Conducting Baptism Service

Status
Not open for further replies.

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
I have a question or two for ministers who perform baptisms (specifically, but not unique to, the baptism of a child). The question is not limited to minsters, however; others may have some thoughts as well.

In the past, I have always simply used by hand to perform the baptism. I cup my hand, gather a small quantity of water, and pour (rather than sprinkle) that water on the head of the child.

I have noticed that some pastors use an object to aid in the pouring: a shell or a cup of some sort. As long as no spiritual symbolism or significance is being attached to the item, I would think these would simply be viewed as circumstances and not violations of the RPW. Someone may be of a different opinion, and I would be interested in hearing that.

The baptism of my twin daughters will hopefully be taking place in April (they are still in the NICU), and my mother-in-law gave me a silver cup and asked that I might think of using it in the baptism (I am not quite sure about the significance of the cup, but I think it is something that was passed down in the family in some way). Are there any thoughts on this?

And finally, is there anything with regard to Reformed writers (current or in the past) who might have some thoughts on such things?
 
Tim,
I'm not sure there's an issue with use of an implement by which to baptize, per se. We have no idea if the apostle's always baptized by hand. Heb.9:10-19 (cf.Ex.24:6-8) describes an OT baptism using hyssop for the application; which pattern many of us have inferred as the model for John's baptism of the multitudes.

However,
I would be very loath to take an item given and proposed to be a "special" instrument for a baptismal aid. This is (in my opinion) the recipe for superstitious elaborations.

For what it's worth :2cents:
 
Tim,
I'm not sure there's an issue with use of an implement by which to baptize, per se. We have no idea if the apostle's always baptized by hand. Heb.9:10-19 (cf.Ex.24:6-8) describes an OT baptism using hyssop for the application; which pattern many of us have inferred as the model for John's baptism of the multitudes.

However,
I would be very loath to take an item given and proposed to be a "special" instrument for a baptismal aid. This is (in my opinion) the recipe for superstitious elaborations.

For what it's worth :2cents:

Thanks, Bruce. Very wise words. I had not thought of the hyssop branch. And yes, we must always guard against superstition.
 
Tim,

This is more of a brief historical side note - but in my studies of the history of baptism I came across a rather interesting procedure that indirectly specified the use of a pitcher in baptism in an important early Reformational setting. It is in the liturgy of the exiled Scottish churches in Geneva under Calvin’s tutelage, which by all indication followed the ritual used in his own church.

"After this promise made by the father, or godfather, the preacher requireth the infant’s name, and that done he Baptizeth the child, saying. ‘N. I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ And as he speaketh these words, one or other [i.e. the father or godfather] poureth water out of an ewer [a pitcher] into the preacher’s hand, which he layeth on the forehead of the child." (William Huycke, The Form of Common Prayers used in the Churches of Geneva: The Administration of the Sacraments, of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: The Visitation of the Sick: And the Catechism of Geneva: Made by Master John Calvin, [no place or publisher indicated - yet almost certainly printed in Geneva]: 1550, folio 35).

Anyway, I just thought you might find this interesting.
 
Pastor Phillips, I am excited to hear about the twins' baptisms. God is so good. Question: your OP wasn't clear about who would be doing the actual baptism?

(BTW, I love congregations having particular traditions as long as they don't bring on additional superstitions as others have noted. It shows something of God's blessing a certain church in a particular place.)
 
Question: your OP wasn't clear about who would be doing the actual baptism?

An ordained minister must do the baptism. When it was Gracie, I did the baptism but had an elder read the questions to my wife and me. Now, we have a retired minister in the congregation (his wife is a member), so I've asked him to do it. Unfortunately, he has had to go into the hospital and just this morning had open heart surgery. The procedure was successful, so hopefully he'll be up and around in another 6 weeks or so and can still do the service.
 
If you always use only your hand to normally administer, but then this time use this silver bowl for your twins (praise the Lord for them, btw) then what will you use next time you baptize the next little one? If you say you will go back to using only your hand again, then what if a parent asks you to use their special item? I think it best to not make exceptions in these matters, if for nothing else but for sake of steering clear of future problems.
 
Last edited:
What do you normally use to hold the water? Could the cup be used instead of the normal bowl, with you dipping your fingers in it and sprinkling the children?

If you will say you will go back to using only your hand again, then what if a parent asks you to uses their special item

A very good point. Do you risk offending your congregants, or offending your mother-in-law. Not an easy issue.

Possible solution - take it to the session. Let them vote on a policy decision to not allow innovation in the administration of the sacrament, after pointing out the potential long term problems in varying from long term practice.
 
If you always use only your hand to normally administer, but then this time use this silver bowl for your twins (praise the Lord for them, btw) then what will you use next time you baptize the next little one? If you say you will go back to using only your hand again, then what if a parent asks you to use their special item? I think it best to not make exceptions in these matters, if for nothing else but for sake of steering clear of future problems.

Actually, I wasn't going to use it just for my twin girls. I am doing another baptism this Lord's Day; I was considering using the bowl then too. Either way, the idea was to be consistent with the administration of the baptisms.
 
What do you normally use to hold the water? Could the cup be used instead of the normal bowl, with you dipping your fingers in it and sprinkling the children?

If you will say you will go back to using only your hand again, then what if a parent asks you to uses their special item

A very good point. Do you risk offending your congregants, or offending your mother-in-law. Not an easy issue.

Possible solution - take it to the session. Let them vote on a policy decision to not allow innovation in the administration of the sacrament, after pointing out the potential long term problems in varying from long term practice.

Andrew's point is very good. Best not to introduce the innovation either way. If you say yes to one, then you start saying yes to all. Our attention should not be be on bowls (or even the little ones, really) but on the Sovereign Lord who saves by His grace and even by His mercy brings our little ones into the covenant of grace.
 
I had a conversation regarding this, with a member in a congregation that I did supply preaching in, on a closely related issue. Their question was "is there a biblical mandate for using a font and/or having it as part of our church furniture". My basic answer was that we attach no theological or sacramental significance to the font whatsoever, it is simply something convenient to put the water in. I would therefore agree with posters above, as long as no significance (theological, sacramental, or otherwise) is placed on the object itself, I don't see an issue.
 
I had a conversation regarding this, with a member in a congregation that I did supply preaching in, on a closely related issue. Their question was "is there a biblical mandate for using a font and/or having it as part of our church furniture". My basic answer was that we attach no theological or sacramental significance to the font whatsoever, it is simply something convenient to put the water in. I would therefore agree with posters above, as long as no significance (theological, sacramental, or otherwise) is placed on the object itself, I don't see an issue.

Very nicely stated, Craig.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top