Michael Wrenn
New Member
The salvation of John the Baptist as an infant tells us what?
1. God can and has saved infants.
2. Since John was a sinful human being and not a god, God required faith, belief and repentance to be saved; the same requirements that he has had for everyone else on planet earth.
3. If infants cannot believe, have faith, or repent, as Baptists state, then how was John the Baptist given the Holy Spirit? Did God give the Holy Spirit to a sinner and wait until he was older to believe, have faith and repent?
4. The example of John the Baptist dispells the Baptist notion that only adults can be saved and that in order to be saved you have to have the maturity and intelligence to make a free will decision to believe.
5. I cannot prove that the Apostles baptized infants. Baptists can't prove for 100% sure that they didn't.
What I can be sure of, due to the example of John the Baptist, is that God does NOT mandate that, in all cases of salvation, that the person converting must be an adult or older child. John the Baptist converted, was saved, coming out of his mother's womb.
God provided the belief, faith and repentance to the infant as a FREE GIFT, the same manner that he does for the infants of Christian parents in Holy Baptism.
God accomplishes all of Salvation, my friends, he doesn't need your adult decision.
With infant baptismal regeneration, you get two errors for the price of one.
The case of John the Baptist has absolutely nothing to do with infant baptism. It was a special and unique circumstance involving a unique person.
No one denies that God can save infants. What is being denied is that God can and does do that just because man pronounces words and applies water to an infant. Man cannot summon God through a ritual, cannot make God act through a ritual, cannot produce a spiritual result through a ritual, cannot induce God to perform a spiritual act through a ritual. God does not automatically move because man performs a ritual; God does not move at the behest of man. I do believe that baptism is God's act and not man's; that's one reason I don't believe in infant baptism -- infant baptism is all man's act and none of God's. The spirit blows where it wills, not where man wills that it should blow! When God brings a person to faith, that person is regenerated and is baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ -- that is the one true baptism and has nothing to do with outward physical water, has nothing to do with a ritual or man's words or actions. The most that outward water can do is to signify, symbolize, and represent this spiritual reality and spiritual baptism. That is the pure teaching of Jesus and the apostles and the witness of the NT churches and earliest Christians, apart from any corrupted tradition of men as represented in the fathers with their erroneous teachings based on superstition, fear, ignorance, and a wrong view of original sin.
Put tradition in it's place, get your doctrine from the scriptures, and infant baptism will be put in it's place -- a mere tradition and invention of man.
I keep posting this link because it is the absolute best refutation of infant baptism I have ever seen -- and by a former Presbyterian pastor, at that!
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html