Baptism during Lent

[cerette]

And you know this because...

Actually, the benefits of baptism are received by faith which means that the faith is present prior to baptism. We don't limit God by saying that infants or anyone else who have yet to be baptized are not believers or do not have faith.

It is true that the benefits of baptism are received through faith, but from this it does not follow that faith need be present prior to baptism.

It is possible that faith is awakened by baptism and that if it is not, it may be awaked later by some other means, and then the benefits are received which were given in baptism.
The first of these two possibilities is affirmed emplicitly in Titus 3:5.

 

[cerette]

And you know this because...

Actually, the benefits of baptism are received by faith which means that the faith is present prior to baptism. We don't limit God by saying that infants or anyone else who have yet to be baptized are not believers or do not have faith.

Because of Original sin, Ps 51:5, John 3:6

 

[BabyLutheran]

Can you clarify this question for me?

I don't know of any WELS pastors that tell people they have to wait until Lent is over to baptize. I don't know of too many laypeople that would want to wait, either. So our pastors are not out of touch with the congregations.

Well, my church does make us wait (probably excluding emergencies), Da Rev and Rev Cowboy are the only others who are even slightly defending this. I just wonder why some are and some aren't, when it appears that almost all the lay people don't agree.

 

[Edial]

...Actually, the benefits of baptism are received by faith which means that the faith is present prior to baptism...

Faith is present in infants PRIOR to baptism?

This is what LCMS states concerning this ...

Q. How does faith play a role in infant baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?
A. Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart. Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim.3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2612

 

[DaRev]

Because of Original sin, Ps 51:5, John 3:6

Are you suggesting that original prevents us from having faith? Because if that's true, no one can have faith at all.

 

[cerette]

So that I would have the absolute knowledge of it. I recently miscarried a baby - Isaac's twin. While I have faith in God's grace, I cannot say for sure that the twin is saved, because there wasn't a baptism.

That's why I don't wait.

I don't want to make you feel bad or less secure in God's grace, but I want to say this:

God alone knows the heart. Therefore we hold it to be true that baptized babies are believers, however we do not have the absolute knowledge.

 

[cerette]

Are you suggesting that original prevents us from having faith? Because if that's true, no one can have faith at all.

No that's not what I mean. I guess the reason i mentioned Original there was that because of it, we have guilt. But yea, I could as well have skipped to mention it.
I better be more clear from now on!!!

 

[DaRev]

Faith is present in infants PRIOR to baptism?

This is what LCMS states concerning this ...

Q. How does faith play a role in infant baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?
A. Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart. Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim.3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2612

It is faith that receives baptism.

 

[RevCowboy]

I think this is adiaphora as well, and I appreciate the discussion.

Here is my rationale not baptizing in Lent, since I am one of the one's arguing for it.

I don't think liturgical season's are man made. Perhaps some dates are arbitrary such as Dec 25, but in the church seasons we celebrate, as the ancient Hebrew people did, the acts of God and the promise of God's future. The liturgy and liturgical year are scriptural in the sense that they proclaim the Word of God. Reading from the bible is only one way of experiencing the word. We read and sing, pray, mark time, share meals, are washed etc... and these are all scriptural things and all ways of hearing Gods Word.


In my experience, 99.999999% of baptisms are planned on the basis of when relatives can show up. Lent is a penitential season, and its practice began as a way to prepare for Baptism on the Easter Vigil. This tradition goes back further than the establishment of the canon. If the motivating factor is pictures for relatives, then folks can submit to the practice and tradition of the church. If the motivation is an emergency then we can set aside practice for.

One thing we have to consider about the early church is that practice and tradition existed along side scripture. Because the canon of scripture wasn't decided upon until 4th century, tradition and practice was one of the things that helped the early chruch Fathers decide on the canon. I think the Holy Spirit guided the church in its practice and in its understanding of scripture so that they would reflect each other once they became more solid. Once Constantine and Rome got involved is another matter.


The other issue which I think is that the core of this is our understanding of Baptism. Baptism is a sacrament. Through water and the Word we are given a tangible sign of God's grace and promise. We are commanded to Baptize by Christ.

However, Baptism is not a requirement for salvation nor does it guarantee salvation. God is the only source of our salvation and its God alone who saves. God is not bound by baptism to save or not save. Thus we can be sure that God's grace is given to those who are not baptized yet still have the gift of faith.

Thus I think it is one of the greatest signs of Christ's resurrection promise that on the celebration of Christ's resurrection in the Great Vigil of Easter that those who need to baptized are truly as Paul says:

Romans 6:4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.



I can see why the Early Church only did Baptisms on the Easter Vigil. They had sense, that I think we have lost in modern times, that in Baptism we truly and actually died and we raised with Christ. Therefore it would be appropriate that when new Christians were to die and rise with the Christ they should do on the same day each year that Christ did so.




I hope that explains why I would favour not having Baptisms in Lent and instead holding off at most 46 days until Easter. But just to be clear, this is my preference, not a hard and fast rule.

 

[DaRev]

Good post.

Let's also consider that in Baptism we are united to Christ's death and resurrection as St. Paul writes in Romans 6. We who are a liturgical Church follow the church year and view Lent as a season that prepares us to celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ. It is much more meaningful to celebrate a baptism at the time when we celebrate what we are united with in our baptism. Adiaphora? Maybe, but it's a practice that has a long tradition in the Church.

 

[dinkime]

adiaphoria -- the things that God does not tell us which way to go on -- tradition -- such a wonderful thing

i am all for baptizing when the baby is just born (first sunday in church when not an emergency situation), and i have no problem with it being during lent

to me, lent is a joyous time, not like advent is, but not near as somber as some treat it as -- should we not realize and be joyful that what is coming (Jesus' death & resurrection) are saving us?

also, from what i can figure, i was baptized during lent -- it was late february (when people could make it) and at a (now) elca church...

times change, i think it is wrong to refuse it during that time -- as CJ said, it would be like refusing to give communion -- it is a means of grace, grace is for all, all the time

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Good post.

Let's also consider that in Baptism we are united to Christ's death and resurrection as St. Paul writes in Romans 6. We who are a liturgical Church follow the church year and view Lent as a season that prepares us to celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ. It is much more meaningful to celebrate a baptism at the time when we celebrate what we are united with in our baptism. Adiaphora? Maybe, but it's a practice that has a long tradition in the Church.

Maybe it's more meaningful for YOU, but for me, it is meaningful to have my babies baptized as soon as possible.

Please PLEASE stop with the implications that those of who do not wait are not liturgical and are somehow breaking some unwritten command.

I've stated several times that the WELS does not follow this tradition, and we are as liturgical as you are, Rev.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

adiaphoria -- the things that God does not tell us which way to go on -- tradition -- such a wonderful thing

i am all for baptizing when the baby is just born (first sunday in church when not an emergency situation), and i have no problem with it being during lent

to me, lent is a joyous time, not like advent is, but not near as somber as some treat it as -- should we not realize and be joyful that what is coming (Jesus' death & resurrection) are saving us?

also, from what i can figure, i was baptized during lent -- it was late february (when people could make it) and at a (now) elca church...

times change, i think it is wrong to refuse it during that time -- as CJ said, it would be like refusing to give communion -- it is a means of grace, grace is for all, all the time

Exactly. Why is baptism (a necessary thing for salvation no less ((and yes, we realize the not absolute part))) refused to people during certain times when communion (not necessary for salvation) given any time? People here have complained that communion isn't given every week, yet have no problems refusing a baptism because it is lent.

This makes no sense to me, other than it cautions me against following traditions of man.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Lenten Traditions...

In the congregation where I grew up, there were NO flowers in the Chancel or on the Altar during Lent, NO weddings, NO baptisms.

Traditions being what the are, just traditions can be changed. Three months before my wedding I found out that my Mother had terminal cancer. The Dr. told us that she may have three months, but the last two would not be good ones. We called the Pastor and asked to have the wedding moved up so she could be there. We were married three weeks later, during lent, and Pastor and council had no problems with flowers for the occasion. My mother died two weeks later, just before Easter.

I'm glad they accommodated us and mom, but a wedding is usually not urgent, nor a "Sacrament". Baptism is. The "preaching " that can accompany Baptism, can certainly bring the lenten message across, as can Lent tie into baptism.

My 2 cents.

Mark

 

[cerette]

Exactly. Why is baptism (a necessary thing for salvation no less ((and yes, we realize the not absolute part))) refused to people during certain times when communion (not necessary for salvation) given any time? People here have complained that communion isn't given every week, yet have no problems refusing a baptism because it is lent.

This makes no sense to me, other than it cautions me against following traditions of man.

I am in shock about this, never heard of such a thing before. Lent is a time to focus I think , and not a time to force sadness or forbid joy in Christ (such as baptism).

 

[BabyLutheran]

Wow, I really started a hot button topic! I am really good at that aren't I?

I agree with Da Rev and Rev Cowboy on this one. Eternity is a long time, 45 days of somber reflection is the blink of an eye. What can be more joyous than being reborn by water on the day Christ rose from the dead?!

That being said, I do not find any fault with anyone who disagrees, and I am sure if a parent was this concerned, that any pastor might see fit to go ahead and have the baptism.

Blessings to all of you!

 

[cerette]

Wow, I really started a hot button topic! I am really good at that aren't I?

I agree with Da Rev and Rev Cowboy on this one. Eternity is a long time, 45 days of somber reflection is the blink of an eye. What can be more joyous than being reborn by water on the day Christ rose from the dead?!

That being said, I do not find any fault with anyone who disagrees, and I am sure if a parent was this concerned, that any pastor might see fit to go ahead and have the baptism.

Blessings to all of you!

Well, it's not the very day Christ rose from the dead anyway, it might be the same season or the same date for that matter, but it's not the same day.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Well, it's not the very day Christ rose from the dead anyway, it might be the same season or the same date for that matter, but it's not the same day.

Smarty pants! hehehehe

 

[RevCowboy]

I just want to be clear that not Baptizing during Lent would be my preference, but it is not written in stone and I would be willing to negotiate with family.

Now, my question for all that have a problem with this is, can God save unbaptized babies?

The Lutheran view on Baptism is as Luther said, "Necessary but not essential". It its the most important of means of grace, but it is not a magical thing that saves us. It is God action through Word and earthly element. Baptism is a sign for your sake and it does not limit God' s grace. I don't think God withholds grace from a baby who is scheduled to be baptized whether it is because its Lent or is more often the case, Grandma and Grandpa cannot make it to town until next month. God is not bound by the sacrament, but rather has given us the gift of baptism so that WE can have a sign of grace that we can touch, feel, smell etc... so that we know just as the water that washes us is real, so is God's love.

I can see, and even agree with the argument of not withholding baptism in almost every case. In fact, the only reason I would refuse to baptize would be is one was requested to occur at home apart from the Body of Christ because a family didn't want to make the effort to come to church and would deny the Body of Christ the opportunity to make is promises in Baptism.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

"Negotiating" for a baptism?

I think I'm done with this thread.