Infants don't have an active will! To utilize a will, one must have an active, rational mind. Animals and brutes have no will, although they do not desire something by way of instinct. Babies are as yet irrational - so nothing is done "against" their will, properly speaking.
It makes a difference to me because I think that the Spirit becoming indwelling happens at regeneration, which is only for believers.
Which again makes you the initiator of faith. Grace is no longer a gift, then. It appears that you are saying that God only will regenerate those who show proper faith... Sounds like works salvation to me, so I must be misunderstanding you?
If the Spirit indwelled and sins were remitted at Baptism, then I'd have to change all of my beliefs about "belief".
Perhaps you should consider re-reading the Bible when it talks about water, the "laver of regeneration", or just plain baptism. What about when Peter compares the Israelites crossing the Red Sea and comparing it to Baptism? It is for the remission of sins. Or do you deny that the Scriptures say this?
Regards
Which again makes you the initiator of faith. Grace is no longer a gift, then. It appears that you are saying that God only will regenerate those who show proper faith... Sounds like works salvation to me, so I must be misunderstanding you?
From the human POV, regeneration is one of the stops that all of the elect will make on a "closed track". During this required pit-stop, the Spirit climbs aboard, and the elect are changed. The one of the elect switches out of the driver's seat and into the back seat, and the Spirit drives the rest of the way.
Salvational grace is certainly a gift in the sense that we do not merit it, and that we have nothing to do with its generation. It is also a gift that the elect may not refuse. (In our common human experience there are many examples, especially involving our children, of gifts that are not free to be refused.) The only initiator and creator of faith is God.
What about when Peter compares the Israelites crossing the Red Sea and comparing it to Baptism? It is for the remission of sins. Or do you deny that the Scriptures say this?
Well, I found Paul talking about the Israelites, and Peter talking about Noah. (1 Cor. 10:1-4, which corresponds to 1 Pet. 3:18-22.) I hope this is what you are talking about. In both cases they were making comparisons, and in neither case did the water do the saving. For Moses, it was his faith that saved them, not the water itself. Likewise, it was not the flood that saved Noah, it was the Ark, i.e., his faith also. Both were symbolic of transitions from the old into the new, just as Baptism is today.
Besides, we are already told in scripture of when Peter witnessed first hand the salvation of others BEFORE their Baptisms:
Acts 10:44-48 : 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
You can't praise God and speak in tongues without being saved. The Holy Spirit was upon them and their sins were already remitted, BEFORE Baptism. So, obviously Peter knew for sure that Baptism did not save and did not remit sins. He saw it with his own eyes.