An Article on free will

[civic]

Even a little leaven (deviation from the Word of God) leavens the whole loaf (the person adhering to the deviation from the Word of God) (Galatians 5:7-9), and their blue text deviates from Jesus Christ's red text “you did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16) and “I chose you out of the world” (John 15:19).

Free-will is a conjured concept of the traditions of men (Matthew 15:9).

In Truth (John 14:6), the Almighty God is Sovereign (Genesis 1:1) in man's salvation and affairs of man (Daniel 4:34-35)! ALL GLORY AND HONOR AND PRAISE BE TO LORD JESUS CHRIST!!!

you said the following :

after the days of the holy apostles of our Lord Jesus..... you do not like what I am saying, so be it! I do not think much of your golden calf!

"and their blue text deviates from Jesus Christ's red text “you did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16) and “I chose you out of the world” (John 15:19). "

The above is directly for Jesus 12 disciples. So you have misapplied scripture and twisted it with poor hermenuetics/eisegesis.

So this you said below actually applies to you, the man in the mirror as James says in his epistle.

"Even a little leaven (deviation from the Word of God) leavens the whole loaf (the person adhering to the deviation from the Word of God) (Galatians 5:7-9), "

hope this helps !!!

 

[Johann]

you said the following :

• Yesterday at 10:25 AM
• New
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #6,695

"and their blue text deviates from Jesus Christ's red text “you did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16) and “I chose you out of the world” (John 15:19). "

The above is directly for Jesus 12 disciples. So you have misapplied scripture and twisted it with poor hermenuetics/eisegesis.

So this you said below actually applies to you, the man in the mirror as James says in his epistle.

"Even a little leaven (deviation from the Word of God) leavens the whole loaf (the person adhering to the deviation from the Word of God) (Galatians 5:7-9), "

hope this helps !!!

Context, context, context.

Yup-and now we are told infants/babies MUST be baptized-but I don't want to drag you into this brother.

J.

 

[civic]

Context, context, context.

Yup-and now we are told infants/babies MUST be baptized-but I don't want to drag you into this brother.

J.

yes I understand and its not a fight or battle that I'm wanting to have at this time- I'll let you guys/gals hash it out.

 

[Johann]

yes I understand and its not a fight or battle that I'm wanting to have at this time- I'll let you guys/gals hash it out.

I have stated the biblical case, what stands written, and not what the ECF's wrote.


J.

 

[civic]

I have stated the biblical case, what stands written, and not what the ECF's wrote.


J.

I have been following it

 

[Johann]

I have been following it

I think you and I concur on this matter-no need to answer brother.

Shalom to you and family.

J.

 

[Johann]

@Johann

You will have to ask the men of ancient times that question.

We women are just suppose to do as "Our Husbands" tell us. So we have to resort to research. Especially if we have/had no husband.

I merely highlighted those points that the MEN said . Those ancient historians... all except Tertullian who was the seeming outlier.

Polycarp,
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus

Origen,
Cyprian
Augustin

Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418

Augustin, who said...Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants,

The year 517, when seven bishops met in Gerona, Catelina,

Not until the 1520s did the Christian Church experience opposition specifically to infant Baptism.
So, maybe you can find someone who can use their Way Back machine back to those days and ask them.

I simply dont care enough to look into it. Not when I read about Tertulian's opposition AND Except for Tertullian’s heretical views, marking his departure from mainstream Christianity, the only other opposition to infant Baptism came during a brief period in the middle of the fourth century. The issue was the fear of post-Baptismal sin. This heretical view also denied Baptism to adults until their death-bed. It was not in reality a denial of infant baptism in and of itself. In fact, the heresy encouraged the Baptism of infants when death seemed imminent, as it also did for adults.

Related topics
When did infant baptism start in Christianity
Infant baptism vs believer's baptism
When did baby baptism start in the Catholic Church
Baptism
What denominations do not baptize babies
Bible verses against infant baptism
Infant Baptism Catholic
What does the Bible say about baptism
How old is too old to be baptized
Mark 16 16

00:04
Infant Baptism

06:22
Make Disciples

13:32
Household Baptisms

16:44
Peter Arrives Acts 1033

24:53
Stephanus

Listen to this @MTMattie-we are all students of Scripture right? If you disagree in the end, it's not my problem and there's a warning to take the ECF's words over that of what stands written.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Johann]

@synergy please give this a listen #6,727 and let's all put this "baby" to rest.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

To, also, @Eternally-Grateful, @MTMattie, @synergy and @civic, since each one of you extended a heartfelt "Like" to the post.

Pay attention, each of you, to the Apostle's application of Your Hand illuminating God's intimate control of humanity:

​

"O Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,​

'Why did the Gentiles rage,​

​

And the peoples devise futile things?​

​

'The kings of the earth took their stand,​

​

And the rulers were gathered together​

​

Against the Lord and against His Christ.'​

​

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your Hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus."​

((Acts 4:24-30), the Apostle Peter and the Apostle John and the Assembly of God were together when they lifted their voices to God with one accord)​

​

Look carefully, for the Assembly of God unison prayer to God includes Pontius Pilate to do whatever Your Hand predestined to occur. That is a specific person under the direct influence of the Lord God Almighty to murder the innocent Son of Man.

The Lord God Almighty lovingly sent the Son of God to redeem God's chosen persons. God is love.

The Lord God Almighty is always good:

​

No one is good except God alone​

(Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 10:18).​

​

The Lord God Almighty establishes which of man perceive God:

​

I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to babes​

(Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 11:25).​

​

The Lord God Almighty declares the Sovereignty of God "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 3:3) for The Lord God Almighty alone is Savior of the world. You believe you are your own savior because of your self-willed (2 Peter 2:9-10) choice - your direct denial of Christ as shown in post #6,580 to which your post is in reply.

The Lord God Almighty had the Apostle Peter declare God's preservation of God's chosen persons as well as self-willed persons punishment, all the declaration showing the Power of God:

​

"The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority; daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties"​

(2 Peter 2:9-10).​

​

The Lord God Almighty graciously imparts belief into God's chosen persons according to God's good will “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29).

The Lord God Almighty declares man is accountable to God:

​

I tell you that every careless word that men speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.​

(Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 12:36)​

​

The Lord God Almighty declares to man his thoughts:

​

behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought, who makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth— the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!​

(Amos 4:13)​

​

The Lord God Almighty conveyed through the Apostle Paul of people who exalt the creature above the Grand Creator:

​

"Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false"​

(2 Thessalonians 2:11).​

​

The Lord God Almighty lovingly causes God's chosen persons to will according to God's Way (John 14:6), and God lovingly causes God's chosen persons to work joyfully according to God's Way:

​

"it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure"​

(Philippians 2:13).​

​

The Lord God Almighty is glorified with “he who practices the Truth comes to the Light, so that his works may be manifested as having been wrought in God” (The Word of God, John 3:21). You self-centeredly glorify yourself with your fake choice.

Believe the Lord God Almighty's Christ!

Your heart makes false statements about God and man. Free-will is a conjured concept of the traditions of men leading to worship in vain (Matthew 15:9).

In Truth (John 14:6), the Almighty God is Sovereign (Genesis 1:1) in man's salvation and affairs of man (Daniel 4:34-35)! HOLY, HOLY, HOLY IS THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!!!

Matthew 23:37

Jesus Laments over Jerusalem​

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

God does not always get his way, if he did. everyone would repent and believe.

But he gives his creation the ability to recieve him or reject him.. and he is glorified either way.

 

[synergy]

Question to you @MTMattie.

How can an infant/baby put on Christ? Galatians 3.27

Rebuttal to Dennis Kastens' 'Infant Baptism in Early Church History'

1. Scriptural Analysis: Does the New Testament Teach Infant Baptism?
Kastens' assertion that infant baptism has been practiced "unbroken and uninterrupted" since Pentecost is without clear biblical warrant. The New Testament never explicitly mentions infant baptism. The verses cited (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16) speak of household baptisms but do not specify the presence of infants. Given that baptism is consistently linked with personal repentance and faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12; Romans 6:3-4), the argument that infants were baptized remains speculative.

We already know that there is no explicit verse either promoting or prohibiting Infant Baptism, so that’s why we have to use critical thinking which you agreed to.

Acts 2:38-39 states, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children…" However, Peter is not mandating infant baptism; rather, the condition remains repentance, which infants cannot perform. "Children" (Greek: teknois) refers to descendants and does not denote infants specifically.

Is the author (not you) here seriously saying that infants aren’t descendants of their parents??? What type of warped genealogy is being forwarded here???? This is ridiculous. This whole article should be tossed out like garbage. And notice that based on that garbage, the author of this rebuttal wants to run away from Acts 2:38-39 as fast as he possibly could. If you take back this ridiculous claim that infants are not descendants of their parents, I will continue. I beseech you to use critical thinking when discussing this topic. I can't stress that enough.

 

[Johann]

We already know that there is no explicit verse either promoting or prohibiting Infant Baptism, so that’s why we have to use critical thinking which you agreed to.

Is the author (not you) here seriously saying that infants aren’t descendants of parents??? What type of warped genealogy is being forwarded here???? This is ridiculous. This whole article should be tossed out like garbage. And notice that based on that garbage, the author of this rebuttal wants to run away from Acts 2:38-39 as fast as he possibly could. If you take back this ridiculous claim that infants are not descendants of parents, I will continue. I beseech you to use critical thinking when discussing this topic. I can't stress that enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOa1hulVSxE&t=3492s

75,074 views Streamed live on Jul 31, 2019
What can we say about infant baptism based just on the Bible? This video is a survey through a bunch of key passages that relate to the topic. I present it as an issue that we should not divide over but an issue that is worth examining biblically and talking about.
We will be looking at the "household" baptisms in Acts, and the idea that a parallel between circumcision and baptism means we should baptize infants. We'll also examine the New Testament nature of baptism since this relates to the idea of baptizing infants.

The issue is not whether infants are descendants of their parents—the question is whether Acts 2:39 is referring exclusively to infants when it mentions "children" (τέκνοις, teknois). The Greek word τέκνα (tekna) does not strictly mean infants; it refers to offspring or descendants in a general sense, which includes children of all ages and even future generations.

For example, in Romans 9:7, Paul states: "Neither are they all children (τέκνα, tekna) because they are the seed of Abraham"—clearly referring to all of Abraham’s descendants, not just infants. Likewise, Acts 13:32-33 uses "the promise to our children" to mean successive generations, not specifically babies.

In Acts 2:39, Peter extends the promise of salvation to:

The immediate audience ("to you")
Their descendants ("to your children/offspring")
All those God will call in the future ("to all who are far off")
This context indicates that Peter is speaking of future generations who will come to faith, not mandating infant baptism. Furthermore, verse 38 still requires repentance before baptism, which an infant cannot perform. Thus, the argument does not deny that infants are descendants but rather refutes the assumption that "children" in Acts 2:39 must refer exclusively to infants.

Now, it is on you to give this a listen, if not, my work here is done.


I have asked you give this a listen @synergy-and it would seem you don't read critically.



Winger should put this baby to rest with ALL of Scripture and when I post something don't take an excerpt of the post but context.



@MTMattie have decided to "disconnect" from this dialogue and frankly I don't care, not my problem.



Thanks.



J







.

 

[Red Baker]

Both Scripture and the original Churches were both bequeathed to us by Apostles.

"Both Scripture and the original Churches were both bequeathed to us by Apostles." ~ You are very cunning in your attempt to avoid truth and what has already been addressed to you, as though it has not been dealt with thoroughly when indeed it has. Dealing with you is like speaking to an politician who all he does is put spins on what has been plainly stated, which is very confusing to those on the outside trying to see who is telling the truth and who is fake. So, my job with folks like you is to slow down and not allow you to confuse those sincere folks trying to decide which one is right, which one is fake. You are practicing deceit, now let me see if I can prove it ~ pretty sure I can. You said:

Both Scripture and the original Churches were bequeathed to us by Apostles. It would be ludicrous for the Apostles to bequeath to us Scripture and original Church practices that contradict each other. You're accusing the Apostles of being schizophrenic.

To which I said back to you:

synergy, let me be very clear to you and any other person that may read this: I take every word that is recorded in the scriptures as coming from the mouth of God and test every doctrine, and teaching of man by the scriptures, period. Any words, traditions of men spoken outside of the scriptures, whether they be words from even angels, of words that any apostle that men think they have found, that is not recorded in the scriptures, as false, if those words go against what is written and preserved for us in the scriptures of truth.

Galatians 1:8​

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

Daniel 10:21​

“But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.”

All godly angels and men live by what is noted in the scriptures of truth, for there is no spiritual truth outside of the word of God. Man has sought to corrupt and pervert truth by their traditions and man made commandments, etc. Is this point clear to you? Sola Scriptura for all of God's children is what we live by and trust in.

synergy, who should care what the original churches taught once the scriptures where finished and the apostles died off? God's word lives on and as children of God we live by the words of the Living God recorded in our bibles ~ not by what the churches taught after John the beloved apostle died around 90-95 A.D. Not interested in so-called church traditions as though those traditions are equal to God's word and in many cases above the scriptures, with men like you and the whores from EOC/RCC think are though they are,~ reason being because the corruption that soon enter into the churches support their false teachings, whereas they get no support from the scriptures.

It would be ludicrous for the Apostles to bequeath to us Scripture and original Church practices that contradict each other.

Again, we are talking about what the churches taught after John died, from 95 A.D. onward, not before then. Again ~ We are not speaking about 33 - 95 A.D. even though false doctrine try to enter in, but the apostle's dealt with it head on, but they knew that as soon as they left, the flood gate would be open and was it ever!

Either accept the Apostles as a whole or you are flat out betraying them. Either accept everything they bequeathed to us or you become the very same false prophet that your quoted verses warn us against.

We not only accept everything in the word of God that God recorded for us, but we love the same ~ we show that love by rejecting everything that the scriptures does not teach.

What we strongly reject is HISTORY of what the early churches and so-called church fathers believe as though taht is on par with God's word, and so should you, and you would, if you were a firm believer in the word of God, but obviously you are not. The only false prophets here would be anyone who lives by history and churches fathers teachings above the written word of God recorded in our bibles! We as bible believing Christians live by the word of our heavenly Father, period. Is this clear?

Prayer promotes critical thinking. You are promoting a false dichotomy between prayer and critical thinking. Our brains are gifts from God and he expects us to use them. So hop to it.

Oh really? Prayer puts one trust in God alone for Him to reveal his truth to us, not in ourselves to began to use your so-called critical thinking that always lead one away from the scriptures, whereas, prayer to God causes one to trust totally in the scriptures. Prayer, makes us noble believers like those of Berean in Acts 17:11. Btw, we darn not serve God with our pitiful brains, but with the new heart he has given to us by his grace.

For example, considering Jesus' Baptism, would you include infants within the scope of Jesus' righteousness (Matt 3:15) or not?

No, those that follow Jesus' baptism would have to have a conscience that is able to be taught knowledge, infants cannot be taught such spiritual knowledge and they are not able to give God the answer of a good conscience which one does when they are baptized into Jesus Christ, or into his religion/faith, etc. 1st Peter 3:21.

 

[Johann]

"Both Scripture and the original Churches were both bequeathed to us by Apostles." ~ You are very cunning in your attempt to avoid truth and what has already been addressed to you, as though it has not been dealt with thoroughly when indeed it has. Dealing with you is like speaking to an politician who all he does is put spins on what has been plainly stated, which is very confusing to those on the outside trying to see who is telling the truth and who is fake. So, my job with folks like you is to slow down and not allow you to confuse those sincere folks trying to decide which one is right, which one is fake. You are practicing deceit, now let me see if I can prove it ~ pretty sure I can. You said:

To which I said back to you:

synergy, who should care what the original churches taught once the scriptures where finished and the apostles died off? God's word lives on and as children of God we live by the words of the Living God recorded in our bibles ~ not by what the churches taught after John the beloved apostle died around 90-95 A.D. Not interested in so-called church traditions as though those traditions are equal to God's word and in many cases above the scriptures, with men like you and the whores from EOC/RCC think are though they are,~ reason being because the corruption that soon enter into the churches support their false teachings, whereas they get no support from the scriptures.

Again, we are talking about what the churches taught after John died, from 95 A.D. onward, not before then. Again ~ We are not speaking about 33 - 95 A.D. even though false doctrine try to enter in, but the apostle's dealt with it head on, but they knew that as soon as they left, the flood gate would be open and was it ever!

We not only accept everything in the word of God that God recorded for us, but we love the same ~ we show that love by rejecting everything that the scriptures does not teach.

What we strongly reject is HISTORY of what the early churches and so-called church fathers believe as though taht is on par with God's word, and so should you, and you would, if you were a firm believer in the word of God, but obviously you are not. The only false prophets here would be anyone who lives by history and churches fathers teachings above the written word of God recorded in our bibles! We as bible believing Christians live by the word of our heavenly Father, period. Is this clear?

Oh really? Prayer puts one trust in God alone for Him to reveal his truth to us, not in ourselves to began to use your so-called critical thinking that always lead one away from the scriptures, whereas, prayer to God causes one to trust totally in the scriptures. Prayer, makes us noble believers like those of Berean in Acts 17:11. Btw, we darn not serve God with our pitiful brains, but with the new heart he has given to us by his grace.

No, those that follow Jesus' baptism would have to have a conscience that is able to be taught knowledge, infants cannot be taught such spiritual knowledge and they are not able to give God the answer of a good conscience which one does when they are baptized into Jesus Christ, or into his religion/faith, etc. 1st Peter 3:21.

I wholeheartedly concur @Red Baker.

Johann.

 

[synergy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOa1hulVSxE&t=3492s

75,074 views Streamed live on Jul 31, 2019
What can we say about infant baptism based just on the Bible? This video is a survey through a bunch of key passages that relate to the topic. I present it as an issue that we should not divide over but an issue that is worth examining biblically and talking about.
We will be looking at the "household" baptisms in Acts, and the idea that a parallel between circumcision and baptism means we should baptize infants. We'll also examine the New Testament nature of baptism since this relates to the idea of baptizing infants.

Let's rectify this author's strawman alteration of Acts 2:39 and then we can discuss everything else.

The issue is not whether infants are descendants of their parents—the question is whether Acts 2:39 is referring exclusively to infants when it mentions "children" (τέκνοις, teknois). The Greek word τέκνα (tekna) does not strictly mean infants; it refers to offspring or descendants in a general sense,

I never said that τέκνα strictly mean infants. That's a false accusation. What I'm claiming is that your children is your children which by definition includes infants.

which includes children of all ages and even future generations.

Exactly! Thank you for making my point. Therefore, Acts 2:38-39 is inclusive of infants.

For example, in Romans 9:7, Paul states: "Neither are they all children (τέκνα, tekna) because they are the seed of Abraham"—clearly referring to all of Abraham’s descendants, not just infants. Likewise, Acts 13:32-33 uses "the promise to our children" to mean successive generations, not specifically babies.

In Acts 2:39, Peter extends the promise of salvation to:

The immediate audience ("to you")
Their descendants ("to your children/offspring")
All those God will call in the future ("to all who are far off")
This context indicates that Peter is speaking of future generations who will come to faith, not mandating infant baptism. Furthermore, verse 38 still requires repentance before baptism, which an infant cannot perform. Thus, the argument does not deny that infants are descendants but rather refutes the assumption that "children" in Acts 2:39 must refer exclusively to infants.

Again, that assumption was never my point. That is your strawman.

Now, it is on you to give this a listen, if not, my work here is done.

The tennis ball is now in your court.

 

[Johann]

Let's rectify this author's strawman alteration of Acts 2:39 and then we can discuss everything else.

I never said that τέκνα strictly mean infants. That's a false accusation. What I'm claiming is that your children is your children which by definition includes infants.

Exactly! Thank you for making my point. Therefore, Acts 2:38-39 is inclusive of infants.

Again, that assumption was never my point. That is your strawman.

The tennis ball is now in your court.

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13, Lexham Bible) – If you are unwilling to listen to the biblical evidence presented by Mike Winger and the Scriptures he expounds upon in refuting infant baptism, the responsibility to engage with the argument now rests upon you, not me.

Even within Jewish tradition, there is no precedent for infant baptism—"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)

Yet even those entrusted with the divine revelation never practiced infant baptism.

To argue for it as Scriptural, you would necessarily have to step outside of the Word of God and lean upon external traditions rather than what is written, for "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6).

I guess we are done here @synergy.

J.

 

[synergy]

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13, Lexham Bible) – If you are unwilling to listen to the biblical evidence presented by Mike Winger and the Scriptures he expounds upon in refuting infant baptism, the responsibility to engage with the argument now rests upon you, not me.

I tend to stay away from authors who manufacture strawmen. I was expecting better from you. I see how you are so exacting with languages. That is no small task. That takes mindful analysis capabilities that very few people possess.

Even within Jewish tradition, there is no precedent for infant baptism—"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)

Nobody equates baptism with circumcision. That's another strawman.

Yet even those entrusted with the divine revelation never practiced infant baptism.

We already know that there is no verse explicitly prohibiting infant baptism so you're just shooting in the dark here.

To argue for it as Scriptural, you would necessarily have to step outside of the Word of God and lean upon external traditions rather than what is written, for "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6).

To argue against it as Scriptural, you would necessarily have to step outside of the Word of God and lean upon external traditions rather than what is written.

Besides Acts 2 and Jesus' Baptism, my evidence is archeological sites. Your only evidence is the Anabaptists and fringe groups over 1000 years removed from the Apostles. I'll take my chances with Acts 2, Jesus' Baptism, and archeological objective evidence.

I guess we are done here @synergy.

You possess the free will to give up.

 

[Red Baker]

The reformed take ordinary verses and make them mean all sorts of incorrect doctrine.

Matthew 11:25
25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
Now, let's look at Matthew 11 in full:

I have never been part of the Reformed community of believers, as a matter of fact, they reject much of my understanding as I do their. Unconditionally election is not a Reformed doctrine, even though some of them believe in election of grace, yet when we pressed them to explain their understanding of unconditional, it is evident that they bring works into the back door, whereas the Armenians boldly come through the front door shouting... synergism, synergism, let the god of synergy reign! They have one of their prophets on this forum, that proudly bears their name.

Fran, you said: "Now, let's look at Matthew 11 in full:" That's okay, no problem, but going back and looking at other scriptures will not change what is clearly written in Matthew 11:25, but, we can wait.

Verse 14
14 "And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
Verse 14 speak of Free Will.

Fran, you are not reading this correctly, nor considering what the Lord meant by saying what he did ~ this has nothing to do the free will of a unregenerate sinner. The meaning of this scriptures is this: Jesus was going to make an spiritual application concerning John the Baptist, that it would be hard for any to consider, unless taught by the Spirit of God~he said that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the scripture which prophesied that Elijah would come.

Malachi 4:5​

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:”

Was John literally Elijah? No, but he had the same spirit and power and manner of preaching that Elijah had, so in this sense John was indeed the fulfilment of Malachi 4:5. Actually you add to what Jesus said:

Matthew 11:14​

“And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.”

It is a matter of be willing to be taught understanding the scriptures in a spiritual sense and not taking them literally.

Verse 15
15 "He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Verse 15 means that a person is ABLE TO HEAR,,,,IF he WANTS TO HEAR.
Free Will.

Fran, notice what the Lord said...

Matthew 11:15​

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” past tense verb ~ those that already have spiritual ear, then let THEM hear! It is a call to born again believers to use their spiritual ear to listen carefully what Jesus is saying.

Verse 20
20 Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent.
Again, you're faced with having to read about Free Will.
Jesus denounces Chorazin, Bethsaida, Tyre, Sidon.....because they DID NOT REPENT.....sounds like Free Will.

No they did not repent, yet some did when they heard and saw Jesus' miracles, and Fran the next verses will tell us why this is so.

Matthew 11:25​

“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.”

So, there Fran we have our answer, as to why some believe and repented, and others harden their hearts even more. "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." God left some to their own deceived and wicked hearts, since he was not under obligation to show mercy to anyone.

Of course one can only see the Kingdom when he is born again!

Jesus said "except" one is born again ( meaning born again first), he cannot see~a huge difference. That's the truth that the Lord was teaching in John 3:1-8

Enough for now.

 

[MTMattie]

Anyone, please answer this.

If faith is a gift after regeneration why would the one who gives this faith not also be able to gift the knowledge to be taught... or better said to be taught to understanding... the knowledge that evidently is needed in order for that faith to take place so the regeneration does not go away?

@Red Baker, reply #6732

"No, those that follow Jesus' baptism would have to have a conscience that is able to be taught knowledge, infants cannot be taught such spiritual knowledge and they are not able to give God the answer of a good conscience which one does when they are baptized into Jesus Christ, or into his religion/faith, etc. 1st Peter 3:21.

And since we know that there are 2 cases of seeming regeneration in the bible with infants still in their mothers wombs.... John the Baptist and Jeremiah... Just read both accounts, I don't think I need to post them here...were they given faith to believe before being taught spiritual knowledge or were they basically regenerated and the knowledge came as soon as they could understand anything?

The bible does not teach on this for John.... but Luke 1:15 states... which is fairly clear,
for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

And for Jeremiah
Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

 

[synergy]

Anyone, please answer this.

If faith is a gift after regeneration why would the one who gives this faith not also be able to gift the knowledge to be taught... or better said to be taught to understanding... the knowledge that evidently is needed in order for that faith to take place so the regeneration does not go away?

@Red Baker, reply #6732


And since we know that there are 2 cases of seeming regeneration in the bible with infants still in their mothers wombs.... John the Baptist and Jeremiah... Just read both accounts, I don't think I need to post them here...were they given faith to believe before being taught spiritual knowledge or were they basically regenerated and the knowledge came as soon as they could understand anything?

The bible does not teach on this for John.... but Luke 1:15 states... which is fairly clear,
for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

And for Jeremiah
Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

Excellent points! Whether or not they as infants were regenerated, they most definitely came under the righteousness of Christ. To say otherwise is the doctrine of demons.

This all links up with the Jesus' Baptism where his righteousness was manifested.

Keep the Faith!

 

[synergy]

"Both Scripture and the original Churches were both bequeathed to us by Apostles." ~ You are very cunning in your attempt to avoid truth and what has already been addressed to you, as though it has not been dealt with thoroughly when indeed it has. Dealing with you is like speaking to an politician who all he does is put spins on what has been plainly stated, which is very confusing to those on the outside trying to see who is telling the truth and who is fake. So, my job with folks like you is to slow down and not allow you to confuse those sincere folks trying to decide which one is right, which one is fake. You are practicing deceit,

You may not be a Calvinist but you certainly act like one with your unmitigated spewing out of ad hominems.

now let me see if I can prove it ~ pretty sure I can.

You failed miserably again.

You said:

To which I said back to you:

synergy, who should care what the original churches taught once the scriptures where finished and the apostles died off? God's word lives on and as children of God we live by the words of the Living God recorded in our bibles ~ not by what the churches taught after John the beloved apostle died around 90-95 A.D. Not interested in so-called church traditions as though those traditions are equal to God's word and in many cases above the scriptures, with men like you and the whores from EOC/RCC think are though they are,~ reason being because the corruption that soon enter into the churches support their false teachings, whereas they get no support from the scriptures.

You might not care what the original Churches taught but the Bible does care and even teaches that they are the Pillar of Truth. Some fine example you are, spitting on God's Pillar of Truth.

(1 Tim 3:15) But if I should delay, that you may know how you ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Furthermore, the Bible promotes both oral teachings (by word) and written teachings (by our letter). Where do you think oral teachings are best heard? In a Church of course.

(2 Th 2:15) Therefore, my brothers, stand fast and hold the teachings which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.

Again, we are talking about what the churches taught after John died, from 95 A.D. onward, not before then. Again ~ We are not speaking about 33 - 95 A.D. even though false doctrine try to enter in, but the apostle's dealt with it head on, but they knew that as soon as they left, the flood gate would be open and was it ever!

You have such little faith in how the Bible defines the Church of the living God as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

We not only accept everything in the word of God that God recorded for us, but we love the same ~ we show that love by rejecting everything that the scriptures does not teach.

Really? Why don't you believe 1 Tim 3:15 and 2 Th 2:15?

I see how you love verses like 2 Th 2:13 so much that you launch other verses against it hoping that your interpretation of those other verses overwhelm what 2 Th 2:13 clearly says, namely that belief precedes election. Throwing verses against verses will never allow you to arrive at the Truth. Verses must be harmonized, not overwhelmed into submission according to your misguided presuppositions.

What we strongly reject is HISTORY of what the early churches and so-called church fathers believe as though taht is on par with God's word, and so should you, and you would, if you were a firm believer in the word of God, but obviously you are not. The only false prophets here would be anyone who lives by history and churches fathers teachings above the written word of God recorded in our bibles! We as bible believing Christians live by the word of our heavenly Father, period. Is this clear?

The only person here going against the Bible is you. No only are you going against the verses I quoted but you are also going against the archeological evidence of infant baptism, the Roman Catacomb Churches for example.

Oh really? Prayer puts one trust in God alone for Him to reveal his truth to us, not in ourselves to began to use your so-called critical thinking that always lead one away from the scriptures, whereas, prayer to God causes one to trust totally in the scriptures. Prayer, makes us noble believers like those of Berean in Acts 17:11. Btw, we darn not serve God with our pitiful brains, but with the new heart he has given to us by his grace.

I see that your prayers have pitted you against many Bible verses such as 1 Tim 3:15 and 2 Th 2:13-15 in the short time we've interacted. I'm sure there will be more verses that conflict with your heresies the more we talk. God gave us a mind for critical thinking and it's time to make use of it.

No, those that follow Jesus' baptism would have to have a conscience that is able to be taught knowledge, infants cannot be taught such spiritual knowledge and they are not able to give God the answer of a good conscience which one does when they are baptized into Jesus Christ, or into his religion/faith, etc. 1st Peter 3:21.

Conscience is our alarm system signaling sin in our lives. What are Infants guilty of? Being born?

1 Cor 7:14 tells us that children can be "holy". Where do you think that holiness comes from? Obviously, Christ’s righteousness. To say otherwise is the doctrine of demons. This all links up with the Jesus' Baptism where his righteousness was manifested.

(1 Cor 7:14) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

In short, your prayers have contradicted the Bible so much that they are an utter disaster.