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.

When talking to my generally reformed friends on the topic of pedo-baptism they often say that baptism is the new circumcision, circumcision was done on babies to bring them into the Old Covenant, therefore we baptize babies to bring them into the New Covenant. I have a hard time with this because before infant circumcision was not based on the faith of the child but on the parents and their adherents to God's command to do so. But in the New Covenant, this same theological truth does not apply. I can not come into the covenant unintentionally or outside of my will. I am sure Reformed Theology has an answer to this and I just have not seen it yet, so how would Reformed Theology answer this?

I have been told that I possess a very definitive view of faith in regards to baptism. So far as I believe faith in Jesus as personal Lord and Savior must be present at the time of baptism. Hence my adherence to the doctrine of credo baptism. I would just like to know how you would categorize this view? Is it Lutheran or Calvinistic? What part of Christian theology would comprise such a view? I have started to think critically of my views because for the first time in my life settling down and starting a family is a real possibility and I would like to know how to explain this to a potential mother of my children?

If a Church of England member has never been baptized, then there are pathways to receive this sacrament . You can only be baptized once . What happens if a Church of England member is *unsure* and *cannot prove either way* whether they were baptized in infancy? Can they be baptized now? The usual sources of proof - certificate, parish registers - are unavailable or destroyed, and there is no-one living who would be able to recall the original baptism.

I grew up in a credobaptist tradition. Studying both Scripture and church history for myself without the blinders of tradition, I have come to accept paedobaptism, as I have come to a different understanding of what baptism is altogether. However, try as I might, I have been unable to find any sources that seem to be giving sprinkling an honest look (from either credo or paedobaptist perspectives). As far as I can tell, credobaptists seem to simply lump it in with infant baptism (and therefore reject it as part of that), or as Catholic tradition (that pours over into later traditions, and therefore reject it as part of that), while paedobaptists seem to argue that you can't safely immerse an infant, and so sprinkling has to be acceptable. Both arguments seem circular to me. **Can someone help me out with sources, either in Scripture or early Church tradition, linking sprinkling with Christian baptism?** Sprinkling/splashing was very much a part of Jewish tradition and law, but is it clear somewhere, or just assumed, that sprinkling according to Jewish custom was equivalent to baptism by immersion?

This question is for Protestant Trinitarians and addresses the divide among the various denominations of Protestantism, particularly Presbyterianism, Congregationalism and Anglicanism, who baptise infants rather than adults. I was, myself, 'baptised' as an infant, but late in infancy as my father was a Church of Scotland clergyman in the remote Highlands of Scotland and was not permitted to baptise his own child, so the matter was delayed and I remember it vividly at the age of five. But after conversion at the age of sixteen I volunteered to be baptised in a Baptist assembly (and my father graciously attended). Among all the arguments to and fro about circumcision and 'sanctification' it is still not clear to me if those who baptise infants actually claim that the child is 'born again' in the various senses in which that term is used in the New Testament, that is to say : born from above (*anothen*); born anew (*anagennao*) ; born again (*paligenesis*) ; born of God ; and born of water and Spirit. What exactly do paedobaptists believe is happening (in New Testament terms) during the ritual of placing water on a baby? And if they regard it so (that this is genuine 'new birth') then can such infants not be recovered if they (initially) reject the gospel in childhood since that would be regarded (in New Testament terms) as being a castaway, having been 'born again' only to reject Christ?

The particular view that raises a query in my mind is this, as fully detailed in my answer to this related question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91006/according-to-reformed-theology-how-can-one-justify-infant-baptism/91065#91065 After detailing why the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (circumcision) has its counterpart in the sign of Christians in the New Testament (water baptism), the author I quote (*A Faith To Live By*, p210, Donald Macleod, Christian Focus, Mentor) says: > “The children of believers continue to have the same special > relationship to the covenant as their Old Testament counterparts had; > and, consequently, the same right to the covenant sign. Why do I > baptise children? ...It is because God gave me an ordinance: Put the > sign of the spiritual covenant on the physical seed.” My query is that although 8-day-old babies were to be circumcised as a sign of that Abrahamic covenant, that only applied to male babies. ***No female babies were ever circumcised. Yet Christian water baptism is administered to both males and females (irrespective of their age). Is this not out of sync with the physical sign?*** Further, the author speaks elsewhere in his book about how, > “when a man comes to faith he may embrace his children with himself > under the sign of the covenant”, and “we should not give the sacrament > of baptism to a man for his child unless we would be prepared to give > it to him for himself.” (*Ibid.* p 219 & 220) But what about a woman coming to faith, who seeks baptism, and she has children? Is it only a female – like myself – who notices a need to consider females a bit more regarding the theology of baptism? *Disregard that last question if you don’t think it helpful.* *My question is,* **Given that no female babies were circumcised as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, why are female babies of Christian believers given the sign of the new covenant (water baptism)?** *Edit to clarify what my question is NOT:* it is ***not*** asking why females are baptised given that they are not circumcised. To clarify what my question IS: it ***is*** questioning the claimed link between circumcision as a sign of the old covenant and the claim that water baptism is a corresponding sign of the new covenant. ***There seems to be something out of sync with this claimed link.***

The Bible describes several adults being baptized (notably Jesus and the Ethiopian eunuch that Phillip baptized). And while it mentions many others being baptized, it doesn't explicitly mention infants (although supporters of infant baptism do have a biblical basis ). What is the earliest explicit mention in historical documents of infants being baptized? I'm guessing that such a mention might take the form of a specific reference to an individual or group of infants being baptized, or something like instructions for the process of baptizing infants. (To clarify, I am looking for explicit references to infant baptism *outside of* the Bible; there is considerable debate over whether the scriptures support infant baptism or if they only allowed for credobaptism alone. All of that is more suited to other questions on this site).

I recently had an interesting discussion with a person who did piercing for a living at one point in time in his life. He told me that the shop he worked had a policy where the would not pierce a baby's ears. To him it was an issue of ethics. He told me that the shop he worked for would only pierce a girl's ears if she was at least 5 years of age and only if the child / girl specifically asked for it herself. I have done some soul searching and I have come to realise that this issue of ethics has come to encompass my views on infant baptism as well. I don't believe that any person has the right to choose to have another baptised. It is to me a deeply personal decision that everyone must come to ass they become of age. Ultimately I would like to share what religious beliefs I may have with my children, but I must give them the chance to become Richard Dawkins, junior if that is what they want to become (Even if that would to happen it would grieve me.) I'm just wondering what kind of denomination holds these beliefs or a reasonable facsimile thereof. My upbringing was entirely secular so I'm completely ignorant on how a person would choose a church. This issue is important to me, if I do ever get the chance to have a child.

What I mean is something like this :
**Case A, Original Sin came first
** because all newly born baby are going to hell if they die in their infant age
then let's do Infant Baptism so they don't go to hell if the infant die.
(here, Infant Baptism start to exist after the Original Sin formulated). **Case B, Infant Baptism came first
** because the church do Infant Baptism
Then it must be because all newly born baby will go to hell if the infant die.
(here, Original Sin formulated because the church do Infant Baptism). Here is what I read from this link > Pelagius promised infants who died unbaptised entry into “eternal > life” (not, however, into the “Kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5]), reasoning > that God would not condemn to hell those who were not personally > guilty of sin From the same link > In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who > die without Baptism are consigned to hell ---//cut--- **Liturgical practice confirms the Church's belief that all inherit Adam's sin and must be transferred from the power of darkness into the kingdom of light** From reading those sentences (especially the bold one), my own conclusion is case-B.
So, there is already an Infant Baptism ritual in that time. Maybe Pelagius say *"You don't need to baptize infant. If they die in their infant age, they won't go to hell"*. On the other hand, Augustine do not agree on what Pelagius say. In the pov of Augustine, Infant Baptism must be performed in order that if the infant die, the infant won't go to hell. But since I'm not so sure, that's why I ask here.

In Calvinism, the children of believers are considered "members of the covenant" and as a sign of that covenant, they are baptized as infants. Practically speaking, this means that if at least one parent is a Christian and member of the church, then the child may be baptized. But sometimes, people other than the parents might be considered "responsible" for that child's spiritual well-being, and thus a child could be baptized even if neither parent is a Christian/church member. Sometimes those other people are grandparents, but the issue quickly gets tricky – for example, what about the cases of [household slaves](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/42009/21576) or [foster children](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/40756/21576) ? Usually, the litmus test is that the "sponsors" of the child must be in a situation to train and nurture the child. However, I recently saw the claim that John Calvin believed that descendants of Christians, even several generations removed, were entitled to the sign of the covenant, *without* the requirement of a Christian "sponsor." So, for example, the grandchild of a deceased member of the church would be entitled to infant baptism, even if no one else in the family is a Christian. My initial reaction to this claim was skepticism, but on reflection I'm wondering if this would fit well within Calvin's system. **Did Calvin believe that descendants of church members, even to two or more generations, were *entitled* to infant baptism, even without a Christian guardian?** Where in his works does he argue for or against such a position?