Baptism

[wyp8riot]

Why do Catholics baptize babies by sprinkling?

What is the origin of this?

Thank you,
-Paul

 

[Art321]

Infant Baptism

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a “believer’s baptism” requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household (“oikos”) of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent’s faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith. The parents play a critical role in their child’s salvation.

This are a few quotes from scripturecatholic.com

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Why do Catholics baptize babies by sprinkling?

What is the origin of this?

Thank you,
-Paul

They don’t.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Mostly it’s a stereotype spread by people who want to make fun of Catholics.

Generally they pour.

For origin that would be the Bible. Where we can see the very first baptism we are told of was done by God through pouring rain.

We can see from the usages that the sprinkling clean of people and other things is within the meaning of the word baptism.

As we see that pouring is.

The one mode that actually has no certain support in the Bible is immersion. However, it is well within the meaning of the word and has the support of tradition.

 

[1ke]

Why do Catholics baptize babies by sprinkling?

What is the origin of this?

Thank you,
-Paul

The Catholic Church does not baptize by sprinkling, infants or otherwise. Such a baptism is invalid.

The Catholic Church baptizes by pouring or immersion.

The origin of pouring water over the head would be the early church-- when they baptized people inside buildings and where sufficient water for immersion is not always available. St. Paul himself was baptized inside a house.

 

[Holly3278]

Actually, I don’t think we baptize by sprinkling but by pouring. It derives from both Sacred Tradition and the Bible. See here for how it derives form the Bible:

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-IV

Also, please see this article on why Catholics don’t baptize by immersion only:

catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

 

[wyp8riot]

Thank you for the clarifications.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catholic Church does not baptize by sprinkling, infants or otherwise. Such a baptism is invalid.

The Catholic Church baptizes by pouring or immersion.

The origin of pouring water over the head would be the early church-- when they baptized people inside buildings and where sufficient water for immersion is not always available. St. Paul himself was baptized inside a house.

while we do not baptize by sprinking…my understanding is that it can be valid. Just a note.

 

[thistle]

while we do not baptize by sprinking…my understanding is that it can be valid. Just a note.

Maybe it could be valid in the case of urgent baptism of someone in danger of death and insufficient water is available for pouring.
Surely it would be tough to condemn someone to hell for lack of water.

 

[brb3]

A good source on the Early Church’s Baptism is Hippolytus.

Covered in THE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS … google it, and read its 17 pages online.

He wrote in early 200’s … learned in Rome, and had contact with Irenaeas [of the prior century].

Yes, he describes immersion as the standard method of Baptism. A very elaborate, 3 fold series of instructions is layed out in his Book. It also involved annointing the newly Baptized with Holy Oil. A Confirmation also was conducted, with Laying on of Hands.

A very informative read … a great insight into the way the Early Church took Baptism so seriously. It was the ‘born again - sealing spiritual rebirth’ for them … for the new converts. It was most definately Trinitarian. 3 Immersions were conducted. Those Baptized were EXPECTED to actively ‘confess’ their beliefs during the Baptism process. They had to denounce satan, and satan was bound, and they then received the H.S.

Much of what he speaks of in his Book is the way the Catholic Church currently conducts Baptism & Confimation … for new converts [Catecumens] to faith.

 

[juliamajor]

Read the Didache and it apostolic rules on baptism .Very informative.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hello wyp8riot.

Here is Origen writing around 244 AD, in his “Commentaries On Romans”, :

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Jurgens, William A., The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN: 1970. Pg. 209. (I also utilized the “Doctrinal Index” on Baptism, pg. 427.)

 

[LionHeart777]

I re read the OP and realised my response was geared towards answering why the Catholic Church baptizes babies in general

If you were just wondering about the sprinkling, like somebody else put it: “they don’t.” Maybe not unless there was some kind of emergency and a real small amount of water:shrug: Someone correct me if I’m wrong?

 

[dcdurel]

I re read the OP and realised my response was geared towards answering why the Catholic Church baptizes babies in general

If you were just wondering about the sprinkling, like somebody else put it: “they don’t.” Maybe not unless there was some kind of emergency and a real small amount of water:shrug: Someone correct me if I’m wrong?

Sprinkling has always been a valid form of baptism. The Church did not learn her doctrines from the bible, but directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Mk 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you** all things**, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
So Jesus communicated “everything” to His apostles when He taught them the Gospel and He sent the Holy Spirit to teach them again and explain what He taught and to give them the power to remember all He taught. Thus the Church already knew all the saving truths of the Gospel and did not learn any new doctrines from scripture. There is no reason that all doctrines or any doctrines the Church believes, must be in scripture, since the Church did not learn her doctrines from scripture.

 

[adrift]

Sprinkling has always been a valid form of baptism. The Church did not learn her doctrines from the bible, but directly from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Mk 4:34 “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you** all things**, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
So Jesus communicated “everything” to His apostles when He taught them the Gospel and He sent the Holy Spirit to teach them again and explain what He taught and to give them the power to remember all He taught. Thus the Church already knew all the saving truths of the Gospel and did not learn any new doctrines from scripture. There is no reason that all doctrines or any doctrines the Church believes, must be in scripture, since the Church did not learn her doctrines from scripture.

Would you document that sprinkling is valid? I understand that it is not.

 

[Ron_Conte]

while we do not baptize by sprinking…my understanding is that it can be valid. Just a note.

The above post is a serious doctrinal error, presented without any explanation or basis.

Baptism is valid by pouring or immersion, not by sprinkling, as this document indicates:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

a) Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid.

note 105 - With regard to all Christians, consideration should be given to the danger of invalidity when baptism is administered by sprinkling, especially of several people at once.