C
Cody1611
Guest
Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?
- Status
W
wmscott
Guest
It’s called Baptism; a little more respect will go a long way if you are here to truly learn. By saying baby sprinkling you are setting up the tone to be confrontational and disrespecting the Sacrament of Baptism. I truly hope this is not your intention.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
THE SACRAMENTS - INFANT BAPTISM
Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16 - baptism required for entering heaven
1Cor 15:21-22 - in Adam all die, in Christ all made alive
Mk 10:14 - let children come; to such belongs the kingdom
Lk 18:15 - people were bringing even infants to him…
Col 2:11-12 - baptism has replaced circumcision
Acts 16:31 - believe in Lord Jesus you & house will be saved
Acts 16:15 - she was baptized, with all her household
Acts 16:33 - he and all his family were baptized at once
1Cor 1:16 - I baptized the household of Stephanas
I hope this helps.
C
Cachonga
Guest
You forgot to mention when Peter baptised Cornelius and his household (Acts 10). However, I don’t see any mention in any of your citations of how old the youngest member of the household was. On the other hand, I see plenty of evidence where people believed first, then they were baptised (such as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, Cornelius in Acts 10, and even Paul’s instructions to the jailer in Acts 16). I have thought very carefully about what I believed when I was baptised in the Catholic Church, and the best I can come up with is “I believe the guy in the dress is really annoying.” I was baptised properly after leaving the Catholic Church (with full knowledge of what I was doing, and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord, God and Saviour).
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
There are no exact instructions from the New Testament on how to baptize individuals. However, it is clear that water is necessary. Also, the word for baptism, baptizo, frequently means immersion but it is not its only meaning. The New Testament uses this word to mean cleansing or washing as well.
Acts 2:41 states, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Three thousand souls were baptized in Jerusalem. During that time, the city did not have an adequate water supply to “dunk” 3,000 converts. I would assume that Christ’s disciples baptized these Jewish converts by pouring water on their heads or sprinkling water on them. I would also think that immersing 3,000 individuals into a large public water supply, which archeologists have showed that there was not sufficient water supply in Jerusalem at that time, would by highly unsanitary! Would you agree?
When the disciples baptized “households,” were they immersed? It’s possible but not probable. In those days, families did not have outdoor pools or large fountains in their backyards (they probably did not even have backyards for that matter
) or bathtubs in their houses. They probably had large buckets of water used to wash themselves, clothes, and to cook. It’s seems very likely that, again, these individuals were baptized by water being poured or sprinkled on them.
Just to mention, the Catholic Church does immerse adults, and infants, if they or the parents wish. My Parish has a large immersion baptismal fount and there a many that choose to be immersed. The Eastern Catholic Churches, at least the Byzantine Rite, immerse there infants into the water three times.
Hope this helps Cody and God bless!
ZP
Acts 2:41 states, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Three thousand souls were baptized in Jerusalem. During that time, the city did not have an adequate water supply to “dunk” 3,000 converts. I would assume that Christ’s disciples baptized these Jewish converts by pouring water on their heads or sprinkling water on them. I would also think that immersing 3,000 individuals into a large public water supply, which archeologists have showed that there was not sufficient water supply in Jerusalem at that time, would by highly unsanitary! Would you agree?
When the disciples baptized “households,” were they immersed? It’s possible but not probable. In those days, families did not have outdoor pools or large fountains in their backyards (they probably did not even have backyards for that matter
) or bathtubs in their houses. They probably had large buckets of water used to wash themselves, clothes, and to cook. It’s seems very likely that, again, these individuals were baptized by water being poured or sprinkled on them.Just to mention, the Catholic Church does immerse adults, and infants, if they or the parents wish. My Parish has a large immersion baptismal fount and there a many that choose to be immersed. The Eastern Catholic Churches, at least the Byzantine Rite, immerse there infants into the water three times.
Hope this helps Cody and God bless!
ZP
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Ezekiel 36:25, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.”
Jesus requires baptism for entering heaven (John 3:5; Mark 16:16). St. Paul tells us that all are born with Adam’s sin and thus need baptism:
Then as on man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous (Romans 5:18-19).
Jesus makes it clear that children are not to be kept away from Him:
And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them (Mark 10:13-16).
The Apostles baptized entire households, which include infants and children:
And when she was baptized, with her household, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay (Acts 16:15).”
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he baptized at once, with all his family (Acts 16:33).
I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas (1 Corinthians 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Nowhere in Scripture is baptism restricted to only adults. St. Peter preaches, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, ever one whom the Lord our God calls to him (Acts 2:39)."
The early Church Fathers were clear that the baptizing of infants was a practice that came from the Apostles themselves. That infants lack the use of reason does not prevent them from becoming pat of the New Covenant through baptism. In the Old Testament, a child became part of the Old Covenant through circumcision. St. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision, “In him also you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12).” In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism. Just as parents in the Old Testament supplied the decision for the child’s circumcision until he could confirm this decision at the age of reason, so in the New Testament parents stand in for the child at his/her baptism until he/she can confirm this decision at the age of reason.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
If you look on baptism as a form of healing and if you look on infant baptism as the healing of a child based not on his own faith but based on the faith of his parents, then support for infant baptism can be found in many of the healing miracles of Jesus, such as the raising of the synagogue leader’s daughter from the dead (Matt 9:18-19, 23-25), the exorcism of the Canaanite woman’s daughter (Matt 15:21-28), and the raising of the widow’s son from the dead (Luke 7:11-15). Even, the healing of the centurion’s servant (Matt 8:5-13), where the healing was not based on the servant’s own faith but on the faith of his master, the centurion, can be used to back up the practice of infant baptism.
C
Cody1611
Guest
Sorry, I did not know the term was offensive.
E
eyesonly
Guest
here’s what i got from previous posts here about this subject matter:
*Q: Why should Catholic babies be baptized?
A: Children don’t have to understand the significance of the sacrament of Baptism to benefit from it. This sacrament’s great value lies in what it does to the soul by bestowing on it sanctifying grace which makes us co-heirs of heaven with Christ.Through Baptism the life of Jesus becomes our own. This means that we are raised to the level of the divine, which we could never achieve on our own.
We don’t wait for children to understand the value of vitamins before we give them to them. Why would we ever want to wait to give them the greatest gift possible—life in Christ?
*
- Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. of Catholic.com
Other less important things babies don’t understand yet we grant to them: first birthday party, branded clothes, sometimes even a watch.
There was one baptism rite I attended as a godfather. The presiding priest had this message:
"Does this baby know Jesus? Not yet. Does Jesus know this baby? Of course. Do the parents know Jesus? Yes.
Does this baby love Jesus? Probably not yet. Does Jesus love this baby? Of course. Do the parents love Jesus and the baby? Yes.
Then whoever loves the most makes the first move.
*Q: Why should Catholic babies be baptized?
A: Children don’t have to understand the significance of the sacrament of Baptism to benefit from it. This sacrament’s great value lies in what it does to the soul by bestowing on it sanctifying grace which makes us co-heirs of heaven with Christ.Through Baptism the life of Jesus becomes our own. This means that we are raised to the level of the divine, which we could never achieve on our own.
We don’t wait for children to understand the value of vitamins before we give them to them. Why would we ever want to wait to give them the greatest gift possible—life in Christ?
*
- Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. of Catholic.com
Other less important things babies don’t understand yet we grant to them: first birthday party, branded clothes, sometimes even a watch.
There was one baptism rite I attended as a godfather. The presiding priest had this message:
"Does this baby know Jesus? Not yet. Does Jesus know this baby? Of course. Do the parents know Jesus? Yes.
Does this baby love Jesus? Probably not yet. Does Jesus love this baby? Of course. Do the parents love Jesus and the baby? Yes.
Then whoever loves the most makes the first move.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The Case For Infant Baptism
I noticed in someone’s forum profile that they asserted that only adults are baptized in the Bible.
The imperative is the fact that Jewish babies were circumcised on the 8th day by the command of God and since Paul & Peter both compare baptism to circumcision, that we see the type and example. The fact that the parents had the child circumcised as an entrance into their faith and professed their faith on behalf of the child while accepting the responsibility of seeing that they were raised in their faith, carries over into Christianity. It’s as scriptural as “Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The more relevant passages are those that show that entire households were baptized, which implies that people of all ages were included. If God commanded that babies be brought into the faith in the OT, why would that logical and family oriented practice cease with the coming of the Messiah? ALL Christianity is about family…that’s about as NT as it gets.
If you think that one has to make a profession of faith to enter the Kingdom of God, but then don’t believe that baptism is crucial for salvation, there is something scripturally wrong with your belief…yet the NT is almost adamant about that.
I noticed in someone’s forum profile that they asserted that only adults are baptized in the Bible.
The imperative is the fact that Jewish babies were circumcised on the 8th day by the command of God and since Paul & Peter both compare baptism to circumcision, that we see the type and example. The fact that the parents had the child circumcised as an entrance into their faith and professed their faith on behalf of the child while accepting the responsibility of seeing that they were raised in their faith, carries over into Christianity. It’s as scriptural as “Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The more relevant passages are those that show that entire households were baptized, which implies that people of all ages were included. If God commanded that babies be brought into the faith in the OT, why would that logical and family oriented practice cease with the coming of the Messiah? ALL Christianity is about family…that’s about as NT as it gets.
If you think that one has to make a profession of faith to enter the Kingdom of God, but then don’t believe that baptism is crucial for salvation, there is something scripturally wrong with your belief…yet the NT is almost adamant about that.
T
TommyWommy
Guest
Since you are an Independant Baptist, I assume you hold to the belief that any child who dies before the “age of reason” will automatically be saved by virtue of their inability to comprehend the need for repentance. Thus, to them “belongs the Kingdom.” Who are we (or you) to withold from them the sacrament (or in your belief, the symbol of the reality) of being clean? Do you claim to know for sure if a person has “really” believed in the name of Jesus? Where are the Scripture verses to tell you at what age a person actually has the faculty to comprehend what he/she is saying? Not all who cry “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom. Not all who cry “Lord, Lord” really believe. Why are you baptizing them all as if their belief is valid? And why are you declaring babies “saved” without offering them your symbol of being saved?
P
placido
Guest
The church pre-existed the Bible. The existence of the Church before the Bible presuposes the existence of doctrine before the Bible. So, the question is irrelevant.
placido
W
wmscott
Guest
OK so I missed a few references, however there were plenty provided. As for your post, you forgot to mention how old Cornelius was or who all were in his household, what were their names, how many were women, men, or children. How old were the members of Cornelius’s household? This game can be played all day, it said this, and it did not say that, this is just a diversion to justify a non-Catholic position or to tear down a Catholic belief. One thing though, it is not a position of learning what Catholic believe or respecting those beliefs.
The New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism. This goes back to your statement “I see plenty of evidence where people believed first, then they were baptised”. You see? On the other hand, do you apply your own fallible personal interpretation here? This is just your opinion because you have no authoritative body to fall back on in matters of faith and interpretation of Sacred Scripture.
You cite Acts 8, 10, & 16, let’s look at them:
Acts 8
NASB
36As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37[And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary
Ver. 36. Here is water. This shews, that baptism is to be given with water. (Witham)
Ver. 37. If thou believest, &c. The Scripture many times mentions one disposition, when others no less necessary are supposed, as here a sorrow for sins, a firm hope, love of God, &c. (Witham) — Faith is thus seen to be a necessary predisposition in the adult, for the reception of baptism. They must answer for themselves; but infants are baptized in the faith of the Church. Their sponsors, who receive them from the font, answer for them.(Denis the Carthusian) — And as the defilement was not personal, but that of others, so are they purified by the faith of others.
Acts 10
NASB
47"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary
Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) — Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter’s preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)
Acts 16
NASB
33And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary
Ver. 33. Was baptized, being first told what he was to believe, and do. (Witham) — Hence Catholics draw a very plausible argument for the baptism of infants, as it is very probable there were some infants in the family. See Estius, in different location.
Baptism by infusion (pouring), immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are valid ways to be baptized.
So in context it is clear that infants are also baptized. However, this brings me to another question before moving on. Are you saying that because my three children were baptized in the Catholic Church, using the infusion (pouring) method, having grown into late teens and early adulthood, and having been fully exposed to the Gospels, that when they die they are damned? All because by your definition of baptism, they have heard the gospels and fully knowing the truths they went un-baptized? I really got to hear this one.
Back to baptism by infusion (pouring), immersion (dunking) and sprinkling are valid ways to be baptized. It is true that baptizo often means immersion, but immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” No one in ancient Israel practiced immersion before dinner, but the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
Now, if you were baptized in the Catholic Church, then you were properly baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. How on earth could you possible negate that? Are you giving back to God a grace (gift) the he gave you?
B
bmadamsberry
Guest
lol, you guys have pretty much covered everything. As a former Protestant, I never thought Baptism to be important because we didn’t baptize babies. So I took the very opposite approach that the former catholic person did, I guess.
N
nlm
Guest
The scripture you quote is very clear when it says I must REPENT AND BE BAPTISED. How then can an infant repent? The second quote says to RISE and be baptised. How can an infant do that? When I read this it is clear that the individual must demonstrate in a visible way their desire to be baptised. The act of repenting, the act of rising are acts of faith demonstrating one’s desire to be baptised.NLM
N
nlm
Guest
I also was baptised after I left the Cathoilc church.It was based on MY understanding of the commitment I was making.I BELIEVED , I REPENTED and I ACCEPTED Jesus as my Lord and Saviour and by Rising and publicly being baptised I committed to living my life as a Christian. It was an EXTRAORDINARY experience.One I would HIGHLY recommend.NLM
P
placido
Guest
Compare that with what St. Paul says in 2 Thess 3:10 - whoever doesn’t work shouldn’t eat.
Do babies work? NO!
Do babies eat? YES!
Why?
Bacause St. Paul’s statemnent is directed at those that CAN work. He did not mean to say babies must be starved to death because they can’t work. Same with baptism.
I detest it when people consider baptism to be a mere demonstration, an act of showing one’s faith to the omniscient God.
placido
B
bmadamsberry
Guest
No. You are reading the verse as “repent then be baptised”. The fact is that the child will, hopefully, repent when they reach the age of reason. Therefore the “and” will have been fulfilled.
The use of the and does not solidify which order they are supposedc to occur in. Therefore your argument doesn’t work.
M
mark_t_cassidy
Guest
I have no bones to pick with anyone but this is how I see it. 1) Throughtout the N T people were called to repent and be baptised. Infants cannot repent.2) Baptism was always by emersion, sprinkling was never mentioned. 3) In Luke 18: 15-16 Jesus touching the children has nothing to do with baptisim and you know it. When you twist scripture to make it mean what you want it to that is just wrong. If you must prove your point and it’s not in the Bible ,just pull out the old " Well acording to Church tradition " card. That works every time and you do not have to have the burden of proof. Lastly Lydia and Stephanas households that were baptised by Paul does not mention weather infants were in those households and does not state that any were baptised, So once again you are twisting scripture to make your point, not a good habit to get into.
B
bmadamsberry
Guest
BUt it works the other way, too. Just because infants are not mentioned as being part of the household does not mean that they weren’t. Just because it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s not to be assumed (such as that Jesus blinked or sneezed). You can also twist scripture to say that “because it doesn’t come right out and say that there were infants means that there weren’t”.
N
nlm
Guest
I am not at all surprised to see you say that my argument does not work. I expected it.These are not arguments but my opinions and discussions we are having, are they not? If I understand you correctly, it does not matter if one repents first or is baptised first and then later decides to repent or not. Seems a bit bizzar does it not. An infant is baptised without repentance. Then grows up and" hopefully" repents . What if they don’t. I am happy that you think your argument works. I would venture a guess that even Catholics won’t agree with you on this one.NLMNo. You are reading the verse as “repent then be baptised”. The fact is that the child will, hopefully, repent when they reach the age of reason. Therefore the “and” will have been fulfilled.
The use of the and does not solidify which order they are supposedc to occur in. Therefore your argument doesn’t work.
- Status