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.
Absolutely, and in the same way a very small child gradually learns to apprehend and respond to its earthly parents love, that child can also learn to respond to its heavenly Father's love. In either case the prime factor is the love of the parent, not the child's response.
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.
It's precisely because I'm in favour of infant baptism that I won't be too hard on my teenage self, there's no sense of needing to have to 'wait' until my response was 'enough' or 'ready'.
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.
I suspect that baptism as initiation is the replacement for circumcision rather than presentation at the Temple. The presentation at the Temple was a version of the presentation of the first born, whereas circumcision was a ritual of initiation into the people of Israel for all male children - and male adult converts to Judaism.
That is certainly the understanding of the Reformed tradition. Baptism is primarily the sign of inclusion in the covenant—of being part of the covenant community, the Body of Christ. Like circumcision, those who are infants are included in the covenant community. Unlike circumcision, the sign is offered to females as well as males, and leaves a spiritual rather than a physical mark.
The concepts of covenant and covenant community are central in the Reformed tradition. For a long time, the baptismal formula used at the baptism of infants among American Presbyterians was “Name, child of the covenant, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At least in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), where laying hands and anointing with oil have been reintroduced and have become more common, the “child of the covenant” part has been moved from the baptismal formula itself to the anointing portion of the liturgy: “Name, child of the covenant, you have been sealed by the Holy Spirit in baptism, and marked as Christ’s own forever.”
What intrigues me is why people believe the physical act automatically confers a "spiritual grace".
Well, the Reformed tradition sees baptism as a sacrament—an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. But the operative word there is “sign.” It doesn’t confer spiritual grace; it is the sign and seal that grace has been conferred—the outward and visible testimony to what God has done.
Central to the Reformed understanding is that baptism is primarily about what God does, and only secondarily about what we do. Baptism is the sign that God claims us and brings us into community with him and with the church. This has nothing to do with our initiative, and everything to do with God’s grace and love. God makes the first move, we respond.
Many American Presbyterian churches will use a version of a portion of the French Reformed baptismal liturgy at the baptism of infants. After the baptism (and anointing), the minister, holding the child, will say to the child something along these lines:
For you, little one,
the Spirit of God moved over the waters at creation,
and the Lord God made covenants with his people.
It was for you that the Word of God became flesh
and lived among us, full of grace and truth.
For you, name, Jesus Christ suffered death
crying out at the end, "It is finished!"
For you Christ triumphed over death,
rose in newness of life,
and ascended to rule over all.
All of this was done for you, little one,
though you do not know any of this yet.
But we will continue to tell you this good news
until it becomes your own.
And so the promise of the gospel is fulfilled:
“We love because God first loved us.”
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.
Pentecostals
Thank you, both. I wasn't sure about Pentecostals, not having moved in those circles very much IYSWIM!
Having as spent over 12 years in a UK Baptist church, when I moved across to Anglicanism (and especially after starting to consider ordination), I looked long and hard at the question of infant baptism. For a while, I was a member of the Movement for the Reform of Infant Baptism (MORIB), which had been set up by Colin Buchanan. Whilst the avowed aims of MORIB were to reform the practice of infant baptism within the C of E (especially to do away with "indiscriminate baptism"), I know that a number of key members were pushing for "believer baptism."
One book I found helpful in my cogitations was "Infant baptism in the first four centuries" by Joachim Jeremias. In it he asserts that given the religious practices of Judaism at the time of Jesus (especially circumcision as the (male) infant entry rite), the natural expectation of first century believers would have been to include infants in any initiation ceremonies. He also asserts that when the NT talks of households being baptised, it would have been assumed that this included ALL members of the household (including any infants) and that had infants been excluded, specific mention would have been made of this.
Arguments from silence are notoriously dangerous but Jeremias comes to the conclusion that had infants been excluded from this new initiation rite, mention would have been made of this somewhere in the NT writings, as this would have been a clear and distinctive break from Jewish practices and expectations.
I seem to remember Mudfrog explaining that the Salvation Army's omission of sacraments was because they initially at least they did not perceive themselves as a denomination but as a para-church organisation. You did not take communion at the Sally Army, rather you took communion at your home church which you would of course be attending as well. Same with baptism.
One book I found helpful in my cogitations was "Infant baptism in the first four centuries" by Joachim Jeremias. In it he asserts that given the religious practices of Judaism at the time of Jesus (especially circumcision as the (male) infant entry rite), the natural expectation of first century believers would have been to include infants in any initiation ceremonies. He also asserts that when the NT talks of households being baptised, it would have been assumed that this included ALL members of the household (including any infants) and that had infants been excluded, specific mention would have been made of this.
Arguments from silence are notoriously dangerous but Jeremias comes to the conclusion that had infants been excluded from this new initiation rite, mention would have been made of this somewhere in the NT writings, as this would have been a clear and distinctive break from Jewish practices and expectations.
This makes sense to me. I think we often forget that our modern individualistic view of faith is a fairly recent thing.
Another bit of the NT that is often cited in Presbyterian contexts, that I think echoes the First Century Jewish context, is Acts 2:37–39:
“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
Wasn't this all thrashed out at the reformation in brain-numbing detail?
Not to the point of a concensus forming.
Because none is possible .... watching people re-state well known historical positions. I see little point.
There is little point if we’re trying to reach consensus. But these positions aren’t well-known to lots of people; many people, including many otherwise well-informed Christians, really have little understanding of perspectives on baptism other than their own, and bring a number of assumptions to the table. Being exposed to other perspectives has its own value, I think.
Some of the argument comes from how we understand how a person comes to faith. There is a crowd that says we come to faith through the hearing (and experiencing) of the Word the Holy Spirit works the faith in us. It is not by our own reasoning or strength.
And then there is the other crowd that says a person has to accept Jesus into their life.
In other words: is it God's action or our action. Could it involve both?
Having as spent over 12 years in a UK Baptist church, when I moved across to Anglicanism (and especially after starting to consider ordination), I looked long and hard at the question of infant baptism. For a while, I was a member of the Movement for the Reform of Infant Baptism (MORIB), which had been set up by Colin Buchanan. Whilst the avowed aims of MORIB were to reform the practice of infant baptism within the C of E (especially to do away with "indiscriminate baptism"), I know that a number of key members were pushing for "believer baptism."
One book I found helpful in my cogitations was "Infant baptism in the first four centuries" by Joachim Jeremias. In it he asserts that given the religious practices of Judaism at the time of Jesus (especially circumcision as the (male) infant entry rite), the natural expectation of first century believers would have been to include infants in any initiation ceremonies. He also asserts that when the NT talks of households being baptised, it would have been assumed that this included ALL members of the household (including any infants) and that had infants been excluded, specific mention would have been made of this.
Arguments from silence are notoriously dangerous but Jeremias comes to the conclusion that had infants been excluded from this new initiation rite, mention would have been made of this somewhere in the NT writings, as this would have been a clear and distinctive break from Jewish practices and expectations.
My situation is similar to this, and one of the most helpful books I found was Gordon Kuhrt’s Believing in Baptism, not least because his father was a Baptist minister, and Gordon had wrestled with the issues. There’s an updated edition which Gordon’s son Stephen was involved with.
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.
I'm afraid the vast weight of church history is against you here.
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.
I suspect that baptism as initiation is the replacement for circumcision rather than presentation at the Temple. The presentation at the Temple was a version of the presentation of the first born, whereas circumcision was a ritual of initiation into the people of Israel for all male children - and male adult converts to Judaism.
Yup. The difference being that baptism is for all, not just people with foreskins.
My understanding of infant baptism is that I take the "invisible grace, visible sign" as the starting point of my theology of baptism. Is it absolutely necessary, i.e. for an infant to be baptized? Of course not, God pours divine grace freely and unconditionally, and for those who died unbaptized, we commend to that grace of God which is not dependent on human works or ritual...however...
Baptism as a visible sign, is not to be taken lightly IMHO. If we compare it to the analogy of human love, suppose I do not give my mother a present on Mother's Day. If my mother asks me why, I can easily answer her, "Well, you know I love you, why do I have to do anything for you?" To which my mother might reply, "Sometimes you have to show your love in concrete symbols and actions."
Understood this why, baptism is a powerful symbol designed not as a means to change God's perspective on the person, but a means to change the person's perspective on God. A child who is baptized receives the symbolic assurance that they are loved by God, and thus may create faith in that child which leads to a proper grateful human response when they are older.
I do not think, contra to the Anabaptist traditions, that the dedication of the child that they offer as an alternative suffices. Baptism as the common entrance of initiation to the church for both adults and children, is a powerful symbol that all enter the visible church in exactly the same way. Having a dedication of the child as a replacement for infant baptism, sets up IMHO dividing the church based on age. Dedication of the child may be offered as a rite for the parents to give thanks to God for their child, which is how Anglicans have phrased it (we use a rite called "Thanksgiving for the Child), but I find it a tad problematic if it is understood as a replacement for infant baptism.
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 ?
The way I would put it is that means of grace are extended from God to man, but they are only meaningful, effectual, if an individual engages in a meaningful way.
the Reformed tradition sees baptism as a sacrament—an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. But the operative word there is “sign.” It doesn’t confer spiritual grace; it is the sign and seal that grace has been conferred—the outward and visible testimony to what God has done.
Perhaps not unsurprisingly, I have more sympathy for that perspective than the Catholic view.
The catechism teaches that 'through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as children of God,we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and are made sharers in her mission.
The only way I can parse that is that baptism itself does something; it frees us from sin and makes us reborn as children of God.
The difference in understanding there is not trivial (more on this in a minute).
Baptism is the sign that God claims us and brings us into community with him and with the church.
I have all sorts of difficulties with this, though. God claims the child? Why? Does he prefer the children of believers to those of non-believers? Does salvation operate via blood ties? It all sounds very Old Testament to me.
One book I found helpful in my cogitations was "Infant baptism in the first four centuries" by Joachim Jeremias. In it he asserts that given the religious practices of Judaism at the time of Jesus (especially circumcision as the (male) infant entry rite), the natural expectation of first century believers would have been to include infants in any initiation ceremonies. He also asserts that when the NT talks of households being baptised, it would have been assumed that this included ALL members of the household (including any infants) and that had infants been excluded, specific mention would have been made of this.
Arguments from silence are notoriously dangerous but Jeremias comes to the conclusion that had infants been excluded from this new initiation rite, mention would have been made of this somewhere in the NT writings, as this would have been a clear and distinctive break from Jewish practices and expectations.
From my perspective this is about the best argument that can be made in favour of infant baptism.
As mentioned earlier, though, I'm intrigued by the way this particular aspect of biblical cultural context is being taken by several people here as setting a theologically meaningful precedent for all time. When such arguments are invoked on the Ship in response to on other issues in respect of which society has changed, they don't usually fare very well. Why is this one different?
I tend to be very pragmatic about these things. I don't think Scripture really ties down the meaning or circumstances of baptism fully one way or the other. The RC/Reformed divide shows this clearly. If there's no consensus, I'm going to act pragmatically, just as the Church did in Acts 15. I find myself in a believers' baptism tradition and I'm happy to stick with it whilst recognising others may differ and that (from my perspective) the "covenant theology" has quite a bit to commend it. I'm not going to refuse fellowship or communion over such views. I don't believe souls are saved or damned on the basis of whether or not they were baptised or how.
Following on from that, I think there's room for the rite of baptism to be reinterpreted, repurposed, adapted, accommodated to context. We (at least most of us here) are no longer in a context in which it is assumed entire households will convert, be initiated, and so forth. We are in a context in which individual self-consciousness and self-determination are predominant realities. While these realities have their dark sides (just as paedobaptism does), they also have some Sciptural precedent. With that in mind, I'm happy to maintain a believers' baptism stance.
I have all sorts of difficulties with this, though. God claims the child?
Yes.
Why?
Love. Grace. And both are unconditional, independent of our understanding.
Does he prefer the children of believers to those of non-believers?
I certainly never said that, nor have I heard anyone else in the Reformed tradition say it, except maybe some fringe elements. I didn’t say that only those children who are baptized are claimed by God or loved by God.
Does salvation operate via blood ties? It all sounds very Old Testament to me.
But I would say what is “very Old Testament” is an understanding that God chose Israel not as an end unto itself, nor as a means of creating special blood ties, but so that through Israel, all might be drawn into covenant with God.
In the OT scheme, circumcision makes one—okay, a male one—and one’s children part of the family of Abraham, regardless of blood ties. Some are born into the covenant, others are drawn into it.
Frankly, I’m inclined to this view of baptism in part because it sounds very Old Testament. If Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, why wouldn’t we expect participation in his Body to be consistent with the pattern presented in the OT? I fall in the camp that sees continuity between the OT and the NT, rather than a total redirection of how things are done.
Not that there aren’t differences. There are. But they’re differences of widening ripples and consistent patterns, not of a complete change of course.
To be fair, this Reformed approach—that baptism is primarily about God’s action toward us, and that action on our part is about responding to God’s act of love and grave toward us, not about a decision we have made—connects directly to Reformed understandings of predestination/election, and I know that (understandably at times) gives some people pause. But there it is; it’s all part of the big picture as we see it.
What should happen next? I can't remember what actually happened!
Stop and ask the child what they mean? Is the kid saying "no" to mean "Satan! No! I hate him!", or "no" to mean "I love Satan. I want to be his friend."
It is not unusual for babies to be baptised in SCBU (Special Care Baby Units) when their survival is in doubt. Is that wrong?
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.
My son was born three and a half months ahead of schedule, in a Catholic hospital. We were informed that if we wanted him to be baptised at birth, they could arrange for a chaplain to come. AFAICT in this kind of extremity, baptising the infant is at least as much for the parents' benefit as the child's.
(We're not paedobaptists and said no thanks for the baptism, but we'd like a chaplain to come and pray. A very nice Catholic priest turned up to comply with the request and I remain extremely grateful to him for his kindness in a hideously painful moment.)
Does he prefer the children of believers to those of non-believers?
I certainly never said that, nor have I heard anyone else in the Reformed tradition say it, except maybe some fringe elements. I didn’t say that only those children who are baptized are claimed by God or loved by God.
But... but... but... I can't get my head around this 'fast-track' for the children of church families.
I have all sorts of difficulties with this, though. God claims the child?
Yes.
Why?
Love. Grace. And both are unconditional, independent of our understanding.
Does he prefer the children of believers to those of non-believers?
I certainly never said that, nor have I heard anyone else in the Reformed tradition say it, except maybe some fringe elements. I didn’t say that only those children who are baptized are claimed by God or loved by God.
Does salvation operate via blood ties? It all sounds very Old Testament to me.
But I would say what is “very Old Testament” is an understanding that God chose Israel not as an end unto itself, nor as a means of creating special blood ties, but so that through Israel, all might be drawn into covenant with God.
The church is the Body of Christ, not just a box full of individual, unrelated parts. We are interconnected, as members of a body and as members of a family (I don't mean a biological family I mean the Church qua family). We don't leave the baby in the box until it's old enough to join the family. It's born old enough to join the family.
Does he prefer the children of believers to those of non-believers?
I certainly never said that, nor have I heard anyone else in the Reformed tradition say it, except maybe some fringe elements. I didn’t say that only those children who are baptized are claimed by God or loved by God.
But... but... but... I can't get my head around this 'fast-track' for the children of church families.
And I’m afraid that describing it as a “‘fast-track’ for the children of church families” doesn’t really make sense to me. Exactly what do you think is being fast-tracked?
The church is the Body of Christ, not just a box full of individual, unrelated parts. We are interconnected, as members of a body and as members of a family (I don't mean a biological family I mean the Church qua family). We don't leave the baby in the box until it's old enough to join the family. It's born old enough to join the family.
I’m afraid that describing it as a “‘fast-track’ for the children of church families” doesn’t really make sense to me. Exactly what do you think is being fast-tracked?
I think there's a fuzzy overlap between the 'family' in the sense of the people who make up a congregation and the family of believers who are brothers and sisters in Christ. How different faith groups resolve this fuzzy overlap varies.
To somebody coming in from the outside, the "baptising church families' children into membership" feels (at least to me) like newcomers' lack of family connection puts them at a greater distance from that family than those from a church family. It seems tribalistic.
(This isn't just theoretical. I don't know about in the US, but this can be a real problem in French Reformed churches which historically are made up of a few, often wealthy/upper-class families, and who tend to see anybody not from the right family and/or class much as the Jews traditionally saw the Samaritans).
Ah, I see what you mean, I think. I can’t say I’ve really seen that in the US, at least not in the context of the baptized-children insiders and non-baptized-children outsiders. I’ve certainly seen tribalism in a more general old timers/newcomers distinction in churches of every denomination, but not in the context of baptized and not-baptized children. And the example you give—from the “right” families and/or class—doesn’t seem related to baptism.
When I read this:
To somebody coming in from the outside, the "baptising church families' children into membership" feels (at least to me) like newcomers' lack of family connection puts them at a greater distance from that family than those from a church family,
I can’t help but feel assumptions are being made that aren’t necessarily valid, at least in my experience. Those newcomers would be just as entitled and encouraged to request baptism for the children as the old timers. Any believer may, in our view, present their child for baptism.
(This isn't just theoretical. I don't know about in the US, but this can be a real problem in French Reformed churches which historically are made up of a few, often wealthy/upper-class families, and who tend to see anybody not from the right family and/or class much as the Jews traditionally saw the Samaritans).
I've been to Canada and the US and have relatives that live in both, and I can assure you that exactly the same dynamic is seen in Baptist circles (doubly so given church autonomy means that the same families also govern the church).
My son was born three and a half months ahead of schedule, in a Catholic hospital. We were informed that if we wanted him to be baptised at birth, they could arrange for a chaplain to come. AFAICT in this kind of extremity, baptising the infant is at least as much for the parents' benefit as the child's.
A friend of mine gave birth to a baby that lived only a few days. If the family had been Catholic, the hospital would have arranged a baptism. Unfortunately they were not Catholic and the baby died unbaptized. My friend was unhappy about this. She was not worried about the state of his soul, but she did wish that he had been welcomed into God's family on earth before he joined God's family in heaven.
One big, and very significant, difference between baptism and circumcision is that in households of faith that baptise babies, boy babies and girl babies receive the same baptism. The same applies to households of faith that only baptise those who have reached an age of discretion. We take that so much for granted that we don't realise how important it is.
@chrisstiles I really like your point that all of us, however 'adult' we may like to think we were, or are, are baptised as infants. Thank you.
One big, and very significant, difference between baptism and circumcision is that in households of faith that baptise babies, boy babies and girl babies receive the same baptism. The same applies to households of faith that only baptise those who have reached an age of discretion. We take that so much for granted that we don't realise how important it is.
Although to be sure, two people on this thread have already mentioned it.
One other reason a toddler may say no (though it seems to be a standard expression among them) is the rite is unfamiliar and the kid may be scared. It is best to let the child become comfortable with what will be happening.
As I see God's unconditional grace, God loves everyone. Baptism becomes an outward sign that this child or person is loved too.
I seem to remember Mudfrog explaining that the Salvation Army's omission of sacraments was because they initially at least they did not perceive themselves as a denomination but as a para-church organisation. You did not take communion at the Sally Army, rather you took communion at your home church which you would of course be attending as well. Same with baptism.
That still seems the position here. Sally children were frequently baptised at St Sanity, and their parents attend for communion for that reason. They were welcomed into the parish family. Numbers have dropped off recently,
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 only boys at school in my day who were not circumcised were the Fiji Indians. I've never thought of myself as mutilated and indeed find that an offensive term.
john holdingEcclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
While I happily accept the baptism of babies -- my three children were all baptized by 3 months -- for me it matters that they were in fact babies. Many anglican clergy around here will happily baptize babies and those up to the age of 2 or 3, but would urge parents that children older than that should wait until they can make a real personal commitment -- age 8 or over, at a guess. Not an "adult" commitment, but one which is appropriate for their age. A 3-4 year old has every right to shout "NO!" and to have that respected. Of course in Canada, no one has a right to baptism as those in the CofE do.
My son was born three and a half months ahead of schedule, in a Catholic hospital. We were informed that if we wanted him to be baptised at birth, they could arrange for a chaplain to come. AFAICT in this kind of extremity, baptising the infant is at least as much for the parents' benefit as the child's.
A friend of mine gave birth to a baby that lived only a few days. If the family had been Catholic, the hospital would have arranged a baptism. Unfortunately they were not Catholic and the baby died unbaptized. My friend was unhappy about this. She was not worried about the state of his soul, but she did wish that he had been welcomed into God's family on earth before he joined God's family in heaven.
I find that pretty disturbing. We've been in that position too, in a government hospital. My husband contacted all the clergyfolk he could find ( it was a public holiday) and one came in to baptise our son. The hospital made no objection, in fact several staff came to support us.
At the time it seemed the one thing we could do for him, and I have always been thankful we did. He died the following morning.
No, I know that the household baptisms don't explicitly state babies in arms were included.
True, but given the fact that households were often (usually?) more than simply nuclear families--they were multigenerational, included other relatives, and included servants etc. as well--plus the fact that birth control was pretty much non-existent, the odds of there being at least one infant in the household are extremely good. And we have multiple instances of household baptisms mentioned.
Really, given the corporate (as in, not individualist) tendencies of those cultures, it would be very surprising if the head-of-household received baptism but not his/her minor dependents. Consider circumcision, which is actually the closest OT practice to baptism--it was the initiation into the community of God.
Back OT: In societies with high levels of infant mortality, infant baptism is completely understandable.
This is only the case if you believe in baptismal regeneration, which I do--but I'm fairly sure much of the Ship is going to disagree with me. And in fact, I think the emphasis on "do it in case you die" is misplaced. We do not baptize primarily to save the infant from hell. We do it because we believe God commands it, and what is the sense of leaving our beloved children outside of the associated blessings and promises for any longer than necessary?
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.
Pools of this sort don't prove "believer-only" baptism; they simply prove that adults were baptized, and not just children. And that's what you'd expect in regions where there is still a significant non-Christian population with converts of all ages turning up on a regular basis. Believe me, if you're in a warm enough country and have converts who weigh more than 30 lb, baptizing in a pool is much simpler and easier across the board than baptizing out of a font of any size. Mr. Lamb has had to struggle with any number of people too short to bend over the font and too heavy to be conveniently lifted--one child managed to give him a pretty bad shoulder injury. And if I recall correctly, that kid was being baptized along with maybe eight other people, from 80 to 4.
What intrigues me is why people believe the physical act automatically confers a "spiritual grace".
Well, I believe this because it is the most obvious reading of the various texts. I could prooftext here, but won't unless you really want me to... But IMHO the belief that baptism is a merely human action is a hangover from the Age of Enlightenment, and not in step with the way most human cultures have regarded sacred actions. More important, it places a really improper spotlight on human choice and decision, at the cost of emphasizing God's own choice, power and blessing. That seems to me out of step with the whole tenor of Scripture.
Further qualification: some evangelicals round here do appear to believe in the act of believers' baptism having an inherent spiritual efficacy similar to baptismal regeneration. I find this thinking to be all sorts of mixed up and definitely without any historical pedigree within evangelicalsm; I think it's more of a carry-over from a historically Catholic culture.
It actually traces straight back to Luther--who of course found it (the power and blessing of baptism) in Scripture via the medieval church, and saw no reason to reject it. But if you count Luther as part of your spiritual DNA, it's there.
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.
What should happen next? I can't remember what actually happened!
Stop and ask the child what they mean? Is the kid saying "no" to mean "Satan! No! I hate him!", or "no" to mean "I love Satan. I want to be his friend."
Either is possible.
Heh. I think it likely the child meant "I'm crabby, and I'm letting you know that!"
Actually, if you heard the story on the Ship, I remember how it ends:
the celebrant said, "Well, your brother's having it done" and the girl replied, "Oh well, go on, then."
My son was born three and a half months ahead of schedule, in a Catholic hospital. We were informed that if we wanted him to be baptised at birth, they could arrange for a chaplain to come. AFAICT in this kind of extremity, baptising the infant is at least as much for the parents' benefit as the child's.
A friend of mine gave birth to a baby that lived only a few days. If the family had been Catholic, the hospital would have arranged a baptism. Unfortunately they were not Catholic and the baby died unbaptized. My friend was unhappy about this. She was not worried about the state of his soul, but she did wish that he had been welcomed into God's family on earth before he joined God's family in heaven.
I find that pretty disturbing. We've been in that position too, in a government hospital. My husband contacted all the clergyfolk he could find ( it was a public holiday) and one came in to baptise our son. The hospital made no objection, in fact several staff came to support us.
At the time it seemed the one thing we could do for him, and I have always been thankful we did. He died the following morning.
I am so very sorry.
I'm surprised by these stories, though. I gather your denominations don't teach that any Christian can baptize in an emergency? (Or non-emergency, really, we just usually leave it to the clergy then for the sake of good order.) I thought that understanding was universal across Christianity.
I've done two baptisms myself, both of elderly women whose children were trying to prevent them getting baptized (they were bedbound and could not come to the church, and didn't want to cause a family uproar by insisting). It was necessary for me to do it because the families were watching Mr. Lamb like a hawk.
I'm surprised by these stories, though. I gather your denominations don't teach that any Christian can baptize in an emergency? (Or non-emergency, really, we just usually leave it to the clergy then for the sake of good order.) I thought that understanding was universal across Christianity.
No, it’s not a universal thing understanding across Christianity. It’s not the understanding or practice in the Reformed tradition. And I’d imagine it’s unknown in credo-baptist traditions that also insist on immersion.
@Marama, I too am very sorry. I’m thankful your husband was able to find someone so that your son could be baptized.
I've been to Canada and the US and have relatives that live in both, and I can assure you that exactly the same dynamic is seen in Baptist circles (doubly so given church autonomy means that the same families also govern the church).
Inward-looking churches are everywhere to be found. But the idea that it's possible to get a head-start on being a recognised member of the spiritual community (recognised in theological, not just sociological terms) merely by virtue of being born to one of the existing members and being baptised at the parents' request before one can even express an opinion about it strikes me as totally odd, discriminatory, and un-NT like.
I'm surprised by these stories, though. I gather your denominations don't teach that any Christian can baptize in an emergency? (Or non-emergency, really, we just usually leave it to the clergy then for the sake of good order.) I thought that understanding was universal across Christianity.
No, it’s not a universal thing understanding across Christianity. It’s not the understanding or practice in the Reformed tradition. And I’d imagine it’s unknown in credo-baptist traditions that also insist on immersion.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe immersion is a condition for a baptism to be valid, and not all the baptisms I've taken part in have been by immersion.
A passage in a semi-fictional account of imprisoned Christians back in the times of the persecuted church in the USSR has influenced me in this respect:
One week after that, Sasha baptized the men in his cell. How he was able to accomplish this from a technical standpoint he has never disclosed to anyone. The new believers merely stated that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and would not say another word.
The descriptions of a pressing need for emergency baptism also give me pause for thought. I can fully understand the distress arising from the circumstances (I've been in some similar to those described upthread, in which the child died, so I'm not foreign to this), and that a certain concept of baptism can lead to people feeling it to be important, all the more so in a moment of crisis. I don't want to take away from that.
However, the idea of the physical act of baptism (or lack of it) being a source of anguish, with an accompanying sense of emergency, is not something I recognise at all in my understanding of NT descriptions of baptism or of the intrinsic nature of external rites in the New Covenant.
An additional thought to the 'anyone can baptise' idea, in the context of believers baptism, to demonstrate an exception to the rule that clergy is necessary....I was baptised age 15 in the Brethren...they do not have clergy so I was baptised by a travelling salesman who always did the baptisms in our fellowship.
The descriptions of a pressing need for emergency baptism also give me pause for thought. ...
However, the idea of the physical act of baptism (or lack of it) being a source of anguish, with an accompanying sense of emergency, is not something I recognise at all in my understanding of NT descriptions of baptism or of the intrinsic nature of external rites in the New Covenant.
Nor I. (And don't give me the Philippian jailer as an example: their baptism was indeed done very quickly, but not for the reasons stated above).
I’m afraid that describing it as a “‘fast-track’ for the children of church families” doesn’t really make sense to me. Exactly what do you think is being fast-tracked?
I think there's a fuzzy overlap between the 'family' in the sense of the people who make up a congregation and the family of believers who are brothers and sisters in Christ. How different faith groups resolve this fuzzy overlap varies.
To somebody coming in from the outside, the "baptising church families' children into membership" feels (at least to me) like newcomers' lack of family connection puts them at a greater distance from that family than those from a church family. It seems tribalistic.
Children of church families are already on a "fast track" irrespective of baptism - they'll be attending church with parents/grandparents, including whatever form of Sunday school is provided, and learning the faith at home.
And, newcomers into any congregation will always initially be at a greater distance to others in the congregation than those who've been there longer. Even from the practical point of it takes time to learn the names of existing members, much less the rest of the information we all know about others in our congregations. No matter how much welcome new members receive there's always going to be a period of being the newcomer. If they're still "the newcomer" 20 years later then there's a problem, irrespective of baptismal rites.
Things are possibly different in churches who will baptise children of members of the community than here. Our church has only baptised the children of people already connected to the congregation (most recently the grandchildren of members rather than children of members, which reflects the age-profile of the congregation, soon it'll be great-grandchildren). And, we don't require the minister to do the baptism - the last baptism we had was the daughter of a girl who'd come through the Sunday School (grandson of one of our members), the minister barely knows the girl having come to the church after she moved out of town, and so the baptism was conducted by a member who a) knew the girl from her time in Sunday School and b) was going to be leading worship that week anyway. If someone from down the road called to ask for their children to be baptised we'd (as in elders and minister, in consultation with the Church Meeting) have to talk about it first.
re: emergency baptism in hospital, I would consider the pastoral needs of the family would trump any theology. If baptising a dying child provides some level of consolation for the parents, and denying that would cause additional upset, then I can't see any option except to baptise the child.
I'm surprised by these stories, though. I gather your denominations don't teach that any Christian can baptize in an emergency? (Or non-emergency, really, we just usually leave it to the clergy then for the sake of good order.) I thought that understanding was universal across Christianity.
No, it’s not a universal thing understanding across Christianity. It’s not the understanding or practice in the Reformed tradition. And I’d imagine it’s unknown in credo-baptist traditions that also insist on immersion.
That surprises me, because I thought in the Reformed tradition there is no ontological difference between the minister and any other member of the congregation?
Or is the point simply that even if a random member of the congregation can baptise in principle, they are unlikely in practice to have access to a baptistery for baptism by immersion, and baptism by sprinkling is invalid even in extremis?
Back OT: In societies with high levels of infant mortality, infant baptism is completely understandable.
This is only the case if you believe in baptismal regeneration, which I do--but I'm fairly sure much of the Ship is going to disagree with me. And in fact, I think the emphasis on "do it in case you die" is misplaced. We do not baptize primarily to save the infant from hell. We do it because we believe God commands it, and what is the sense of leaving our beloved children outside of the associated blessings and promises for any longer than necessary?
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 was kinda hoping that church practice was shaped more by simple compassion for the distressed parents or whoever.
Baptism is one of those areas which really test our grasp of “The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath” from Mark 2. And as you (@Lamb Chopped) point out, @chrisstiles is absolutely on the money that all baptisms are infant baptisms.
These original decisions taken by parents or hyperventilating youngsters may not measure up to close church scrutiny, but then no one has a higher opinion of close church scrutiny than the church itself. Which is where it all goes horribly dispassionate, of course: Quite correct and quite heartless.
Comments
Absolutely, and in the same way a very small child gradually learns to apprehend and respond to its earthly parents love, that child can also learn to respond to its heavenly Father's love. In either case the prime factor is the love of the parent, not the child's response.
It's precisely because I'm in favour of infant baptism that I won't be too hard on my teenage self, there's no sense of needing to have to 'wait' until my response was 'enough' or 'ready'.
The concepts of covenant and covenant community are central in the Reformed tradition. For a long time, the baptismal formula used at the baptism of infants among American Presbyterians was “Name, child of the covenant, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At least in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), where laying hands and anointing with oil have been reintroduced and have become more common, the “child of the covenant” part has been moved from the baptismal formula itself to the anointing portion of the liturgy: “Name, child of the covenant, you have been sealed by the Holy Spirit in baptism, and marked as Christ’s own forever.”
Well, the Reformed tradition sees baptism as a sacrament—an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. But the operative word there is “sign.” It doesn’t confer spiritual grace; it is the sign and seal that grace has been conferred—the outward and visible testimony to what God has done.
Central to the Reformed understanding is that baptism is primarily about what God does, and only secondarily about what we do. Baptism is the sign that God claims us and brings us into community with him and with the church. This has nothing to do with our initiative, and everything to do with God’s grace and love. God makes the first move, we respond.
Many American Presbyterian churches will use a version of a portion of the French Reformed baptismal liturgy at the baptism of infants. After the baptism (and anointing), the minister, holding the child, will say to the child something along these lines:
For you, little one,
the Spirit of God moved over the waters at creation,
and the Lord God made covenants with his people.
It was for you that the Word of God became flesh
and lived among us, full of grace and truth.
For you, name, Jesus Christ suffered death
crying out at the end, "It is finished!"
For you Christ triumphed over death,
rose in newness of life,
and ascended to rule over all.
All of this was done for you, little one,
though you do not know any of this yet.
But we will continue to tell you this good news
until it becomes your own.
And so the promise of the gospel is fulfilled:
“We love because God first loved us.”
Thank you, both. I wasn't sure about Pentecostals, not having moved in those circles very much IYSWIM!
One book I found helpful in my cogitations was "Infant baptism in the first four centuries" by Joachim Jeremias. In it he asserts that given the religious practices of Judaism at the time of Jesus (especially circumcision as the (male) infant entry rite), the natural expectation of first century believers would have been to include infants in any initiation ceremonies. He also asserts that when the NT talks of households being baptised, it would have been assumed that this included ALL members of the household (including any infants) and that had infants been excluded, specific mention would have been made of this.
Arguments from silence are notoriously dangerous but Jeremias comes to the conclusion that had infants been excluded from this new initiation rite, mention would have been made of this somewhere in the NT writings, as this would have been a clear and distinctive break from Jewish practices and expectations.
Because none is possible .... watching people re-state well known historical positions. I see little point.
Quite. I refer the hon. gent. to my first post on this thread.
Another bit of the NT that is often cited in Presbyterian contexts, that I think echoes the First Century Jewish context, is Acts 2:37–39:
“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
There is little point if we’re trying to reach consensus. But these positions aren’t well-known to lots of people; many people, including many otherwise well-informed Christians, really have little understanding of perspectives on baptism other than their own, and bring a number of assumptions to the table. Being exposed to other perspectives has its own value, I think.
And then there is the other crowd that says a person has to accept Jesus into their life.
In other words: is it God's action or our action. Could it involve both?
I'm afraid the vast weight of church history is against you here.
Yup. The difference being that baptism is for all, not just people with foreskins.
One would think this conversation would have taken place before they got to the actual ritual. Very foolish on the part of the parents/godparents.
Baptism as a visible sign, is not to be taken lightly IMHO. If we compare it to the analogy of human love, suppose I do not give my mother a present on Mother's Day. If my mother asks me why, I can easily answer her, "Well, you know I love you, why do I have to do anything for you?" To which my mother might reply, "Sometimes you have to show your love in concrete symbols and actions."
Understood this why, baptism is a powerful symbol designed not as a means to change God's perspective on the person, but a means to change the person's perspective on God. A child who is baptized receives the symbolic assurance that they are loved by God, and thus may create faith in that child which leads to a proper grateful human response when they are older.
I do not think, contra to the Anabaptist traditions, that the dedication of the child that they offer as an alternative suffices. Baptism as the common entrance of initiation to the church for both adults and children, is a powerful symbol that all enter the visible church in exactly the same way. Having a dedication of the child as a replacement for infant baptism, sets up IMHO dividing the church based on age. Dedication of the child may be offered as a rite for the parents to give thanks to God for their child, which is how Anglicans have phrased it (we use a rite called "Thanksgiving for the Child), but I find it a tad problematic if it is understood as a replacement for infant baptism.
According to @Forthview, that is The only way I can parse that is that baptism itself does something; it frees us from sin and makes us reborn as children of God.
The difference in understanding there is not trivial (more on this in a minute).
I have all sorts of difficulties with this, though. God claims the child? Why? Does he prefer the children of believers to those of non-believers? Does salvation operate via blood ties? It all sounds very Old Testament to me.
From my perspective this is about the best argument that can be made in favour of infant baptism.
As mentioned earlier, though, I'm intrigued by the way this particular aspect of biblical cultural context is being taken by several people here as setting a theologically meaningful precedent for all time. When such arguments are invoked on the Ship in response to on other issues in respect of which society has changed, they don't usually fare very well. Why is this one different?
I tend to be very pragmatic about these things. I don't think Scripture really ties down the meaning or circumstances of baptism fully one way or the other. The RC/Reformed divide shows this clearly. If there's no consensus, I'm going to act pragmatically, just as the Church did in Acts 15. I find myself in a believers' baptism tradition and I'm happy to stick with it whilst recognising others may differ and that (from my perspective) the "covenant theology" has quite a bit to commend it. I'm not going to refuse fellowship or communion over such views. I don't believe souls are saved or damned on the basis of whether or not they were baptised or how.
Following on from that, I think there's room for the rite of baptism to be reinterpreted, repurposed, adapted, accommodated to context. We (at least most of us here) are no longer in a context in which it is assumed entire households will convert, be initiated, and so forth. We are in a context in which individual self-consciousness and self-determination are predominant realities. While these realities have their dark sides (just as paedobaptism does), they also have some Sciptural precedent. With that in mind, I'm happy to maintain a believers' baptism stance.
Love. Grace. And both are unconditional, independent of our understanding.
I certainly never said that, nor have I heard anyone else in the Reformed tradition say it, except maybe some fringe elements. I didn’t say that only those children who are baptized are claimed by God or loved by God.
But I would say what is “very Old Testament” is an understanding that God chose Israel not as an end unto itself, nor as a means of creating special blood ties, but so that through Israel, all might be drawn into covenant with God.
In the OT scheme, circumcision makes one—okay, a male one—and one’s children part of the family of Abraham, regardless of blood ties. Some are born into the covenant, others are drawn into it.
Frankly, I’m inclined to this view of baptism in part because it sounds very Old Testament. If Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, why wouldn’t we expect participation in his Body to be consistent with the pattern presented in the OT? I fall in the camp that sees continuity between the OT and the NT, rather than a total redirection of how things are done.
Not that there aren’t differences. There are. But they’re differences of widening ripples and consistent patterns, not of a complete change of course.
To be fair, this Reformed approach—that baptism is primarily about God’s action toward us, and that action on our part is about responding to God’s act of love and grave toward us, not about a decision we have made—connects directly to Reformed understandings of predestination/election, and I know that (understandably at times) gives some people pause. But there it is; it’s all part of the big picture as we see it.
Stop and ask the child what they mean? Is the kid saying "no" to mean "Satan! No! I hate him!", or "no" to mean "I love Satan. I want to be his friend."
Either is possible.
[/quote] Agree with this
(We're not paedobaptists and said no thanks for the baptism, but we'd like a chaplain to come and pray. A very nice Catholic priest turned up to comply with the request and I remain extremely grateful to him for his kindness in a hideously painful moment.)
The church is the Body of Christ, not just a box full of individual, unrelated parts. We are interconnected, as members of a body and as members of a family (I don't mean a biological family I mean the Church qua family). We don't leave the baby in the box until it's old enough to join the family. It's born old enough to join the family.
This.
I think there's a fuzzy overlap between the 'family' in the sense of the people who make up a congregation and the family of believers who are brothers and sisters in Christ. How different faith groups resolve this fuzzy overlap varies.
To somebody coming in from the outside, the "baptising church families' children into membership" feels (at least to me) like newcomers' lack of family connection puts them at a greater distance from that family than those from a church family. It seems tribalistic.
(This isn't just theoretical. I don't know about in the US, but this can be a real problem in French Reformed churches which historically are made up of a few, often wealthy/upper-class families, and who tend to see anybody not from the right family and/or class much as the Jews traditionally saw the Samaritans).
When I read this: I can’t help but feel assumptions are being made that aren’t necessarily valid, at least in my experience. Those newcomers would be just as entitled and encouraged to request baptism for the children as the old timers. Any believer may, in our view, present their child for baptism.
I've been to Canada and the US and have relatives that live in both, and I can assure you that exactly the same dynamic is seen in Baptist circles (doubly so given church autonomy means that the same families also govern the church).
A friend of mine gave birth to a baby that lived only a few days. If the family had been Catholic, the hospital would have arranged a baptism. Unfortunately they were not Catholic and the baby died unbaptized. My friend was unhappy about this. She was not worried about the state of his soul, but she did wish that he had been welcomed into God's family on earth before he joined God's family in heaven.
@chrisstiles I really like your point that all of us, however 'adult' we may like to think we were, or are, are baptised as infants. Thank you.
Although to be sure, two people on this thread have already mentioned it.
As I see God's unconditional grace, God loves everyone. Baptism becomes an outward sign that this child or person is loved too.
That still seems the position here. Sally children were frequently baptised at St Sanity, and their parents attend for communion for that reason. They were welcomed into the parish family. Numbers have dropped off recently,
The only boys at school in my day who were not circumcised were the Fiji Indians. I've never thought of myself as mutilated and indeed find that an offensive term.
I find that pretty disturbing. We've been in that position too, in a government hospital. My husband contacted all the clergyfolk he could find ( it was a public holiday) and one came in to baptise our son. The hospital made no objection, in fact several staff came to support us.
At the time it seemed the one thing we could do for him, and I have always been thankful we did. He died the following morning.
True, but given the fact that households were often (usually?) more than simply nuclear families--they were multigenerational, included other relatives, and included servants etc. as well--plus the fact that birth control was pretty much non-existent, the odds of there being at least one infant in the household are extremely good. And we have multiple instances of household baptisms mentioned.
Really, given the corporate (as in, not individualist) tendencies of those cultures, it would be very surprising if the head-of-household received baptism but not his/her minor dependents. Consider circumcision, which is actually the closest OT practice to baptism--it was the initiation into the community of God.
This is only the case if you believe in baptismal regeneration, which I do--but I'm fairly sure much of the Ship is going to disagree with me. And in fact, I think the emphasis on "do it in case you die" is misplaced. We do not baptize primarily to save the infant from hell. We do it because we believe God commands it, and what is the sense of leaving our beloved children outside of the associated blessings and promises for any longer than necessary?
Pools of this sort don't prove "believer-only" baptism; they simply prove that adults were baptized, and not just children. And that's what you'd expect in regions where there is still a significant non-Christian population with converts of all ages turning up on a regular basis. Believe me, if you're in a warm enough country and have converts who weigh more than 30 lb, baptizing in a pool is much simpler and easier across the board than baptizing out of a font of any size. Mr. Lamb has had to struggle with any number of people too short to bend over the font and too heavy to be conveniently lifted--one child managed to give him a pretty bad shoulder injury. And if I recall correctly, that kid was being baptized along with maybe eight other people, from 80 to 4.
Well, I believe this because it is the most obvious reading of the various texts. I could prooftext here, but won't unless you really want me to... But IMHO the belief that baptism is a merely human action is a hangover from the Age of Enlightenment, and not in step with the way most human cultures have regarded sacred actions. More important, it places a really improper spotlight on human choice and decision, at the cost of emphasizing God's own choice, power and blessing. That seems to me out of step with the whole tenor of Scripture.
It actually traces straight back to Luther--who of course found it (the power and blessing of baptism) in Scripture via the medieval church, and saw no reason to reject it. But if you count Luther as part of your spiritual DNA, it's there.
This is lovely.
Heh. I think it likely the child meant "I'm crabby, and I'm letting you know that!"
Actually, if you heard the story on the Ship, I remember how it ends:
the celebrant said, "Well, your brother's having it done" and the girl replied, "Oh well, go on, then."
I am so very sorry.
I'm surprised by these stories, though. I gather your denominations don't teach that any Christian can baptize in an emergency? (Or non-emergency, really, we just usually leave it to the clergy then for the sake of good order.) I thought that understanding was universal across Christianity.
I've done two baptisms myself, both of elderly women whose children were trying to prevent them getting baptized (they were bedbound and could not come to the church, and didn't want to cause a family uproar by insisting). It was necessary for me to do it because the families were watching Mr. Lamb like a hawk.
@Marama, I too am very sorry. I’m thankful your husband was able to find someone so that your son could be baptized.
Unless one believes in baptismal regeneration.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe immersion is a condition for a baptism to be valid, and not all the baptisms I've taken part in have been by immersion.
A passage in a semi-fictional account of imprisoned Christians back in the times of the persecuted church in the USSR has influenced me in this respect:
The descriptions of a pressing need for emergency baptism also give me pause for thought. I can fully understand the distress arising from the circumstances (I've been in some similar to those described upthread, in which the child died, so I'm not foreign to this), and that a certain concept of baptism can lead to people feeling it to be important, all the more so in a moment of crisis. I don't want to take away from that.
However, the idea of the physical act of baptism (or lack of it) being a source of anguish, with an accompanying sense of emergency, is not something I recognise at all in my understanding of NT descriptions of baptism or of the intrinsic nature of external rites in the New Covenant.
And, newcomers into any congregation will always initially be at a greater distance to others in the congregation than those who've been there longer. Even from the practical point of it takes time to learn the names of existing members, much less the rest of the information we all know about others in our congregations. No matter how much welcome new members receive there's always going to be a period of being the newcomer. If they're still "the newcomer" 20 years later then there's a problem, irrespective of baptismal rites.
Things are possibly different in churches who will baptise children of members of the community than here. Our church has only baptised the children of people already connected to the congregation (most recently the grandchildren of members rather than children of members, which reflects the age-profile of the congregation, soon it'll be great-grandchildren). And, we don't require the minister to do the baptism - the last baptism we had was the daughter of a girl who'd come through the Sunday School (grandson of one of our members), the minister barely knows the girl having come to the church after she moved out of town, and so the baptism was conducted by a member who a) knew the girl from her time in Sunday School and b) was going to be leading worship that week anyway. If someone from down the road called to ask for their children to be baptised we'd (as in elders and minister, in consultation with the Church Meeting) have to talk about it first.
re: emergency baptism in hospital, I would consider the pastoral needs of the family would trump any theology. If baptising a dying child provides some level of consolation for the parents, and denying that would cause additional upset, then I can't see any option except to baptise the child.
That surprises me, because I thought in the Reformed tradition there is no ontological difference between the minister and any other member of the congregation?
Or is the point simply that even if a random member of the congregation can baptise in principle, they are unlikely in practice to have access to a baptistery for baptism by immersion, and baptism by sprinkling is invalid even in extremis?
I was kinda hoping that church practice was shaped more by simple compassion for the distressed parents or whoever.
Baptism is one of those areas which really test our grasp of “The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath” from Mark 2. And as you (@Lamb Chopped) point out, @chrisstiles is absolutely on the money that all baptisms are infant baptisms.
These original decisions taken by parents or hyperventilating youngsters may not measure up to close church scrutiny, but then no one has a higher opinion of close church scrutiny than the church itself. Which is where it all goes horribly dispassionate, of course: Quite correct and quite heartless.