IANAC, but, from one of the first sites that came up when I googled (catholic.com):
The answer is Baptism.
Just about everything specific to Lutherans is denoted in Luther’s small catechism Chapter on baptism
or the Book of Concord
BTW, the Pastor Pete would have baptized the kids without reservation.
And under Catholic teaching, the idea of “finding a local church” is pretty confusing, I don’t know about Lutherans. You may like a local priest or parish better than another, or you may find it difficult to get Mass in a specific language, but if you’re Catholic you’re Catholic you’re Catholic… finding a local church is a matter of checking the address of Catholic churches near you. In most countries (the US appears to be an outlier) you’re not required to register with a specific parish or anything, you just attend or not.
Well, Pastor Pete did not actually baptize the kids IRL.
A Lutheran who is non-clergy may baptize someone at his or her discretion in the event they are stranded on a desert island or lost in the jungle…those kinds of scenarios.
An interfaith marriage and an extended lapse in church attendance could be reasons for counseling to be offered. What would be more standard protocol in some places is the parent(s) taking a Bible information class with the pastor no matter how active in the church they may be.
The opening post suggests Pete’s motive for not baptizing was to make a point as opposed to maybe, a principled decision. It seems that we don’t have enough information. In being the sibling of a pastor, Eve is likely to have had connections in the church that an average member would not have. I think there’s a good chance she could have contacted another pastor and a so-so chance the pastor would have conditionally denied the request for the same reason Pete did.
If you want to know what some of them believe happens to a life that dies before it can be born and baptized, see here. (I’m not sure if this is in line with the ECLA, which is larger and has become more liberal than other denominations.) I think this can be similarly applied to unbaptized, spiritually deprived children younger than some ambiguous threshold. The Lutherans don’t know. They have faith in God’s wisdom. His wisdom is supreme. It just doesn’t make sense if you approach it with human logic.
Eve was never a member of Pete’s church – they live in different parts of the country and he became a pastor after they had moved apart from each other. She went every time she was in town, of course.
The answer from the link was basically, “we don’t know”, which is honest at least.
You seem to know a lot about this, and I ask without meaning to offend: What is the point of baptizing a person, according to the Lutherans? Above, in this thread, I got the impression that it’s basically an empty gesture – is it more for the parents than the child?
Such a narrowly drawn proposition. Pete doesn’t matter as much that. If Pete really understood his theology, he’d know his personal refusals are a matter for himself alone. His sister is free to find any competent theologian to do the deed, or not. The children will not remain children long, and will soon enough be able to make this decision for themselves.
Should misfortune befall the child before this, it is only the supposition of the creators of religious doctrine that any divine entity would condemn them. If one considers how intricately complicated and finely drawn this reality is, and that this Divine invented it, one would have to assume this Divine isn’t so narrowminded as these doctrinaires would make him/her/it out to be.
If what Adam believes is not true, it matters not a whit how fervently he believes, or how sincere is his belief. It’s a false comparison. How Adam believes what he does has no effect on Pete and his beliefs. The supposition is Adam is somehow better than Pete due to this intensity of belief and for no other cause, assuming there is a better-or-best standard in the first place. Pete can’t justify his position through scripture, so using his myopic view as an example also undercuts the concept.
It seems you might have to make another attempt at devising a conundrum on this matter.
Pete was being an ass, trying to manipulate his sister. Pastors can and do suffer lapses in judgment as can anyone.
On the contrary a Catholic priest not only could withhold baptism; he would be required to withhold it. Catholic canon law requires that for an infant to be licitly baptised there must be “a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion” (meaning, having a connection with the Catholic community; actively part of a parish). If there is no reasonable prospect of this, then baptism is to be deferred and the parents are to be told why.
As you point out, Eve could baptise the kids herself if she chose to, and in the Catholic (and, I imagine, Lutheran) view this baptism would be valid, but illicit - i.e. it’s a bad practice, contrary to canon law, something which ought not to be done.
OK, I was not familiar with that point of canon law.
And yes, there’s a difference between an act being valid and licit. In the Catholic view, literally anyone, including a non-Christian, can perform a valid baptism, and Catholics recognize the baptism of most other Christian sects as valid. But it should, licitly, be performed by a priest, if at all possible (with exceptions, of course, for when it’s not possible).
As to the reason why to baptize, if it’s not strictly necessary: Again, I can only speak to the Catholic view (though the Lutherans tend to be fairly close to Catholics, theologically speaking), but baptism completely cleanses the soul of all sin, including original sin. It’s only temporary in the sense that, after baptism, it’s still possible to accumulate other sins, which is why we’re supposed to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e., going to confession) on a regular basis. But it’s permanent in the sense that baptism leaves “an indelible mark on the soul”, and so can never be performed on the same person again, and even if you accumulate other sins, you’ll still be free of original sin.
Now, it is possible to go to Heaven without baptism, since all things are possible with God. And we don’t know all of the details of how that works. But it’s certainly better to not have original sin than to have original sin, and so we baptize.
I don’t know what to tell you. The story is a true one as far as I know – I’m hedging because, while I heard it directly from “Adam”, he wasn’t involved in any of the conversations between Eve and her brother, so I can’t guarantee its accuracy.
Baptism is the outward sign of a commitment to the faith and to the church. Infant baptism is, as you say, somewhat more for the parents - they are promising to raise the child in the Christian faith. And this is indeed a promise - just like marriage. Then when the child reaches the age where he or she can decide for him or herself, they are confirmed. This is called Affirmation of Baptism, where the child confirms the commitment made on his behalf.
It’s not a magic ceremony.
Regards,
Shodan, lifelong Lutheran, married to a Lutheran pastor, and former seminarian (although not ordained)
Thanks. Is it fair to say, then, that my supposition was wrong? He wasn’t changing the potential outcome for the kids, whatever happened to them?
BTW, what you’ve written seems to conflict with an earlier post in this thread that said that baptism erases original sin – seems somewhat magical to me.
And, with that, I’ll be signing off for the night and will be mostly unable to post tomorrow. I’ll be reading this, though, so please continue without me – I’ve found this thread to be quite enlightening.
That doesn’t sound free. It’s at best “Free*”, as the phrase appears in various advertisements and on cereal boxes and whatnot.
Eternal Security (which is what FlikTheBlue is describing) is indeed a fundamental belief of Calvinism (although a lot of people who don’t call themselves Calvinists believe only that point and not the other points of Calvinism). It has nothing to do with salvation being a gift. On the contrary, it treats salvation as something that–while you MAY take voluntarily in the beginning–God basically super-glues it on to you, and you cannot get rid of it even if you change your mind.
Calvinists view salvation as something that God forces on you without giving you a chance to decide whether or not you even want it.
I thought that just flowed logically from their belief in an all-knowing God – he already knows whether you’re saved. Do I have that wrong? In any case, why would a believer not want salvation? It looks like you’re objecting to that in your last line, but I don’t see what the objection would be.
Infant baptism is scripturally not the same as what one might call the baptism that John the Baptist preformed which is a baptism of repentance. Infant baptism is seen with Samual is 1 Sam 1:26, and could be more accurately described as infant dedication to the Lord. Basically the parents giving the baby to the Lord and His purpose. As such it would seem OK for a atheistic parent not to want to do this, and also OK for the believing parent to honor that request, as well as the church. Not only OK but if the atheistic parent wanted to raise the child (as opposed to giving up custody), it would seem like that child should not be dedicated to the Lord as there could be no understanding of what that is for one parent. That position should be respected.
After that the child, when is old enough to make such a decision can get baptized with baptism of repentance and a baptism with the Holy Spirit or not.
If by “he” you mean the pastor, then no - baptism doesn’t automatically change the outcome. If I understand what you are asking.
In the Lutheran tradition, baptism is a sacrament - “the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace”. It is a commitment, where the parents and sponsors promise to raise the child in the faith. The commitment is the important thing, because it is a promise by the parents to do what they can to “change the outcome” - i.e. to raise the child in the faith to the best of their abilities, and then, when the child reaches maturity, the child either confirms that it “worked”, or doesn’t. Of course, a lot of confirmations are just as much a matter of family pressure and expectations as baptisms are, but that’s the theory. If the parents don’t mean the commitment seriously, and are just doing the baptism as a social ritual or thinking that it is a magical protection spell, I can conceive of a Lutheran pastor declining to baptize if the parents aren’t serious about the commitment they are making.
I can conceive of it, but it is not IME at all common. Lutherans baptize anybody, more or less, although we generally require/encourage the parents, or the baptizee if he or she is old enough, to meet with the pastor where it is explained exactly what is being promised, and that the promise is a serious one. But the default is to baptize anyone, and trust in God’s grace. Having the parents show up, the baby is baptized, and then you never see them again except maybe at Christmas and Easter, is common.
We just went thru something similar at my church. A woman who was a former member of our church is now a lesbian, and requested baptism for her son. The pastor, who is relatively new to our church, consulted with the church council before he did the baptism. I was at the meeting where he did so, since I was a member of the council at the time. And the unanimous and almost instant response of the council was “go ahead and baptize - if she and her partner want baptism, then by all means let them commit their child to the faith”. And we are not a gay-friendly church.
If you want to commit to the church and the faith, we will encourage you as much as we can. Keeping the commitment is between you and God.
I suppose there could be some open, unrepentant, and notorious sinner who wanted one of the sacraments for unworthy reasons, who would be refused. But I suspect we would be more likely to refuse the Eucharist than to refuse to baptize his children. But we are very reluctant even to do that. We are a lot more Luke 17:3-5 than 1 Corinthians 11:29.
Regards,
Shodan
Are you satisfied with this state of affairs in your church, or do you think your church should be friendly to gay people? If the latter, are you doing anything to change this?