Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cody1611
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)

2 Kings 5:14 - Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Acts 2:41 - at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Acts 8:39 - because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.

Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.

Acts 2:17,18,33 - the pouring of water is like the “pouring” out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called “infusion” (of grace).

1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized (“baptizo”) in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, “baptizo” does not mean immersed in these verses.

Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.

Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is “poured out” upon us. This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.

Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.
Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.” This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person).

Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord “pours” water on the thirsty land and “pours” His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.”

2 Thess. 2:15 - hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-IV
 
The Church existed before the Bible, well true but how do you know if the church tells it like Jesus wanted?🤷
Because Jesus said so.
Did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”? [Luke 10:16]

And did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,” [John 14:16]

And again did not Jesus say, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” [John 16:13]

Now, did Jesus put a time limit on any of this other than, of course, the one in John 14:16 and that one was “for ever”.

The Apostles were the church. They were its first heirarchy. But the Apostles died. Did the church die too??? No, the Apostles were succeeded by bishops as exemplified in Acts with the election of Matthias. But the promise, by Jesus, of the Counselor was FOR EVER!!! Now are you doubting the words of Jesus as recorded in the scripture???
 
Because Jesus said so.
Did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”? [Luke 10:16]

And did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,” [John 14:16]

And again did not Jesus say, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” [John 16:13]

Now, did Jesus put a time limit on any of this other than, of course, the one in John 14:16 and that one was “for ever”.

The Apostles were the church. They were its first heirarchy. But the Apostles died. Did the church die too??? No, the Apostles were succeeded by bishops as exemplified in Acts with the election of Matthias. But the promise, by Jesus, of the Counselor was FOR EVER!!! Now are you doubting the words of Jesus as recorded in the scripture???
What ever you beleive is okay with me and not another post from me:thumbsup:unless it is on infant baptism
 
the OP never showed his face again-I wonder why:rolleyes:
I think the OP was just a post and run man who just came here to insult us Catholics with his “sprinkling babies” comment, and then left.

He may have read the responses for a time.

I understand his “tude” very well, for I too was brought up in a very simular denomination. We too called infant baptism or any other type of baptism save submerrsion “sprinkling” or “spranklin” in the original suthun. They don’t know about the different modes of baptism, and frankly don’t care.

Anything other than submerrsion doesn’t count anyway.

I have often wondered why these persons are so picky about the age and the mode of baptism when they beleive that baptism is just a symbolic ordinance, with no effect on the soul, and certainly no sacrament.

But submerrsion and the age of the baptisee are still very important to them, why I’ll never know. Unless it is just bigotry and makeing sure to do things in the opposite way from us.
 
I remember reading the Didache a while ago, and among the descriptions of Baptism “pouring” was mentioned.

One can google the Didache and see for themselves. (The Didache describes some of the practices of the early Church).
 
Hi, Dorothy,

Here is a link that may be helpful: newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm
I remember reading the Didache a while ago, and among the descriptions of Baptism “pouring” was mentioned.

One can google the Didache and see for themselves. (The Didache describes some of the practices of the early Church).
Scroll down to the “Second Part” which gives instructions for Baptism. 🙂

God bless
 
I think the OP was just a post and run man who just came here to insult us Catholics with his “sprinkling babies” comment, and then left.

He may have read the responses for a time.

I understand his “tude” very well, for I too was brought up in a very simular denomination. We too called infant baptism or any other type of baptism save submerrsion “sprinkling” or “spranklin” in the original suthun. They don’t know about the different modes of baptism, and frankly don’t care.

Anything other than submerrsion doesn’t count anyway.

I have often wondered why these persons are so picky about the age and the mode of baptism when they beleive that baptism is just a symbolic ordinance, with no effect on the soul, and certainly no sacrament.

But submerrsion and the age of the baptisee are still very important to them, why I’ll never know. Unless it is just bigotry and makeing sure to do things in the opposite way from us.
Without getting everyone on my case again I really don’t think people that do things differently are bigots just plain old people trying to make it to heaven like the rest of us are:thumbsup: It is important to them because it is the way the believe We should all try and get along in Christ name. Thanks and God Bless all:)
 
I personally couldn’t care less how other denominations baptize.But Anabaptists particularly are extremely noisy about how we baptize as if a certain ways of baptizing(immersion over all others) as someone magically more effacious .AS long as one is baptized what’s the problem?The Didache seems to believe baptism of a person is way more important than method.Does the NT state anywere that infant baptism or pouring is forbidden? It doesn’t- that an inference made by them to what they’ve read into the bible that isn’t in the Bible.Doctrines of men -or simply custom from culture?
 
Hi, JuliaMajor,

👍
I personally couldn’t care less how other denominations baptize.But Anabaptists particularly are extremely noisy about how we baptize as if a certain ways of baptizing(immersion over all others) as someone magically more effacious .AS long as one is baptized what’s the problem?The Didache seems to believe baptism of a person is way more important than method.Does the NT state anywere that infant baptism or pouring is forbidden? It doesn’t- that an inference made by them to what they’ve read into the bible that isn’t in the Bible.Doctrines of men -or simply custom from culture?
God bless
 
What ever you beleive is okay with me and not another post from me:thumbsup:unless it is on infant baptism
Look Tweetymom, I posted in response to your post which was:

"The Church existed before the Bible, well true but how do you know if the church tells it like Jesus wanted?

To which I answered:

"Because Jesus said so. Did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”? [Luke 10:16]

And did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,” [John 14:16]

And again did not Jesus say, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” [John 16:13]

Now, did Jesus put a time limit on any of this other than, of course, the one in John 14:16 and that one was “for ever”.

The Apostles were the church. They were its first heirarchy. But the Apostles died. Did the church die too??? No, the Apostles were succeeded by bishops as exemplified in Acts with the election of Matthias. But the promise, by Jesus, of the Counselor was FOR EVER!!! Now are you doubting the words of Jesus as recorded in the scripture???"

Now this idea of “it has to be in the Bible” is plain foolishness. Nowhere does it say in the Bible anyhting like that. In fact the bible says the opposite. Now you asked the question of, “…how do you know if the church tells it like Jesus wanted?” And I gave you the answer straight from scripture. So now you don’t want to talk to me? WHY? Because you didn’t think I could answer your question or is it because you didn’t think the answer was in the Bible?

Jesus established a Church based on the Apostles and that church was empowered by Christ. Jesusdid not tell the APostles to ordain deacons. The Apostles made that decision themselves Same is true with the presbuteroi [priests]. And the same is true with infant baptism.
 
Look Tweetymom, I posted in response to your post which was:

"The Church existed before the Bible, well true but how do you know if the church tells it like Jesus wanted?

To which I answered:

"Because Jesus said so. Did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”? [Luke 10:16]

And did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,” [John 14:16]

And again did not Jesus say, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” [John 16:13]

Now, did Jesus put a time limit on any of this other than, of course, the one in John 14:16 and that one was “for ever”.

The Apostles were the church. They were its first heirarchy. But the Apostles died. Did the church die too??? No, the Apostles were succeeded by bishops as exemplified in Acts with the election of Matthias. But the promise, by Jesus, of the Counselor was FOR EVER!!! Now are you doubting the words of Jesus as recorded in the scripture???"

Now this idea of “it has to be in the Bible” is plain foolishness. Nowhere does it say in the Bible anyhting like that. In fact the bible says the opposite. Now you asked the question of, “…how do you know if the church tells it like Jesus wanted?” And I gave you the answer straight from scripture. So now you don’t want to talk to me? WHY? Because you didn’t think I could answer your question or is it because you didn’t think the answer was in the Bible?

Jesus established a Church based on the Apostles and that church was empowered by Christ. Jesusdid not tell the APostles to ordain deacons. The Apostles made that decision themselves Same is true with the presbuteroi [priests]. And the same is true with infant baptism.
2 timothy3:16 and thank you for you answer and God Bless
 
Last year I registered with the forum for a brief time under the mane Monk1. I did not participate much for health reasons. I did not think that name was still functional so I registerd a few months ago as nlm. Yesterday suddenly Monk1 reappeared.I have no idea why.I will be discontinuing MOnk1 this week when I figure out how.NLM
I see. Thank you very much.

placido
 
Hi, Inkaneer,

All excellent references 👍 - and your comments were straight-forward 👍 and accurate …👍 but, please stay focused on the thread we are on…🙂 Thanks.
Look Tweetymom, I posted in response to your post which was:

"The Church existed before the Bible, well true but how do you know if the church tells it like Jesus wanted?

To which I answered:

"Because Jesus said so. Did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”? [Luke 10:16]

And did not Jesus say to the Apostles, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,” [John 14:16]

And again did not Jesus say, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” [John 16:13]

Now, did Jesus put a time limit on any of this other than, of course, the one in John 14:16 and that one was “for ever”.

The Apostles were the church. They were its first heirarchy. But the Apostles died. Did the church die too??? No, the Apostles were succeeded by bishops as exemplified in Acts with the election of Matthias. But the promise, by Jesus, of the Counselor was FOR EVER!!! Now are you doubting the words of Jesus as recorded in the scripture???"

Now this idea of “it has to be in the Bible” is plain foolishness. Nowhere does it say in the Bible anyhting like that. In fact the bible says the opposite. Now you asked the question of, “…how do you know if the church tells it like Jesus wanted?” And I gave you the answer straight from scripture. So now you don’t want to talk to me? WHY? Because you didn’t think I could answer your question or is it because you didn’t think the answer was in the Bible?

Jesus established a Church based on the Apostles and that church was empowered by Christ. Jesusdid not tell the APostles to ordain deacons. The Apostles made that decision themselves Same is true with the presbuteroi [priests]. And the same is true with infant baptism.
God bless
 
Due to questions by a non-Catholic about “sprinkling vs immersion”, I’m bumping this thread.

So I’m not sure if this was mentioned or not, but in Acts 2:41 St. Peter baptized three thousand individuals. Given the limited water availability I doubt that three thousand people could have been immersed in water in arid Jerusalem. I’d imagine the Jewish townspeople might be a bit more protective of their precious water supply than allowing three thousand unwashed bodies dipping into their drinking water!

Suffice it to say, the Bible does not tell us whether sprinkling or immersion is the proper way.

Some claim they “baptize the way Jesus was baptized” but that seems to me to be an aburd statement. If they truly baptize the way Jesus was baptized they’d have to baptize their congregants, immersed in the River Jordan with their Jewish cousin officiating. 😛 for that’s the way Jesus was baptized!
 
Yeah Des you sound like a very loving Catholic whom Jesus said not to judge others?🤷 I am not a cafeteria Catholic, because I chose to be rebaptised:rolleyes: We are also told not to judge people in how the chose to worship.at wayhappy th God did not make robots, but apparently you are happy that way and I say GOD BLESS you brother:hug1:
I am also amazed at what people are saying about each other as I have been reading through this thread…Just stick to the argument rather then judge and put down another believer in Christ…Don’t people realize we will will give account for idle words…Aren’t we supposed esteem one another and let our words be seasoned with grace…We are to radiate the fragrance of Christ to our brothers and sisters and the lost…Do you realize a persons maturity or lack of it can show in your posts…peace to you…
 
Ignatius,

How right you are! 👍 “Baby sprinkling”, indeed! This is Holy Baptism. The Immersionists deny the very meaning and efficacy of Baptism, yet they get so worked up over the manner of administering it. They have dunking, but they have no Baptism, :eek: apart from what God graciously may grant them, anyway, despite all their hostility to Baptism’s sacramentality. Baptism saves!

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top