Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?

[panevino]

Do you understand this as a figure of Baptism? Interesting thought …

I see it more to do with the ministerial priesthood of the NT and see the sacramental use of water inthe exchange between them.

It reinforces the validity that Jesus meant literal water in John 3:5 which I have been discussing on another thread. But thought it interesting for this

Below is a good suugestion for sufficiency of sprinkling

Ex 36: 25 kjv Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

 

[estesbob]

Tweetymom…Hang in there. It seems whenever someone says something that is not agreed with by some of the “long time members”, no matter how you try to say it or how kind you are (and you are kind) or how upset you get, you are confussed, ignorant, a slobberinng idiot or something along that line. The love of Christ is the MOST important of all the fruits or vertues…We will keep on keeping on untill the Lord comes. I don’t care what someone calls themselves, Catholic, Protestant, Pentocostal, etc…when we reach the Beama Seat or the White Throne Judgement, you can bet one thing, we will NOT be ask any of those questions, and we will stand there alone face to face with Christ, and be judged not for the church we went to but if Jesus was our Saviour, NOTHING else will matter, and if others do not belive that, the fault will lay at their door. God bless you Tweetymom. I don’t care where you whorship, its the heart that we are judged by.

Actually it has nothing to do with saying somethng that that is not agreed with by long time members-it is saying things that are in direct contradition to the teachings of the Church. As one of our seperated bretheren i am sure that is not important to you but for Catholics making sure the teachings of the Church are not misrepresented is very important

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Actually, that’s St. Paul’s thought, and also St. Peter’s - I just borrowed it from them.

Read Colossians 2:11-12, and I Peter 3:21.

This does not refer to weater baptism but ti the baptism into Christ and into His body the Holy Spirit…Rom 6:1-10 1 Cor 12;13, Gal. 3;27 Water Baptism is a symble or figure of spiritual baptism…1Peter 3;21

 

[panevino]

This does not refer to weater baptism but ti the baptism into Christ and into His body the Holy Spirit…Rom 6:1-10 1 Cor 12;13, Gal. 3;27 Water Baptism is a symble or figure of spiritual baptism…1Peter 3;21

how does your denomination interpret the word water in John 3:5

and also how do they interpret water in
EZ 36:
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

 

[Leslie_Polley]

how does your denomination interpret the word water in John 3:5

and also how do they interpret water in
EZ 36:
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

I was refering to a scripture that was give to me. That is what I was answering. I was NOT refering to WATER Baptism. Of course there is water baptism, but NOT this preticular verse.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

how does your denomination interpret the word water in John 3:5

and also how do they interpret water in
EZ 36:
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

Did you bother to read the verses I gave. They had nothing to do with water baptism…Thias was NOT about water baptism friend. Yes there is water baptism, but that is NOT what I was refering to…!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Leslie,

I don’t want to sound silly on this… but, are you playing “20 questions”? At this point I am confused as to what it is you are trying to say. At first I thought that you were saying that water baptism is symbolic. But, now, I am not sure.

So, for my benefit - and, anyone else out there who has not caught on … please explain what it is you want to say.

Did you bother to read the verses I gave. They had nothing to do with water baptism…Thias was NOT about water baptism friend. Yes there is water baptism, but that is NOT what I was refering to…!

Thanks and God bless,

 

[jmcrae]

This does not refer to weater baptism but ti the baptism into Christ and into His body the Holy Spirit…Rom 6:1-10 1 Cor 12;13, Gal. 3;27

Jesus said (John 3:5) “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

I see no way of twisting that around to mean that the Holy Spirit replaces the water. Rather, I see Jesus requiring that both the water and the Holy Spirit be present. We are baptized into the Holy Spirit with actual water.

Water Baptism is a symble or figure of spiritual baptism…1 Peter 3:21

First “water baptism” is a redundancy - “baptism” is a word that means “being covered in water.” You can’t have “baptism” - not even “spiritual baptism” - without physical water, because that’s what the word means. If there isn’t any water present, you have to call it something else. (Maybe an “infusion of the Holy Spirit,” or something like that.)

Second, St. Peter is making a clear comparison between the floodwaters of Noah and the waters of baptism. Are you also going to say that Noah’s floodwaters were “spiritual water” (ie: not actually water, but just a profound spiritual experience of some kind)? Because what St. Peter is doing here is telling us that the water we use in Baptism is the same kind of water that Noah experienced, when God cleansed the world of sin. Now, unless you want to say that St. Peter is assuming that his reading audience thinks that Noah’s water was “spiritual water,” there is no way to arrive at the idea that the waters of Baptism are “spiritual waters.” The only way you can arrive at that idea, is if you start by assuming it, before you even start reading it.

 

[MickC]

First of all, infant baptism is inferred by the New Testament as indicated in previous posts, regardless of what other non-Catholic Christians may insist.

Secondly, infant baptism is part of the history of the Church. There is hard evidence that children were baptised in the early Church.

The Catholic Church does not restrict the Word of God to the Bible. God’s truth is also revealed through Tradition - which is often misunderstood by non-Catholics.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
83. The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various thological, disiplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churhes over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned uner the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.

St. Paul wrote:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
(2 Thess. 2:15)

It is crystal clear that the Tradtion of the apostles, as referred to above EXISTED and is referred to in Scripture.

Fiinally, “The Apostilic Tradition” of St. Hippolytus of Rome details baptism and includes the baptism of children.

Infant baptism is scriptural, it is contained in apostolic Tradition and is supported by historical fact. Those who question it do so from a position of prejudice and simply do not want to believe what is before them. There is NO evidence to support their position.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MikeC,

Welcome to the list - and, let me complement you for an excellent post! Great job!

First of all, infant baptism is inferred by the New Testament as indicated in previous posts, regardless of what other non-Catholic Christians may insist.

Secondly, infant baptism is part of the history of the Church. There is hard evidence that children were baptised in the early Church.

The Catholic Church does not restrict the Word of God to the Bible. God’s truth is also revealed through Tradition - which is often misunderstood by non-Catholics.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
83. The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various thological, disiplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churhes over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned uner the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.

St. Paul wrote:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
(2 Thess. 2:15)

It is crystal clear that the Tradtion of the apostles, as referred to above EXISTED and is referred to in Scripture.

Fiinally, “The Apostilic Tradition” of St. Hippolytus of Rome details baptism and includes the baptism of children.

Infant baptism is scriptural, it is contained in apostolic Tradition and is supported by historical fact. Those who question it do so from a position of prejudice and simply do not want to believe what is before them. There is NO evidence to support their position.

God bless

 

[pipper]

This does not refer to weater baptism but ti the baptism into Christ and into His body the Holy Spirit…Rom 6:1-10 1 Cor 12;13, Gal. 3;27 Water Baptism is a symble or figure of spiritual baptism…1Peter 3;21

Sorry Leslie but there’s no such thing as “water” baptism, it’s just plain Baptism. The term “water” baptism never even existed before Pentecostals invented it from whole cloth about one hundred years ago. Just like the “rapture” which was invented at short time earlier.

If something never existed before someone just happened to “find” it in the bible recently, it is most likely non-existent in the Christianity of history.

Question? Did the millions of Christians go to hell because they never heard of these recent “discoveries”. Did Christianity never exist before these things were “found” recently?

Will heaven be populated with pentecostals only?

 

[fdesales]

This does not refer to weater baptism but ti the baptism into Christ and into His body the Holy Spirit…Rom 6:1-10 1 Cor 12;13, Gal. 3;27 Water Baptism is a symble or figure of spiritual baptism…1Peter 3;21

Please explain what Peter had in mind (if water baptism is only a figure of spiritual baptism) when he says the following:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3: 20-21

Please explain how those eight souls were saved BY WATER if Peter sees water baptism as merely a figure of spiritual baptism???

HOW EXACTLY were those who survived the flood saved BY WATER???

saved BY water???

Clearly, Peter has something else in mind than you do.

Thanks

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fdesales,

Now, I think you are going to have to take a number… Leslie has a prior question from me that she has yet to respond to…

Please explain what Peter had in mind (if water baptism is only a figure of spiritual baptism) when he says the following:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3: 20-21

Please explain how those eight souls were saved BY WATER if Peter sees water baptism as merely a figure of spiritual baptism???

HOW EXACTLY were those who survived the flood saved BY WATER???

saved BY water???

Clearly, Peter has something else in mind than you do.

Thanks

I have no idea what these people have against water - when it is sooooooooooooooooooo based in Scripture. It is more like the members of this sect have decided to suspend their own intellect and not understand the plainly written words that identify that water is to be used in Baptism. For a group that claims to enjoy their own free interpretation of Scripture - they all have certainly come up with a new way of understanding the written word.

Best wishes on getting a response…

God bless

 

[fdesales]

Hi, Fdesales,

Now, I think you are going to have to take a number… Leslie has a prior question from me that she has yet to respond to…

I have no idea what these people have against water - when it is sooooooooooooooooooo based in Scripture. It is more like the members of this sect have decided to suspend their own intellect and not understand the plainly written words that identify that water is to be used in Baptism. For a group that claims to enjoy their own free interpretation of Scripture - they all have certainly come up with a new way of understanding the written word.

Best wishes on getting a response…

Yes, the so-called “tradition of interpretation” of their particular denomination. I presume this comes from seeing other so-called “water baptized” Christians who do not subsequently display the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Thus, only those who willingly become baptized (as opposed to infants) and are active today in their community are spiritually baptized. Everyone else is currently Spirit-less…

Well, we know this ignores Scriptures, but this view also fails taking real life into account, since no one can know where the Spirit will blow and WHEN in the life of a person. Consider the parable of the prodigal son. When IF the father considered the son lost when he left, lost for good. What then? No room for the Spirit to blow later in the life of a repentant Christian who returns to God! Nor does this Protestant view take into account the fact that we have free will and can grieve the work of the Spirit - as Jesus says in the parable of the sower and the seed. Not everyone who receives God’s blessings bears fruit.

It is better to regard how the Ancient Tradition has read the Scriptures rather than to rely on human reason that ignores this Tradition.

Regards

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Please explain what Peter had in mind (if water baptism is only a figure of spiritual baptism) when he says the following:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3: 20-21

Please explain how those eight souls were saved BY WATER if Peter sees water baptism as merely a figure of spiritual baptism???

HOW EXACTLY were those who survived the flood saved BY WATER???

saved BY water???

Clearly, Peter has something else in mind than you do.

Thanks

This is kind of simple…The Flood floated Noahs ark. It did not baptise anyone, because no onne had been baptised yet. I will explain AGAIN. THE ONE VERSE I GAVE SOME TIME AGO RELASTED TO SPIRITUAL BAPTISM…There IS water Baptism…

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Hi, Leslie,

I don’t want to sound silly on this… but, are you playing “20 questions”? At this point I am confused as to what it is you are trying to say. At first I thought that you were saying that water baptism is symbolic. But, now, I am not sure.

So, for my benefit - and, anyone else out there who has not caught on … please explain what it is you want to say.

Thanks and God bless,

I am sorry that I confussed you, that was not my intent. Water Baptism was started with John the Baptist, the cousin of Jesus. He was six months older. His mission was to prepare the way for Christ. He baptised with waster and Jesus baptised with the Spirit, and Truth. Water Baptism is a Sacriment that is an outward sign that we have accepted Christ as out personal savior. Is Baptism necessary…yes. Is accepting Christ as your personal Saviour necessary for salvation, yes. Again if I confussed you on what I beleived I hope you understand me. God Blesss you and Yours

 

[Leslie_Polley]

This does not refer to water baptism but ti the baptism into Christ and into His body the Holy Spirit…Rom 6:1-10 1 Cor 12;13, Gal. 3;27 Water Baptism is a symble or figure of spiritual baptism…1Peter 3;21

 

[jmcrae]

This does not refer to weater baptism but ti the baptism into Christ and into His body the Holy Spirit…Rom 6:1-10 1 Cor 12;13, Gal. 3;27 Water Baptism is a symble or figure of spiritual baptism…1Peter 3;21

All Baptism is “water baptism.” Baptism is the pouring of water over the body that signifies the washing of the Holy Spirit, to cleanse the soul from all sin. In John 3:5, Jesus tells us that both are necessary.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

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

Not only that, but my husband was baptized in the Southern Baptist church at age 7. His nieces were baptized in the Vinyard Christian Fellowship church when they were 5. Most Evangelical and/or Fundamentalist Protestants I’ve come across have their kids baptized anywhere around age 4 to age 9. One lady (on a Christian parenting forum) was looking for advice b/c it appeared her 2 year old had “accepted Jesus” and she wanted to know if that was too young to be baptized. There’s no “standard age” in the Believer’s Baptism world (most Protestants do baptize infants, btw). It can get really sticky, especially when they start to criticise each other for having their kids baptized too soon! But then, most of them don’t believe in “one baptism”, so after they grow up they can always get “re-baptized” if they think their first one was premature, I guess

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[inkaneer]

I am sorry that I confussed you, that was not my intent. Water Baptism was started with John the Baptist, the cousin of Jesus. He was six months older. His mission was to prepare the way for Christ. He baptised with waster and Jesus baptised with the Spirit, and Truth. Water Baptism is a Sacriment that is an outward sign that we have accepted Christ as out personal savior. Is Baptism necessary…yes. Is accepting Christ as your personal Saviour necessary for salvation, yes. Again if I confussed you on what I beleived I hope you understand me. God Blesss you and Yours

You say, "Is Baptism necessary…yes. " Please explain why, in your view, water baptism is so necessary? What part does it add to the salvation formula? Seems to me that if I accept Jesus as my Savior everything else is superfluous. So what does water baptism do except get me wet?

Also, when I read the early church writers I discern that they held and preached a far different doctrine on baptism than you do. In fact I cannot detect any resemblance to your baptismal ideas at anytime in the first millenium of the church. So why the change in doctrine?