Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No problem, PW!
It's definitely never a dull moment being Lutheran, is it?
At least that means there's beer around if there are barstools!Watch out for the flying bar stools.
So as not to derail BabyLutheran's wonderful thread, I'm starting this because I'd really like to discuss why some churches do not perform baptisms during lent (or advent for that matter).
My children are baptized roughly 5-10 minutes after they are born, much like Luther's children were. I have always wanted it that way. My oldest son was baptized by my father and my other three were all baptized by my husband.
I couldn't imagine going 40 days without being able to baptize my child. If I was a member of a church that held to this practice, I would most likely go to another church to have my child baptized.
It's not only for my peace of mind, but it's also because my children are all believers as well and there's no reason why they should wait to be baptized.
I am interested to get others' opinions on this.
Sorry for using the word controversy, I should have used difference of opinion. Again, I am not really taking sides. I can see why both points of view are ok.
But no one has told me how immediately baptizing someone within minutes of birth is scriptural and not a "tradition" that the church started centuries ago. If we are supposedly scripturally driven, there should be scripture supporting it.
Remember my background, I didn't believe in baptizing people until they accepted Christ, so I have some baggage.
One more barstool....
Obviously, there's nothing in God's Word (or, to my knowledge, in the Lutheran Confessions) about how many days may pass before we fulfill God's command. In THAT sense, this is adiaphornon where Lutherans may disagree about and where praxis may vary.
If I were a pastor, I would have no grave concerns over the parents who schedule the Baptism on a Sunday that means the child would be a month old by then. Maybe so crazy Aunt Zelda can be there...
But if I were a pastor, I'd have pastoral concern if the baptism isn't getting scheduled or if the parents seem to want to wait until the weather warms up or mom looses her "babyfat" or whatever, and especially if they don't like purple paraments and want to wait until the green ones come up. I'd wonder if they are appreciating God's command, promise and grace? I'd wonder if they are harboring some errant anabaptist ideas?
ONE of the things I find odd (and maybe revealing) is how GREAT parents consider all things physical but how little they too often consider all things spiritual. They make sure junior gets to secular school but not Sunday School, they make sure their preschooler knows animal sounds and their ABC's but not that they know about Jesus. They go to great lengths to make sure their bellys are feed and that it's healthy and right but too often don't show any concern for their soul and if that is healthy and right. As a pastor, I'd be sensitive to helping parents embrace biblcial priorities and understand that their role is not limited to "things that rot" but also the things that are above. I'd come with gospel and grace, but I'd come. With my calendar and an Baptism Application Form. And yes, even if it is Lent.
Just MY bar stool.....
With THAT, I'm outta here!
Pax
- Josiah
.
While there is no Biblical or Confessional mandate concerning Baptisms in Lent, the season of Lent is a somber season to reflect on our sinfulness, to focus on our penitence, and to prepare for the Resurrection of our Lord. During Lent the worship atmosphere is subdued. There is no Hymn of Praise, there are no "Alleluias" sung or spoken.
At the same time, a Baptism is a joyous occasion, to be celebrated by all in the Church. Why would someone insist to have a baptism during a time when the praises and Alleluias that should accompany such an event cannot be sung and proclaimed? Baptisms during Lent should be discouraged unless the situation warrants it sooner rather than later.
As for Baptism being a work of God, it most certainly is. And as such should be celebrated as God's work in us by His garce, mercy, and love. Doing so in the season of Lent makes that a bit difficult.
And, as for someone leaving and going to another church because they want things done "their way", more power to them. I would have to question what they think the Church is; God's house or a social club.
Remember my background, I didn't believe in baptizing people until they accepted Christ, so I have some baggage.
You can look at it also from another angle that Marv presented.Sorry for using the word controversy, I should have used difference of opinion. Again, I am not really taking sides. I can see why both points of view are ok.
But no one has told me how immediately baptizing someone within minutes of birth is scriptural and not a "tradition" that the church started centuries ago. If we are supposedly scripturally driven, there should be scripture supporting it.
Remember my background, I didn't believe in baptizing people until they accepted Christ, so I have some baggage.
No one is saying that people can't be baptized at any time in the case of an emergency.All this seems odd to me....
Baptism is GOD'S act and He invites ALL (with no exclusion of children). I don't think we have any business telling God, "But I won't do as God commands because of a manmade season!" The divine LACK of blessings to that child (especially in the case of death) would be the fault of that pastor/congregation for imposing their OWN manmade rubric and rejecting God's call. God did NOT command the liturgical season of Lent, He DID give us the Sacramental Gift of Baptism and the Great Commission.
I was baptized by my father when I was about 4 minutes old, in the operating room. It wasn't Lent (it would have been Epiphany) but if I died (and the doctors said the odds of that were pretty high), I'm glad my father didn't say, "But the liturical season won't permit God's grace to be applied to my child - he'll just need to die with my refusal and without God's grace, the liturgical season is more important."
Sorry to be so blunt, but as one who WAS baptized immediately irregardless of the liturgical season, I DO have strong feelings about this.
ONE of the reasons I left the Catholic Church was because of manmade rules overriding God's Word.
Just MY perspective...
Pax
- Josiah
.
Why would your husband not want to baptize your son, if he's a pastor?That's why we have the affirmations. This way, the focus can still be placed on the importance of baptism, and the congregation still gets to welcome the child into the fold.
We don't make adults wait. If they want to be baptized we do it. The confirmation class doesn't have to be completed. When we baptize an adult, we ask them the following questions:
Do you believe that you were born in sin and therefore eternally lost?
Do you believe in the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Do you believe that this Triune God planned and carried out your salvation?
Do you believe that God grants you the forgiveness of sins in Holy Baptism?
Do you desire to be baptized?
If they can answer yes to all of these questions, why make them wait?
With my sons, there was usually good reason to baptize them when they were born. With my oldest, there was the issue of whether his father would allow him to be baptized. With my three youngest, all were born early, especially Isaac. We practically baptized him right out of the womb because we knew he was going to get shipped off to the NICU. I suppose one might look at our circumstances and think that there was nothing urgent about it, but I'm thankful that God doens't look at it that way.
As for the practice of no baptisms during lent, I'm betting there's no scriptural backup for that. But if someone's got it, please share.
Yes, that was the case for many. Many people risked a lot to have their children secretly baptized during the time of the Soviet Union.I was baptized as a baby in Soviet Union, Ukraine.
It was an atheist State with very few churches around.
My uncle was a priest in Armenia (part of USSR) at the time and later on in life became an Archbisop.
(Christianity was not as supressed in Armenia due to the ancient Christian roots of the Armenians).
My father somehow sensed it is important to baptize me as a baby.
He called my uncle and he came immediately and I was baptized by my uncle secretly at night at some tiny Russian (or Ukranian) Orthodox Church.
We had to keep it secret from the Communists, since my father could have lost his job.
The fact that I was baptized took priority over many things.
Thanks,
Ed
No, I totally understand and agree with the Lutheran view, I just didn't have that view for 45 years!!!I'm just surprised no one hasn't commented on the word "accepted". Lutherans say "receive" not accept. Mr. Dictionary says accept means to receive willingly. Receive is to come into possession of. If we "receive" salvation, that means there is nothing that has to be "done" (ie. works) to gain it.
Trust me it took a while to get out of thinking the same way I had for 23 years.
The sad part in this was when I became a Baptist I was taught that infant baprism means nothing.Yes, that was the case for many. Many people risked a lot to have their children secretly baptized during the time of the Soviet Union.
Why would your husband not want to baptize your son, if he's a pastor?
*confused*
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?