The Baptism debate

[Moriah]

You are wrong, my Baptist/evangelical sister! Read below:
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: Luke 1:41

Logic and reason would tell you that an infant in the womb cannot discern and understand the significance of hearing the salutation of the mother of Christ. With God it can happen.

You try to use Luke 1:41 and your own logic to defend false manmade doctrines! Do the scriptures say John the Baptist was baptized when he leaped in his mother’s womb? So now, what good is your logic and manmade beliefs? They are no good, for they go against the Word of God.

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. Luke 1:15

Again, this is before baptism or circumcision, you have no defense! You speak about a prophet of God before baptism or anything, and you think this proves water baptism to infants!

Logic, reason, and Baptist doctrine would tell you that an infant cannot be born, filled with the Holy Spirit.

I believe in the written Word of God, the written Word of God speaks of John the Baptist being filled with the Holy spirit from his mother’s womb, so why would I not believe that!

He must grow up, arrive at an age of maturity, at which time he can make a free will decision to believe and have faith. According to Baptist doctrine this must occur regardless of whether the child is in the Old Covenant or the New Covenant.

According to the false Catholic teachings, they try to use scripture to go against other scriptures; they use their own logic, which is no logic. Was John the Baptist baptized while in his mother’s womb? NO. Was John the Baptist circumcised while in his mother’s womb? NO. So stop trying to use those scriptures to defend your false beliefs.

If you say that John the Baptist was a special situation, then you admit that God does not ALWAYS require a free will decision to believe and have faith before he gives the Holy Spirit!

John the Baptist was a man sent from God, John 1:6.
32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house

Do infants have the word of the Lord spoke to them? No.

 

[The Biblicist]

You try .

Well, I will be hog tied! He called you "sister" and you never denied it.

 

[The Biblicist]

So do they view Baptism as essential in order to be saved or not?

He INCONSISTENLY does not demand baptism to be saved. I say INCONSISTENTLY because he could have no other logical reason for the baptism of infants as he believes actual salvation is imparted through baptism because the word is spoken then.

However, why couldn't the Word be spoken to them without baptism and God save them.

Moreover, look at his sole example in John the Baptist. John was made to understand and filled IN THE WOMB not in circumcision or baptism!!!!

His doctrine is not merely unbiblical but completely irrational and inconsistent with itself.

 

[Moriah]

Well, I will be hog tied! He called you "sister" and you never denied it.

What can I do about people calling me anything? What difference does it make overall to me? You call me many things out of my name, what I can do about it.

 

[The Biblicist]

What can I do about people calling me anything? What difference does it make overall to me? You call me many things out of my name, what I can do about it.

Well sister, I will try to be more of a gentleman because I did not know I was dealing with a lady.

 

[The Biblicist]

I gave you solid Biblical reasons and this is your response? Why can't you deal with the evidence I gave you? Why do you ignore it?

Is it because you have been drinking paedobaptism koolaide for so long you cannot even objectively deal with contrary Bibical evidence to your position?

You talk about "invention" don't you think that a doctrine which has NO BIBLICAL COMMANDS and NO BIBLICAL EXAMPLE is more of an "invention" than one which is repeatedly found in commands and examples throughout the New Testament???????????? You talk about a koolaide diet! That takes the cake. You are calling good evil and evil good.

All I hear is silence from you?

 

[The Biblicist]

Come let us reason together...

Do you really believe that during the first sixteen hundred years after the apostles that recorded church history really was omnipresent and omniscient? There were no means of communication other than letter carriers. There was no universal omniscient omnipresent historian. There were no printing presses. It should be obvious that Rome CONTROLLED the selection and publishing processes. From their own history inquisitions were not simply lone occurrences but a primary practice beginning very early where they used the sword of secular government not only to persecute and kill their religious opponents they called "heretics" but vehemently attempted to destroy all their literature and convert them by the sword as they did in England in the sixth century. Do you really believe they would give a "Fox" report that is fair and balanced about the belief's of those they justified the use of the government sword to destroy?

You have been drinking RC koolaide too long! You actually believe the Roman historian monks were fair and balanced when even non-religious historians like Gibbon accuse them of tampering with God's Word, false decretals, and relentlessly destroying and distorting their enemies they called heretics. What is Romes response to historians like Gibbon??? Yes, you guessed it, he is not a fit historian, he is biased, he can't be trusted - only The Church can be trusted. Keep on drinking your koolaide but not I.

It is their history that is a Revisionist history and the Bible proves it by inspired predictive characteristics of the future of true versus apostate Christianity.

All I hear is silence from you? Cat got your tongue my friend?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well perhaps it would be helpful to look at the one mention of a household being baptised that we do have enough detail about to consider and that is the Philippian jailor in Acts 16:30-34

And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

Two things to notice, firstly Paul and Silas spoke to all who were in the house and we must assume they were able to understand because in v34 we are told that they all belived. Hence we must conclude that children are either not present, or are ignored.

In relation to Lydia it appears that she is head of her house, so likely she doesn't have any young children and we are told nothing about her staff at all so any case made from her is an arguement from silence, do you really wish to establish an important doctrine based on what the bible doesn't say? The other 'household' baptism are just mentioned in passing and contain no more detail.



Why? When it is clear from the whole of the NT that baptism follows repentence, that would be a redundant statement!



That is what we are specifically told happened in the house of the Philippian jailor in the word of God. Acts 16:34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (Act 16:34). Perhaps that question that should be asked is why so few household baptism mentioned in the bible.

If it only required the head of the house to believe why weren't there many more? The very rarity of the occurence compared to the huge number of conversions we read about suggests they very point you are argueing against. There were so few household baptism because it was only ahndful of houses where everyone in that house believed. These occurences are singled out because of their rarity.

Slaves and conversion



What like Onesimus (slave) and Philemon (master) - see the book of Philemon. actually when a salve saw his master chnage and follow Paul's teaching regard how to be a master - that might have won many for Christ by the grace of God.

I also wonder if you understand ancient slavery - did you know doctors and teachers were slaves in Rome. Did you also know that in Isreal people often choose to remain slaves even when they could go free in Jubillee year - there were laws aboput how you could voluntarily bind yourself to your master for life. Did you also know that slaves might inherit their masters wealth - Gen 15:2

I must conclude this is a none arguement too!



Well we have seen that is simply an unfounded assertion and the reality is that it was incredibly unlikely that infants were either number in the household baptism or more likely there were none on these few occasions household baptsim are mentioned.



There is no evidence for this at all - your arguements are based upon reading your assumptions into the text, and I have shown how each assumption is false so your conslusion bears no weight my freind!

Back to the philippian jailor



No. but we do not isolate a verse from it's context and establish a theology about it. We notice that in v32 Paul and silas spoke to everyone inj the house, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." and we also notice that all in his house believed, v34 "having believed in God with all his household."

So we say

1) all his household heard the gsople
2) all his household believed the gsople
3) all his household were baptised as their profession of faith in the gospel


cont...

You yourself are making a very big assumption: that infants cannot believe. It is God who gives belief and repentance. He can give it to whomever he choses. He creates the belief and repentance, not you by your maturity and intelligence.

See my comments above regarding John the Baptist. God can do some really miraculous things in infants, my friend![/QUOTE]

He can -- because He is God. But God doesn't operate at the behest of man; He cannot be summoned by man pronouncing a formula over an infant and applying water to same. "The Spirit bloweth where it listeth", not where man listeth that it should blow!

And in case you missed it, this article destroys every argument for infant baptism: http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Entrance into the covenant of grace



However entrance into the covenant of grace has always been by faith even in the Old testement, as Paul makes plain in Romans 4 by using the examples of Abraham and David!

Entrace into the Abrahamic covenant was by birth and circumcision but the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic covenet are earthly, temporary covenants that picture and point twoards the covenant of grace they are not administrations of the covenant of grace so the arguement has no basis!

Acts 2:38-39



But the text simply does not say that does it, no it says;

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." (Act 2:38 NKJ)

The promise is to;

1) You
2) Your Children
3) all those who are far off.

If you say my repentence and baptism sanctifies my children you are alos saying it sancifies all those who are afar of as well - is that what you are saying? I really hope it isn't

It certainly isn't what Peter is saying because in that last phrase he makes the condition of the promise clear "as many as the Lord our God will call." The promise is for as many of the lord shall call out of these three catagaries, you, your children and all who are afar off.

Now as you are the one who keeps telling us to take scripture literally I think it is time you started to do that too my freind

Excellent point! Paedobaptists like to quote this scripture as support for infant baptism, but they conveniently leave off the last part, "and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.", because it totally destroys their argument.

So, a literal reading and interpreting of the scripture by the paedobaptist, or a total mangling of it? Obviously the latter.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Your are very intelligent and clever, Biblicist. But your doctrine is an invention of sixteenth century Europe. You cannot provide any evidence that any Christian living in the first six centuries after Christ believed that the sole purpose of Baptism was as an adult believer's public profession of faith.

You use revisionist history and cospiracy theories to try and cover the fact that NNE during this time period left any evidence of this Baptist belief.

Any Christian of that era that makes statements that support the orthodox Christian position, you brand has apostate.

If there were people living during that era that held that Baptist view of baptism, there would be some evidence, somewhere, on a cave wall, that supports your position.

You have no support for your Baptism belief other than extrapolations and complex explanations to explain away the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Your doctrine is new. It is only 500 to possibly, 1,000 years old. All new doctrine is heresy, just as your doctrine of the Rapture which was invented in the 1830's by Scottish Presbyterians and Plymouth Brethren--baby baptizers.

And you and Lutherans are denying your professed belief that scripture is the final authority and not tradition because your view of baptism can be substantiated ONLY by tradition and nothing else, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits.

Neither the Bible nor the earliest churches know anything of infant baptism. As the stream got further from its source -- the apostles and their writings -- superstition crept in, and people started baptizing their infants. Superstition, fear, and ignorance created infant baptism -- nothing else.

 

[Wittenberger]

You try to use Luke 1:41 and your own logic to defend false manmade doctrines! Do the scriptures say John the Baptist was baptized when he leaped in his mother’s womb? So now, what good is your logic and manmade beliefs? They are no good, for they go against the Word of God.

Again, this is before baptism or circumcision, you have no defense! You speak about a prophet of God before baptism or anything, and you think this proves water baptism to infants!

I believe in the written Word of God, the written Word of God speaks of John the Baptist being filled with the Holy spirit from his mother’s womb, so why would I not believe that!

According to the false Catholic teachings, they try to use scripture to go against other scriptures; they use their own logic, which is no logic. Was John the Baptist baptized while in his mother’s womb? NO. Was John the Baptist circumcised while in his mother’s womb? NO. So stop trying to use those scriptures to defend your false beliefs.

John the Baptist was a man sent from God, John 1:6.
32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house

Do infants have the word of the Lord spoke to them? No.

You miss the point: Lutherans believe that God alone saves...without your help. He can save you as adult. He can save you as a young child. He can save you as an infant.

God can save during infant baptism AND He can save, if He chooses, while an infant is in the womb.

The point is: God can save whenever He wants to. He doesn't need to wait for an adult to make a free-will decision and He doesn't need to wait for baptism to save a infant.

The reason we bring our children to baptism is that God has commanded us to do it.

God can save whenever He wants.

You Arminian Baptists/evangelicals believe that God needs your assistance to save you. He needs your "decision".

That is a doctrine of works which you got from Mother Rome!

The example of John the Baptist is proof that your doctrine is false. Many of you say that John was a "special case".

John the Baptist was either God or a man. If he was a man he was born with original sin, that required atonement. The Bible says that he was filled with the Holy Spirit when he left his mother's womb. That means that God had already saved him, at that moment that he left the womb, and at that instant gave him, as an infant, repentance, belief, and faith.

Without faith, belief and repentance there can be no atonement. There is no way John could receive the Holy Spirit unless God had already made him righteous.

God has and does save infants. He gives them the faith, belief and repentance. Just because they can't tell you they believe, doesn't mean that God can make it happen.

Just because the infant John the Baptist couldn't tell anyone he was filled with the Holy Spirit, and just because it wasn't logically or rational to believe that an infant could have the Holy Ghost, does that mean that it wasn't true?

No. The case of John the Baptist blows the Baptist/evangelical doctrine that God can only save adults to smithereens!

 

[Wittenberger]

Can't you see that John the Baptist was not an ordinary man but the exception to the rule. How many people do you know that were filled with the Spirit from their mother's womb? How many people do you know were born after their parents were physically incapable of child bearing? How many persons do you know who were the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophet (Elijah)? How many people do you know that no other born of women are greater?

You take this as your RULE for infants?

Again, either the writers of the New Testament were completely heartless concerning the most helpless of humanity OR they believed they were in absolutely no danger at all since they gave absolutely no command, no doctrine, no example at all for infant baptism in the New Testament.

Again, God's judgement is solely based upon "according to their works" due to moral determination. How can infants be JUSTLY held to that standard when they are incapable of MORAL determination???? They can't! Hence, they are in no danger of damnation in the first place until they are able to make moral determinations.

What about those who die before that time?

1. They are saved by Christ without their will just as they were damned by Adam without their will as Christ paid for eternal penalty for the sin of Adam so that none go to hell for Adam's sin but for their own sins.

2. They are made to hear and believe in the gospel just as God made John hear and believe in the womb.

First, I have never heard of of a Baptists who doesn't believe in original sin. I grew up fundamentalist Baptist. We believed that infants were sinner, we just believed, that if they died, God did not hold them accountable. What branch of Baptist are you?

Second, John the Baptist was either a man, subject to all the same conditions for salvation as every other person who has ever walked on earth or he was a god. Which one was it. There is no such thing as "something special inbetween God and man."

 

[Wittenberger]

Now, take your explanation and apply it to my post below and you will readily see there is absolutely no basis for or need for infant baptism at all:

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
All three groups beleive in an age of confirmation/accountability of children. The only difference is about the exposure to God's wrath between birth and confirmation/accountability.

God's wrath is repeatedly said throughout scriptures to be based soley upon PERSONAL MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY determined by their works.

All three groups agree that infants or those under the age of confirmation/accountability are incapable of doing any works based upon moral determination. Hence, it is impossible for God to hold them MORALLY accountable for anything they do until they can comprehend moral accountability.

Hence, they are obviously safe from an kind of judgement based upon works.

Furthermore, the New Testament provides NO COMMAND, NO DOCTRINE, NO EXPLICIT EXAMPLE for the baptism of infants.

The total omission of doctrine/practice or examples can only be attributed to one of two reasons. Either, the New Testament writers were totally incapable of compassion for the most helpless of our race or they did not regard infants in any kind of danger of judgement. Take your choice!

I think the answer is obvious - they are not in any danger and so you do not have to provide doctrines that provide escape from judgement when they are not in danger. There is no examples of infant baptism because there is no need. It is just that simple.

I would bet your position on original sin is an outlier among even Baptists, my friend.

 

[The Biblicist]

First, I have never heard of of a Baptists who doesn't believe in original sin. I grew up fundamentalist Baptist. We believed that infants were sinner, we just believed, that if they died, God did not hold them accountable. What branch of Baptist are you?

You misunderstood my words. I do believe in original sin. I simply said that Christ removed the eternal consequences (not temporal) of the Adamic sin so that no person stands in judgement for the individual act of Adam but only for his own works - Jn. 1:29 - He simply removed the LEGAL eternal consequences for that individual act of Adam without removing its temporal consequences.

Second, John the Baptist was either a man, subject to all the same conditions for salvation as every other person who has ever walked on earth or he was a god. Which one was it. There is no such thing as "something special inbetween God and man."

You mean that it is NORMAL for "every other person who has ever walked on earth" to understand the gospel and be filled with the Spirit IN THE MOTHER'S WOMB???

Don't you think you are being a tad bit irrational? How can you possibly compare John to the NORM! Is every person the fulfillment of the return of Elijah?????

 

[Wittenberger]

He INCONSISTENLY does not demand baptism to be saved. I say INCONSISTENTLY because he could have no other logical reason for the baptism of infants as he believes actual salvation is imparted through baptism because the word is spoken then.

However, why couldn't the Word be spoken to them without baptism and God save them.

Moreover, look at his sole example in John the Baptist. John was made to understand and filled IN THE WOMB not in circumcision or baptism!!!!

His doctrine is not merely unbiblical but completely irrational and inconsistent with itself.

It is illogical to you because you believe that man has to "do" somethng in order to be saved. You don't seem to believe that God can accomplish salvation all by himself, without man's assistance.

The reason we believe that God saves in baptism is because he says so. He can save whenever he wants, without our decision to be baptized or your decision to make a "decision" for Christ.

Bottom line my Baptist/evangelical friends: We can continue arguing this point for YEARS, and never get anywhere.

If Mormonism and JW's were so easy to discredit from Scripture why are tehey growing in leaps and bounds? It is because they have created a false doctrine and found an answer "from the Bible" on every possible rebuttal trinitarian Christians can throw at them. Does that mean they are right?

No, of course not!

Orthodox Christians, such as Lutherans, can base our belief system not only in "our" inerpretation of Scirpture but also with historical evidence from statements from early Christians. That is how I know our doctrine is correct.

You Baptists and evangelicals have no more proof than the Mormons and
JW's to support your beliefs:

You believe that your interpretation is correct and you believe that God (the Holy Spirit) tells you that you are correct.

The Mormons and the JW's believe the exact same thing. None of you have any concrete evidence to prove your position!

Show me one early Christian who states that the only purpose of baptism is an adult "profession of faith" ONLY and I will convert tomorrow!

Sorry, Biblicist, but I don't accept your revisionist history and conspiracy theories. If there were "Baptists" during the first six centuries after Christ there would be some record of it somewhere, even if it is on the wall of a cave!

Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com

 

[Wittenberger]

BTW: Lutherans believe that Baptists and evangelicals believe false doctrines, but we still consider you Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ.

Lutherans believe Mormons and JW's are cults, their baptisms are not in the name of the Trinity, they are not Christians.

 

[Moriah]

You miss the point: Lutherans believe that God alone saves...without your help. He can save you as adult. He can save you as a young child. He can save you as an infant.

It is not about just making stuff up. The Bible says do not go beyond what is written, do not lean to the left or to the right, and do not add or subtract.
God tells us how He saves us and when. God says for us to believe and repent. God who knows our heart will give us the Holy Spirit when He accepts us, those who obey. See Acts 5:32 and 15:8.

God can save during infant baptism AND He can save, if He chooses, while an infant is in the womb.

We are to do what God says to do. God does not tell us to do infant baptisms.

The reason we bring our children to baptism is that God has commanded us to do it.

That is not true.

You Arminian Baptists/evangelicals believe that God needs your assistance to save you. He needs your "decision".

I am none of those titles.
I do not believe God needs my assistance. I have to obey God.

That is a doctrine of works which you got from Mother Rome!

What are you saying?

The example of John the Baptist is proof that your doctrine is false. Many of you say that John was a "special case".
Without faith, belief and repentance there can be no atonement. There is no way John could receive the Holy Spirit unless God had already made him righteous.

John the Baptist was sent from God.

God has and does save infants. He gives them the faith, belief and repentance. Just because they can't tell you they believe, doesn't mean that God can make it happen.

Infants cannot understand, nor can they say they believe and repent.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is illogical to you because you believe that man has to "do" somethng in order to be saved. You don't seem to believe that God can accomplish salvation all by himself, without man's assistance.

That is not what Paul says about election to salvation in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14/Rom. 10:14-17. He says we are chosen to sallvation "THROUGH....belief of the truth" and that the effectual call is through the gospel (v. 14; 1 Thes. 1:4-5) which is accompanied by "assurance" of salvation.

Bottom line my Baptist/evangelical friends: We can continue arguing this point for YEARS, and never get anywhere.

I don't believe it is an argument as there is nothing provided in scripture to make it an argument - no command - no example - nothing for infant baptism.

You have to completely ignore my response about John the Baptist in order to sustain an appearance of argument.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You miss the point: Lutherans believe that God alone saves...without your help. He can save you as adult. He can save you as a young child. He can save you as an infant.

God can save during infant baptism AND He can save, if He chooses, while an infant is in the womb.

The point is: God can save whenever He wants to. He doesn't need to wait for an adult to make a free-will decision and He doesn't need to wait for baptism to save a infant.

The reason we bring our children to baptism is that God has commanded us to do it.


God has commanded no such thing; that is a complete falsehood. There is absolutely zero evidence for that statement.


God can save whenever He wants.

You Arminian Baptists/evangelicals believe that God needs your assistance to save you. He needs your "decision".

That is a doctrine of works which you got from Mother Rome!

The example of John the Baptist is proof that your doctrine is false. Many of you say that John was a "special case".

John the Baptist was either God or a man. If he was a man he was born with original sin, that required atonement. The Bible says that he was filled with the Holy Spirit when he left his mother's womb. That means that God had already saved him, at that moment that he left the womb, and at that instant gave him, as an infant, repentance, belief, and faith.

Without faith, belief and repentance there can be no atonement. There is no way John could receive the Holy Spirit unless God had already made him righteous.

God has and does save infants. He gives them the faith, belief and repentance. Just because they can't tell you they believe, doesn't mean that God can make it happen.

Just because the infant John the Baptist couldn't tell anyone he was filled with the Holy Spirit, and just because it wasn't logically or rational to believe that an infant could have the Holy Ghost, does that mean that it wasn't true?

No. The case of John the Baptist blows the Baptist/evangelical doctrine that God can only save adults to smithereens!

(See my first answer above, within your quote, in red)

No, it surely does not. No Baptist and no evangelical believes that God can only save adults. You really should stop posting untruths.

I don't brand myself as an evangelical, but, concerning what I have said, I believe believers' baptism proponents would agree that for those who are mature enough to understand, faith is required for salvation; for those who are not, if they should die, God saves them all. In any case, water baptism in NT times was reserved for those who had been regenerated as evidenced by their profession of faith. Water baptism did not produce the regeneration in them, nor did it produce regeneration later in infants when people started baptizing them out of superstition, fear, and ignorance. Man cannot control or summon God by word or ritual. The Spirit blows where it wills, not where man wills that it should blow!

You have absolutely no ground to stand on with your views about infant baptism, as has been shown. Even what you said about John the Baptist destroys your own argument concerning infant baptism because whatever God did for him in the womb, it certainly was not by water baptism! And do you suppose that John the Baptist would have been saved if he had not continued to follow God?

You are one confused individual. Earlier you were making unfounded charges against Baptists as you were calling them Calvinists; now you are doing the same as you are calling them Arminians! You have failed in your arguments and posted untruths in both cases!

What is blown to smithereens is the unbiblical doctrine of infant baptism and that a ritual and incantation can cause the Spirit to move simply by virtue of the words and actions of men. Want to talk works-base salvation? There you have it in a nutshell. Baptists are about as far away from "Mother Rome" as it's possible to get. Magisterial Protestants are not, in many areas, as can be clearly seen.

One more point: The very early "Didache" talks about baptism but does not mention infant baptism; that silence is deafening. This is one proof of the truth of what I said and the Quakers originally said: The stream is purest at the source; the further you get from the source, the more corrupted and polluted the stream becomes. Infant baptism is a prime example. It arose because of superstition, fear, ignorance, and a wrong view of original sin. It did not exist in the NT or the earliest Christian communities; it's only foundation is the tradition of men, as the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, and a Catholic priest and archaeologist proved.

 

[Wittenberger]

It is not about just making stuff up. The Bible says do not go beyond what is written, do not lean to the left or to the right, and do not add or subtract.
God tells us how He saves us and when. God says for us to believe and repent. God who knows our heart will give us the Holy Spirit when He accepts us, those who obey. See Acts 5:32 and 15:8.

We are to do what God says to do. God does not tell us to do infant baptisms.


That is not true.


I am none of those titles.
I do not believe God needs my assistance. I have to obey God.


What are you saying?


John the Baptist was sent from God.

Infants cannot understand, nor can they say they believe and repent.

You have put your hands to your ears and refuse to even listen to what I am saying. How can I debate you?

The bible does not implicitly endorse infant baptism. The Bible does not implicitly forbid it, either.

The point is that John the Baptist is an example where God gave the Holy Spirit to an infant, without waiting for that infant to become an adult and make a decision to believe.

Your side insists that ALL men, OT and NT, must first believe and repent as older children or adults before God considers them righteous or saved.

John the Baptist is proof that your insistence that ALL men follow YOUR patter of salvation is not correct. Just saying that John the Baptist was special case does not change the fact, unless you believe that John the Baptist was a God: he still needed faith and repentance before being declared righteous and receiving the Holy Spirit.

The only way that could happen is if God gave the infant John the Baptist faith, belief and repentance at his birth, thereby declaring him righteous.