Infant Baptism and John the Baptist

[The Biblicist]

Paedobaptists are so desperate for evidence to support their infant salvation/baptism doctrine that they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

In their desperation they claim the birth of John the Baptist as the MODEL to prove that God can save infants and defend infant baptism.

However, lets take a look at the facts not the imaginations of paedobaptists.

A. John's birth was not the rule but the exception to the rule

1. He was born to parents beyond the age of natural child bearing.

2. His birth was unique in keeping to prophecy and His special calling


B. He did not die as an infant

1. Yet He was filled/controlled by the Spirt BEFORE birth
2. He came at least "in spirit" as Elijah the Old Testament Prophet

C. Neither circumcision or baptism can account for his pre-birth spirit filled condtion

1. This gives no support to infant baptism as "the promise" of salvation
2. This gives no support to infant baptism as a concurrent impartation of justification/regeneration etc.

D. Nowhere in Scripture does any writer set forth the birth of John the Baptist any more than the birth of Christ as MODELS for infant salvation or infant baptism.

This is such a desparate attempt, it is as valid as using the birth of Christ to support the same thing!

CHALLENGE: You can't pick and choose! If you are going to use the birth of John the Baptist as AN EXAMPLE of your doctrine then use ALL the characteristics associated with that birth:

1. Parents naturally unable to give birth
2. Spirit filled children that don't die but grow to manhood
3. Spirit filled BEFORE circumcision or baptism

 

[SovereignMercy]

What the Bible says about infant baptism and free will:

 

[The Biblicist]

What the Bible says about infant baptism and free will:

Yeah that is about as comprehensive as the Bible gets.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What the Bible says about fatalistic determinism:

 

[The Biblicist]

What the Bible says about fatalistic determinism:

Yeah, that is about the summation of that doctrine too!

 

[Yeshua1]

Paedobaptists are so desperate for evidence to support their infant salvation/baptism doctrine that they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

In their desperation they claim the birth of John the Baptist as the MODEL to prove that God can save infants and defend infant baptism.

However, lets take a look at the facts not the imaginations of paedobaptists.

A. John's birth was not the rule but the exception to the rule

1. He was born to parents beyond the age of natural child bearing.

2. His birth was unique in keeping to prophecy and His special calling


B. He did not die as an infant

1. Yet He was filled/controlled by the Spirt BEFORE birth
2. He came at least "in spirit" as Elijah the Old Testament Prophet

C. Neither circumcision or baptism can account for his pre-birth spirit filled condtion

1. This gives no support to infant baptism as "the promise" of salvation
2. This gives no support to infant baptism as a concurrent impartation of justification/regeneration etc.

D. Nowhere in Scripture does any writer set forth the birth of John the Baptist any more than the birth of Christ as MODELS for infant salvation or infant baptism.

This is such a desparate attempt, it is as valid as using the birth of Christ to support the same thing!

CHALLENGE: You can't pick and choose! If you are going to use the birth of John the Baptist as AN EXAMPLE of your doctrine then use ALL the characteristics associated with that birth:

1. Parents naturally unable to give birth
2. Spirit filled children that don't die but grow to manhood
3. Spirit filled BEFORE circumcision or baptism

God reserves the right to do things as He deems fit though!

He had John filled with the Spirit in the Womb, as being a fulfillment odf the prophecy of Elijah the prophet to come befroe the Lord...

he called upo the spirit of Samual to Saul, as a "one time only"

God still sovereign, and can do as pleases, and those rare cases are NOT to be seen as the normal/standard ways things are done!

 

[SovereignMercy]

What the Bible says about fatalistic determinism:

X2. Personally don't know anyone who believes that either.

 

[The Biblicist]

X2. Personally don't know anyone who believes that either.

Yeah, that is precisly why I answered as I did. It is a figment in his imagination.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Yeah, that is precisly why I answered as I did. It is a figment in his imagination.

Calvinism = fatalistic determinism.

If Calvin had only been a figment in someone's imagination, the world and Christianity would be a better place.

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvinism = fatalistic determinism.

If Calvin had only been a figment in someone's imagination, the world and Christianity would be a better place.

Isa. 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

In verse 11 is the general purpose stated. In verse 11 is a specific application as an example. God purposed/determined that a bird would fly from the east and God said He would "do it" is that fatalistic determination in your view?

 

[SovereignMercy]

Calvinism = fatalistic determinism.

If Calvin had only been a figment in someone's imagination, the world and Christianity would be a better place.

I have never quoted Calvin in one of my posts. I have and will continue to quote scripture in context. The Synod of Dort delineated the 5 points from Scripture and called them the five points of Calvinism in honor of John Calvin. My only disagreement with them is putting his name on the doctrine. Calvin's commentary on Genesis is the only book of his that I have read and used when teaching. All of your objections were answered by the Holy Spirit through Paul before you were a twinkle in your mother's eye.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory...

And here is what God says about you suppressing the truth.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have never quoted Calvin in one of my posts. I have and will continue to quote scripture in context. The Synod of Dort delineated the 5 points from Scripture and called them the five points of Calvinism in honor of John Calvin. My only disagreement with them is putting his name on the doctrine. Calvin's commentary on Genesis is the only book of his that I have read and used when teaching. All of your objections were answered by the Holy Spirit through Paul before you were a twinkle in your mother's eye.

But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory...

And here is what God says about you suppressing the truth.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

And what does God say about liars and those who bear false witness? You should be careful, accuser.

 

[The Biblicist]

And what does God say about liars and those who bear false witness? You should be careful, accuser.

Oh brother! Are you one to talk!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Oh brother! Are you one to talk!

Who accused whom of ungodliness and unrighteousness? Huh?!

 

[The Biblicist]

Who accused whom of ungodliness and unrighteousness? Huh?!

He referred to Romans 1:18 and the shoe fits perfectly. The words "hold the truth in unrighteousness" describes the natural man's response to all external witnesses apart from an internal transformation. The absolute proof is that you cannot find a single verse, a single word in Romans 1:18-32 that indicates ANY OTHER KIND of response to the external witness but resistance and rejection.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

He referred to Romans 1:18 and the shoe fits perfectly. The words "hold the truth in unrighteousness" describes the natural man's response to all external witnesses apart from an internal transformation. The absolute proof is that you cannot find a single verse, a single word in Romans 1:18-32 that indicates ANY OTHER KIND of response to the external witness but resistance and rejection.

I know what he was referring to, and he was applying it to me -- therefore, he is a false accuser.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know what he was referring to, and he was applying it to me -- therefore, he is a false accuser.

No, he hit the nail on the head. You preach a false gospel. That does not mean I don't like you. I like you. I just don't like most of what you believe.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No, he hit the nail on the head. You preach a false gospel. That does not mean I don't like you. I like you. I just don't like most of what you believe.

Well, I guess coming from you, that's a partial compliment! "You're leading people to hell, but you're likable, and I like you."

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, I guess coming from you, that's a partial compliment! "You're leading people to hell, but you're likable, and I like you."

I would say you summed it up quite nicely.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I would say you summed it up quite nicely.

So, I don't see how you can like me if you think I'm leading people to hell.