Baptism during Lent

[Melethiel]

Actually indeed it is that Day. The Church tends to have a messy understanding of time. For example, there is only ONE Baptism, ONE Lord's Supper, ONE Easter. 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. The reason the Church has this messy understanding is because we believe that we are truly and actually party to Christ's birth, baptism, life, ministry, death and resurrection. These are not things that we simply remember but things that happen TO US.

Good post.

 

[Edial]

...
It really wasn't until Augustine that our theology of Original Sin and therefore Baptism was fleshed out. Yet just as Jewish babies were washed for ritual purity, I imagine that Christian babies were being washed on the Easter Vigil.
...

Do you think there is a difference (after the Cross) between the washing for ritual purity and babies being baptized today?

 

[Edial]

...
Can you point me to the Scripture reference where infants were baptized immediately after birth?

There are MANY Scriptural references that baptism is performed whenever the person requests it.
Example of the Ethiopian eunich comes to mind.

So is with infants. If parents request it, one just should do it, since parents were put in charge of their children.
Infants do not need to have an understanding what baptism means.

 

[DaRev]

Do you think there is a difference (after the Cross) between the washing for ritual purity and babies being baptized today?

There is indeed a huge difference. The ritual washing of the OT was totally Law, while Baptism is totally Gospel.

 

[Edial]

My only argument would be that Jesus waited to be baptized until it was willed by God to be the appropriate time. I don't have my Bible with me, but didn't Jesus get baptized right after spending 40 days in the desert being tempted by Satan?

Not arguing, just saying it!

I don't think Lent is scriptural either, but not too many of us would argue that it is not good.

apparently Lent developed as a preparatory period for Baptism, not for any other purpose. I found this on a website

"In the early centuries, Lent was a time of preparation for those who would be baptized at the Easter vigil, the main time individuals were baptized in those days, Baltes said. He emphasized that the dying and rising aspect is central in the ritual of baptism because, "In baptism, we die and rise with Jesus."
According to Baltes, the early Lenten season only lasted two or three days, and those who would be baptized fasted in order to purify their bodies of sin. Gradually the time period expanded, depending on the time and place, and by the fourth century the church had established its current 40 day Lenten season.
The number 40 has biblical significance, Baltes added. In the story of Noah's ark, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Moses journeyed with the Israelites for a period of 40 days in the desert. Jesus later spent 40 days in the desert where he resisted sin.
Around the fifth century, when the practice of infant baptism became more the norm, "Lent evolved as a period of penance for public sinners and for those who wanted readmittance to the church," Baltes said. The most notorious public sins of the time were murder, adultery and apostasy -- the sin of denying the faith.
Eventually Lent emerged as a season for the whole church to engage in penance in preparation for Easter, said Baltes."


Perhaps the Lenten baptism restriction should be adults only, infants and children cannot "prepare" for baptism...

I am so confused. What else is new!

According to LCMS website that I quoted, infants get faith during baptism.
In my opinion, this is the most important thing that could ever happen to a baby.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

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...

During Ash Wednesday we had communion as well as the imposition of ashes.
The mood during the service was traditionally somber, which is appropriate.

During the communion however, when kneeling at the rail I had a smile from ear to ear, so did the Pastor.

I guess we both couldn't help it.

 

[Edial]

...

I am so confused. What else is new!

I guess you are really getting baptized with fire here.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

During Ash Wednesday we had communion as well as the imposition of ashes.
The mood during the service was traditionally somber, which is appropriate.

During the communion however, when kneeling at the rail I had a smile from ear to ear, so did the Pastor.

I guess we both couldn't help it.

We had communion, too. Hubby and I go up last so we can commune together. Wouldn't ya know it, little David started screaming the minute I got to the rail. It was hard not to chuckle a bit, and I had to stifle the reflex to go running back to him. (He has separation anxiety issues really really bad right now!)

Our service was a bit odd, mainly because so few people showed up - we had very bad weather here and probably could've canceled our Ash Wednesday service like many other churches in the area. But in lieu of a sermon, we are having a bible class based on video tapes of the passion history. It is very interesting, at least the parts that I got to hear. Three babies don't make paying attention in church very easy!

But, for the first time in a long time, we had 12 people up front. Add me and the babies and you've got our attendance for the evening!

 

[DaRev]

According to LCMS site which I just quoted, faith in infants is created during baptism.

Do you disagree?

Faith can indeed be present prior to baptism. The Confessions state that faith receives baptism, and the Scriptures show that John the Baptizer had faith in utero.

 

[Edial]

Faith can indeed be present prior to baptism. The Confessions state that faith receives baptism, and the Scriptures show that John the Baptizer had faith in utero.

In the context of this thread, how would you be able to distinguish which infant has faith and which does not?

 

[RevCowboy]

I hope you realize that some people after reading the position of some pastors or seminary students here that resist performing baptism for all children during Lent might be led to have the baby baptized at home.
(Some people do not like arguing with pastors).

To say that they should not have the baby baptized at home will leave them with little choice.

Thanks,
Ed

All I am saying is that it would be nice and fitting to have baptisms at Easter, and given that the vast majority of folks getting their kids baptized wait anywhere from a few months to over a year. Of the last ten or so kids we baptized, I know that if we had asked the family to wait until Easter and told them why, they would have thought it was a good idea, they wouldn't have been one bit worried or felt that their child was being denied grace.

But, while its nice to have Baptisms at Easter, it is not right to have Baptisms at home when it is not an emergency. Baptisms are an action of God through the Body of Christ. Thus Baptisms should occur on Sunday in the midst of the assembly, unless there is an emergency.

If a family wants to have their child baptized in our congregation, we are going to have pre-baptismal class with them whether they are afraid to argue with us or not.

 

[RevCowboy]

Do they teach all this at the seminary?

Indeed, just as the Early Church Father's taught this.

 

[RevCowboy]

Do you think there is a difference (after the Cross) between the washing for ritual purity and babies being baptized today?

Absolutely. Washing in the Mikveh is a continual practice cleansing of sin, while Washing in the the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a declaration and action of God. Just as God proclaimed Christ His beloved child, we are proclaimed beloved children of God in Baptism.

In the context of this thread, how would you be able to distinguish which infant has faith and which does not?

It is not for us to distinguish faith, but God, especially in the case of infants.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Absolutely. Washing in the Mikveh is a continual practice cleansing of sin, while Washing in the the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a declaration and action of God. Just as God proclaimed Christ His beloved child, we are proclaimed beloved children of God in Baptism.

It is not for us to distinguish faith, but God, especially in the case of infants.

A question with preamble...

The first Christians, most were jews, no doubt held to the "laws of Judaism", and viewed their faith in Christ as the natural next step. So even after baptism, they would have kept up with their purification. So we really are talking two different things. Judaism to my Jewish friends the Mikveh is not so much for the cleansing of sin, but a symbolic removal of physical uncleanliness. For example if he touched a dead body, you had to be purified, if you were a dead body you had to be purified before burial, if you ate pork etc. etc..

When I was in college I asked an orthodox Rabbi "what if his daughter kissed a Gentile?" He assured me that the Mikvah would not remove the boot mark from her backside, God would do that in his own time, as he would with the one I would also receive if I got any ideas!

So I guess the Mikvah is similar to baptism in that It is still God who does the Cleansing, but unlike the Mikvah which is purely symbolic, Baptism only works with water and the word.

The early Christians that still practiced Circumcision; would they have baptized at the same time? Would It have been done around the same time? Are there any early Christian writings or scraps thereof that give us detailed accounts of the practices of these early Judeo-Christians? I asked the same question of the Rabbi; what I got was why should he care, he has a hard enough time keeping the law without worrying about the sins of others.

Mark

 

[Qoheleth]

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'm lost. Where in this thread did you get that impression from either myself or Pilgrim being the Orthodox in this thread?

Lent is a season of preparation, reflection, repentance. Im not sure what you mean by not having fun.

My only post was to say that Baptism can not be refused, which I meant to be supportive. I do understand though why the waiting periods. 8 days is usual.

Or perhaps Ive missed your point


Q

 

[Flipper]

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

Because of this and what cerette said, I'm going to baptize my children as soon as it can possibly be done, no matter what time of the year it is. God doesn't look at tradition, He looks at our hearts and whether or not we are following His word. If tradition follows His word then all the better, but it comes down to following what the Bible says. Not allowing something as important as baptism because it's Lent, doesn't sound Biblical at all. I haven't seen all the posts, here, but except for the link from the LCMS site, I haven't seen any verses on the issue.

I can not believe a pastor would deny something as important as baptism because it's Lent. You don't know what's going to happen to that child, and as has been said again and again and again, while we believe that God knows the child's heart, we just don't know for sure what happens to an unbaptized baby if they die. To deny that to the child when it's available is opening all kinds of grief, sadness, not to mention resentment of the family if the unthinkable happens. It is so unfathomable to me that a Pastor would want to put off baptism for any reason.

Show me Bible verses that say children shouldn't be baptized during Lent and I'll reconsider my views. Or, does tradition outweigh the Bible?

 

[RevCowboy]

A question with preamble...

The first Christians, most were jews, no doubt held to the "laws of Judaism", and viewed their faith in Christ as the natural next step. So even after baptism, they would have kept up with their purification. So we really are talking two different things. Judaism to my Jewish friends the Mikveh is not so much for the cleansing of sin, but a symbolic removal of physical uncleanliness. For example if he touched a dead body, you had to be purified, if you were a dead body you had to be purified before burial, if you ate pork etc. etc..

When I was in college I asked an orthodox Rabbi "what if his daughter kissed a Gentile?" He assured me that the Mikvah would not remove the boot mark from her backside, God would do that in his own time, as he would with the one I would also receive if I got any ideas!

So I guess the Mikvah is similar to baptism in that It is still God who does the Cleansing, but unlike the Mikvah which is purely symbolic, Baptism only works with water and the word.

The early Christians that still practiced Circumcision; would they have baptized at the same time? Would It have been done around the same time? Are there any early Christian writings or scraps thereof that give us detailed accounts of the practices of these early Judeo-Christians? I asked the same question of the Rabbi; what I got was why should he care, he has a hard enough time keeping the law without worrying about the sins of others.

Mark

Well... I am actually not sure what exactly the practice of early Judeo-Christians was. I imagine they kept most of the Jewish practices. As we know from Paul, circumcision for gentile Christians became an issue, which indicates that Jewish Christians were still doing it. Scripturally it really isn't all that clear when and at what age people were Baptized in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We assume any age and at any time because whole households were baptized, but whether they had been catechized first is not known. We do know from folks like Justin Martyr and Hippolytus that most Christians were adult converts and so most Baptisms were of adults. The Christian community was so small for the first few centuries that infant baptism didn't come into practice until probably the late second century after there was a base of population.

Christians didn't really write down their practices right away because A) most were illiterate B) they thought Jesus was coming soon. So we don't really know what they did until about 100AD. Justin Martyr (100AD) and the Didache (50-120AD) are some of the earliest examples of Christian praxis. Both you can find online. They are pretty interesting reads. Both also seem to assume that those being baptized will be adults because they are to fast and be questioned about the faith before being baptized.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Because of this and what cerette said, I'm going to baptize my children as soon as it can possibly be done, no matter what time of the year it is. God doesn't look at tradition, He looks at our hearts and whether or not we are following His word. If tradition follows His word then all the better, but it comes down to following what the Bible says. Not allowing something as important as baptism because it's Lent, doesn't sound Biblical at all. I haven't seen all the posts, here, but except for the link from the LCMS site, I haven't seen any verses on the issue.

I can not believe a pastor would deny something as important as baptism because it's Lent. You don't know what's going to happen to that child, and as has been said again and again and again, while we believe that God knows the child's heart, we just don't know for sure what happens to an unbaptized baby if they die. To deny that to the child when it's available is opening all kinds of grief, sadness, not to mention resentment of the family if the unthinkable happens. It is so unfathomable to me that a Pastor would want to put off baptism for any reason.

Show me Bible verses that say children shouldn't be baptized during Lent and I'll reconsider my views. Or, does tradition outweigh the Bible?

Show me a bible verse that even says there is Lent, or Advent. Are we going to give those up too?

There is no verse in the Bible saying we have to have our children baptized immediately either, that I know of.

I don't know that any pastor is "denying" baptism. i am sure they would do it if the parent were concerned.

I prefer to have a positive attitude. I don't like thinking about, "wow I should get my baby baptized immediately just in case they die." That's definitely the wrong reason to be baptized.

It's similar to the tactic the baptists use to get us "saved." Do you know where you would go if you died right now? I heard that countless times from the Baptists coming through my parents' neighborhood.

I am not trying to sound harsh. It just sounds like the people who are against waiting are against it for the wrong reason: FEAR

 

[RevCowboy]

Because of this and what cerette said, I'm going to baptize my children as soon as it can possibly be done, no matter what time of the year it is. God doesn't look at tradition, He looks at our hearts and whether or not we are following His word. If tradition follows His word then all the better, but it comes down to following what the Bible says. Not allowing something as important as baptism because it's Lent, doesn't sound Biblical at all. I haven't seen all the posts, here, but except for the link from the LCMS site, I haven't seen any verses on the issue.

I can not believe a pastor would deny something as important as baptism because it's Lent. You don't know what's going to happen to that child, and as has been said again and again and again, while we believe that God knows the child's heart, we just don't know for sure what happens to an unbaptized baby if they die. To deny that to the child when it's available is opening all kinds of grief, sadness, not to mention resentment of the family if the unthinkable happens. It is so unfathomable to me that a Pastor would want to put off baptism for any reason.

Show me Bible verses that say children shouldn't be baptized during Lent and I'll reconsider my views. Or, does tradition outweigh the Bible?

Lent is time of preparation and instruction in the faith. Show me a Bible Verse where Baptism isn't preceeded by some sort of teaching and instruction in the faith, and I will stop saying that simply it would nice to Baptize at Easter instead of Lent.

Also read the Didache, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus. Hippolytus even says: [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]21 At the hour in which the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When
they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring
or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be
baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there
are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or
someone else from their family.

The practice of instruction in the faith before Baptism has been around right from Day 1 of Christianity. Even Jesus heard John's preaching before he was Baptized.
[/FONT][/FONT]
BTW, I have never said that I would never Baptize in Lent. All I have been trying say is that is nice to honour the scriptural practice of instruction before Baptism, in the season which set apart by the early Church for instruction for Baptism.

I would also like to say that the notion that the Early Church's practice and tradition was not based in scripture is inaccurate. We have to remember that it was out of this very tradition and practice that scripture was decided upon and canonized. I believe that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church's tradition and practiced matched until both could be decided upon.

 

[Flipper]

I prefer to have a positive attitude. I don't like thinking about, "wow I should get my baby baptized immediately just in case they die." That's definitely the wrong reason to be baptized.

We baptize because we are commanded to. Further all I've ever heard said here is that if an unbaptized child dies, while we think that God will know that child's heart, we certainly don't know for sure.

I've only been a Lutheran 10 years, and have been taught from day one to do it as soon as you can. This is the first I've seen that might not be correct during a certain time of the year, and of course I'm getting it off a messageboard. I'm also getting ready to adopt children from a country in Africa where we will more than likely not get a perfectly healthy baby and/or child. I guess I'm looking at this a little bit differently than, say, a year ago.

Maybe I should just talk to my pastor and defer to what he says.