some had here concenring a preference of not baptizing during Lent.

(We are probably as liturgical as they come)

He is a Pastor for 50 years.
The look on his face already gave me the answer before he even said to the effect: "I never heard of anything like that before. I would baptize anytime once I get my hands on him".

I think there is a certain disconnect that is going on between the older pastors and the ones from the next generation.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[ThePilgrim]

In the paperwork I just received today, I found out that chances are very high that they will already have been baptized in an Eastern Orthodox church, which last I heard is still a Christian baptism, so that's good enough for me.

He's from Africa but was likely baptized Eastern Orthodox? What part of Africa is he from?

 

[Lupinus]

I was thinking of asking after service today but well it was answered during service.

Considering we had two baptisms today (brother and sister) of two perfectly healthy kids, guess we do them during Lent at my church.

 

[cerette]

First of all, I never said I would deny anyone Baptism. Denial is very different from scheduling. By this logic, I should force every newborn baby to be baptized the first Sunday they are in church, otherwise the parents might be denying their child God's grace. Or better yet I should wander the neo-natal units at hospitals with a super soaker...

I am sure Pastors forcing Baptism on folks would go over a lot better than asking parents to schedule baptisms for Easter.

As far as the unbelief of babies goes, it is not our belief that saves. It is faith given to us by God. Faith and belief are two very different things. Believe is intellectual assent to doctrine. Faith is, as Martin Luther put it, Trust. Trust is a relationship, and thus the gift of faith is the gift of relationship with God. Therefore the God that I know, the God of the Bible, is not a God who would withhold the gift of faith from a baby who cannot even know or understand enough to reject this gift.

It is not God who damns us, but rather we damn ourselves. God offers the gift of faith and salvation. Those who are damned are those who would reject this gift.

I apologize if this post comes across as snarky, but as like DaRev, I am feeling largely misunderstood and unfairly characterized.

Saving faith is believing the gospel of Christ. That involves doctrinal belief, and babies can have that saving faith also. Doesn't mean that all babies have it.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I couldn't ask, it was crowded today as we got to meet our possible new senior pastor.

On a side note, we did have chanted liturgy today!

 

[Melethiel]

I couldn't ask, it was crowded today as we got to meet our possible new senior pastor.

On a side note, we did have chanted liturgy today!

Nice.

We actually had several canticles and chanted responses today. Must be something about Lent.

 

[RadMan]

We had a baptism today. So obviously "no baptism during Lent" must be adiaphora because we are ultra conservative

 

[DaRev]

We had a baptism today. So obviously "no baptism during Lent" must be adiaphora because we are ultra conservative

Perhaps circumstances warranted it.

I never said it was hard and fast. I would just avoid it when possible.

 

[Flipper]

We had one too. The little one giggled all through it.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, I think I have my answer now. I'm thinking this isn't a tradition that isn't followed by many Lutheran churches, whether LCMS, WELS or ELCA, etc.

 

[Edial]

Isn't this something.
Lupinus, Rad and Flipper all had infant baptisms in their churches today.

Maybe we do have the answer to our question ...

Thanks,
Ed

 

[LutheranChick]

I will say this:

This thread has helped me realize why there are so many posts out there that say something to the effect of "I shouldn't be having this much fun in lent". Most of them have been EO or OOC.

I happen to rejoice during lent. Of course, I am somber when I contemplate Christ's crucifixion and death...but I also keep in mind what this means for my soul and salvation. That may sound selfish, I'm sure, but my faith has always been believing in Jesus and that he died for my sins so that I would become a redeemed child of God. So I do rejoice during lent that Jesus was so willing to go forward and die for little sinful me. I get tears of joy thinking about it.

The one day of lent that I really do emotional and sad is Good Friday. Man, that service really gets to me. I go to two services. A normal one in the afternoon at our church, and then a tinabrae service at my home church in lansing. The end of that service, holy cow, when they make the noise of the slamming of the stone...the tears are usually flowing at that point in time. We always sing Stricken Smitten and Afflicted during that service, and of course that song always gets me.

Anyhoo...I just derailed my own thread...

ITA, PW. We have the Tenebrae Service at our church, also. Just one service on Good Friday, and it is very moving. We generally sing "When I Survey The Wondrous Cross" and I am glad I am the organist and am just playing it- I cannot get thru that hymn, singing it, without getting all choked up.

To get back on track with the thread- I asked my Pastor if he had ever heard of not Baptizing during Lent. He said yes, he had, but he did not agree with it at all. As he said- if a pastor couseled a couple to wait until Easter to baptize their infant, and something happened before that day, like SIDS- what would that pastor tell the parents to comfort them?

I know we have a merciful God, and we pray that he has mercy on babies who do not get the opportunity to be baptized - but still, the Bible IS silent on this matter. So I would think that any parent that would be put in the position of knowing that the PASTOR counseled them to delay baptism and then lost their child before the baptism happened would be very upset- because there would always be that lingering question- was my baby really saved? I know that is how I would feel.