I mostly use that word because I like to confuse people. But partly because it's the correct word to use. But mostly the confusion.
Last night, at Alpha, after a scintillating debate on the Holy Spirit, conversation turned to baptism, and infant baptism in particular. Now, I have no problem with infant baptism. In fact, I think it's brilliant. It gives the parents a chance to dedicate their child to God, and to promise to bring them up in the faith. When it works, it's a fantastic testimony to the family, and the dedication of the parents. But that's just it. It seems to me that it's more about the parents. They're making a decision for the children. There's nowt wrong with that - they do it all the time throughout their childhood. Yet, if there is opposition to the idea of being baptised twice, they take away the opportunity of the future adult to make the decision to be baptised themselves. To nail their own colours to the mast, as it were. But then you have to ask why being baptised twice is such an issue? Especially when, normally, the first time is hardly at a cogent age.
Obviously, there is confirmation - an excellent chance for the child or adult to make their own commitment. But is confirmation a Biblical precedent? Does it do/say/show the same things as being baptised?
Are all these answers up for grabs?
Am I confused?