Where are the Bible verses to back up baby sprinkling?

[murphjos]

No I did not say or imply that my first Baptism was not valid. In the years I felt like this is what God wanted e to do this, It was because I Felt that this is what I should do:thumbsup:
I was not comfirmed until the age 62 when I decided t come back. And as what has been said in prior some of you are assuming that those of us who decide to followwhat we feel is God’s urging we are somewhat less.Oh and bytge way I have been teaching in Rcia and our Priest did indeed rebaptise a lady who was Baptised as a child because she wanted to experience The baptism.

tweetymom, My last post was meant as a response to nlm…

 

[estesbob]

No I did not say or imply that my first Baptism was not valid. In the years I felt like this is what God wanted e to do this, It was because I Felt that this is what I should do:thumbsup:
I was not comfirmed until the age 62 when I decided t come back. And as what has been said in prior some of you are assuming that those of us who decide to followwhat we feel is God’s urging we are somewhat less.Oh and bytge way I have been teaching in Rcia and our Priest did indeed rebaptise a lady who was Baptised as a child because she wanted to experience The baptism.

Your Priest was wrong to do that. The catholic Church is not about catering to peoples emotions-for her to be rebaptized so she could have the “expereince” makes a mockery out of the purpose of Baptism.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s interesting to watch you make up things as if I said them.I never said children should be left out there drifting in sin and corruption etc etc. until they themselves choose to be baptised.

This is the alternative to not being baptized in infancy. Baptism is the beginning of the Christian life - what this means is that a person not yet baptized cannot yet start living a Christian life. Not that they “aren’t allowed” to - they simply have not received the graces required to do so, which come from the Holy Spirit at the moment of baptism, and it is not physically possible for them to do so.

The alternative to the Christian life is the life of sin.

I am not suggesting people be baptised twice, you are. I am suggesting ONE baptism when the individual ,armed with a good christian education and a good understanding of good christian values as seen within their family unit as they grew up with good christian parents . THEN the individual himself decides , yes Lord,I choose because of all I know and have witnessed to commit my life to you and I am deciding to become a Christ Follower.

Yes, and not before then. Before then, yes, he may be living with Christian parents, but he himself is not yet a Christian - he himself is a son of perdition living in the depravity of sin, because he has not yet been baptized into Christ.

He may or may not do so, because he has been given the impression that he has a choice in the matter. He could very easily choose not to be baptized. Is that something that any sane parent wants for their child?

It is only when he is baptized that he becomes a Christian, and receives from the Holy Spirit the graces to live the Christian life.

Now, this isn’t to say that an unbaptized person who is receiving instruction in the Christian faith for the purpose of receiving Baptism as an adult, who was not raised in a Christian home, isn’t receiving prevenient grace - obviously, he is. But one should never assume that just because a child is living with Christian parents, that he has the ability to live the Christian life, without the benefit of the graces of the Holy Spirit that come from Baptism.

This is why it is a sin to needlessly delay baptism for the children of Christian parents.

 

[tweetymom]

Um, he should not have done that. From what I understand, a priest would only re-baptize if the original baptism was not done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If the person did not remember how the baptism was done, the priest will re-baptize with a conditional baptism just in case the first one was not said that way and was thus, not valid. IF they were in fact baptized correctly the first time, that is their actual baptism. Could that have been the case? Perhaps the lady did not remember the format of her first baptism since she was a child? The Catholic Church recognizes and respects the validity of all baptisms in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as valid

Well maybe not but our Priest feels the needs of his people:thumbsup:Shebaptism was baptised an Episopalion so I know this was valid. She wanted this for the same reason I did that this is what God wanted her to do.It was very touching and she feels better for the experience. I know that the Church reconized her first baptism but sometimes you can feel like God is talking to you:thumbsup:

 

[jmcrae]

Well maybe not but our Priest feels the needs of his people. Shebaptism was baptised an Episopalion so I know this was valid. She wanted this for the same reason I did that this is what God wanted her to do.It was very touching and she feels better for the experience.

It’s actually perfectly possible for an Episcopalian baptism to not be valid, especially if it was relatively recent (in the past 25 years) because sometimes Episcopalians baptize in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier, instead of in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If the wrong wording was used, or if the priest suspected that the wrong wording may have been used, then he would have been right to give her a conditional Baptism.

I know that the Church reconized her first baptism but sometimes you can feel like God is talking to you

Sometimes you can, but if the feeling is telling you something that goes against Church teaching, then you know that it isn’t really from God.

 

[MercyMia]

MercyMia;5592764:

Um, he should not have done that. From what I understand, a priest would only re-baptize if the original baptism was not done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If the person did not remember how the baptism was done, the priest will re-baptize with a conditional baptism just in case the first one was not said that way and was thus, not valid. IF they were in fact baptized correctly the first time, that is their actual baptism. Could that have been the case? Perhaps the lady did not remember the format of her first baptism since she was a child? The Catholic Church recognizes and respects the validity of all baptisms in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as valid

Well maybe not but our Priest feels the needs of his people:thumbsup:Shebaptism was baptised an Episopalion so I know this was valid. She wanted this for the same reason I did that this is what God wanted her to do.It was very touching and she feels better for the experience. I know that the Church reconized her first baptism but sometimes you can feel like God is talking to you:thumbsup:

Really though, the Priest was wrong to do this. Her first baptism was valid. We aren’t baptized for the “feel” of it, we are baptized to obtain the promise of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It might not be popular for me to say that, but when you understand the true power of baptism it makes sense. If she wanted a refresher, well thats what holy water is in the font for, to remind us of the promise of baptism.

 

[tweetymom]

It’s actually perfectly possible for an Episcopalian baptism to not be valid, especially if it was relatively recent (in the past 25 years) because sometimes Episcopalians baptize in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier, instead of in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If the wrong wording was used, or if the priest suspected that the wrong wording may have been used, then he would have been right to give her a conditional Baptism.

Our Priest did not suspect onr thing the lady is 62 yeas os age so that blows that theory out of the water

Sometimes you can, but if the feeling is telling you something that goes against Church teaching, then you know that it isn’t really from God.

And I have never had a feeling I know came from God to be wrong

 

[Contarini]

Well maybe not but our Priest feels the needs of his people:thumbsup:

I’m sorry, but it sounds more like your priest wants to please his people, which is not the same thing.

Baptism can only happen once. The second is a sham.

Shebaptism was baptised an Episopalion so I know this was valid.

I would charitably suppose that the priest may have had doubts about the validity of the baptism. Otherwise it’s almost unbelievable to me that a Catholic priest would rebaptize someone. Did the priest tell you that her first baptism was valid, or is this something you are assuming? (Naturally I’m not happy at the idea of a priest of the Roman Communion rebaptizing an Episcopalian, but I know that this used to happen a lot and it’s a lot less disturbing to me than the idea that a priest of your communion would treat baptism so flippantly.)

She wanted this for the same reason I did that this is what God wanted her to do.

How do you know that this is what God wanted her to do? How does she know this? And why are you so confident that the Church to which you belong has been wrong for at least 1700 years? Isn’t it just possible that the Church Fathers, the Popes, bishops, Councils, saints, might have some insight into God’s will that you and your friend lack? I really hate it when people say “if you believe X, why are you a Catholic/Episcopalian/whatever,” but it does seem odd to me that someone would see no conflict between belonging to the Catholic Church and disagreeing so radically with one of its most basic teachings. Do you not realize how heretical this opinion is according to your Church?

It was very touching and she feels better for the experience.

Is the purpose of baptism to feel better?

I know that the Church reconized her first baptism but sometimes you can feel like God is talking to you:thumbsup:

Yes, and sometimes you can be wrong.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And I have never had a feeling I know came from God to be wrong

You mean that you have never found out that it was wrong.

Edwin

 

[tweetymom]

I realy don’t think I ever stated that anything was wrong ,that is your interpertation And our Priest is a very loving man who does not try to please people’. I am Catholic because I choose to be and God does talk to us even accord to you interpation it is wrong.

 

[Contarini]

It’s actually perfectly possible for an Episcopalian baptism to not be valid, especially if it was relatively recent (in the past 25 years) because sometimes Episcopalians baptize in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier, instead of in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If the wrong wording was used, or if the priest suspected that the wrong wording may have been used, then he would have been right to give her a conditional Baptism.

Given that the person in question appears to be an adult, I assumed that this was not the case (since as you note this is a recent development–and I know of at least one case where it happened in your own Communion and the bishop had to find the people this priest had baptized and rebaptize them, so it’s not just an Episcopalian problem).

However, in the past your Communion took a stricter view of our baptisms and those of other separated Western churches. Our baptisms were not seen as absolutely invalid, but as being highly dubious. G. K. Chesterton was baptized, I know (and wrote a great poem about it–if anything could justify rebaptism, that poem could!), and so were most converts from Anglicanism in the 19th and early 20th centuries as far as I’m aware. These may have been conditional baptisms, although some of the accounts I’ve read don’t say that and leave one to assume that they were just plain old baptisms (perhaps one was expected to know that the conditional formula would have been used–I’m not sure).

Edwin

 

[placido]

This thread has progressed so rapidly that I missed post #33. Let me respond as follows:

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.

Because you attributed to a nun what is normally the responsibility of parents.

Do you not understand that the nuns I speak of were in school teaching us religion as well as all our subjects.

Ah, your parents took you to school without your consent where you were taught to write and read and taught religion without your consent. I see. They violated your right to chose to be illiterate as well.

My mother was like all other catholic parents in those days she went with the flow and agreed with what she was told.

Poor Catholics of pre-Vatican 2 years. They were just there to be told what to do even with their own kids. I hope you are not deliberately insulting the intelligence of your parents just so you can defend your new-found faith.

I am not saying a caring parent should give his child the choice of becoming an atheist. Where did you get that?

Because in post #25 you were advocating an “element of choice” for children. You said, “I do not EVER remember any child actually deciding he/she did not WANT to become a Christian nor were they given that choice”. Any real choice has to include the choice of becoming anything – criminal, atheist etc – or it is a “guided choice” that you dislike.

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.

Oh? Without her/his consent the child is just given “Christian education” and “forced” to attend church? What happened to the “element of choice”?

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

If you exclude atheism, then you are not advocating “choice”. You are doing the same thing you are accusing the Catholic Church of doing.

placido

 

[po18guy]

You said that when you left the church, you were re-baptized. Implicit in that statement is a charge that your first baptism was not adequate. If that is not what you you meant then why did you get baptized again?

As for never being taught that a personal relationship with God was possible and not understanding what you were doing at your confirmation… That is poor catechism and is a shame. But the fact that you were poorly catechized does indite the entire Church and her teaching.

Just look at the thread title: “Sprinkling”. Since the Catholic Church has never taught or practiced such “sprinkling”, and does not use this term, where did it come from? If the OP was not taught about a personal relationship with Christ while Catholic, he sure as heck didn’t learn the pejorative term “sprinkling” there! And, how come those who remained Catholic and read the bible are not suddenly struck with the need for a “re-do”? Something happened somewhere…

 

[jmcrae]

Given that the person in question appears to be an adult, I assumed that this was not the case (since as you note this is a recent development–and I know of at least one case where it happened in your own Communion and the bishop had to find the people this priest had baptized and rebaptize them, so it’s not just an Episcopalian problem).

It’s a problem in every ecclesial organization these days - no one has a monopoly on well-meaning stupidity.

However, in the past your Communion took a stricter view of our baptisms and those of other separated Western churches. Our baptisms were not seen as absolutely invalid, but as being highly dubious.

In the book I have that is a guide to priests on how to deal with converts to the Catholic faith (printed in 1957) it tells the priest to instruct the candidate not to try to track down his record of baptism, so as not to alert the other church that he is converting to the Catholic faith. The reason isn’t given - we could speculate all day, I suppose, but I think we both know that there wasn’t a whole lot of communication between Protestants and Catholics in those days, and such as there was, was not exactly amicable, on either side. So they solved the problem by simply giving everyone Conditional Baptisms and First Confessions, regardless of their background.

When I was leading RCIA, I had moments when I thought that a system like that would certainly simplify things - quite often, people delayed tracking down their baptismal information until the week before the Easter Vigil when they suddenly realized that it makes a difference, which Rite they will be going through, whether they have the information or not (it usually takes about three months to receive the documents from the original church, assuming the person even remembers which church it was where he was baptized, that the original church hasn’t been burned down or blown away in some natural disaster in the meantime, that they are the sort of church that keeps these kinds of records to begin with, that the records didn’t get lost or mislaid during the period of time when they were training their new secretary, and that the secretary is actually willing to hunt through the archives and find it for you, even if she knows for sure that she has it.)

There were a lot of tears and panicking when people didn’t have their baptismal records turned in on time, and I always used to think that the old way of doing things would certainly have saved a lot of stress and aggravation, even though it’s really not proper.

G. K. Chesterton was baptized, I know (and wrote a great poem about it–if anything could justify rebaptism, that poem could!), and so were most converts from Anglicanism in the 19th and early 20th centuries as far as I’m aware. These may have been conditional baptisms, although some of the accounts I’ve read don’t say that and leave one to assume that they were just plain old baptisms (perhaps one was expected to know that the conditional formula would have been used–I’m not sure).

Well, they were using the conditional formula in 1957, and it seems reasonable to think that they were using it in the early part of the 20th century, as well.

 

[placido]

It’s interesting to watch you make up things as if I said them.I never said children should be left out there drifting in sin and corruption etc etc. until they themselves choose to be baptised. What " stuff" you make up along the way.I am not suggesting people be baptised twice, you are. I am suggesting ONE baptism when the individual ,armed with a good christian education and a good understanding of good christian values as seen within their family unit as they grew up with good christian parents . THEN the individual himself decides , yes Lord,I choose because of all I know and have witnessed to commit my life to you and I am deciding to become a Christ Follower.NLM

Seriously, NLM you don’t know what you want. You advocate “an element of choice” for children, yet you don’t want children to be “left out there drifting in sin and corruption” (even if that is what the children want). You want individuals to be free to choose “ONE Baptism”, but only after they were given “christian education” without their consent.
Total confusion, really.

placido

 

[tweetymom]

Seriously, NLM you don’t know what you want. You advocate “an element of choice” for children, yet you don’t want children to be “left out there drifting in sin and corruption” (even if that is what the children want). You want individuals to be free to choose “ONE Baptism”, but only after they were given “christian education” without their consent.
Total confusion, really.

pl
acido/

 

[tweetymom]

:shrug:OOps made a boo-boo on my last post. What difference could it possibleably make if you decide that you want to have the experience of baptism that you and God has givenen you the feeling to do? Does this make you less of a Christian, or Catholic? We all have to make that decision to follow Christ or not, and if Baptism that we all need to make.all of us to makegives you the feeling of a fresh start whom are you bothering?I think this is a decision for you and God to make

 

[jmcrae]

:shrug:OOps made a boo-boo on my last post. What difference could it possibleably make if you decide that you want to have the experience of baptism that you and God has givenen you the feeling to do?

God doesn’t give “feelings.” What in the world are you talking about?

Does this make you less of a Christian, or Catholic?

Yes - it actually makes you a particular kind of heretic, called an “Anabaptist” or “re-baptizer”, as a matter of fact.

We all have to make that decision to follow Christ or not,

Hopefully, this is a decision we make every day when we wake up in the morning.

and if Baptism that we all need to make.all of us to makegives you the feeling of a fresh start whom are you bothering? I think this is a decision for you and God to make

If all you’re looking for is a “feeling” then why not go for a swim in the mineral springs, or take a nice, strong shower?

 

[tweetymom]

Sorry that your feathers seem ruffled But everyday with God is a great feeling and I don’t have to go swimming.So what does it hurt if someone wants to get baptized.s hurting you or what?

 

[tweetymom]

Sorry that your feathers seem ruffled But everyday with God is a great feeling and I don’t have to go swimming.So what does it hurt if someone wants to get baptized.s hurting you or what?

One more thing if you haven’t tried it don’t knock it and maybe you wouldn’t be so grumpy