# Baptism of a Dying Infant



## Fly Caster

Would it be wrong for a Protestant pastor to honor the request of a Roman Catholic parent to baptize a dying child? For example, suppose a Reformed pastor was serving as a chaplain at a hospital and was requested, by a grieving mother that had just given birth, to baptize her child which only had moments to live.

What would you do in this situation?


----------



## MMasztal

I cannot see why a Reformed pastor would not baptise the child despite the fact that the RC view of baptismal regeneration is unbiblical.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Is this hypothetical? I'd suspect that a Roman Catholic wouldn't acknowledge the authority of a protestant chaplain to perform the baptism.


----------



## Fly Caster

ericfromcowtown said:


> Is this hypothetical? I'd suspect that a Roman Catholic wouldn't acknowledge the authority of a protestant chaplain to perform the baptism.


 
Yes, it is. Although I was discussing this question with a Non-Reformed Baptist friend who found himself in this situation. He was on hospital duty and was asked by a distraught mother to baptize her dying child.


----------



## raekwon

Fly Caster said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this hypothetical? I'd suspect that a Roman Catholic wouldn't acknowledge the authority of a protestant chaplain to perform the baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. Although I was discussing this question with a Non-Reformed Baptist friend who found himself in this situation. He was on hospital duty and was asked by a distraught mother to baptize her dying child.
Click to expand...

 
If your friend was Baptist, it sounds like it'd have been a pretty easy choice to deny the request (as difficult as it might've been in the face of a distraught mom).


----------



## steadfast7

Isn't baptism rightly conducted in the context of the local church? This 'private' baptism is kind of like 'private' communion.


----------



## Rich Koster

I would pray for healing and God's mercy for the mother and child and leave it at that.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

First choice would be to try and get a Roman Catholic priest who could do it.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Fly Caster said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this hypothetical? I'd suspect that a Roman Catholic wouldn't acknowledge the authority of a protestant chaplain to perform the baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. Although I was discussing this question with a Non-Reformed Baptist friend who found himself in this situation. He was on hospital duty and was asked by a distraught mother to baptize her dying child.
Click to expand...


I'm glad that I'm a layman and will never be faced by a mother distraught over the reality of loosing her child in such a circumstance. It would be easy to grant her request as a means of comforting her, and terribly hard to deny her that comfort in her time of need. However, I think Joshua is right, and that in such a case baptizing the child of a Roman Catholic (or Mormon) would be inconsistent with our belief as to what baptism is and what it means.


----------



## Rich Koster

Willem van Oranje said:


> First choice would be to try and get a Roman Catholic priest who could do it.



Wouldn't that be considered assistance in committing an idolatrous act?


----------



## steadfast7

exactly how old is this child? Is he/she able to make their own profession of faith? If not, the baptist chaplain has no reason to go against his beliefs on this matter - he would be compromising his integrity before God for the sake of the mother.

Is it idolatrous to recommend an RC priest to come and do it? hmm. What if a Muslim or Hindu person wanted that chaplain to perform an equivalent religious rite? Wouldn't it better to recommend that someone from their own faith group come and do it? I wouldn't consider that idolatrous. Remember that hospital chaplaincy is an ecumenical and multifaith setting.

I have a pastor friend who did hospital chaplaincy and was asked by a Jewish woman to recite the Shemma for her. Was it idolatrous?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Rich Koster said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> First choice would be to try and get a Roman Catholic priest who could do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be considered assistance in committing an idolatrous act?
Click to expand...

 
Why? Because of the oil and sign of the cross on the infant's forehead, etc? 

In general I affirm the validity of Trinitarian Baptism officiated by an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church. This certainly doesn't mean that a Protestant parent would be advised to present his or her child to a priest. But for a committed Roman Catholic, where else would you turn him/her?


----------



## steadfast7

Even Calvin did not reject his baptism under the Roman church.


----------



## Rich Koster

Willem van Oranje said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> First choice would be to try and get a Roman Catholic priest who could do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be considered assistance in committing an idolatrous act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Because of the oil and sign of the cross on the infant's forehead, etc?
> 
> In general I affirm the validity of Trinitarian Baptism officiated by an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church. This certainly doesn't mean that a Protestant parent would be advised to present his or her child to a priest. But for a committed Roman Catholic, where else would you turn him/her?
Click to expand...

 
I have a problem with the idea that the child would be baptized into Rome, not Christ. The language might be the same, but the underlying definitions, due to RC doctrine ("the only TRUE church, etc....) would trouble me.

---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------




Nova said:


> Even Calvin did not reject his baptism under the Roman church.


 
But would he present his child for baptism by a RC priest? You can't undo the past, but you can avoid future errors. This is the same as the old debate about the validity of a baptism done by "The Lapsed" during early Church persecutions.


----------



## jwithnell

Sadly, I don't think even a paedo-baptist, reformed pastor could in good conscience baptize a covenant child under the suggested circumstances. As a mom, I'd be devastated, but I'd have to trust God's providential timing and appreciate that the child's birth into a believing family does make him a covenant child with every hope of God's mercy.


----------



## jwright82

Wouldn't a Presbyterian minister of a good denomonation be bound by his oath to a book of church order that probably woudn't allow him to baptize someone outside his church anyway? When my daughter was baptized her mother and I were in the proccess of joining the church and the church got repromanded, not very severly, for that baptism because we were not officially members. Also our view of baptism is that it is not a saving sacrament at all. Therefore recieving of it or not does not affect ones salvation. So if the infant was dying its possible salvation wouldn't be affected by not receiving baptism at all. That is a Roman Catholic view that is driving the mother's distress and as bad as I feel for the mother and her pain I wouldn't do it on the above mentioned reasons but I would try to find a priest for her out of compassion.


----------



## Scott1

Fly Caster said:


> Would it be wrong for a Protestant pastor to honor the request of a Roman Catholic parent to baptize a dying child? For example, suppose a Reformed pastor was serving as a chaplain at a hospital and was requested, by a grieving mother that had just given birth, to baptize her child which only had moments to live.
> 
> What would you do in this situation?


 
It's difficult to know without more information.

It would seem that an ostensibly Roman Catholic parent would know that a Protestant baptism was not valid in the Roman system.

If they somehow did not believe that, and also believed that (any) baptism would save a dying infant, it would be obligatory for the Protestant Minister to explain that salvation does not, in and of itself save, and also to examine whether there was a basis for the true faith of the parent.

Infants are baptized really, based on the examined faith of at least on parent. Reformed would be careful about that (but perhaps not "broadly evangelical.")


----------



## SolaScriptura

*Incidentally, I am the ward chaplain for the mother and infant care center at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. I deal with this type of thing for a living.* 

As providence would have it, two weeks ago we had a preemie in the NICU develop an infection, he turned septic, and he died. As he was dying, his parents - who are nominally Catholic - asked me to baptize the baby. 
(And for the record, Roman theology allows for just about ANYONE to perform a baptism in an emergency situation as long as the Trinitarian formula is used - I've had several priests and a monk reiterate that. Their point was that we protestant chaplains don't need to call and wake them up in the middle of the night to do an emergency baptism if someone requests it.)

What do you think I did?


----------



## Jack K

A fascinating question. It involves the intersection of right doctrine with good pastoral care.

Clearly a credobaptist cannot baptize the baby. But what about a reformed paedobaptist? If there's a credible profession of faith on the part of the mother (perhaps not likely in the case of a Roman Catholic, but possible), I think the baptism _may_ be allowed.

It would not be a Roman Catholic baptism, because a priest didn't do it. The mother would have to have the difference explained to her, and the pastor should make sure she isn't requesting the baptism out of superstition or a belief that the child needs the baptism to be saved. If the baptism can be performed as an expression of the mother's faith and a witness to God's covenant blessings, then it may be that the baptism is a way for God to be glorified in the child's life, however short. Thus the child's life would be a sweet witness to God's grace. If it were my child dying, I'd want that for him.

I think it has to happen on those terms, though, and with that understanding rather than a superstitious one. It's a pretty high hurdle in the case of an average RC mother, but we shouldn't rule it out. And although we would normally want the parent to be a member of the pastor's church, and have the baptism happen amidst the gathered church, the pastor as the church's representative has the authority to act as fits the circumstances (a la the Ethiopian eunich).

As for calling in a Catholic priest if there's time... It may get the pastor out of a jam (not a good reason). Or it may be respectful to the mom (perhaps a good reason). But will God be more glorified if the priest gets there and does the deed on his terms? I'm unconvinced.


----------



## SRoper

Ben is right. Roman Catholic teaching allows anyone, even a layman, to baptise in an emergency.

From the CCC:



> 1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a nonbaptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.


----------



## SolaScriptura

SRoper said:


> Ben is right.



Of course I am... _I_ am not a rank amateur; _I'm_ an experienced and highly competent professional. Bask in the glow, folks, bask in the glow.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

> Koster-- I have a problem with the idea that the child would be baptized into Rome, not Christ. The language might be the same, but the underlying definitions, due to RC doctrine ("the only TRUE church, etc....) would trouble me.



Even Rome considers baptism to be into Christ. Hence, they recognize baptism performed by Trinitarian Protestants. In other words, is there any such thing as "Baptism into Rome?" I don't think there is. 

Is there something about the Roman Catholic definition of the Trinity which troubles you? Because that's really the doctrine that applies here. I share Calvin's view that baptism is one of the few remnants of Christian truth which remains in Roman Catholicism.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

jwright82 said:


> Wouldn't a Presbyterian minister of a good denomonation be bound by his oath to a book of church order that probably woudn't allow him to baptize someone outside his church anyway? When my daughter was baptized her mother and I were in the proccess of joining the church and the church got repromanded, not very severly, for that baptism because we were not officially members. Also our view of baptism is that it is not a saving sacrament at all. Therefore recieving of it or not does not affect ones salvation. So if the infant was dying its possible salvation wouldn't be affected by not receiving baptism at all. That is a Roman Catholic view that is driving the mother's distress and as bad as I feel for the mother and her pain I wouldn't do it on the above mentioned reasons but I would try to find a priest for her out of compassion.


 
Correct, our Reformed view would not see "emergency baptisms" as necessary. Baptism is a sign and seal of that child's preexisting status as a covenant child, and therefore we baptize. We do not baptize them _into_ the covenant.

---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------




Scott1 said:


> It would seem that an ostensibly Roman Catholic parent would know that a Protestant baptism was not valid in the Roman system.



Actually, in the "Roman system", baptisms performed by trinitarian Protestants are considered valid.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> *Incidentally, I am the ward chaplain for the mother and infant care center at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. I deal with this type of thing for a living.*
> 
> As providence would have it, two weeks ago we had a preemie in the NICU develop an infection, he turned septic, and he died. As he was dying, his parents - who are nominally Catholic - asked me to baptize the baby.
> (And for the record, Roman theology allows for just about ANYONE to perform a baptism in an emergency situation as long as the Trinitarian formula is used - I've had several priests and a monk reiterate that. Their point was that we protestant chaplains don't need to call and wake them up in the middle of the night to do an emergency baptism if someone requests it.)
> 
> What do you think I did?


 
Let me guess. You got an RC priest to do it?


----------



## Herald

I would not administer the baptism for a few reasons. #1 I'm not a paedobaptist. #2 I consider Roman Catholicism to be apostate and their sacraments apostate signs. #3 I would not want to have the parent believe their child will go to heaven based on baptism. Sadly, this belief is common among Roman Catholics. I used to hold to it when I was RC. As others have said, I would pray with the parent and offer her the comfort that is found only in the Gospel.


----------



## steadfast7

I'd love an answer to a question I posed:


> What if a Muslim or Hindu person wanted a protestant chaplain to perform religious rite equivalent to baptism?


 Would it be wrong to contact an imam or sadhu to come and take over?

It might shed some light on how damnable we think RC baptism is.


----------



## Staphlobob

As a former Roman Catholic clergyman I learned that baptism was valid only if the person doing it (lay, priest, prot., non-Christian) was, in some way, doing that which was God's will. In the end doing His will - even for apostates - is what matters.

So ... don't call a priest. Don't baptize with the idea of regeneration, which is not God's will. Let the child die. Let the mother cry and scream. Provide comfort with the gospel. 

Fini.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Nova said:


> I'd love an answer to a question I posed:
> 
> 
> 
> What if a Muslim or Hindu person wanted a protestant chaplain to perform religious rite equivalent to baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be wrong to contact an imam or sadhu to come and take over?
> 
> It might shed some light on how damnable we think RC baptism is.
Click to expand...


I do not see the two cases as analagous. I would not contact an imam or a sadhu in order for him to perform ritual services. Roman Catholicism is a church in ruins. It is not a mosque or a hindu temple. I see her priests as truly ordained pastors of Christ who are for the most part unfaithful in their calling, practicing wicked idolatry in obedience to the Anti-Christ. They are not a Muslim imam or hindu priest. Baptism is one of the few good things the Roman Priests retain, (though even there, they have added errors to the legitimate institution, as some here have noted.)


----------



## Scott1

jwright82 said:


> Wouldn't a Presbyterian minister of a good denomonation be bound by his oath to a book of church order that probably woudn't allow him to baptize someone outside his church anyway? When my daughter was baptized her mother and I were in the proccess of joining the church and the church got repromanded, not very severly, for that baptism because we were not officially members. Also our view of baptism is that it is not a saving sacrament at all. Therefore recieving of it or not does not affect ones salvation. So if the infant was dying its possible salvation wouldn't be affected by not receiving baptism at all. That is a Roman Catholic view that is driving the mother's distress and as bad as I feel for the mother and her pain I wouldn't do it on the above mentioned reasons but I would try to find a priest for her out of compassion.


 
Perhaps someone with experience in this can comment.

The constitutionally binding sections in the PCA would prevent anyone in the church from infant baptizing the child of a Roman church member, wouldn't it? Even more so under the false pretenses of the original scenario of this post?

Maybe a Minister, or Teaching Elder can comment on this.


----------



## Herald

Staphlobob said:


> As a former Roman Catholic clergyman I learned that baptism was valid only if the person doing it (lay, priest, prot., non-Christian) was, in some way, doing that which was God's will. In the end doing His will - even for apostates - is what matters.
> 
> So ... don't call a priest. Don't baptize with the idea of regeneration, which is not God's will. Let the child die. Let the mother cry and scream. Provide comfort with the gospel.
> 
> Fini.



Kevin, I don't know whether you're being serious or sarcastic. Either way, I don't know of anything that can comfort more than the Gospel. 2 Corinthians 1 was written to emphasize the comfort that God gives those who believe, through the resurrection (2 Cor. 2:9). The baptism of a dying infant has absolutely zero salvific significance for the child. I've never had to counsel a Roman Catholic parent whose infant child is dying; but if I was in that position I would appeal to them with the comfort that God provides (2 Cor. 1:3, 4) through the resurrection. If the parent is insistent on having their child baptized according to Roman rite, that parent will have to seek out a Roman Catholic priest or baptize the child themselves (which is allowed).


----------



## Scott1

After researching this,

The Council of Trent was a point at which the Roman Church, officially rejected the gospel, and the authority of Scripture.

It also left Scripture on the point of baptism.

So, anyone could baptize, even a heretic, even someone of another religion, if they used a trinitarian pronouncement.

The wrong doctrine that baptism itself saves an infant came later, hence the real fear created that any unbaptized infant who dies in infancy must go to hell, because, the reason goes, because they were not baptized.

It's really hard to believe this is the teaching, but apparently so.



> The Catholic teaching based on the Council of Trent, Canon 4:
> 
> Extraordinary minister
> 
> In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.
> 
> The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.


----------



## Grimmson

Scott1 said:


> Infants are baptized really, based on the examined faith of at least on parent. Reformed would be careful about that (but perhaps not "broadly evangelical.")



I would question the validity of that statement on the basis of historical practices there of and the view of the Directory of Public Worship, from about 1645, that would baptize infant because they were seen as Christians prior; hence the reason why they would be baptize. In order words, all ready part of the covenant. I challenge it because the assumption already made by the church typically is that the parents in question are believing, without the examination of their understanding of the Gospel in their present state. I would make the argument that a parents examination is probably given at the same time as a Lutheran examination, which would be as a child prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore not presently making the basis of the current faith of the parent, which should be presently examined, but instead of an examination given as a child, which the understanding of the faith could easily morph by the time a child reaches adulthood. 

I think a present examination should be necessary because their going to be the primary teachers of the child concerning all matters of life and practice, which would include the issues concerning faith.


----------



## Scott1

Grimmson said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infants are baptized really, based on the examined faith of at least on parent. Reformed would be careful about that (but perhaps not "broadly evangelical.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would question the validity of that statement on the basis of historical practices there of and the view of the Directory of Public Worship, from about 1645, that would baptize infant because they were seen as Christians prior; hence the reason why they would be baptize. In order words, all ready part of the covenant. I challenge it because the assumption already made by the church typically is that the parents in question are believing, without the examination of their understanding of the Gospel in their present state. I would make the argument that a parents examination is probably given at the same time as a Lutheran examination, which would be as a child prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore not presently making the basis of the current faith of the parent, which should be presently examined, but instead of an examination given as a child, which the understanding of the faith could easily morph by the time a child reaches adulthood.
> 
> I think a present examination should be necessary because their going to be the primary teachers of the child concerning all matters of life and practice, which would include the issues concerning faith.
Click to expand...

 
I believe reformed churches have always historically required that at least one parent of the baptized infant be a believer- a professed nonbeliever could not present their infant child for baptism under covenant theology.

It would require more research to know how that was determined (the faith of at least one parent), but, most often that was in connection with church membership, which was examined, in some sense.

For the Lord's Supper, of course the child is of age to "examine themselves" and is admitted based on an examined understanding and profession of the gospel in their own right. Historically, there were some who admitted children of believer's without examination.

Are you saying that, or something different?


----------



## Grimmson

Scott1 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infants are baptized really, based on the examined faith of at least on parent. Reformed would be careful about that (but perhaps not "broadly evangelical.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would question the validity of that statement on the basis of historical practices there of and the view of the Directory of Public Worship, from about 1645, that would baptize infant because they were seen as Christians prior; hence the reason why they would be baptize. In order words, all ready part of the covenant. I challenge it because the assumption already made by the church typically is that the parents in question are believing, without the examination of their understanding of the Gospel in their present state. I would make the argument that a parents examination is probably given at the same time as a Lutheran examination, which would be as a child prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore not presently making the basis of the current faith of the parent, which should be presently examined, but instead of an examination given as a child, which the understanding of the faith could easily morph by the time a child reaches adulthood.
> 
> I think a present examination should be necessary because their going to be the primary teachers of the child concerning all matters of life and practice, which would include the issues concerning faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe reformed churches have always historically required that at least one parent of the baptized infant be a believer- a professed nonbeliever could not present their infant child for baptism under covenant theology.
> 
> It would require more research to know how that was determined (the faith of at least one parent), but, most often that was in connection with church membership, which was examined, in some sense.
> 
> For the Lord's Supper, of course the child is of age to "examine themselves" and is admitted based on an examined understanding and profession of the gospel in their own right. Historically, there were some who admitted children of believer's without examination.
> 
> Are you saying that, or something different?
Click to expand...

I wasn’t denying the requirement of their being at least one believing parent, which Lutherans would be in agreement with. Nor was I addressing the professed unbeliever; but instead addressing the issue of the unbelieving professor in the faith. I was saying that this supposed examination of the parents to be classified as believers was actually their confirmation examination which allowed them to partake of the Lord’s Supper; instead of a careful examination as an adult to be a believing member of the church for their own children to be baptized. Basically the fact that are believing is taken at their word without careful probing of what exactly they believe and why in relation of scripture. If that makes sense? I am not going into a visible or invisible distinction here of what it means to be a believer.

If you have some kind of historical guidelines of how a parent is examined prior to their children’s baptism in the Reformed tradition, outside of their own confirmation as a child for partaking of the Lord’s Supper, I would be interested to know.


----------



## jogri17

I would for pastoral reasons. If your conscience would not permit it, then don't. All hypothetical of course.


----------



## Scott1

Grimmson said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infants are baptized really, based on the examined faith of at least on parent. Reformed would be careful about that (but perhaps not "broadly evangelical.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would question the validity of that statement on the basis of historical practices there of and the view of the Directory of Public Worship, from about 1645, that would baptize infant because they were seen as Christians prior; hence the reason why they would be baptize. In order words, all ready part of the covenant. I challenge it because the assumption already made by the church typically is that the parents in question are believing, without the examination of their understanding of the Gospel in their present state. I would make the argument that a parents examination is probably given at the same time as a Lutheran examination, which would be as a child prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore not presently making the basis of the current faith of the parent, which should be presently examined, but instead of an examination given as a child, which the understanding of the faith could easily morph by the time a child reaches adulthood.
> 
> I think a present examination should be necessary because their going to be the primary teachers of the child concerning all matters of life and practice, which would include the issues concerning faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe reformed churches have always historically required that at least one parent of the baptized infant be a believer- a professed nonbeliever could not present their infant child for baptism under covenant theology.
> 
> It would require more research to know how that was determined (the faith of at least one parent), but, most often that was in connection with church membership, which was examined, in some sense.
> 
> For the Lord's Supper, of course the child is of age to "examine themselves" and is admitted based on an examined understanding and profession of the gospel in their own right. Historically, there were some who admitted children of believer's without examination.
> 
> Are you saying that, or something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn’t denying the requirement of their being at least one believing parent, which Lutherans would be in agreement with. Nor was I addressing the professed unbeliever; but instead addressing the issue of the unbelieving professor in the faith. I was saying that this supposed examination of the parents to be classified as believers was actually their confirmation examination which allowed them to partake of the Lord’s Supper; instead of a careful examination as an adult to be a believing member of the church for their own children to be baptized. Basically the fact that are believing is taken at their word without careful probing of what exactly they believe and why in relation of scripture. If that makes sense? I am not going into a visible or invisible distinction here of what it means to be a believer.
> 
> If you have some kind of historical guidelines of how a parent is examined prior to their children’s baptism in the Reformed tradition, outside of their own confirmation as a child for partaking of the Lord’s Supper, I would be interested to know.
Click to expand...

 
In practice today, many of the reformed denominations would require a membership class and one home visit by or a meeting with a couple of elders for church membership and I think, but am not sure, membership would be required for baptizing an infant of that member. That's the practice I'm familiar with- perhaps some others can comment on that.

Historically, I've learned here on Puritan Board that some of the reformed churches (including RPCNA) required much more, "confessional membership" where the prospective member had to study the confessed doctrinal standards and agree to it before being admitted as a member.

But today, it seems the reformed church is mainly looking to see if there is a substantial basis for the profession of faith of a member, and accept it on that basis, and that would provide basis for baptizing their infant.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Scott1 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infants are baptized really, based on the examined faith of at least on parent. Reformed would be careful about that (but perhaps not "broadly evangelical.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would question the validity of that statement on the basis of historical practices there of and the view of the Directory of Public Worship, from about 1645, that would baptize infant because they were seen as Christians prior; hence the reason why they would be baptize. In order words, all ready part of the covenant. I challenge it because the assumption already made by the church typically is that the parents in question are believing, without the examination of their understanding of the Gospel in their present state. I would make the argument that a parents examination is probably given at the same time as a Lutheran examination, which would be as a child prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore not presently making the basis of the current faith of the parent, which should be presently examined, but instead of an examination given as a child, which the understanding of the faith could easily morph by the time a child reaches adulthood.
> 
> I think a present examination should be necessary because their going to be the primary teachers of the child concerning all matters of life and practice, which would include the issues concerning faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe reformed churches have always historically required that at least one parent of the baptized infant be a believer- a professed nonbeliever could not present their infant child for baptism under covenant theology.
> 
> It would require more research to know how that was determined (the faith of at least one parent), but, most often that was in connection with church membership, which was examined, in some sense.
> 
> For the Lord's Supper, of course the child is of age to "examine themselves" and is admitted based on an examined understanding and profession of the gospel in their own right. Historically, there were some who admitted children of believer's without examination.
> 
> Are you saying that, or something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn’t denying the requirement of their being at least one believing parent, which Lutherans would be in agreement with. Nor was I addressing the professed unbeliever; but instead addressing the issue of the unbelieving professor in the faith. I was saying that this supposed examination of the parents to be classified as believers was actually their confirmation examination which allowed them to partake of the Lord’s Supper; instead of a careful examination as an adult to be a believing member of the church for their own children to be baptized. Basically the fact that are believing is taken at their word without careful probing of what exactly they believe and why in relation of scripture. If that makes sense? I am not going into a visible or invisible distinction here of what it means to be a believer.
> 
> If you have some kind of historical guidelines of how a parent is examined prior to their children’s baptism in the Reformed tradition, outside of their own confirmation as a child for partaking of the Lord’s Supper, I would be interested to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In practice today, many of the reformed denominations would require a membership class and one home visit by or a meeting with a couple of elders for church membership and I think, but am not sure, membership would be required for baptizing an infant of that member. That's the practice I'm familiar with- perhaps some others can comment on that.
> 
> Historically, I've learned here on Puritan Board that some of the reformed churches (including RPCNA) required much more, "confessional membership" where the prospective member had to study the confessed doctrinal standards and agree to it before being admitted as a member.
> 
> But today, it seems the reformed church is mainly looking to see if there is a substantial basis for the profession of faith of a member, and accept it on that basis, and that would provide basis for baptizing their infant.
Click to expand...

 
I don't know of any denomination which actually stipulates "classes" in every situation, though many congregations hold membership classes. In the OPC BOCO, there is a provision which allows for missionaries and chaplains to admit people to membership on the rolls of a congregation located elsewhere, if there is no decent church close by. This would then allow them to baptize the individual's covenant children.


----------



## Grimmson

I know this is getting slight off topic.


Scott1 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infants are baptized really, based on the examined faith of at least on parent. Reformed would be careful about that (but perhaps not "broadly evangelical.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would question the validity of that statement on the basis of historical practices there of and the view of the Directory of Public Worship, from about 1645, that would baptize infant because they were seen as Christians prior; hence the reason why they would be baptize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe reformed churches have always historically required that at least one parent of the baptized infant be a believer- a professed nonbeliever could not present their infant child for baptism under covenant theology.
> 
> It would require more research to know how that was determined (the faith of at least one parent), but, most often that was in connection with church membership, which was examined, in some sense.
> 
> Are you saying that, or something different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn’t denying the requirement of their being at least one believing parent, which Lutherans would be in agreement with. Nor was I addressing the professed unbeliever; but instead addressing the issue of the unbelieving professor in the faith.
> 
> If you have some kind of historical guidelines of how a parent is examined prior to their children’s baptism in the Reformed tradition, outside of their own confirmation as a child for partaking of the Lord’s Supper, I would be interested to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In practice today, many of the reformed denominations would require a membership class and one home visit by or a meeting with a couple of elders for church membership and I think, but am not sure, membership would be required for baptizing an infant of that member. That's the practice I'm familiar with- perhaps some others can comment on that.
Click to expand...

Membership would be required, at least that the common reformed practice, because of the covenantal relationship between the parent and the church agreeing to teach the child the faith as the child matures . Unless a parent is just joining the church, is there a home visit by the elder to explain the responsibility of being a covenant parent and to evaluate their believing status immediately prior to the infant’s baptism and to explain the role/responsibility of the church? Which is what am getting at.


Scott1 said:


> Historically, I've learned here on Puritan Board that some of the reformed churches (including RPCNA) required much more, "confessional membership" where the prospective member had to study the confessed doctrinal standards and agree to it before being admitted as a member.


Historically your right, but signing off that you believe say the canons of Dort and being examined what you believe as it relates to the confession is really two different things. 



Fly Caster said:


> What would you do in this situation?


Of course I wouldn’t baptize the infant because of my Baptistic conviction. I would ask why the parent wanted their child baptized. Give them the Gospel of Jesus Christ and explain that baptism does not save you. Eventually I would explain my Baptist position and tell them to look in faith to the justice and mercy of God for the salvation of their dying child.


----------



## Fly Caster

I've learned some things in this thread. Thanks to all who've replied.


----------



## Scott1

> *Grimmson*
> 
> Membership would be required, at least that the common reformed practice, because of the covenantal relationship between the parent and the church agreeing to teach the child the faith as the child matures . Unless a parent is just joining the church, is there a home visit by the elder to explain the responsibility of being a covenant parent and to evaluate their believing status immediately prior to the infant’s baptism and to explain the role/responsibility of the church? Which is what am getting at.



The practice I'm familiar with is:

For membership- a membership class, either a home visit or meeting with at least two elders , plus session must vote to admit for membership.
For baptism- an interview with one or both both parents, the father prepares a testimony to deliver publicly at the baptism (or it could be the wife, esp. if she is the only believer). Then, the believing parents take public vows. the congregation also takes vows.

Here's what those vows are in the PCA:


> Book of Church Order
> 
> 56-5. The minister shall then read the covenant promises:
> 
> For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all
> that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call
> unto him. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee
> and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an
> everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after
> thee. Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou
> and thy house. (Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7; Acts 16:31)
> 
> The minister shall then propose the following questions:
> 
> 1. Do you acknowledge your child’s need of the cleansing blood
> of Jesus Christ, and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit?
> 2. Do you claim God’s covenant promises in (his) behalf, and do
> you look in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ for (his) salvation,
> as you do for your own?
> 3. Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and
> promise, in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will
> endeavor to set before (him) a godly example, that you will
> pray with and for (him), that you will teach (him) the
> doctrines of our holy religion, and that you will strive, by all
> the means of God’s appointment, to bring (him) up in the
> nurture and admonition of the Lord?
> 
> To the congregation (optional):
> Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of
> assisting the parents in the Christian nurture of this child?



Some reformed denominations do annual home visits for all members, others do occasional "shepherding group" invitational meetings, some do them mostly only when church discipline is involved. 

But I think in any reformed church, parents would receive some instruction before baptism.



> .... signing off that you believe say the canons of Dort and being examined what you believe as it relates to the confession is really two different things.



The gospel is so interwoven in the Canons of Dordt, an examination of it would bring out a most thorough basis for one's salvation.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

I am still waiting to hear what the chaplain here who actually faced this situation, did. 

I say this too, not in a bad way, but as consideration for information to whomever it may seem useful. The comments concerning papal baptism being valid and the only thing left to the papists of "real Christianity" or however it was worded (too lazy too scroll back) makes me want to read all the way through Gill's work on infant baptism being part and pillar of popery.


----------



## Austin

Roman baptisms are valid. Other irregular baptisms are also valid. I was baptized in an Episcopalian church at the behest of my unconverted parents due to the encouragement of my Southern Baptist grandmother by a liberal priest. And yet, I can look back & say to the Devil, with Luther, "Begone from me, Satan, for I am a baptized Christian." 

All resolved many centuries ago by an ecumenical council of the Church. 

As for the RC mother w/ the dying infant, if she professes Christ and is a member in good standing in her church, I would say that it is incumbent upon the Reformed minister to perform the sacrament. Then he would need to report his action both to his presbytery and to the RC parish to which the mother belongs.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Reformed Baptist said:


> I am still waiting to hear what the chaplain here who actually faced this situation, did.
> 
> I say this too, not in a bad way, but as consideration for information to whomever it may seem useful. The comments concerning papal baptism being valid and the only thing left to the papists of "real Christianity" or however it was worded (too lazy too scroll back) makes me want to read all the way through Gill's work on infant baptism being part and pillar of popery.


 
I'm aware of Trinitarian baptism, but I'm not aware of any such animal as "papal baptism." Who practices such a thing?


----------



## Turtle

SolaScriptura said:


> *Incidentally, I am the ward chaplain for the mother and infant care center at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. I deal with this type of thing for a living.*
> 
> As providence would have it, two weeks ago we had a preemie in the NICU develop an infection, he turned septic, and he died. As he was dying, his parents - who are nominally Catholic - asked me to baptize the baby.
> (And for the record, Roman theology allows for just about ANYONE to perform a baptism in an emergency situation as long as the Trinitarian formula is used - I've had several priests and a monk reiterate that. Their point was that we protestant chaplains don't need to call and wake them up in the middle of the night to do an emergency baptism if someone requests it.)
> 
> What do you think I did?


 
In the providence of God, at your explanation, they were persuaded of Acts 16:31, so you baptized the household forthwith??


----------



## Austin

Nice, Bryan. I was wondering if his response had something to do with acting like Samuel L. Jackson blended together with Jack Bauer and de Torquemada. Or something. Something, you know, hard core TR. Yeah!


----------

