The Doctrine of Baptism
Telford seems to want to discuss the difference between full emersion or just sprinkling.
I think he might also want to know the difference between baptism as Sacrament or Ordinance.
Which also brings up the discussion between the question do have to have faith in order to be baptized, or does baptism create faith.
Difficult questions all.
I think he might also want to know the difference between baptism as Sacrament or Ordinance.
Which also brings up the discussion between the question do have to have faith in order to be baptized, or does baptism create faith.
Difficult questions all.

Comments
I disagree with the first sentence. I only believe in 'Adult' baptism for believers. I was 'Christened' as a child as it was the done thing in those days. I was never 'confirmed' I was baptised by emersion as an adult.
The traditions that allow infant baptism, contend that the spiritual graces received via baptism are given irrespective of the age of the recipient, and thus it is valid to baptize infants or adults. There is an opportunity within the infant baptism traditions to respond to this grace, i.e. via confirmation. But baptism itself, is understood as not primarily about the human response.
Is there any other kind, explicitly, in the NT?
An innovation twice over for quite different purposes.
I don't think there's an explicit record in the NT of anybody being baptised who wasn't a willing and conscious participant, and I'm far from sure that was an innovation of the Reformation.
And in the second year of the plague; the menace of the Orange Blimp being over, shall the Ship of Fools wish they had kept Dead Horses open.
I was wondering aloud whether the reason many churches infant baptise is that it's a Christian interpretation of the presentation of a new baby to the temple. The presentation at the Temple is a way of including the child into the Jewish community (and registering them on the temple rolls). The only Biblical rite of initiation for new Christians is baptism, so maybe we baptise to include that baby into the Christian family, and add that child to the baptismal register?
Jesus was baptised by John.
Certainly John was disappointed that Jesus didn’t follow his example of wilderness living and expressed this openly (Matthew 11)
In 1 Timothy 5 Paul warns against the hasty promotion of people to various roles or offices within the church, which is a plea for spiritual discernment.
Obviously it’s far easier for a church leadership just to ensure that candidates fulfil certain measures: baptism, check; regular attendance, check; regular giving, check etc etc.
There are two consequences: baptism and the rest can be viewed as nothing more than initiations for club membership and unsuitable individuals can remain unchallenged because in the face of their baptism certificates, other official paperwork and the support of peers and superiors, who will heed discernment? Assuming they believe it.
Back OT: In societies with high levels of infant mortality, infant baptism is completely understandable.
Only doing what is explicitly in the NT is an innovation of the Reformation.
Eutychus Revised Translation:
And in the second year of the plague, the mance of the Orange Blimp being over, Ship of Fools at long last had some 'Christian' threads not directly related to contemporary politics.1
1: No requirement to read all of them, or bitch on any of them, was introduced.
The second half of your comment undoes the first half. The infant Jesus was presented at the Temple; no baptismal rite involved. Thus it could be argued that there's a precedent for the introduction of an infant into the community that doesn't involve baptism.
I think the desire of believing parents to do something to include their child within the sphere of their belief community is natural and understandable. Whether that corresponds to the NT understanding of baptism is another question.
Yes it is. And if church practice is allowed to be shaped by contemporary social trends, then I think believers' baptism is where it's at right now.
I'm not sure that's historically correct either. But the more germane question to this thread is whether the practice of believers' baptism predates the Reformation.
Indirect evidence of that can be found in ancient church sites in the Middle East, not a few of which have extant pools that any Baptist will instantly recognise for what they are.
Here's one at the Basilica of St John in Ephesus dating from the 6th century. I've clapped eyes on that one myself, and one or two others in the region.
That doesn't preclude paedo-baptism of the other members of the converting families or the initiation of new members of those families being baptised as babies as Christians continued in their faith.
I also think you are blithely ignoring vast swathes of orthodox and catholic Christians, not to mention other forms of Christianity which choose paedo-baptism, when you sweepingly suggest that believer's baptism is where the faith is going.
My point about Candlemas is that Christianity was seen as the new faith with new rites, that of communion, not Passover, baptism as initiation not presentation at the Temple.
Nowdays very few churches, if any, use the local river
That shows that adult converts were baptised.
It doesn't mean infants weren't.
The local baptists here use the sea. And wetsuits.
That turns on whether you believe it was a case of each individual member of the household believed and was baptised, or whether it was more along the lines of Abraham's circumcision of all the males in his household. Given what we know about the ambient culture at the time and the circumstantial evidence in the text I see little reason why the former should be the case.
That being the case; if you believe in baptism of profession of faith the question arising is on whose basis of faith the cook/baker/maid/maid's son was baptised. It matters very little whether they are infant or not.
However, I'm less convinced such a practice is a good basis on which to build an enduring doctrine, unless one believes in an intrinsic sacramental value of baptism regardless of the state of mind of the recipient. The cultures most if not all of us here live in have high levels of consciousness of the self and a sense of individuals' right to make their own choices; there is plenty in the Bible to support that general principle, and indeed it's one that's very often championed on these boards (patriarchy of the kind practiced by Abraham does not usually get many votes...)
I put in a big proviso. I said That said, in practice very many of the many Catholics I know appear happy to let their own practice be shaped by current trends rather than official RC doctrine in this respect (as in many others); they prefer to let their children make their own minds up when they are of an age to do so.
I think that’s probably right. Baptism is an incorporation ritual in much the same way that circumcision was. Still is, for some religions.
I wonder how much the development of specifically Christian baptism was influenced by the apostolic arguments over circumcision.
If Christ's blood was shed once and for all, there would be no need for further shedding of blood in the form of infant genital mutilation, especially not for incorporation into the new covenant for those who were not from the old.
And not least of all for adult converts, who were able to understand circumcision and refuse consent for genital mutilation, unlike infants incapable of consenting.
Mind you, this doesn’t explain the enduring popularity of circumcision in some Christian, or at least post-Christian, countries such as the United States of America, where infant male genital mutilation is still common.
The problem with suggesting that we should be giving children the choice is that is a very Western European / first world attitude, rather than the world wide situation. It's only really Western Europe that has legally positioned children* as independent thinkers, who should have a view. Much of the world still sees children as minors to be directed by their parents.
I think we're some way off an international agreement that "church practice [should be] allowed to be shaped by contemporary social trends". And anyway confirmation is the child confirming that faith. (Historically for many posts in the CofE, both confirmation and baptism were required.)
It is not unusual for babies to be baptised in SCBU (Special Care Baby Units) when their survival is in doubt. Is that wrong?
* in England and Wales not enshrined in law until the 1988 Children's Act and the acts following, so only 30 odd years ago
Small but non-infant child is brought for baptism, 3 or 4 years old.
Priest: "Do you reject Satan and all his works?"
Godparents: "We do"
Child: "NO!!!!"
What should happen next? I can't remember what actually happened!
Always baptism has been seen as connected with faith. In times when and in areas where whole communities were considered part of a 'household of faith' it certainly made sense to bring the children of that community into full membership of that community .For many centuries in 'Catholic' countries that would mean on the day of birth or as soon as possible afterwards.
Arguments about what it means when we read in Acts 16 about the baptism of the jailer 'with all his family' can be interpreted in different ways and they do not lead us to suppose that only those who were able to give full mental consent would be allowed to be baptised.
(For those who accept only believers' baptism, can a mentally incapacitated adult be baptised ?)
Practice has varied throughout the centuries in the Catholic church. In the early days in the Roman Empire baptism was often delayed almost until approaching death as it was believed that it washed away all previous sins, which is of course still a part of RC teaching.
When churches started to be built a baptistery was often built separately and you will still see a number of these in Italy, often with baptismal pools, as you might find in Baptist churches nowadays. The RC church of St Charles Borromeo in Ogle St, London used to (and maybe still does) feature a baptismal pool as one finds in Baptist churches and the renovated RC cathedral of St Andrew in Glasgow features in the middle of the church a round baptismal pool, as does the Jesuit church in Stockholm.
In modern practice, however, what is important is that water should be poured over the head of the candidate, in such a way that the candidate rises from that water to the new life of the community of faith.
Moreover, the intellectual capacity of a minor is not the same thing as their rights. It could be argued (and I would) that responsible parental direction of minors involves giving them as much freedom to make their own choices as is reasonable.
The only way taking away this choice in the matter of religious adherence (as is the case with infant baptism) appears reasonable to me is if the act of baptism has an intrinsic sacramental value, which I don't believe it does. YMMV.
Perhaps we are, but that doesn't seem to stop such an argument being applied extensively to other theological hot potatoes round here. Why not this one?
I personally wouldn't do it if asked, because I have difficulty performing rites which I cannot perform sincerely; as I said, I don't believe the act of baptism has any intrinsic sacramental value; YMMV. I would certainly pray to commit the baby to God's care, though.
I believe that baptism confers a spiritual grace, you don't. And we're never going to agree on this.
Believing that baptism confers a spiritual grace would lead a minister to baptise an infant in a special care baby unit or otherwise terminally ill, or the "mentally incapacitated adult" postulated by @Forthview and I see that as more giving of God's love than withholding baptism from those who cannot "consent to choice in religious adherence" for whatever reason the minister gives.
Secondarily, I'm intrigued by the appearance here of the notion that certain 'red lines' of religious practice can in some circumstances justifiably and permanently trump the feelings and wishes of the individual immediately concerned.
That, I think, has a lot more to do with 19th century ideas of moral and physical hygiene, specifically preventing masturbation and fornication. Recall that Dr Kellogg's claimed health benefits from his breakfast cereals were largely in this vein, as was his advocacy of FGM. [Edit: Kellogg was a total loon; I don't advise googling him on a full stomach, or if you have any desire to become sexually aroused in the next few days]
Unfortunately, I am aware of Mr Kellog!
Puritan John Gill had this to say on the subject in the 18th century:
I've heard this, or something very close to it, at a Baptist baptism. To me, if one has a practice of believers' baptism, it makes sense to apply the standard of the candidate being able to "give reason of the hope that is in them". So it would depend how incapacitated the person was, and whether I could be reasonably sure of understanding their own wishes and reasons.
However, as far as I'm concerned, this stance needs qualifying in two ways:
1) You need to bear in mind that baptism seen thus is an act of testimony and not one that has any intrinsic spiritual efficacy. Not being baptised thus does not make one a second-class Christian, at least not in my book (my church practices a wide open table).
2) Following on from that, I wouldn't say I "accept" only believers' baptism. I'd only practice it, but that doesn't mean I think infant baptism has no value at all. Just not intrinsic sacramental value.
Baptism isn't an expression of one's personal belief. Baptism is joining in with the people of God as they travel through the waters of death with Jesus. The people of God includes their children.
That's only true if you believe that evangelicalism has no historical antecedents outside the radical reformation.
Outside that most groups started off with some notion of a spiritual component to baptism, and after that mostly hewed to the belief that baptism was a sign of God to man rather than man to God or man to man. It's largely latterly that the last has become a dominant view.
To get gnomic for a moment; All baptisms are infant baptisms, none of us really have the capacity to assent to the particular journey we embark upon, I'm a Christian because in Baptism Christ put his seal on me and I can trust his word, not because of the somewhat dubious ideas of a teenager years back.
My on-the-hoof take on this that they can be spiritually beneficial but they don't have intrinsic value if the participant isn't actively engaged.
(No mention of baptism in that stirring passage, though one would think there could very well be if it had the meaning ascribed to it by @Dafyd ).
None of us have the capacity to assent to our journey and everywhere it might take us, but that doesn't mean that having us expressing assent for the next step on the road isn't important in the eyes of God.
Don't be too hard on your teenage self. I got baptised, amid some opposition from the church I attended, aged 12. Were my ideas "somewhat dubious"? Probably. Do I regret it or devalue it as a result? No.
Just out of interest, am I right in thinking that the majority of mainstream churches practice infant baptism as a matter of course?
The only exceptions I can think of are the Baptists, and The Salvation Army, but I daresay there are others.
Not to the point of a concensus forming.
For me, the fact of an infant being baptised doesn't preclude the possibility of them repudiating it later when they are in a position to choose.
Children get enrolled in all sorts of things without their consent, that they may later want to opt out of, e.g. maths lessons, eating meat, or British Values.
For me the value of infant baptism is that it means Ricardlings #1 and #2 are still members of the church even if they are right pains in the neck ...
Can I take it then that baptism can be a 'means of grace' if the participant is actively engaged ?
Do all ' means of grace' come only from the active participation of the human being and none from God to man ?
Nowadays the word 'sacrament' has a limited meaning and is understood in different ways by different followers of Christ. Some people,certainly in the RC church, would like to see the word 'sacrament' used for the Proclamation of the Word of God. Others would wish to see the Church itself as the all encompassing Sacrament - the outward sign of an inward manifestation of divine grace.
Pentecostals
This is a very interesting insight, thank you.
In early post NT days there was a fairly lengthy period of pre-baptismal catechuminate.
Infant baptism requires a post baptismal catechuminate given within the family of the Church.