Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?

[bmadamsberry]

No, I was right in my definition of calling it an argument (I guess it’s just my philosophy classes coming out in me).

Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m saying. The verse that you gave is to “repent and be baptized”. It does not say “then be baptized”, nor does it say “or be baptized”. Protestants and Catholics see baptism itself as two different things.

To recieve “forgiveness of sins” one must “repent and be baptized” Acts 2:38. It’s both, and a timeframe is not given as to when.

Baptism also replaces circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). Circumcision was almost exclusively done to infants, not to adults.

 

[placido]

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.NLM

As far as I know, infant baptism is conditional. Only a baby or an infant of believing parents is baptized, with the understanding that his/her parents shall give the child Christian education until such time (+ - 14 years) he/she receives the sacrament of confirmation - when he/she decides for him/her self to be or not to be a Christian.
Parents make so many decisions without their children’s consent: feed them without their consent; wash them without their consent; take them for vaccination without their consent, dress them without their consent, take them to school without their consent, etc.
While caring for their physical welbeing without their consent, parents apparently shouldn’t care for their babies’ spiritual wellbeing without their consent.
Doesn’t make sense.

placido

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Messrs. Adamsbury and Cassidy,

I just happened upon this C.A. Forum in browsing. I do not wish to get too “immersed” (pardon the pun!) in this issue, but I can recommend a book that is unusually potent in arguing for ancient usages regarding the Holy Sacraments (Eucharist as well as Baptism). The book is by an Independent Lutheran pastor, but do not let that deter you; Jackson’s arguments and his awesome summoning of Scripture to support the teaching about Holy Baptism of the Catholic and Lutheran traditions alike is very convincing. It is not so often that one recommends a Lutheran book for a matter of Catholic doctrine (and in other parts of this same book Jackson is less even in his writing and his catholicity) but this is one case, for the issue that concerns this forum, in which this is advisable!

Here is the citation of the book, which can be ordered from Amazon.com (for which WWW site I wrote an assessment of it):

Thy Strong Word : the Efficacy of the Word in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions / by Gregory L. Jackson. – Glendale, Ariz. : Martin Chemnitz Press, 2000. – 643 p. ; 26 cm. – ISBN 0-9649354-4-9.

See especially the chapter, “The Visible Word: Baptism and Holy Communion”, on pages [483]-545, and also (especially to refute Baptist and suchlike sectarian claims) pages 245-249 and 424-432. Jackson makes a decisive and irrefutable defense of Infant Baptism, among other matters regarding the Holy Sacraments.

Jerry Parker

 

[wmscott]

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

So as a former Catholic, and as I asked in post 11, “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?”

 

[bmadamsberry]

Messrs. Adamsbury and Cassidy,

I just happened upon this C.A. Forum in browsing. I do not wish to get too “immersed” (pardon the pun!) in this issue, but I can recommend a book that is unusually potent in arguing for ancient usages regarding the Holy Sacraments (Eucharist as well as Baptism). The book is by an Independent Lutheran pastor, but do not let that deter you; Jackson’s arguments and his awesome summoning of Scripture to support the teaching about Holy Baptism of the Catholic and Lutheran traditions alike is very convincing. It is not so often that one recommends a Lutheran book for a matter of Catholic doctrine (and in other parts of this same book Jackson is less even in his writing and his catholicity) but this is one case, for the issue that concerns this forum, in which this is advisable!

Here is the citation of the book, which can be ordered from Amazon.com (for which WWW site I wrote an assessment of it):

Thy Strong Word : the Efficacy of the Word in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions / by Gregory L. Jackson. – Glendale, Ariz. : Martin Chemnitz Press, 2000. – 643 p. ; 26 cm. – ISBN 0-9649354-4-9.

See especially the chapter, “The Visible Word: Baptism and Holy Communion”, on pages [483]-545, and also (especially to refute Baptist and suchlike sectarian claims) pages 245-249 and 424-432. Jackson makes a decisive and irrefutable defense of Infant Baptism, among other matters regarding the Holy Sacraments.

Jerry Parker

Awesome! Thank you for the recommendation! (also, lol about the pun!)

 

[nlm]

As far as I know, infant baptism is conditional. Only a baby or an infant of believing parents is baptized, with the understanding that his/her parents shall give the child Christian education until such time (+ - 14 years) he/she receives the sacrament of confirmation - when he/she decides for him/her self to be or not to be a Christian.
Parents make so many decisions without their children’s consent: feed them without their consent; wash them without their consent; take them for vaccination without their consent, dress them without their consent, take them to school without their consent, etc.
While caring for their physical welbeing without their consent, parents apparently shouldn’t care for their babies’ spiritual wellbeing without their consent.
Doesn’t make sense.

placido

A quick question on the point you make about the sacrement of confirmation. You say,…"when he/she decides FOR HIM/HER self to be or not to be a ."christian.I don’t know how old you are but I am 57. I was confirmed as was the common practice in grade 3, at age 8. I do not remember being asked if I WANTED to be confirmed only told that the bishop was coming to the church as he did every fall of the year and that we ALL had to be ready to be confirmed when he came. I do not EVER remember any child actually deciding he/she did not WANT to become a Christian nor were they given that choice.You mention that confirmation occurs at the age of 14+ now. Is there an element of CHOICE in the Catholic church today when preparing young people for confirmation?I have been out of the “loop” for a few years. Thank you for your answer. NLM

 

[Church_Militant]

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

I guess you missed post # 8. I suggest that you take a look at that linked article. * Re: Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?*

 

[nlm]

So as a former Catholic, and as I asked in post 11, “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?”

That is not what I am saying.Your children are perfect examples of how a family should function spiritually.( in my opinion of course!) You, as parent, have assured a christian education for them. As you say, they have heard the gospels and know the truths. It is precisely at this point in their christian walk, armed with all you have given them,combined with the religious education received at school and or church that they, being well aware of it’s obligations, would NOW decide to become baptised. I have heard it compared to marriage. One does not HAVE to be married to love another person BUT because of that love the couple WANTS to declare before God and in a public forum that they are committing to one another for life.Because of my love for Christ, which grew from reading the scripture,and being"educated" in many other ways, I wanted to publicly declare that I was going to live my life as Follower of Christ.NLM

 

[placido]

A quick question on the point you make about the sacrement of confirmation. You say,…"when he/she decides FOR HIM/HER self to be or not to be a ."christian.I don’t know how old you are but I am 57. I was confirmed as was the common practice in grade 3, at age 8. I do not remember being asked if I WANTED to be confirmed only told that the bishop was coming to the church as he did every fall of the year and that we ALL had to be ready to be confirmed when he came. I do not EVER remember any child actually deciding he/she did not WANT to become a Christian nor were they given that choice.You mention that confirmation occurs at the age of 14+ now. Is there an element of CHOICE in the Catholic church today when preparing young people for confirmation?I have been out of the “loop” for a few years. Thank you for your answer. NLM

You said more than what you probably wanted to say. You have just refuted the so-called “age of reason” or “age of responsibility” at 7 years, because you (at the age of 8) were just told the bishop is coming. If you at the age of 8 was not in position to make your own decision, then 7 years is not the age of reason.
Seriously, are you aware of at least one protestant parent who leaves his/her children at home when he goes to church for the reason that he/she wants them to make their own choices? In all honesty, I have never seen one (and they are 75 % where I am).
So, there is no choice in Protestant churches either.

placido

 

[nlm]

You said more than what you probably wanted to say. You have just refuted the so-called “age of reason” or “age of responsibility” at 7 years, because you (at the age of 8) were just told the bishop is coming. If you at the age of 8 was not in position to make your own decision, then 7 years is not the age of reason.
Seriously, are you aware of at least one protestant parent who leaves his/her children at home when he goes to church for the reason that he/she wants them to make their own choices? In all honesty, I have never seen one (and they are 75 % where I am).
So, there is no choice in Protestant churches either.

placido

What I am saying is this. At age 8 I may have reached the age of responsability but not the age to make that type of commitment necessarily .How did you jump to the conclusion that Protestant parents don’t take their children to church?I did not say that. Our parents of course take their children to church so they can learn and become well armed with all they need to know when they then decide to make THE commitment.At age 8 I was not given a choice. I was TOLD by the nun that this is what is going to happen. It’s interesting to see that today that confirmation age in the catholic church is around 14. But are they given a choice?

 

[placido]

What I am saying is this. At age 8 I may have reached the age of responsability but not the age to make that type of commitment necessarily .How did you jump to the conclusion that Protestant parents don’t take their children to church?

Because taking them is tantamount to denying them “the right” to make their own choices. That is what you accuse Catholics of doing.

I did not say that. Our parents of course take their children to church so they can learn and become well armed with all they need to know when they then decide to make THE commitment.

They make a “guided decision” then, the same you made at the age of 8. No differnce after all.

At age 8 I was not given a choice. I was TOLD by the nun that this is what is going to happen.

Is your mother a nun?
I

t’s interesting to see that today that confirmation age in the catholic church is around 14. But are they given a choice?

Brother, don’t come here pretending. If a caring parent won’t give his child a choice to be a criminal, why do you want a caring parent to give his child the choice of becoming an atheist?

placido

 

[chaunceygardner]

The idea of infant baptism came about due to the development of the doctrine that baptism is required to get to heaven, to put it simply. In the New Testament, as has been discussed, the baptisms were associated generally with adults and were accompanied by repentence. When the Church instituted the doctrine about the necessity of baptism to be saved, that left a large number of people (children and infants) who could not get to heaven if they died before they were baptized. So one change was to start baptizing infants. The second was needed to answer the question, “what happens to the non-baptized when they die?”, which led to the concept of “Limbo”.

Protestants generally rejected these ideas and doctrines. In my grandparents’ time, the children on the Catholic side were often baptized within hours of their birth, especially if there was any chance that they wouldn’t survive. There was no rush for the Lutheran side of my family to baptize newborns, since they weren’t concerned with that issue.

As is the case with many doctrinal areas like this, the development of one doctrine can cause the church to re-think or modify other doctrine to make it all work. They spent a lot of time and effort over the centuries on all this, and now we spend an equal amount of time (most of it wasted) trying to unravel it all and debating it.

 

[bmadamsberry]

However, early Church Fathers believed in infant baptism. So if the Catholic Church “created” this doctrine, then it must have been done VERY early, as in within the life of some of the apostles and those that knew the apostles.

 

[nlm]

Because taking them is tantamount to denying them “the right” to make their own choices. That is what you accuse Catholics of doing.

They make a “guided decision” then, the same you made at the age of 8. No differnce after all.

Is your mother a nun?
I
Brother, don’t come here pretending. If a caring parent won’t give his child a choice to be a criminal, why do you want a caring parent to give his child the choice of becoming an atheist?

placido

I am not accusing the Catholic church of anything. I am relating what MY experience was and the experience of all those attending parochial schools. Weather you want to admit it or not that is the way it was. Answer my question rather than creating issues which are not at all appropriate.I was 8 years old in 1960. I was indeed guided you are correct. I have already described my experience.Why would you ask if my mother is a nun. Do you not understand that the nuns I speak of were in school teaching us religion as well as all our subjects. My mother was like all other catholic parents in those days she went with the flow and agreed with what she was told.I am not saying a caring parent should give his child the choice of becoming an atheist. Where did you get that? Leaving the catholic church and becoming an atheist is a big leap don’t you think? As I said in another thread earlier, the parent’s role is to live his spirituality daily and become an example for his children It is his responsability to assure his child gets all the advantages of a good christian education and attend church. But there must come a day when the now young adult, armed with all this, must make his own decision as to which path he will follow on his spiritual journey. It may be a catholic path but it may not.Many in recent years have explored what else is out there, and some have gone to those other denominations…by choice. But please do not jump from the catholic church to atheism as being the only two choices.NLM

 

[po18guy]

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

I have noted a practice among fundamentalist and other Baptist congregations to repeat “old pastors tales” which are rumors, gossip and outright falsehoods (lies) about Catholicism. For some reason, they do not appear to be amenable to correction with the truth. If you are truly in Christ, you will not bear false witness against a brother in Christ, will you? I pray not. Three things you lack here:

1. The Catholic Church does not “sprinkle” as the Baptist rumor puts it. Triple pouring and triple immersion are the only valid methods of Baptism. Please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church before you repeat any more rumors (see CCC 1239-1240).
2. The faith of the friends of the paralytic who was lowered through the roof healed him. Not a single bibical word about his faith - only that of his friends. How were his sons forgiven and his paralysis cured if he made no profession of belief? (Mark 2:3-5, Luke 5:18-20)
3. Christ gave His Apostles the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). Notice that the bible says “whatever” they bind is bound. Can you place a limit on Jesus’ word “whatever”?

Again, please tell other Baptists that you have learned the truth and no longer wish to repeat that which you know is not true. Can I get an “Amen”?

 

[YADA]

As many posters have noted Baptism was prefigured by Cricumcision …

Perhaps we should look at Abraham and what God commanded of him

Genesis Chapter 17

10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you that you must keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the mark of the covenant between you and me. 12 Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised, including houseborn slaves and those acquired with money from any foreigner who is not of your blood. 13 Yes, both the houseborn slaves and those acquired with money must be circumcised. Thus my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting pact. 14 If a male is uncircumcised, that is, if the flesh of his foreskin has not been cut away, such a one shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

We can see from the bolding that Abraham’s entire [male] household was marked witht he sign of God’s covenant … not just that immediate household in time but through all the ages. Even those aquired with money [bonded servants, slaves or those conquored] … even the children of slaes … not oneof these child or servant was free to consent … Ishmael at the age of 13 was not able to freely consent …

Circumcision was performed only on male persons, baptism is for both male and female, yet there is nothing in the text of the New Testament that restricts Baptism to adults, nor does it define what the age to be baptized is in any way … in fact we see referenes to entire households. As we can see from Genesis and know about !st century Jewish households is that they contained not only infants and children but servants and their families, as well. Also, many generations and several family relationships would/could be represented [elderly relatives, etc]

Servants would not necessarily be free to make a consent …

The New Testament clearly indicates that entire households be baptized. Paul writes regarding a baptized slave, asking his master if he can keep him but offering to send him back. He reminds the man to treat Onisimus as not only a slave but as a brother in Christ … ther eis no indicaiton that Onisimus freely decided to become a Christian but was most probably one in which an entire household was baptized - decided by the head of the household or with their consent - speaking on behalf [as parents do for their infants] …

“As for me and my household - we will follow the Lord” speaks volumes …

Historically, Christianity arose and spread among adults … those adults in turn spread the faith to their children … Christians ar not baptized in a vacuum, they are baptized into a community, a family of faith … It is normal that the primary focus of spreading the word and recorded baptisms be on the adult population … Non CHristian parents would hardly baptize their children into a religion they did not first embrace … However, as Christianity spread and increasing numbers of nations converted, the focus shifts [and rightly so] to the children … Thus there has always been adult and infant baptisms … the numbers shift as the population needing to be baptized shifts.

I am also reminderd of the early period of the Protestant Reformation … entire countries or geographic regions shifted from being Catholic to [as an example] Lutheran based upon the whim and wishes of the Ruling class … the common citizen had no choice and many probably did not even notice …

 

[nlm]

I have noted a practice among fundamentalist and other Baptist congregations to repeat “old pastors tales” which are rumors, gossip and outright falsehoods (lies) about Catholicism. For some reason, they do not appear to be amenable to correction with the truth. If you are truly in Christ, you will not bear false witness against a brother in Christ, will you? I pray not. Three things you lack here:

1. The Catholic Church does not “sprinkle” as the Baptist rumor puts it. Triple pouring and triple immersion are the only valid methods of Baptism. Please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church before you repeat any more rumors (see CCC 1239-1240).
2. The faith of the friends of the paralytic who was lowered through the roof healed him. Not a single bibical word about his faith - only that of his friends. How were his sons forgiven and his paralysis cured if he made no profession of belief? (Mark 2:3-5, Luke 5:18-20)
3. Christ gave His Apostles the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). Notice that the bible says “whatever” they bind is bound. Can you place a limit on Jesus’ word “whatever”?

Again, please tell other Baptists that you have learned the truth and no longer wish to repeat that which you know is not true. Can I get an “Amen”?

Let me start by saying I have rarely seen such paranoia in my life. If you think Protestant Pastors spend their time spreading lies and falsehood about Catholics, think again. In my 7 years as a Protestant ( not Baptist by the way ) I have NEVER heard a Pastor even mention the word Catholic from the pulpit or otherwise.Could you please enlighten me by referring me to the scriptural verses supporting your statement that triple" pouring "and triple immersion are the ONLY valid methods of Baptism.NLM

 

[bpbasilphx]

Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?

I don’t know anybody that indulges in baby sprinkling, and what’s more, you don’t either.

Babies are frequently BAPTIZED by POURING, not by sprinkling.

Where are the Bible verses to back up revivals, altar calls, hymnals, invitation hymns, and bringing a Bible to Church?

 

[nlm]

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.

Amen !

 

[CalCatholic]

When will people learn that the Bible is not a Christian answer book on to how to run a Church. There are many things that Protestants do as part of their Church services, or that are stated in their beliefs, that are not explicitly explained out in the Bible (or are un- Biblical), such as Sola Scriptura, the rapture, etc.

Even the Bible states that not everything is explained within its pages: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20: 30-31 RSV)

Many things were passed down orally through the early Church prior to the first words of the New Testament being written, which is called ‘tradition’, which was how the word of God was passed along to the majority of the Church (the Kings James version of the Bible was not written in 33 A.D. but 1611 A.D.)

Paul states: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2 RSV)
and,
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15 RSV)

The question then is how could the first Christians worship Jesus Christ with no New Testament in existence (to tell them how), unless they followed the ‘traditons’ that the Church (through Paul, Peter, and other apostles, and thier disciples after them) gave to them orally, and through a few letters.

So when we look at infant Baptism, we have traditions that were passed on by the early Christians throughout time. Like it was mentioned earlier, the Jews circumcised their infant boys at eight days old to bring them into the Covenant with God. The early Christians, most of them Jews, would logically not exclude infants from the sacrament of Baptism in the New Covenant with God through Jesus Christ.

As provided above in prior posts, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of whole Christain households being Baptized into the Christian Community, why shoud we even believe that they would excluded children.

One of the erly Church Fathers (Cyprian, bishop of Carthage) writes in approx. 250A.D:
“In respect of the case of the infants, you say that they should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth - that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded. So you think that one who has just been born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day. However, we all thought very differently in our council… Rather, we all believe that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man… As far as we can, we must strive that no soul be lost, if at all possible. For what is lacking to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God?”

(Apparently some Christians thought that Infant Baptism should not take place till the Infant is at least eight days old - to follow the Jews’ law of circumcising on the eight day. But Cyprian and the Church Council disagreed and said that an Infant can be Baptized anytime after birth, you don’t have to wait eight days).

The other arguement about pouring (sprinkling) water on the forehead of an infant (or adult)is not a valid Baptism is mentioned in 'The Didache (a Christian instruction book from 80-140 A.D.); "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water. If you cannot baptize in cold water, baptize in warm. But if you do not have either, pour out water three times upon the person’s head in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

So a Baptism was considered valid even if they were not fully submerged in the water.

We (Catholic, Orthodox and many ‘main line’ Protestant Christians) rely on the authority of the Church passed on throught the Apostles and their later disciples, these ‘tradtions’ passed on over 2000 years, for the authority to Baptise infants.