Baptizing disabled adults?

[Afterthought]

From what I understand, one argument sometimes advanced in favor of paedobaptism--though not always offered as a conclusive argument but mere evidence--is that baptizing on the profession of faith only leaves no word of salvation for the children of believers who are not able to understand or speak for themselves, i.e., that not baptizing infants effectively states that they have no part in the salvation purchased by Christ in history. What about adults who are not able to speak for themselves though? Does not baptizing them effectively say the same thing about them, so that salvation is only for those who are able to understand and their children? Or perhaps this argument for paedobaptism only works for classes of men: that salvation is for those from the youngest to the oldest; in which case, what is the lack of symmetry between this and the case disabled adults?

Or perhaps there is no lack of symmetry and disabled adults are baptized on some basis (in which case, what basis)?

 

[Edward]

You wouldn't baptize an adult apart from a profession of faith:

WCF: 28-4. "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized"

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The biblical examples that Presbyterians point to as supportive of our doctrine of baptism (that includes infants of believers as some subjects) are the household baptisms in the NT--a count of three, or about 1/3 of the baptisms mentioned, post-JtB.

The household, absent any qualifying or restrictive sense palpable from the text, described completely the whole basic social unit of that day and time, including slaves, etc.

Today in our modern cultures (with allowances for some disparity over the world), the size of our households is smaller, and those considered properly a part of them are typically constrained to "family" (by any definition). Minors most naturally, and even adult dependents (as in the case of handicapped, e.g.), though obviously exceptional, are necessarily a part of that social unit. They are the household, and the NT provides us with the precedent authorizing their baptism.

Note that we (Presbyterian/Reformed) do not build our doctrine of baptism upon the narratives or descriptions of baptism in Scripture. The doctrine and practice of baptism--including who are the proper subjects--is built upon the commands and the meaning of baptism as determined by didactic Scripture. The examples of household baptism are thus by their presence sufficient to validate unto us what the doctrine of baptism (especially, the unity of the Covenant of Grace) taught us to expect.

 

[Afterthought]

That's right. Thank you both!