Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?

[fdesales]

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…

That is your “simple” explanation???

Sorry, Leslie, the ARK saved the 8 FROM the water… The water saved no one!!! It KILLED everyone and would have killed the eight WITHOUT the ark.

The flood floated the ark. Ridiculous!!!

You are not seeing what Peter is talking about because you have already made up your mind what the Bible means, thus, when the Bible clearly contradicts your theology, you must twist the meaning…

It is crystal clear that in the literal sense, the water did not save ANYONE in the flood. What fool would make such an observation - that the water saved anyone??? That the water floating the boat saved anyone! Come on!!!

Clearly, Peter does not have the literal sense in mind.

I think you need to read the Scriptures here more carefully. Peter says the water flood is a FIGURE of baptism…

*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

It is obvious that Peter is making a comparison here, that water ALSO saves us in baptism.

Again, ALSO. NOTE THE WORD. ALSO. The flood (water) and baptism (water)… Peter is taking an analogy of the flood and using the term ALSO. Isn’t it clear that he is talking about water baptism here - but ALSO noting its spiritual component (note the parenthesis - not putting away filth of the flesh). The water ITSELF is not salvific, it is the Spirit invisibly working during the ritual that saves, which changes our conscience to a good one, gives us new life, being born from above.

I cannot fathom how anyone can deny that this passage does NOT refer to water baptism, if one carefully reads the words Peter chose here…

Regards

 

[fdesales]

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

That’s because such people are looking for an emotional experience. If it is not emotional enough, then it didn’t “take”. This is an incorrect notion of the working of the Holy Spirit, who does not always come with great fanfare. Rather than looking for an emotional outburst (and trying to drum one up during their “altar calls”), they should look to the hidden work of the Spirit in the lives - moments of forgiveness and love, rather than some hoopla and shouting and such drooling outbursts… They are looking for some “magical cure” that makes them suddenly holy and immune to sin and temptation. Thus, when they fall into temptation, the previous baptism “didn’t take” and they got to look for another emotional high in the hope that THAT one will “take”…

Regards

 

[PRmerger]

I cannot fathom how anyone can deny that this passage does NOT refer to water baptism, if one carefully reads the words Peter chose here…

Regards

This is exactly what the Deceiver wanted, when he invited all to fall into his trap of separating from Christ’s Body, the Catholic Church.

Now we have passages in Scripture which clearly indicate God’s intent being personally interpreted in all sorts of bizarre and contradictory explanations.

 

[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 seem to think that Jesus’s baptism did not involve water but only the Spirit. But in Acts 19:2-6 we read about Paul in Ephesus:

2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Notice the people did not receive the Spirit when they were baptized with the baptism of Jesus but only afterwards when Paul laid hands on them did the Holy Spirit come upon them. So what were they baptized with if they were baptized in the baptism of Jesus but did not receive the spirit?

Again in Acts 8: 14-17 we read:

“14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”

Here scripture again tells us that the people were baptized in the name of Jesus but did not receive the Spirit until Peter and John laid hands on them. Obviously these people did not receive the Spirit when they were baptized so again what were they baptized with?

I say the answer to both of these questions is … water. What you don’t grasp is the fact that the difference between Jesus baptism with water and John’s baptism with water is that John’s baptism was ineffective in remitting sin. Scripture calls John’s baptism a "baptism of repentance " [Acts 19:4] not a baptism of salvation. John’s baptism was ineffective in remitting sin because the price for our sins had not been paid yet. John died before Jesus and John was still under the Old Covenant. However, the baptism of Jesus was the baptism of the New Covenant empowered by His death on the cross and therefore, unlike John’s baptism, Jesus’ was effective in remitting sin. That is why Paul could later tell the Galatians:

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” [Galatians 3:27]

or tell the Romans:

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” [Romans 6:3]

 

[PRmerger]

Leslie_Polley:

You are truly a moron…It sstates in LARGE PRINT…All have sinned EXCEPT>>>EXCEPT EXCEPT JESUS…This absolutally proves my point YOU DO NOT READ or your comprehension is null…EXCEPT JESUS>>>GOD>>>THE HOLY SPIRIT>>>>>EXCEPT THEM !!!

 

[Indyann]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslie Polley
You are truly a moron…It sstates in LARGE PRINT…All have sinned EXCEPT>>>EXCEPT EXCEPT JESUS…This absolutally proves my point YOU DO NOT READ or your comprehension is null…EXCEPT JESUS>>>GOD>>>THE HOLY SPIRIT>>>>>EXCEPT THEM !!! !!! !!!

Oh my, looks like someone needs a time-out!

 

[pipper]

You seem to think that Jesus’s baptism did not involve water but only the Spirit. But in Acts 19:2-6 we read about Paul in Ephesus:

2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Notice the people did not receive the Spirit when they were baptized with the baptism of Jesus but only afterwards when Paul laid hands on them did the Holy Spirit come upon them. So what were they baptized with if they were baptized in the baptism of Jesus but did not receive the spirit?

Exactly John the baptisers wettings had nothing to do with Christian baptism at all. they were two seperate things. John was continuing the already old practice of the Jewish mikveh ceremony. Which the Jews still practice to this day and has nothing to do with the Christian sacrament.

Just like we celebrate the Christian Holy Eucharist which grew from the Jewish Passover,
but far different, we celebrate Christian baptism (“water” is redundant) which grew from the Jewish mikveh and out of it. Christian baptism is far different. The mikveh was a ceremony with the meaning of repentance. Christian baptism when accompanied with faith and repentence whether the baptismal candidate if an adult, or the parents and sponsors actually brings forgiveness of sin and new life.

It is very clear what the Pentecostal is doing just like many Protestants is up to. They all decide their theology first and change the bible or ignore or try to “explain away” anything in the bible that dissagrees with their previously arrived at their already reached conclusions.

“Bible beleving”, no it’s more like bible ignoring, or bible expaining away.

Again in Acts 8: 14-17 we read:

“14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”

Here scripture again tells us that the people were baptized in the name of Jesus but did not receive the Spirit until Peter and John laid hands on them. Obviously these people did not receive the Spirit when they were baptized so again what were they baptized with?

I say the answer to both of these questions is … water. What you don’t grasp is the fact that the difference between Jesus baptism with water and John’s baptism with water is that John’s baptism was ineffective in remitting sin. Scripture calls John’s baptism a "baptism of repentance " [Acts 19:4] not a baptism of salvation. John’s baptism was ineffective in remitting sin because the price for our sins had not been paid yet. John died before Jesus and John was still under the Old Covenant. However, the baptism of Jesus was the baptism of the New Covenant empowered by His death on the cross and therefore, unlike John’s baptism, Jesus’ was effective in remitting sin. That is why Paul could later tell the Galatians:

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” [Galatians 3:27]

or tell the Romans:

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” [Romans 6:3]

 

[inkaneer]

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

And you were ignorant of the christian tradition of baptizing Babies. The early church took a cue from Paul who likened baptism to circumcision. So like circumcision baptism was given to infants and the only controversy in the early church was whether Baptism was to be given on the eighth day as was circumcision or could it be done before. Read Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage’ s reply to Fidus in his Letters in which he states:

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

No child reaches the age of reason by the eighth day. Yet this was the only controversy about infant baptism in the early church. In fact adult only baptism as you apparently preach did not come about until the middle ages with the the Waldenses and Catharists. These groups also taught that suicide was a noble act. This teaching was later picked up from the the Waldenses and Catharists by the anabaptists of the 16th and 17th centuries and lately by the fundamentalist evangelicals of the 18th and 19th century. It is a demonic doctrine spawned by people who promoted suicide. Would you accept a doctrine from the Pro Choice people of today? That is basically what you accepted when you accepted adult only baptism.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

And you were ignorant of the christian tradition of baptizing Babies. The early church took a cue from Paul who likened baptism to circumcision. So like circumcision baptism was given to infants and the only controversy in the early church was whether Baptism was to be given on the eighth day as was circumcision or could it be done before. Read Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage’ s reply to Fidus in his Letters in which he states:

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

No child reaches the age of reason by the eighth day. Yet this was the only controversy about infant baptism in the early church. In fact adult only baptism as you apparently preach did not come about until the middle ages with the the Waldenses and Catharists. These groups also taught that suicide was a noble act. This teaching was later picked up from the the Waldenses and Catharists by the anabaptists of the 16th and 17th centuries and lately by the fundamentalist evangelicals of the 18th and 19th century. It is a demonic doctrine spawned by people who promoted suicide. Would you accept a doctrine from the Pro Choice people of today? That is basically what you accepted when you accepted adult only baptism.

Circumscision was done 8 days after the baby boy was born…Baptism was not…Christ was taken to the temple and circumscised, beauce that was the law…but was not baptised untill John the babtised, baptised Him. One was the old law and one was choice…thats what Paul was talking about.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

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.

Oh my “all water Baptism” I learned in my catechizem that you could be baptized 3 ways…water, blood and desire. Did you forget ??? The blood was for marters, and the desire was if you had no other way…of course the Bible does not say tht, but the catechizm did

 

[kepha1]

Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?

Where are the Bible verses to back up total immersion at all times for adults only?

 

[PRmerger]

Oh my “all water Baptism” I learned in my catechizem that you could be baptized 3 ways…water, blood and desire. Did you forget ??? The blood was for marters, and the desire was if you had no other way…of course the Bible does not say tht, but the catechizm did

Again, Leslie, [SIGN1]you were not well catechized.[/SIGN1]

Only water baptism is considered a sacrament.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

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?

All it is , is an outward sign that you have accepted Christ…He Himself did it, so I follow Him in baptism…It does not say that any of the deciples were baptised…Your right , accepting Christ is the VERY most important thing. I don’t preach a doctrine on Babtism, I realy do not. I just try to relay what the Bible says…I will give you a couple of scriptures, and you decide. Mt, 3:1, 11:11, 14:2, 16:14, 17:13 Mk. 6:14 24:25 Lk 7:20 28:33, 9:19 these relate to the baptist. Mt3:ll, Mk. 1:4, 8 , Lk.3:16 Jh. 1:26, 33 that has to do with baptise…Now these have to do with being Baptised…Mt. 3:13-16, Mk. 1:5, Acts 1:15, 10:47, There are lots more, and I don’t mean to give you so many, but they may help you more than I. I don’t know of the changes in the Catholic church, but you can rest asure ( as you know) the word does not change, and you sound as though you put your faith there. Great choice. I am fallible, thats why I am so dependent on the Word of God. God bless

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Well I just think thats swell that the Catechizm is on line…I was answering a question that implied , by a Catholic, that said there was only water baptism…tell that the catechizm is on line, I don’t care…I was just reapeating what I had been taught there. But as I said to them…the Word of God does not relate to the 'Blood or desire" ones in the Bible, so they mean nothing to me either…take a chill pill

 

[PRmerger]

.Your right , accepting Christ is the VERY most important thing.

Can you give us a Bible verse to support this, Leslie? Of course, it should state that this is the VERY most important thing–looking for the words “important” and “accepting Christ”, ok? Chapter and verse, please.

 

[inkaneer]

Circumscision was done 8 days after the baby boy was born…Baptism was not…Christ was taken to the temple and circumscised, beauce that was the law…but was not baptised untill John the babtised, baptised Him. One was the old law and one was choice…thats what Paul was talking about.

Sorry but you are wrong. Christ’s “baptism” by John was an annointing not a baptism per se. Recall that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. So tell us what sin did Jesus have to repent of? Cyril of Carthage was not alone in teaching that infants were to be baptized. Many of the early chuch writiers who wrote about baptism included infant baptism. Here is a sampling:

Irenaeus wrote:

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus wrote:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen wrote:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz wrote:

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly *, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom wrote:

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Continued…*

 

[inkaneer]

Continuing…

Augustine wrote:

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Now it is your turn. Produce the early church writers who held for adult only baptism. You can’t do it because there were none.

 

[jmcrae]

Oh my “all water Baptism” I learned in my catechizem that you could be baptized 3 ways…water, blood and desire. Did you forget ??? The blood was for marters, and the desire was if you had no other way…of course the Bible does not say tht, but the catechizm did

Right. No “spiritual” baptism for the living. The living are baptized with water and the Holy Spirit. This precept dates back to the 50s AD, around the time St. Paul was getting baptized.

 

[PRmerger]

…take a chill pill

Really? That is quite rich, considering this:

Leslie_Polley:

You are truly a moron…It sstates in LARGE PRINT…All have sinned EXCEPT>>>EXCEPT EXCEPT JESUS…This absolutally proves my point YOU DO NOT READ or your comprehension is null…EXCEPT JESUS>>>GOD>>>THE HOLY SPIRIT>>>>>EXCEPT THEM !!!

I know if I died today that I could face my Lord and say quite happily, “Lord, I have never ever in my entire called one of your children a moron.” Never ever.

What kind of person even talks like that anyway?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, (name removed by moderator),

You’re right … Lislie is just ‘out to lunch’… on this idea of hers concerning baptism…at least in keeping with the food analogy…

Now, if you do not mind sharing two items of personal information …

1- just where (geographically) are you located? and

2- what is the recipe for Russian pancakes?

Thanks