Baptism during Lent

[cerette]

If the family was insistent that the child be baptized sooner, we would still go visit them and do the pre-baptismal class. However, as I have said I would probably relent and do the Baptism in Lent. However, I will not do it at their house or outside the context of Sunday morning worship.

Now, if the family was worried about their child I also think a discussion on what Baptism is would warranted. A family who could not wit might be mistakenly thinking that Baptism is some kind of magical shield that protects from the devil or a ticket that gets is into heaven.

Baptism in and of itself does not save, God saves.
Baptism proclaims God's faith in us, not our faith in God. God does not need Baptism to give us faith.
Baptism is for our sake, not God's.
God does not need Baptism to bestow grace unto us, rather gives us this sign as gift that we see, touch, hear, etc... so that we know the reality of God's love.
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.

But let me be clear again: It would be nice to Baptize on the Easter Vigil has has been the custom of Christians for a long. However, I have never said that I would not Baptize in Lent for an emergency or perhaps even to assuage the fears of family who did not want to wait. However, in the latter case I might consider some post-baptismal instruction on the difference between having faith and trusting God versus having faith in Baptism.

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.

 

[cerette]

My views...

Baptism is two-fold. It is the water combined with the word which is one of the means of grace. It is where God calls us by name and makes us His. It is also a rite of the Church where an individual becomes a member of the body of Christ. It should be done in the context of the Church, during the Divine Service.

We need to remember also that baptism isn't the only means of grace. Paul writes "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the message of Christ."

If a baptism is to be scheduled, I would not schedule it during Lent because of the nature of the season, unless there were specific circumstances that warranted a sooner baptism rather than a later one. I would never refuse a baptism, but I would strongly encourage that the baptism be done in the context of the Church as described above.

That being said, if a parent said to me "I'll leave the church if you don't baptize my child when and where I want you to," I would probably hold the door for them. I would seriously have to question what their idea of the Church is.

Would you ever give communion to anyone outside of the Divine Service you have in the church?

 

[DaRev]

Would you ever give communion to anyone outside of the Divine Service you have in the church?

Yes, and I have in specific instances.

But let's not compare a regular activity with a one time activity. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are very distinct. Apples and oranges.

 

[dinkime]

they are very distinct, but they are BOTH means of grace, so it is very important to see how you would deal with one versus the other

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I am sorry you feel that fear of going to hell is a reason to be baptized

Well...that is kinda the point, isn't it? I mean, our belief in Jesus grants us eternal life in heaven, and the bible does actually say that you must be reborn in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. And how are we reborn? Through the washing and rebirth of baptism.

 

[DaRev]

Well...that is kinda the point, isn't it? I mean, our belief in Jesus grants us eternal life in heaven, and the bible does actually say that you must be reborn in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. And how are we reborn? Through the washing and rebirth of baptism.

This is true, but as Lutherans we also teach that while baptism is necessary, it isn't "absolutely necessary".

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This is true, but as Lutherans we also teach that while baptism is necessary, it isn't "absolutely necessary".

Of course, I'm not discounting that.

But I tend to believe that that applies more to those who have not had an opportunity to be baptized. Although, of course we do not pretend to know the thoughts of God, and I suppose that even one who has had the opportunity to be baptized but yet has not been could be saved, because of God's great and loving mercy.

I just thought it odd that someone would say they were sorry that someone else believed the fear of going to hell was a reason to be baptized. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I meant it in this way: I do not want to have my motive for loving God be solely to escape Hell. I love God because he is God, at least I hope that's why.

Similarly I would not be Baptized solely to escape Hell. I would hope I got baptized because I accepted God's grace (with the Holy Spirit's help, of course)

The Baptists used the escape hell argument on me to get me saved, and I don't like it: If you died tonight you would go to Hell because you haven't accepted Christ as your savior. Make a decision right now, you might die tonight.

I apologize that I did not explain myself better.

 

[Qoheleth]

while baptism is necessary, it isn't "absolutely necessary".

Well, I must ask. Is it possible to have saving faith without being baptized and would this person (assuming saving faith) then be received into Heaven?


Q

 

[DaRev]

Well, I must ask. Is it possible to have saving faith without being baptized and would this person (assuming saving faith) then be received into Heaven?

Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

The only thing that damns one to hell is unbelief. If someone refuses to be baptized, that is a sign of unbelief. If someone dies desiring baptism but has not had the opportunity to be, certainly that is not unbelief.

 

[Edial]

Salvation is God's.

All we do here is debate what baptism means according to our understanding of Sctiptures and Lutheran teachings.

I would personally rephrase that comment concerning God.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

.

 

[BabyLutheran]

Edial I apologize for being short way above. I did not write a very good post and I am sorry.

 

[Edial]

I would baptize during Lent.

...

Thanks filo.

 

[Edial]

In my daughter's case, she is 9, and can understand some, so I think it is best for her to wait and get some instruction in the faith first. Heck I am just tickled she wants to do it, and I am not having to force it on her.

Blessings to all.

Oh no. Please do not force her.
Encourage her, yes, but not force.

She wants to do it, which supports she has faith.

 

[Edial]

Edial I apologize for being short way above. I did not write a very good post and I am sorry.

I really am lost at the moment who exactly wrote what.

Nothing really stands out in my mind that I hold against you.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[BabyLutheran]

I really am lost at the moment who exactly wrote what.

Nothing really stands out in my mind that I hold against you.

Thanks,
Ed

No worries, then!

 

[porterross]

I would baptize during Lent.

But were I in your position, I wouldn't hold the door for them. But I would try in all ways possible to discuss with them the Biblical view of Baptism.

This doesn't surprise me, Reverend. I think many parents would be most taken aback at being refused what is specifically, Scriptually addressed and I would understand why they might look for another congregation with a more compassionate pastor.

Now, if they threatened to leave because of the color of the hymnal, I would hold the door.

I can't imagine anyone, anywhere objecting to maroon.

 

[DaRev]

[/color][/font][/size]

This doesn't surprise me, Reverend. I think many parents would be most taken aback at being refused what is specifically, Scriptually addressed and I would understand why they might look for another congregation with a more compassionate pastor.

Don't confuse being compassionate with compromising the doctrine of the Church. If you had read what I posted earlier you would have known better. And the cheap shot was truly uncalled for.

 

[porterross]

Why do you assume my post had anything to do with you? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically make them wrong, bad or less Lutheran.