Refuting A Refutation Of Baptist Theology And Attacking A Defense Of Infant Sprinkling

The so-called “Fearless Puritan” claims to want to Glorify God in everything that he does.  I will demonstrate from Scripture that his attacks on Credobaptism go against the Scriptures.  He ought to lose his goofy moniker and start believing the Holy Scriptures.



As usual, my comments will be in bold.


A brief refutation of Baptist theology and a defense of infant baptism.

The first question needed to be addressed is what is Baptism?
The best brief description of baptism is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states, Why not go to the scriptures to answer this question?  Probably because if he did, he would find that there are at least 7 different kinds of Baptism and that water baptism in the Church Age is by immersion in water.  So instead, he goes to the “traditions”.  Telling…
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, No verse calls Baptism a “sacrament” ordained by Jesus Christ, umm, no.  John baptized before Christ showed up to ordain anything (Matt 3:6).  not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; won’t find that in the Bible. but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, won’t find that in the Bible. of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. So this man teaches that you get the new birth from water through Baptism.  He preaches a salvation by works (baptism is a work) and that salvation comes through the city water system and not through the man, Christ Jesus.  Heresy.  If you are counting on your baptism to save you, then you’re headed for hell.  You think your WORKS will save you.  Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.Again, baptism is never called a Sacrament in the Bible.

  1. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto. “Lawfully…” What about God?
  2. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. There is no instance of pouring or sprinkling found in the Bible.  Baptism is always by immersion.  See Acts 8:38, Matt 3:16, Mark 1:5,10.  One of the requirements for a place to baptize is “much water” in John 3:23.  At this point, you can see that they have to throw out a lot of Bible to believe what they do…
  3. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. We’ll show you that this is wrong, later.
  4. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. This contradicts what was said earlier in point number 1.  
  5. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.  This is a good example of “double speak”.  Point number 1 said the opposite.

7. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person. Except that people were rebaptized in Acts 19:1-7.  How did you miss that?

Key references are, Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 12:13, (no water) Rom. 4:11,(no water) Col. 2:11,(no water) Gal. 3:27, (no water)Rom. 6:5, (no water)Tit. 3:5, (no water)Mark 1:4, Rom. 6:3-4, (no water)Heb. 9:10, John 3:5, (no water)Eph. 5:25, (no water)Acts 2:38-41
Read the above verses over before attempting to debate anything. The biggest problem with Baptism (among Baptists and Presbyterians) is that most people don’t even know what Baptism is, nor what it signifies, for if Baptists knew what Baptism actually was they would not continue to lie against the truth and deny it to their infants. Watch how this trickster switches back and forth between “infants” and “little children”.  They are NOT synonymous. 
Therefore when the question is posed, “Can infants have faith?” We must emphatically say yes, no scripture! for faith is inseparable with the promise of salvation. The whole point is that infants don’t need to be saved.  They are alive (Rom 7:9) and innocent, just as Adam before he ate the fruit.  Jesus said to Nicodemus,
“You must be born again or you cannot see the kingdom of God.” Who’s the audience?  He is talking to a grown man, not an infant.  And Jesus also says, “Of such is the kingdom of God.” referring to children. NOT infants. Now to clear things up for the unlearned, and slow of heart, although I shouldn’t even have to explain this, scripture being abundantly clear, and the scripture witnessing against the frailty of your faith,
when Jesus says to the disciples, “of such is the kingdom of heaven”, He is speaking literally of children, which is proved by the context, “Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.” (Matt. 19:13-15) The text doesn’t say “infants” a little child is someone who is a little more grown.  Look at the story of Elisha and the she-bear.  2 Kings 2:23, 24. The she-bear didn’t kill infants.  In the text, the “little children” were old enough to talk.  
Only a great fool, or someone hardened in their idolatrous practices would look at this passage and say that Jesus was not speaking of literal children, for it was literal children that were brought to Him, and the disciples, much like the Baptists rebuked them. This is a straw man argument.  I am for little children coming to Christ.  I’ve seen kids that were 3 and 4 get saved and then baptized.  But you have twisted the discussion.  It was about baptizing babies.  Now it is about little children coming to Christ.  But Jesus in great disapproval of their false idea that children are restricted from access to Him, says to them, “Let them come to me, and do not forbid them. For of such is the kingdom of heaven.” First He gives a divine command, and then a reason annexed to it.
The command is, “Do not forbid these children from having faith in Me, and do not forbid them in your mind from having faith. For even children are partakers of the kingdom of God.” And how are children partakers of the kingdom of God apart from the work of the Spirit, and the righteousness by faith? Agreed, except that you are going to claim that they need Baptism.  It is certainly impossible to be forgiven of sins without being made partakers of Christ. Therefore the apostle says, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27) No reason to read “water” into the text. 
He does not say, “As many of you as have put on Christ were baptized.” Spirit Baptism takes place at the moment of salvation.  1 Cor 12:13. This argument is invalid.  This is the Baptist delusion. The doctrine of the method of Grace is yet more Biblical evidence of the regeneration of infants, and their common faith with adults. For who of any true Christian profession would say that faith precedes regeneration? How about the Apostle Paul?  Rom 10.  Faith and then calling.  How can one have faith without it being given to him from above? Rom 10:17. It comes from hearing the Bible.  In the application of salvation to the elect soul, God is always known to act first. Here, we have veered off the topic of Baptism and into hardcore double predestination.  Notice that  no scripture is given. Before one can have faith, it must be implanted in them by the powerful operation of the Spirit, which application of grace was truly planned and decreed before they had faith, before they were born, before the foundation of the world. Nope. The application came when the sinner “came” to Christ and “received” him as his Saviour. John 1:12  God didn’t receive Christ for the sinner.  Baptist theology therefore which demands a profession before Baptism in all cases (although it is not to be administered to adults before they make a credible profession), is more similar to the Arminian method of salvation. Exactly, buddy.  We joke that we are Arminian before salvation and Calvinistic after salvation.  There are flaws in that, but it is a decent way of looking at it.  Nevertheless Bible Believers reject the false dichotomy of Arminianism-Calvinism. But we know that since God works first, He has both power, and mercy enough to effectually regenerate an infant. For how can one be so cruel and perverse of heart to deny that infants can go to heaven? If you think Baptists think that, you are stupid.  Baptists believe ALL INFANTS go to heaven.  YOU are the only that says that unbaptized infants go to hell.   Is there an age restriction for heaven? No, but assuredly the prophet Isaiah says, ““No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,” (Isaiah 65:20) This passage is about the Millennium and has nothing to do with salvation or Baptism.  
Matthew Henry comments,
“If an infant end its days quickly, yet it shall not be reckoned to die untimely; for the shorter its life is the longer will its rest be. Though death reign over those that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, yet they, dying in the arms of Christ, the second Adam, and belonging to his kingdom, are not to be called infants of days, but even the child shall be reckoned to die a hundred years old, for he shall rise again at full age, shall rise to eternal life.”  What?  Thank you for reminding me why I don’t read Matt Henry…
It is also spoken of the prophet Jeremiah that he was sanctified before he was born. So? Clearly Jeremiah is a special case.  Are you going to make universal doctrine from the life of this one special man?  That’s foolishness.
God’s almighty, and infinite power, love and mercy displayed in election, and redemption is not exclusive to adults, and it is an insult of His power to assert that infants cannot be saved. No Baptist ever taught that… Can they go to heaven? Yes? Then can one go to heaven without faith? Certainly not. The Baptist delusion is a labyrinth of deception.  Or it’s Bible.  Rom 7:9 “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”  Infants are spiritually alive and then they “die” “in tresspasses and sins”  Notice how David knew where his dead baby went. 2 Sam 12.  You think infants went to heaven in the OT but in the NT they go to hell?  What a ridiculous thought.  
Therefore, judging rightly by these things, knowing that one cannot see the kingdom of heaven Kingdom of God… without being born again, that when one is born again, it is shown in them by faith, repentance and new obedience, and these are inseparable from each other, we must conclude that infants can have faith. Or we can rightly conclude that Nicodemus was not an infant and that Paul didn’t lie when he said infants are spiritually alive… For without faith it is impossible to please God. And the command for children to obey is annexed by, “for this is pleasing to the Lord.” No age restriction, no excuses. Children, obey your parents in the Lord. [Eph. 6:1]
“For this is well pleasing to the Lord.” [Col. 3:20] This also brings me back to the original argument that it is a contradiction to say that there are babes in the faith, but that infants cannot have faith. What?  How did we get here? This reasoning is illogical. For who made infants the way they are, you or the Lord?
And whose majesty and sovereignty is displayed by infants? Whose praise is perfected by the mouth of babes? As certain as God has made all things for His own glory, and has created all things through Jesus Christ, so infants are made to demonstrate His goodness and kindness. Every life of every infant is a manifestation of God’s goodness and kindness to His children, when they are weak in the faith. To deny such is to deny that there is purpose to God’s creation, which is atheism. Why do you think Paul uses the expression, “babes in Christ?” [1 Cor. 3:1] They were adults who were young in the faith and hadn’t grown spiritually since they’d been born again.  Like many Calvinists… Certainly it is not Paul speaking in scripture, but the Holy Spirit. Are you willing to hear Him speak? I know young children who are more obedient and pleasing to God in conduct than Baptist adults who would cut them off, and cast them to the devil. That is an untrue statement.  Do you know what you are talking about?  Just as the Israelites crossing over and being Baptized into the Red Sea entered not in the promised land because of their unbelief, and God gave it to their children, even so in many cases young children being raised to serve the Lord in truth have a stronger and more stable faith than weak adults. OK…
Now this obviously raises the question, are all infants saved? Certainly not! Certainly yes!  Notice how he changed from talking about “little children”?  
For God is not bound by any covenant promise to save the children of the reprobate. Their children are the seed of Satan, and will be destroyed having been born in sin.
And yet the wicked are still guilty of murder for aborting them, and will certainly be punished for it. Punished for doing the same thing that God does?  The promise of the Holy Spirit is for those who believe, and their children as the apostle so clearly states in Acts 2. This message is to Jews in the early parts of the Book of Acts.  It is overturned as the book of Acts unfolds and see how nothing about baptism shows up in Acts 15.  Further proof of this is found in 1 Cor. 7 when Paul declares that even if only one parent has faith, their child is regarded as holy Holy and saved are two different things. and ought to be baptized, The word “baptized” is not in the chapter…and raised in the care and admonition of the Lord.
They are not guaranteed salvation, because they are considered holy, but certainly this proves all who deny baptism to them to be great fools, who although they can read clearly enough that God calls the seed of believers, “holy”, even saying in Malachi, “I seek godly offspring.” Talking about physical Israel. Yet they will not baptize them, but they regard them as heathen. Untrue.  Baptists believe infants are “safe” not “saved” or “heathen”.  
I have scarcely heard of such pernicious and ludicrous doctrine. And yet Baptist theology is spread all across America. We must conclude therefore that because Baptism is pertaining directly to matters of regeneration, faith and salvation, it is a weak faith that does not believe the promise of God so evidently declared on the matter.
Why are there so many Baptist families that have so many apostate children departing from the faith, when even before baptism they are regarded as holy? This isn’t true of Calvinist baby sprinklers?  Look at the apostate UCC and Presbyterians… Shouldn’t throw stones if you live in a glass house… Because they make shipwreck of their children’s faith, and are likened to the raven that plucks the seed of the word out from them, casting them to the wayside to perish in iniquity. That verse has nothing to do with Baptism.
But surely, as God is faithful to His covenant, merciful and good, He has not only promised faith to His elect, More than that, he promised salvation to “whomsoever will”. that they might be saved from the wrath to come, but He has promised it to their seed, and as their children are declared holy by the Lord, it is madness to forbid them baptism, which seals and engrafts them into Christ, Those words are never connected to Baptism in the Bible, only in the creeds of baby sprinklers.  into the covenant of grace which is promised to them in Gen. 17, This is about land, promised to the physical descendants of Abraham. and Acts 2, Peter preaching to literal Jews.  Later changed in Acts 15 and after. and into the kingdom of God. God’s plan for building His church is to build stable and orderly families well nourished in Christian doctrine, and zealous for good works. So because our children have the benefit of partaking of this admirable and blessed covenant, do we then become slack in our service to them in teaching them the ways of God? They don’t have the “promise”. Do we forgo preaching the gospel to them? No, we forgo baptizing them.  We preach to all creatures.  In no wise! For as God surely commands all men everywhere to repent and believe, (men) so parents who are trained by the word ensure the same for their children, that they repent from their sins, know themselves to be sinners, know God to be just, and bear fruit well pleasing to God.
“I write to you, little children,
Because your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.”
(1 John 2:12)


We see how this poor writer suffers from a multitude of heresies.  Look up the verses and see if this guy is right or wrong.  Then remember that God gave the requirement for Baptism.  Acts 8:37 – “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Belief is required.

But then also remember that the scholars ripped that verse out of the modern versions.  See how critical the Bible Version issue is?

Pray this author throws out his Theological training and goes by the Bible instead.

3 thoughts on “Refuting A Refutation Of Baptist Theology And Attacking A Defense Of Infant Sprinkling

  1. The next time I read a weblog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I imply, I know it was my choice to learn, but I really thought youd have one thing attention-grabbing to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about something that you possibly can repair in case you werent too busy in search of attention.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s