When Should We Baptise Our Children?

[Ambrose]

Actually I have a couple of related questions.

1) If baptism is the initiation into the covenant, what is the status of my child between birth and baptism?

2) Is there a certain time that is best for baptism? E.g. 1st day, 8th day, 1st Sunday, Next opening on the church calendar, etc.?

Last baptism in my family I delayed the event a bit to accommodate the schedules of relatives that wanted to attend. I don't think I would do that again. My thinking is that if it does really mean something (not just a wet baby dedication), then I should treat it importantly rather than just fitting it in when convenient. We should arrange our schedules around important events rather than vice versa.

In the past I thought maybe the 8th day was a good time, but I'm not really sure if that's right or not. Is there a reason NOT to baptize a baby the day its born?

[Edited on 6-26-2006 by Chad Degenhart]

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart
2) Is there a certain time that is best for baptism? E.g. 1st day, 8th day, 1st Sunday, Next opening on the church calendar, etc.?

You should only baptize during the spring or fall, during a Equinox or Solstice. Consult your local Druid for more information.
:bigsmile:









You Presbyterians and your crazy superfluous legal bars

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart
Actually I have a couple of related questions.

1) If baptism is the initiation into the covenant, what is the status of my child between birth and baptism?

2) Is there a certain time that is best for baptism? E.g. 1st day, 8th day, 1st Sunday, Next opening on the church calendar, etc.?

Last baptism in my family I delayed the event a bit to accommodate the schedules of relatives that wanted to attend. I don't think I would do that again. My thinking is that if it does really mean something (not just a wet baby dedication), then I should treat it importantly rather than just fitting it in when convenient. We should arrange our schedules around important events rather than vice versa.

In the past I thought maybe the 8th day was a good time, but I'm not really sure if that's right or not. Is there a reason NOT to baptize a baby the day its born?

[Edited on 6-26-2006 by Chad Degenhart]

The baptism should be a part of the public worship of God's people, so the day of birth is probably not possible.

I actually think that there is nothing horrible about waiting to have the greatest witness to family and friends. Remmber that the effacacy of baptism is not tied to the moment in time.

 

[Ambrose]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart
2) Is there a certain time that is best for baptism? E.g. 1st day, 8th day, 1st Sunday, Next opening on the church calendar, etc.?

You should only baptize during the spring or fall, during a Equinox or Solstice. Consult your local Druid for more information.
:bigsmile:









You Presbyterians and your crazy superfluous legal bars

Ryan, I was even more frustrated in my old Baptist church. First we had to wait weeks to have it scheduled, then it was delayed because one of the deacons forgot to start filling the baptismal early in the morning, so we had to wait until the following week.

Q.: "Look, here is water. What hindereth me from being baptised?"

A.: "You must wait until next Sunday so everyone can watch, and make sure Deacon Joe fills up the baptismal."

 

[Ambrose]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

The baptism should be a part of the public worship of God's people, so the day of birth is probably not possible.

Is that required or just preferable? It seems like baptisms were performed right away in the Bible. Is that a misperception on my part?

I actually think that there is nothing horrible about waiting to have the greatest witness to family and friends. Remmber that the effacacy of baptism is not tied to the moment in time.

I have a baptist friend that asks me what's the difference if he waits until his children are 7 or 8 or 10 before he baptises them, and if his children are actually missing anything by waiting. I have always answered in the affirmative, that baptism really does mean something and children do miss out by not receiving it. If the efficacy is not tied to the moment in time, then does his argument have merit? Waiting for sake of convenience doesn't seem consistent on my part.

 

[BJClark]

For me, it doesn't matter when, but it does matter who is in attendance.

If I had family members who desired to be there, but were not walking their faith or even who were not Christians, I would have a difficult time believing they would be making a serious commitment to help raise my children in the ways of God.

So for me, those in attendance who would be asked if they will help raise this child in the ways of God, should take it the commitment just as seriously as I do.

 

[bob]

Greetings,

I weigh in this discussion as a credobaptist, so I doubt that my response will be all the helpful to Chad! But he does ask a couple questions that I would be most appreciative to see someone answer.

First, as Chad originally asked, from a paedobaptist perspective: " what is the status of my child between birth and baptism?" When is Chad's baby part of the covenant community? What "risk" does he take in waiting for his family members to attend the baptism?

How do paedobaptists view the children of credobaptists? Obviously as a credobaptist, my kids are baptized when they profess faith in Christ. If my children die before they are baptized, are they dying as covenant children or are they dying outside the covenant? If a peadobaptists views my children in the same standing as theirs, in spite of (from their persective) my foolishness or sinfulness in not presenting them to baptistm , then this would seem to render the infant's baptism as nothing more than "a wet dedication." If the effacacy of baptism is not tied to a moment of the time, then it would seem that there would be no difference between Chad and I. He waits a few weeks, I wait a few years.

Considering the Scriptures portrayal and teaching on baptism, how have we arrived at the place that baptism "should be a part of the public worship of God's peoples?" It seems to me that there is not one instant in the Scriptures of people being baptized as part of public worship, nor does it seem that there is any place in Scripture that should compel us to wait so that people can watch. People were baptized as soon as professions were made, whether it be by the nearby river or in the home.

John Gill, whose view I hold to rather closely, viewed baptism within the church walls a violation against the regulative worship principle. He espoused that it was part of public worship in that it was performed in the name of the Trinity, but that it should be performed outside of the church as soon as a profession was made and someone was available to baptize.

If I were a paedo baptist, I would want one of the elders to baptize my children as soon as it was reasonable and possible. I would not be opposed to having people file into the hospital room to watch, but I certainly would not see the need to delay so that Aunt Ruth could fly down from Seattle.

As a credobaptist, I like to see the children baptized as soon as they profess Jesus with their lips, whether that be at two, six, or ten.

Sadly, I am in the same place as Chad was when he was in his baptist church. We rent a Methodist church and as we baptize by immersion, this presents a problem. I feel as if I should be careful even as one of the elders, for my views are not synonymous with those of my church. As soon as children profess faith in Christ, my response would be to go over and baptize them immediately, whether it be in the river, the pool, or the bathtub.

Bob

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by bob
Greetings,

I weigh in this discussion as a credobaptist, so I doubt that my response will be all the helpful to Chad! But he does ask a couple questions that I would be most appreciative to see someone answer.

First, as Chad originally asked, from a paedobaptist perspective: " what is the status of my child between birth and baptism?" When is Chad's baby part of the covenant community? What "risk" does he take in waiting for his family members to attend the baptism?

A child is born into the Covenant community. Baptism is a visible promise that when the thing signified is true of you that your sins will be forgiven and you will be saved. This is true of children and adults (because believe it or not, the Church actually baptizes some who profess falsely). The thing signified is justifying faith in Christ. Baptists make the mistake of conflating the sign with the thing signified. There is no "risk" in the sense that the child is unsaved during that period of time but one wonders why a true Christian would want to refuse identification with Christ and His Church for no reason whatsoever. If there is a good reason then it isn't as if grace is infused during the process and the child is at risk during the intervening period.

How do paedobaptists view the children of credobaptists? Obviously as a credobaptist, my kids are baptized when they profess faith in Christ. If my children die before they are baptized, are they dying as covenant children or are they dying outside the covenant? If a peadobaptists views my children in the same standing as theirs, in spite of (from their persective) my foolishness or sinfulness in not presenting them to baptistm , then this would seem to render the infant's baptism as nothing more than "a wet dedication." If the effacacy of baptism is not tied to a moment of the time, then it would seem that there would be no difference between Chad and I. He waits a few weeks, I wait a few years.

I view your children the same way you do - as Christians. I've never met a Baptist who kept his kids out of Church. I've never met a Baptist who didn't teach their kids to pray. The difference is that I don't withold public identification in the Church that the child is a participant in the Covenant. I don't bring him into Covenant life and pretend that he is not in the Covenant. I don't let him hang around the Covenant and play and interact with those in the Covenant but tell him he's not really a part of it. I don't tell my children that "...you may be among us but you're not of us." That's the difference. You treat your child all the time as if he's a Christian but you refuse to give to him that which is his birthright - the sign of inclusion. The sign does not mean he is necessarily united with Christ but it is significant that your household is a house united in the Covenant and not a mixed multitude with some baptized and some kept out until they "prove" they're really part of your covenant life.

Considering the Scriptures portrayal and teaching on baptism, how have we arrived at the place that baptism "should be a part of the public worship of God's peoples?" It seems to me that there is not one instant in the Scriptures of people being baptized as part of public worship, nor does it seem that there is any place in Scripture that should compel us to wait so that people can watch. People were baptized as soon as professions were made, whether it be by the nearby river or in the home.

Do you really form your doctrine based on historical narrative? Interesting. I go to didactic teaching first to develop doctrine.

John Gill, whose view I hold to rather closely, viewed baptism within the church walls a violation against the regulative worship principle. He espoused that it was part of public worship in that it was performed in the name of the Trinity, but that it should be performed outside of the church as soon as a profession was made and someone was available to baptize.

I don't agree unless you can demonstrate how something commanded by Christ to be performed by the Church is inherently something that should be performed outside of formal worship. Do you have the same view of the Lord's Supper?

If I were a paedo baptist, I would want one of the elders to baptize my children as soon as it was reasonable and possible. I would not be opposed to having people file into the hospital room to watch, but I certainly would not see the need to delay so that Aunt Ruth could fly down from Seattle.

Well, you're not a paedobaptist or you would not conflate the sign with the thing signified.

As a credobaptist, I like to see the children baptized as soon as they profess Jesus with their lips, whether that be at two, six, or ten.

Why? Do you assume that they are therefore regenerate? Again, you are conflating profession with true faith and the sign with the thing signified.

Sadly, I am in the same place as Chad was when he was in his baptist church. We rent a Methodist church and as we baptize by immersion, this presents a problem. I feel as if I should be careful even as one of the elders, for my views are not synonymous with those of my church. As soon as children profess faith in Christ, my response would be to go over and baptize them immediately, whether it be in the river, the pool, or the bathtub.

I have a higher view of the role of the Church and her elders in the process of admission into the Covenant. Baptism is more than a personal, existential event. It also proclaims Christ and is a moment of joy for the whole Covenant community. I don't celebrate the birth of my child in a closet, hiding it from my extended family. I celebrate it with them all.

 

[Ambrose]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
A child is born into the Covenant community.

Bob: As soon as children profess faith in Christ, my response would be to go over and baptize them immediately, whether it be in the river, the pool, or the bathtub.

Rich:I have a higher view of the role of the Church and her elders in the process of admission into the Covenant.

But if a child is born into the Covenant community, rather than baptised into it, then what role do the Church and her elders have in that process? If you're saying that by baptising in a public worship service, the elders are playing a role in the process of admission into the Covenant, then by your own definitions you seem to be conflating the sign and the thing signified as much as Bob is.

Baptism is "the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church" in addition to being "unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life."

I wasn't really asking about the unbaptised infant's status with regards to being regenerate/unregenerate, but with regards to being a member of the Visible church. If baptism is only a sign of them being in the Visible church/covenant community, rather than the actual initiation of them into it, then I suppose it could be just done whenever its convenient. Otherwise, I'd want to do it as soon as possible. Why not have the elders come to the house and do it that very day, and invite the whole church? (Probably because everyone is too busy and doesn't view baptism as an event worthy of re-arranging their schedules, hence reinforcing my perception that many don't really view it as being meaningful anyway.)

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart
Ryan, I was even more frustrated in my old Baptist church. First we had to wait weeks to have it scheduled, then it was delayed because one of the deacons forgot to start filling the baptismal early in the morning, so we had to wait until the following week.

Q.: "Look, here is water. What hindereth me from being baptised?"

A.: "You must wait until next Sunday so everyone can watch, and make sure Deacon Joe fills up the baptismal."

I was just kidding by the way-- in good humor.

Behind that joking, my tacit point was that time is of no concern, particularly when salvation is in eternity, and the efficacy is in the Holy Spirit's washing and regeneration. What Fred said about merely holding out for more witnesses/family, and that sort of timing, seems to be a great practical concern, which might be considered. My grandparents were at my baptism, and we planned around that.

Yes, Baptists have their quirks as well. How many bulletin boards have I seen? It's tempting to grab a Baptist bulletin board off the wall, take it to the range, and use it for skeet shooting practice. That would certainly convey my sentiments towards their head-counting obsession with King Numbers. Just kidding again.

 

[DTK]

I wasn't really asking about the unbaptised infant's status with regards to being regenerate/unregenerate, but with regards to being a member of the Visible church. If baptism is only a sign of them being in the Visible church/covenant community, rather than the actual initiation of them into it, then I suppose it could be just done whenever its convenient. Otherwise, I'd want to do it as soon as possible. Why not have the elders come to the house and do it that very day, and invite the whole church? (Probably because everyone is too busy and doesn't view baptism as an event worthy of re-arranging their schedules, hence reinforcing my perception that many don't really view it as being meaningful anyway.)

Dear Chad, you didn't ask about staus, to be sure, but it does seem that another poster did. Moreover, our children are included in God's covenant prior to their baptism, and their baptism is the actual admission into that visible community. Here's how Calvin addressed this issue...

John Calvin: From this it follows that the children of believers are baptized not in order that they may who were previously strangers to the church may then for the first time become children of God, but rather that, because by the blessings of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ, that they are received into the church with this solemn sign. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.15.22, p. 1323.

And many more such instances can be cited from Calvin. I will be happy to post some of these additionally if you so request.

DTK

 

[Ambrose]

Thanks Pastor King.

So let me put this into my own words, and others can correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Children are born (or conceived maybe?) into God's covenant, according to his promise that the covenant is to us and our children.

2. Baptism is the actual, public receiving of the covenant child into the covenant community, according to his promise that the covenant is to us and our children, and our public acknowledgment and submission to the covenant as defined by God.

Based on those statements, plus the Calvin citation, it would seem to me that the best time for baptism would be the first occassion that the child comes to the public worship service.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Chad Degenhart
So let me put this into my own words, and others can correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Children are born (or conceived maybe?) into God's covenant, according to his promise that the covenant is to us and our children.

2. Baptism is the actual, public receiving of the covenant child into the covenant community, according to his promise that the covenant is to us and our children, and our public acknowledgment and submission to the covenant as defined by God.

Based on those statements, plus the Calvin citation, it would seem to me that the best time for baptism would be the first occassion that the child comes to the public worship service.

Dear Chad,

Yes, I would say that children of believers are at birth born as members of God's covenant with His people according to His promise, "I will be God to you and your seed after you." Just a few more quotes from Calvin, and one of them addresses your question, in a manner of speaking, about when to baptize...

John Calvin: For he [i.e., the Lord] expressly declares that the circumcision of a tiny infant will be in lieu of a seal to certify the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant still remains firm and steadfast, it applies no less today to the children of Christians than under the Old Testament it pertained to the infants of the Jews. Yet if they are participants in the thing signified, why shall they be debarred from the sign? If they grasp the truth, why shall they be driven away from the figure? Notwithstanding, the outward sign so cleaves to the word in the sacrament that it cannot be separated from it; yet if the sign is considered separately from the word, which, I ask you, shall we esteem more? Obviously, since we see that the sign serves the word, we shall say that it is under the word, and shall relegate it to a lower place. Therefore, since the word "œbaptism" is applied to infants, why shall the sign, which is an appendix of the word, be denied to them? This one reason, if no others were at hand, would be quite enough to refute all those who would speak in opposition. The objection that there was a stated day for circumcision is sheer evasion. We admit that we are not now bound to certain days like the Jews; but since the Lord, without fixing the day, yet declares that he is pleased to receive infants into his covenant with a solemn rite, what more do we require? Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.16.5, p. 1328.

John Calvin: First, it is a doctrine well enough known and confessed among all godly men that a right consideration of signs does not rest solely in external ceremonies, but depends chiefly upon the promise and the spiritual mysteries, which the Lord ordains the ceremonies themselves to represent. Therefore, let him who would fully learn the value of baptism, its object, and indeed its entire nature, not fix his thought upon the element and the physical appearance, but rather raise it to God´s promises which are there offered to us, and to the inner mysteries which are represented in it. He who grasps these things has attained the solid truth of baptism, and, so to speak, its entire substance. And from this he will also be taught the reason and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who contemptuously disregards these things and has his attention fixed and bound wholly to the visible ceremony will understand neither the force nor the character of baptism and not even the meaning of the water or its use. This statement is proved by so many and such clear testimonies of Scripture that it is not necessary to pursue it further for the present. It therefore now remains for us, from the promises given in baptism, to inquire what its force and nature are. Scripture declares that baptism first points to the cleansing of our sins, which we obtain from Christ´s blood; then to the mortification of our flesh, which rests upon participation in his death and through which believers are reborn into newness of life and into the fellowship of Christ. All that is taught in the Scriptures concerning baptism can be referred to this summary, except that baptism is also a symbol for bearing witness to our religion before men. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.16.17, p. 1325.

John Calvin: But how (they ask) are infants, unendowed with knowledge of good or evil, regenerated? We reply that God´s work, though beyond our understanding, is still not annulled. Now it is perfectly clear that those infants who are to be saved (as some are surely saved from that early age) are previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bear with them an inborn corruption from their mother´s womb, they must be cleansed of it before they can be admitted into God´s Kingdom, for nothing polluted or defiled may enter there [Revelation 21:27]. If they are born sinners, as both David and Paul affirm either they remain unpleasing and hateful to God, or they must be justified. And what further do we seek, when the Judge himself plainly declares that entry into heavenly life opens only to men who are born anew [John 3:3]?
And to silence such gainsayers, God provided a proof in John the Baptist, whom he sanctified in his mother´s womb [Luke 1:15] "” something he could do in others. And they do not gain anything here by this mocking evasion "” that it was only once, and that from this one instance it does not immediately follow that the Lord usually deals thus with infants. But we are not arguing in this way either. Our purpose is solely to show that they unjustly and wickedly shut God´s power within these narrow limits to which it does not permit itself to be confined. Their other quibble has no more weight. They claim that, in accordance with the usual mode of expression of Scripture, the phrase "œfrom the womb" is merely the equivalent of saying "œfrom childhood." But we can clearly see that the angel, when he declared this to Zechariah, meant something else, namely, that John would, while yet unborn, be filled with the Holy Spirit. Let us not attempt, then, to impose a law upon God to keep him from sanctifying whom he pleases, just as he sanctified this child, inasmuch as his power is not lessened. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.16.17, p. 1340.

DTK

 

[BJClark]

The way I look at it, it is a VERY important event, not just for the child, but for the community of believers as well.

I mean, as a community of believers when a child is born into the coventant family and brought before that community we all make a promise before each other and the family to say "we will be responsible for helping disciple this child."

To me, it comes with awesome responsibilities for the congregants, it means we must volunteer at some capacity in our church, we must be active, we must get to know others within the community of believers so that we can get to know this new covenant child and their family, so that we can help disciple and train those within our church community.

 

[bob]

Rich,

Forgive me if I do not at this time interact with all of your rebuttals at this time. A busy week forbids me with spending a lot of time addressing some of the debates between credo/paedo baptism. I do thank you for your response, however. I had one comment that I wished to refer too, hoping perhaps that you might have some more thoughts that could be of value to me.

You had responded:
"Do you really form your doctrine based on historical narrative? Interesting. I go to didactic teaching first to develop doctrine."

I form my doctrine by considering what the SCriptures state on the subject, considering not only the specific direct precepts that we find, but also learning by the example set forth by the apostles. There is much to glean in regard to church polity by the example laid by the apostles. I am not willing to simply cast aside historical narrative as superfluous anecdote.

I also grant much wieght to historical theology. I understand that as the church has grown and evolved through the centuries that so has systematic theology and I am not willing to simply cast down the thoughts and advances set forth by the church at large. Having said that, as I consider my duties as an elder in Christ's church, I am not willing to merely rely upon systematic theology, but prefer to make sure that what I do and teach are founded upon God's Word.

For example, if someone were to tell me that baptism must be administered on the Lord's Day and if I am unable to derive such a specific precept from Scripture and can conclude from the example of the early church that baptisms were administered on other days of the week, I probably am not going to be very dogmatic on the subject.

I suppose we all are fond of boasting that our theology and practice are founded upon our careful consideration of didactic teachings and yet when individuals (such as Chad here) ask some good but difficult questions, there always seems to be a tendency to see a lot written (not excluding myself) and sometimes I wonder at the end of the day when the smoke and dust has cleared if anyone has really provided good, biblical insight and direction for the original questions asked.

There are 11 or 12 examples of baptism in the book of Acts and all them refer to individuals, crowds, or households that are baptized immediately upon professing Christ. What I observe from these historical narratives is the importance of basptism and the immediacy of application. If I were to be speaking with friends over a dinner at my home and they indicated their belief in the gospel and nodded at our inflatable pool and suggested "See, there is water, what hinders me from being baptized?" As an elder in the church, I would straightway baptize them, knowing that the other elders in my church would not be offended. Perhaps in your eyes this suggests that I have a low view of the church. So be it. I respectfully disagree. Perhaps it is my higher view of baptism that would preclude me from waiting around for a couple weeks or months waiting for some self-imposed ecclesiastical channels to be checked off. I am not aware of any Scriptures I would be violating and I would not desire to squelch in any sense the individual's desire to obey one of Christ's commands.

John Gill also suggests in his systematic theology: " Now for an act of religious worship there must be a command of God. God is a jealous God, and will not suffer anything to be admitted into the worship of him, but what is according to his word and will; if not commanded by him, he may justly say, "Who hath required this at your hands?" and will resent it: a command from men is not sufficient; no man on earth is to be called master; one is our Master in heaven, and him only we are to obey: if the commandments of men are taught for doctrines, in vain is the Lord worshipped; what is done according to them is superstition and will worship."

I suppose as this applies to the regulative worship principle you might agree. As he applies it to the doctrine of baptism, I suppose you may not: "In short, the face of the ordinance is so altered, that if the apostles were to rise from the dead, and see it as now performed, they would neither know nor own it to be the ordinance commanded them by Christ, and practised by them."

The difficulty as we consider the baptism of infants (I am for now ignoring the debate between the credo/paedo and attempting to speak as if I were a paedobaptist elder in Chad's church.) is that we have no clear precept or pattern as to how this should be dealt with. Should they be baptized immediately upon birth? Should they be baptized on the eight day regardless of what day it would fall? Should we wait until family members can make it to view the glorious day?

There are a couple of occasions in which households were baptized and what we can observe is again the immediacy of the application. If we are to regard any continuity at all from circumcision as the entrance into the covenant community, the eight days again reflects a rather immediate application.

Given my thoughts in regard to adminstration, if I were Chad's elder I would have no issue with baptizing his child immediately if this were his desire and it did not violate the confession of his church. If he desired to see his daughter baptized on the first Lord's Day that she is able to attend, I would have no difficulty with this. If he were to explain that it would be several weeks before his family members were able to come and attend, I would be concerned and I would express my concerns to him. I am just not aware of any SCriptures that would indicate that baptism should be put off for the sake of spectators. I think this aspect of baptism has been severely altered by the church and I am not aware of either historical narrative or didactic teaching that would reveal otherwise.

I wouldn't bind Chad's conscience over such a thing if he truly desired to wait for family to come in from out of town, but I would truly express concern if his desire for pleasing his family outwieghed his sense of the immediacy of obeying the command of Christ. In such a case I would view that the traditions of men have overshadowed the command given. As Chad pointed out earlier, why not expect others to arrange their schedules for such an important event?

 

[BJClark]

Bob,

I think the waiting on family and friends being there is more a personal preference, for many people.

When my youngest daughter was Baptised after she accepted Christ as her Savior, she wanted to wait to be baptised until her dad could be home, after rescheduling three different times 'waiting' on him, she decided his being there really wasn't THAT important to her after all.

She wanted to do as the Holy Spirit laid on her heart to do, and if that meant her dad wasn't there, then he wasn't there.

When my oldest daughter went to the Pastor about being Baptised, she was five, the pastor determined she understood salvation, but decided she was 'too young' to be baptised into the church family. My daughter did not understand, to be honest neither did I, here is a child who accepted Christ as her savior and he was refusing to baptise her based on some irrelevent 'age of accountablity' requirement. We left, when we got home my daughter said
"Mom, we have a bathtub, we have water, you are a Christian, what prevents YOU from baptising me?" And I was the only one at that point who was making the promise to raise this child up in the Lord.

I had to really consider my own beliefs, and decided, it didn't matter, I could find no where in the Bible that said a child had to be baptised by a certain person, and the only time-line I could find was after accepting Christ as Savior, and when entire families were being baptised upon conversion, so we filled the bathtub, and I baptised her in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No, her name was not written in some churches records of baptism, but her name IS written in the Lambs Book of Life, and isn't that all that really matters? That was 13 years ago, and there have been some people over the years who have told her she should be 're-baptised' in a church in order to make her actions 'public', her response to them has been "I do not 'need' to be, but if my not doing so is going to cause others to stumble, I will" and she did, though she realized, even as a young child, that doing so, didn't mean the same to her, she was doing so for others making the commitment to encourage her in her faith and to be witnesses to that fact, but her first baptism was valid before God, even if man did not think so.

Both of my daughters learned a valuable life lesson from those incidents, which is, it doesn't matter what other people think, it only matters what God thinks. And as they are both teens, it's been a lesson that has been useful as they run into people at school trying to tell them they 'won't' fit in if they don't do or have various things.

Semper,

Why can't the Lords Supper be administered outside a formal worship service in your opinion?

My grandmother is a Christian, she lives in a Nursing Home and pastors from her community go to the nursing home and adminster the Lords Supper to those members of their congregations who can not attend "formal" church services. Are we to deny our elderly or homebound body of Christ the Lords Supper just because they can not attend a formal service? Can we not as members of the body celebrate within our own families as we see fit?

[Edited on 6-28-2006 by BJClark]

[Edited on 6-28-2006 by BJClark]

 

[DTK]

...and sometimes I wonder at the end of the day when the smoke and dust has cleared if anyone has really provided good, biblical insight and direction for the original questions asked.

There are 11 or 12 examples of baptism in the book of Acts and all them refer to individuals, crowds, or households that are baptized immediately upon professing Christ. What I observe from these historical narratives is the importance of basptism and the immediacy of application. If I were to be speaking with friends over a dinner at my home and they indicated their belief in the gospel and nodded at our inflatable pool and suggested "See, there is water, what hinders me from being baptized?" As an elder in the church, I would straightway baptize them, knowing that the other elders in my church would not be offended. Perhaps in your eyes this suggests that I have a low view of the church. So be it. I respectfully disagree. Perhaps it is my higher view of baptism that would preclude me from waiting around for a couple weeks or months waiting for some self-imposed ecclesiastical channels to be checked off. I am not aware of any Scriptures I would be violating and I would not desire to squelch in any sense the individual's desire to obey one of Christ's commands.

Yes, I can surely understand with this wonderment. On the other hand, some of us never cease to be amazed how interpreters of the Book of Acts fail to reckon with the reality that in virtually every one of the recorded baptisms by our beloved evangelist, there was no established church in the community wherein this holy ordinance could be ministered in the context of a well-ordered church. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles gives us something of the early history of the Lord´s gathering and establishment of the NT Church, not a didactic instruction manual on when and where to administer Christ´s holy ordinances. Perhaps we should likewise wonder why when folk are baptized today, we don´t witness the Holy Spirit falling on them and their speaking in tongues. That, too, happened immediately with respect to a number of them, upon their being baptized. Perhaps the recorded incidents of this latter phenomenon are something of an indication of the reason for the former.

Thus, there are those of us who respectfully disagree with what we would have to regard, not as some self-imposed ecclesiastical channels to be checked, but with what we seek to discern the mind of Christ to be in a well ordered church.

And as a Presbyterian minister who has performed many baptisms, I cannot recall a single occasion when I ever told/instructed a family to be ready for this event on such and such a day. Much rather, they chose the Lord´s day on which they desired to see the baptism take place, and in language similar to the Ethiopian eunuch, they asked, "œSee this Lord´s day, what hinders us from baptism then?"

DTK

 

[BJClark]

"œSee this Lord´s day, what hinders us from baptism then?"


And every day is the Lords Day, correct?

 

[Kevin]

Good questions Chad,

Re #1 we baptise because our chidren are in the cov. & as members of the cov they are properly given the sign.

So I am confident in saying from conception my children our in covenant whith Christ. Since it has been at least 9 months that they are in this status ( unbaptised cov members ) I don't worry about a few more days!:bigsmile:

Re #2 the "best" day I tend to think that the first day of the week has more of a claim than the 8th day since birth. Though I must admit the OT/NT continuity of it appeals to me.

But, which sunday? The fact that baptism is joining the visible/local church makes me believe that the day that most members can participate is best even if it is a week or two later.
For instence I would like to "honour my father & mother" by baptising my children in their presence. So I might wait (briefly) for them to get into town, However if it will be several weeks (& it has been in some cases) I would not wait.
It is better to not delay than to honour I guess is what I think.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

DTK means (I'm fairly sure) "the Lord's Day" as the specific designator of the divinely designated day for the gathering together of the Church by Christ for his special service, a day specially charged with his propriety. This being the first day of our week, resurrection day, called in our subordinate standards "the Christian Sabbath."

Rev. 1:10, where the phrase "the Lord's Day" is used, does not indicate this is a generic term, one that covers every day of the week, year, life, milennium, etc. The use of the explicit term as a naming designator, the various indications of the church gathered for worship found in especially the early chapters of Revelation, together with an unbroken traditional use of the term from antiquity to refer to the weekly gathering of the church for worship, taken all together form a combined exegetical, contextual, and historical-traditional hermeneutic "cord of three strands" argument that such terminology is properly reserved for the divinely designated day set aside for Christian worship.

Is every day a "Lord's day"? In a sense, of course, the answer to that question is "yes," for Christ is Lord over all, including the calendar. But in order to say this, one needs to guard against the fallacy of equivocation--using one term in two different ways. Did John (the Revelator) intend a blanket or indefinite designation when he used the definite article plus the adjective and noun? This, neither we nor the early (Greek-speaking) church thought.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
DTK means (I'm fairly sure) "the Lord's Day" as the specific designator of the divinely designated day for the gathering together of the Church by Christ for his special service, a day specially charged with his propriety. This being the first day of our week, resurrection day, called in our subordinate standards "the Christian Sabbath."

Rev. 1:10, where the phrase "the Lord's Day" is used, does not indicate this is a generic term, one that covers every day of the week, year, life, milennium, etc. The use of the explicit term as a naming designator, the various indications of the church gathered for worship found in especially the early chapters of Revelation, together with an unbroken traditional use of the term from antiquity to refer to the weekly gathering of the church for worship, taken all together form a combined exegetical, contextual, and historical-traditional hermeneutic "cord of three strands" argument that such terminology is properly reserved for the divinely designated day set aside for Christian worship.

Is every day a "Lord's day"? In a sense, of course, the answer to that question is "yes," for Christ is Lord over all, including the calendar. But in order to say this, one needs to guard against the fallacy of equivocation--using one term in two different ways. Did John (the Revelator) intend a blanket or indefinite designation when he used the definite article plus the adjective and noun? This, neither we nor the early (Greek-speaking) church thought.

Thanks Pastor Bruce! Shall we say, "you have infallibly interpreted me?"

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Kevin
Good questions Chad,

Re #1 we baptise because our chidren are in the cov. & as members of the cov they are properly given the sign.

So I am confident in saying from conception my children our in covenant whith Christ. Since it has been at least 9 months that they are in this status ( unbaptised cov members ) I don't worry about a few more days!:bigsmile:

Re #2 the "best" day I tend to think that the first day of the week has more of a claim than the 8th day since birth. Though I must admit the OT/NT continuity of it appeals to me.

But, which sunday? The fact that baptism is joining the visible/local church makes me believe that the day that most members can participate is best even if it is a week or two later.
For instence I would like to "honour my father & mother" by baptising my children in their presence. So I might wait (briefly) for them to get into town, However if it will be several weeks (& it has been in some cases) I would not wait.
It is better to not delay than to honour I guess is what I think.

Ditto to Kev.....and DTK...and Bru!

 

[bigheavyq]

If I recall early church history, in the second century the question arose about infant baptism. It was not if they should be baptized or not but whether or not the baby should be baptized on the 8th day. The conclusion of the church was that it should be baptized as soon as possible but not to demand on a certain day.

 

[Dan....]

Wow, this thread is really getting to me. I'm beginning to think that maybe my 8-week-old twins should be baptized this coming Lord's Day.

 

[Dan....]

Then again, we were already planning on them being baptized this coming Lord's Day.

Sorry, poor attempt at humor.