Some time ago, I attended a friend's baptism. After they had done the baptism, the vicar then moved on to do a christening, or 'CHRIST-en-ing' as they called it. I've never seen an adult being christened before. I just wondered if this was normal in the CofE?

Martin Luther lived from 1483 – 1546 and John Calvin from 1509 – 1564. Both thse men wrote about the importance of infant baptism which can be read in The Large Catechism by Martin Luther & Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin Was there a period in the history when all who believed in Christ allowed infant baptism? If it is true who or which sect started/revived "only credo baptism" procedure?

There is a belief that baptism (in Christianity) should be done later on life (e.g., adulthood), rather than in infancy. However, I do not see any reasonable (?) reason to NOT perform the baptism in infancy. One of the major drawbacks of credobaptism (the way that I understand things) is that the person is deprived of the Holy Spirit two-fold: though the lack of baptism itself, and through the ban for communion (baptism being a major prerequisite for the communion). So, shortly: what is inherently bad about baptizing infants?

Some Christian denominations reject infant baptism, usually on the grounds that young children cannot profess their faith, or understand the significance of baptism. It logically follows from this that an intellectually disabled adult who can't profess faith or understand baptism should not be baptised, either. This is obviously problematic: life in Christ is meant to be open to all. How might a baptist respond?

John the Baptist is a central figure in Christianity. Sent by God as shown by the prophets, he prepared the way of the Lord, the way of Jesus Christ (Malachi 3:1, Mt 3:3, 11:10). John was of the priestly Levitical tribe in the order of Abijah, being born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, both of whom were of Levi (1 Ch 24:10, Luke 1:5). When John was preaching and baptizing, it is important to note for this question, he did so apart and away from the temple in Jerusalem. He preached in the wilderness. He baptized in the Jordan. (See Mt. 3:1, Mar 1:4.) The point is he did this without reference to the Levitical system of confession of sin and sacrifice. (See Lev 4, 23, etc.) With these things in mind, from a Trinitarian position, what exactly was John the Baptist preaching apart from the temple system when he said repent? Repent means change your mind. Metanoeo, Strong's G3340, to think differently, to reconsider. How would this change prepare the way of the Lord? How would it make straight His paths?

I was curious about all of your thoughts on the idea of "Believer's Baptism" found in the Early Church. For those who don't know, "Believer's Baptism" is the view that people who have put their faith in Christ are allowed to be baptized I was curious if anyone on this platform can show me Early Church evidence to support this claim. I am aware of Tertullian had his own take on this belief, but not at the exact match as the main purpose of this idea. So, I was wondering if anyone can show Early Church proof of "Beliver's Baptism."

The Gospels record that at Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32). Immediately afterward, we read that the Spirit led Him into the wilderness to be tempted (Matthew 4:1, Mark 1:12, Luke 4:1). Does this mean that the Holy Spirit entered or moved into Jesus only at His baptism, and then guided Him into the wilderness? Or should the descent of the Spirit be understood differently, since Luke 1:35 indicates that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and therefore already had a unique relationship with Him before baptism?

I was just hoping that some of you could help find bible stories or scripture that supports the view of Pouring Baptism.

Wanted to ask if there are any historical record (Besides the Bible) that shows that pouring baptism was a common church teaching and/or practice?

According to St. John Chrysostom in his [*Baptismal Instruction* 11.28](https://archive.org/details/20191212st.johnchrysostombaptismalinstructions/page/n171/mode/2up?view=theater) : > After stripping you of your robe, the priest leads you down into the flowing waters. But why naked? He reminds you of your former nakedness, when you were in paradise and not ashamed. When did this practice originate? It doesn’t seem to be in the [*Didache*](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm) . Further, when did it end?

In Acts 19:1–7, Paul meets some disciples in Ephesus who had received only the baptism of John. After explaining the gospel more fully, he baptizes them in the name of the Lord Jesus. However, it’s only after Paul lays hands on them that the Holy Spirit comes upon them: >“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5–6, KJV) Given that in many parts of the New Testament (e.g., Acts 2:38, Romans 8:9), the Holy Spirit is associated with baptism and repentance, why didn’t the Spirit come upon these disciples immediately upon their Christian baptism? What theological reasons might explain this sequence — baptism first, and then the coming of the Spirit only after the laying on of hands?

How would [Southern] Baptist (SBC) churches explain Acts 8:14–17 in the giving of the Holy Spirit after initial conversion or belief? It had always been my understanding that the argument was the Holy Spirit was given to each believer at the moment of faith. Are we indwelt by the Spirit when we believe and if so why were the apostles needing to pray for them to receive Him? >Acts 8:14–17
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. ESV, © 2001

I live in a place where I can't find anyone to baptize me. Can I become a Christian on my own?

Was John 13:9 ("Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.") ever used to justify baptism by effusion on other body parts than the head?

The title is pretty self explanatory. I have made some vows during psychotic episodes from when I was an emotionally charged and immature protestant many years ago. I was recently just now received into the Holy Russian Orthodox Church. Does virtue of baptism grant me dispensation from my previous vows? (Note: Never married/divorced.)

>Though I speak with the tongues of men *and of angels*, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1st Corinthians 13:1 KJV) Is there a Greek or Hebrew root wording to signify that the "tongues of angels" are the tongues heard spoken by Pentecostals, Oneness Apostolics, and other types of similar Christians?

I’ve been trying to see how “federal vision” is different than traditional defenses of paedobaptism. It seems pretty unclear to me, but multiple Presbyterian denominations have rejected “federal vision,” so there must be something questionable about it.

> As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ's office is granted once for all. the sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1582) A 1954 Time magazine article citing Rev. Daniel A. Poling estimated that, in the decade prior, as many as 4 million Catholics converted to Protestantism. This is from a 2015 Pew research article on "faith switching": > One-in-five people who were raised Catholic now say they have no religious affiliation, while 10% identify with evangelical denominations, 5% with mainline denominations and smaller numbers with other faiths. My question is: What is the Catholic view of those very many (multiple millions) of Baptized and Confirmed Roman Catholics who have later (in adult life) had the experience of being saved in the evangelical sense? ________________________________________________________________________ Definition: Evangelicals believe that salvation is a personal and transformative experience that involves a "born-again" encounter with Jesus Christ. This experience is considered a passage from spiritual death to spiritual life. It encompasses all the abiding and immediate effects (albeit some of the language is different) that are supposed to have been conferred in Catholic Baptism and Confirmation, especially the immediate results (copied from this question ), such as: Abiding Effects Baptism: Incorporates us into Christ and his Church Baptism: Capacity to receive other sacraments Baptism: God's life, the life of the Holy Spirit Confirmation: Configuration to Christ's priesthood Confirmation: seals our souls like armor so that we can be knights in combat for Christ Immediate Results Baptism: Forgiveness of sin Baptism: Bestowal of Sanctifying Grace Baptism: Infusion of the Supernatural Virtues Baptism: Infusion of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit Baptism: Conferral of Actual Graces Confirmation: Grace of mature, Christian witness Confirmation: Grace of spiritual soldiery

If a person wasn't repentant (sorry for their sins and living sinfully still) when they got baptized/confirmed/received the Eucharist in a cathedral but later on they repent (feel sorry for their sins) do all they have to do now is go to confession? Are they a valid catholic? Can you cite some sources too if you can please. Thanks.

John the Baptist said to those who came to him to be baptised that he baptised with water for repentance: “But after me comes one who is more powerful than I. . . . He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11). John the Baptist distinguished his baptism (with water) from the Lord’s baptism (with the Holy Spirit). John 1:35-40 mentions two of John the Baptist's disciples, Andrew (Simon Peter's brother) and the other, almost certainly the writer of the Gospel of John. They would have been baptised in water by John the Baptist (a baptism of repentance). A[ \[CSE question\]][1] exists which asks if there is any Church Tradition to show that Jesus baptised his apostles. Here is part of the answer: "St Thomas in his Summa theologiae III, q. 72, a. 6, ad. 2 quotes St. Augustine and affirms that the Apostles were baptized. As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, "'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (John 13:10), we gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, either with John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others." There is nothing in the Scriptures that describes the apostles having been baptized by Jesus — but in John 3:22, we read that, “after this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.” However, John 4:21 informs us that “Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptising more disciples than John [the Baptist], ***although in fact it was not Jesus who baptised, but his disciples.***” The argument from Church Tradition does not appear to be in harmony with John 4:21. The disciples were baptising in water by the direction of Jesus and under His authority. Apart from knowing that Andrew and John were baptised by John the Baptist, does the New Testament say if any other of Jesus' apostles were ever baptised in water, and if any of the apostles were baptised by Jesus? Also what have biblical scholars said said about this? In response to a comment about this question, please note I have asked a different question about Christian baptism on CSE: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/103572/how-do-jehovah-s-witnesses-interpret-john-35-7-where-jesus-says-to-enter-the-ki