An Article on free will

Kermos.....
Let me make this abundantly clear to you:

1. You believe in a God that causes man to sin and causes evil.
THIS GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

2. You believe in a loveless God that sends most of humanity to hell and for no other reason than for His own good pleasure.
THIS GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

3. Your theology did NOT EXIST before Luther, Calvin, Knox and the rest...so IT IS HERETICAL and UNORTHODOX.
THIS THEOLOGY IS NON-EXISTANT IN CHIRSTIANITY.

4. Your theology blasphemes God....attributing to God the work of SATAN.
You attribute sin and evil to God...
THIS IS BLASPHEMOUS.

I wouldn't be so hung up on a WORD if I were you since you're practicing HERESY and are BLASPHEMING GOD.

I'd much more worry about that when you finally face your maker and have blasphemed Him all your life.

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"​

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!!!
 
Last edited:
Not to interrupt your back and forth with @synergy I have a question not one person has given a reasonable answer to.

Perhaps you can.

Why are Jewish baby boys still circumcised on the 8th day? Is it because of the covenant that God had with Abraham? The old covenant that
is still being followed even these days by some?

Four thousand plus years ago Abraham was instructed by God to circumcise males on the eight day for we read: “This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.” (Genesis 17:10-12).

Approximately 3,500 years ago God instructed Moses to carry out the same command: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” (Leviticus 12:3).
While I appreciate your stance for infant baptism, it is not in Scripture @MTMattie.

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Act_16:15 "her household had been baptized" This apparently refers to her family, servants, and workers (cf. Cornelius, Act_10:2; Act_11:14; and the Philippian jailer, Act_16:33). Also, notice that she, like others in the NT, was baptized immediately. It is not an option! See Special Topic: Baptism at Act_2:38.

The theological question which this verse raises is, "Were children involved in these examples of household conversions in Acts?" If so, then there is a biblical precedent for infant baptism in those "family salvations." Those who assert this as evidence also point toward the OT practice of including children into the nation of Israel as infants (i.e., circumcision at eight days of age, see James D. G. Dunn, pp. 175-176).

Please read the ^^

Although it is surely possible that faith in Christ immediately affected the whole family (cf. Deu_5:9; Deu_7:9) in this societal setting, the question remains, "Is this a universal truth to be practiced in every culture?"

I would assert that the NT is a revelation about personal volitional choices related to the awakening sense of guilt. One must recognize his need for a savior. This leads to the further question of, "Are people born sinful in Adam, or are they sinful when they choose to disobey God?"

Judaism allows a period of childhood innocence until a knowledge of the Law and a commitment to keep it; for males, age 13, for females, age 12. The rabbis do not emphasize Genesis 3 as much as the church.

The NT is an adult book. It asserts God's love for children, but its message is directed toward adults!
However, we live in a democratic, individual-focused society, but the Near East is a tribal, clan, family society!

And her household (kai ho oikos autēs). Who constituted her “household”? The term oikos, originally means the building as below, “into my house” and then it includes the inmates of a house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia’s “household” went beyond “the women” employed by her who like her had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed. “Possibly Euodia and Syntyche and the other women, Php_4:2, Php_4:3, may have been included in the family of Lydia, who may have employed many slaves and freed women in her trade” (Knowling). “

This statement cannot be claimed as any argument for infant baptism, since the Greek word may mean her servants or her work-people” (Furneaux). In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees “infants” or not according to his predilections or preferences.


1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.



Also the household of Stephanas (kai ton Stephanā oikon). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul’s amanuensis reminded him of this case. Paul calls him a first-fruit of Achaia (1Co_16:15) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (1Co_16:17), clearly a family that justified Paul’s personal attention about baptism.
Besides (loipon). Accusative of general reference, “as for anything else.” Added to make clear that he is not meaning to omit any one who deserves mention. See also 1Th_4:1; 1Co_4:2; 2Co_13:11; 2Ti_4:8. Ellicott insists on a sharp distinction from to loipon “as for the rest” (2Th_3:1; Php_3:1; Php_4:8; Eph_6:10). Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Rom_6:2-6), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.

There is no biblical evidence that John the Baptist baptized infants. The accounts of his ministry in the Gospels describe his baptism as one of repentance (Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3), which inherently requires an individual's conscious decision to turn from sin. Infants, being incapable of such repentance, would not fit the criteria for John’s baptism.

1. John’s Baptism Was for Repentance
Matthew 3:6 – “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”
Mark 1:4 – “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
Luke 3:3 – “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

The explicit connection between baptism and confession of sins implies that those being baptized had the ability to recognize their sin and respond.

2. John’s Interaction with the Pharisees and Sadducees
Matthew 3:7-8 – “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.”
John expected those coming to be baptized to demonstrate repentance through their actions. Infants, lacking moral accountability, could not meet this requirement.

3. The Absence of Infants in the Baptismal Accounts



Nowhere in the Gospels does it mention infants being baptized by John.
Those who came to him were described as multitudes (Matthew 3:5) who were actively seeking repentance and confessing their sins (Matthew 3:6).

This is in contrast to later household baptisms in Acts, which some use to argue for infant baptism. However, even in those cases, belief and faith were emphasized (Acts 16:31-34).

4. Baptism as Preparation for the Messiah
John’s baptism was preparatory, calling people to repentance in anticipation of the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6).
Jesus himself was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15), setting an example for believers.

The baptism administered by John was different from later Christian baptism, which identified believers with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:3-4).
Conclusion
There is no textual or theological basis to suggest that John baptized infants. His baptism was tied to repentance and confession of sins, prerequisites that infants could not fulfill. Therefore, John’s ministry aligns with believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism.

Think East-not West and you may get it right.

J.
 
Last edited:
On child baptism

1cor 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1cor 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
1cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Baptism is the outward manifestation and testimony of the inward change, a baby can't.

Nevertheless babies are clean and holy because one or both of the parents are Christian.
 
On child baptism

1cor 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1cor 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
1cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Baptism is the outward manifestation and testimony of the inward change, a baby can't.

Nevertheless babies are clean and holy because one or both of the parents are Christian.
Is sanctified in the wife (hēgiastai en tēi gunaiki). Perfect passive indicative of hagiazō, to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul’s language.
Else were your children unclean (epei ara ta tekna akatharta). The common ellipse of the condition with epei: “since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (akatharta).” If the relations of the parents be holy, the child’s birth must be holy also (not illegitimate).

“He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not hagios till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism” (Robertson and Plummer).
RWP.

Just to add @ProDeo.

J.
 
While I appreciate your stance for infant baptism, it is not in Scripture @MTMattie.

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Act_16:15 "her household had been baptized" This apparently refers to her family, servants, and workers (cf. Cornelius, Act_10:2; Act_11:14; and the Philippian jailer, Act_16:33). Also, notice that she, like others in the NT, was baptized immediately. It is not an option! See Special Topic: Baptism at Act_2:38.

The theological question which this verse raises is, "Were children involved in these examples of household conversions in Acts?" If so, then there is a biblical precedent for infant baptism in those "family salvations." Those who assert this as evidence also point toward the OT practice of including children into the nation of Israel as infants (i.e., circumcision at eight days of age, see James D. G. Dunn, pp. 175-176).

Please read the ^^

Although it is surely possible that faith in Christ immediately affected the whole family (cf. Deu_5:9; Deu_7:9) in this societal setting, the question remains, "Is this a universal truth to be practiced in every culture?"

I would assert that the NT is a revelation about personal volitional choices related to the awakening sense of guilt. One must recognize his need for a savior. This leads to the further question of, "Are people born sinful in Adam, or are they sinful when they choose to disobey God?"

Judaism allows a period of childhood innocence until a knowledge of the Law and a commitment to keep it; for males, age 13, for females, age 12. The rabbis do not emphasize Genesis 3 as much as the church.

The NT is an adult book. It asserts God's love for children, but its message is directed toward adults!
However, we live in a democratic, individual-focused society, but the Near East is a tribal, clan, family society!

And her household (kai ho oikos autēs). Who constituted her “household”? The term oikos, originally means the building as below, “into my house” and then it includes the inmates of a house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia’s “household” went beyond “the women” employed by her who like her had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed. “Possibly Euodia and Syntyche and the other women, Php_4:2, Php_4:3, may have been included in the family of Lydia, who may have employed many slaves and freed women in her trade” (Knowling). “

This statement cannot be claimed as any argument for infant baptism, since the Greek word may mean her servants or her work-people” (Furneaux). In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees “infants” or not according to his predilections or preferences.


1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.



Also the household of Stephanas (kai ton Stephanā oikon). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul’s amanuensis reminded him of this case. Paul calls him a first-fruit of Achaia (1Co_16:15) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (1Co_16:17), clearly a family that justified Paul’s personal attention about baptism.
Besides (loipon). Accusative of general reference, “as for anything else.” Added to make clear that he is not meaning to omit any one who deserves mention. See also 1Th_4:1; 1Co_4:2; 2Co_13:11; 2Ti_4:8. Ellicott insists on a sharp distinction from to loipon “as for the rest” (2Th_3:1; Php_3:1; Php_4:8; Eph_6:10). Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Rom_6:2-6), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.

There is no biblical evidence that John the Baptist baptized infants. The accounts of his ministry in the Gospels describe his baptism as one of repentance (Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3), which inherently requires an individual's conscious decision to turn from sin. Infants, being incapable of such repentance, would not fit the criteria for John’s baptism.

1. John’s Baptism Was for Repentance
Matthew 3:6 – “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”
Mark 1:4 – “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
Luke 3:3 – “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

The explicit connection between baptism and confession of sins implies that those being baptized had the ability to recognize their sin and respond.

2. John’s Interaction with the Pharisees and Sadducees
Matthew 3:7-8 – “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.”
John expected those coming to be baptized to demonstrate repentance through their actions. Infants, lacking moral accountability, could not meet this requirement.

3. The Absence of Infants in the Baptismal Accounts



Nowhere in the Gospels does it mention infants being baptized by John.
Those who came to him were described as multitudes (Matthew 3:5) who were actively seeking repentance and confessing their sins (Matthew 3:6).

This is in contrast to later household baptisms in Acts, which some use to argue for infant baptism. However, even in those cases, belief and faith were emphasized (Acts 16:31-34).

4. Baptism as Preparation for the Messiah
John’s baptism was preparatory, calling people to repentance in anticipation of the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6).
Jesus himself was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15), setting an example for believers.

The baptism administered by John was different from later Christian baptism, which identified believers with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:3-4).
Conclusion
There is no textual or theological basis to suggest that John baptized infants. His baptism was tied to repentance and confession of sins, prerequisites that infants could not fulfill. Therefore, John’s ministry aligns with believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism.

Think East-not West and you may get it right.

J.
Thanks for all that work you're putting into investigating the topic. I guess you're being assisted by AI and that's ok. One word of advice, obvious when you think about it. When repentance is involved, it usually involves a person of cognition. I wouldn't waste pixels on trying to find infants in John's Baptism of Repentance. I appreciate the effort but don't rest your case on any of that. Instead, I would look at the implications of Baptisms which had no need of repentance such as Jesus' Baptism. Also, ask yourself what are the implications of the Promise and Gift of the Holy Spirit for all dependant children (infants obviously included) of the Pentecostal crowd, believers in other lands, and all future believers as mentioned in Acts 2:38-39.

Although, there is no explicit account of an infant being baptized, there is also no explicit prohibition of infant baptism in the Bible. So we both have to use critical thinking to arrive at the Truth. For example, critical thinking dictates that there is very little chance you find infants involved in a Baptism of Repentance (John's Baptism). Mind you, John the Baptism leapt for joy in his mother's womb so maybe there were a few infants baptized there, I don't know.
 
Thanks for all that work you're putting into investigating the topic. I guess you're being assisted by AI and that's ok. One word of advice, obvious when you think about it. When repentance is involved, it usually involves a person of cognition. I wouldn't waste pixels on trying to find infants in John's Baptism of Repentance. I appreciate the effort but don't rest your case on any of that. Instead, I would look at the implications of Baptisms which had no need of repentance such as Jesus' Baptism. Also, ask yourself what are the implications of the Promise and Gift of the Holy Spirit for all dependant children (infants obviously included) of the Pentecostal crowd, believers in other lands, and all future believers as mentioned in Acts 2:38-39.

Although, there is no explicit account of an infant being baptized, there is also no explicit prohibition of infant baptism in the Bible. So we both have to use critical thinking to arrive at the Truth. For example, critical thinking dictates that there is very little chance you find infants involved in a Baptism of Repentance (John's Baptism). Mind you, John the Baptism leapt for joy in his mother's womb so maybe there were a few infants baptized there, I don't know.
I'm all for critical, analytical thinking brother.

Share me verses you might think imply infant baptism-or should we start from the above? What you just posted?

Also I'm not in front of my computer 24/7 but more than willing to go through scripture with you, just you and me.

10. 34 PM South Africa time.

God bless.

J.
 
While I appreciate your stance for infant baptism, it is not in Scripture @MTMattie.

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Act_16:15 "her household had been baptized" This apparently refers to her family, servants, and workers (cf. Cornelius, Act_10:2; Act_11:14; and the Philippian jailer, Act_16:33). Also, notice that she, like others in the NT, was baptized immediately. It is not an option! See Special Topic: Baptism at Act_2:38.

The theological question which this verse raises is, "Were children involved in these examples of household conversions in Acts?" If so, then there is a biblical precedent for infant baptism in those "family salvations." Those who assert this as evidence also point toward the OT practice of including children into the nation of Israel as infants (i.e., circumcision at eight days of age, see James D. G. Dunn, pp. 175-176).

Please read the ^^

Although it is surely possible that faith in Christ immediately affected the whole family (cf. Deu_5:9; Deu_7:9) in this societal setting, the question remains, "Is this a universal truth to be practiced in every culture?"

I would assert that the NT is a revelation about personal volitional choices related to the awakening sense of guilt. One must recognize his need for a savior. This leads to the further question of, "Are people born sinful in Adam, or are they sinful when they choose to disobey God?"

Judaism allows a period of childhood innocence until a knowledge of the Law and a commitment to keep it; for males, age 13, for females, age 12. The rabbis do not emphasize Genesis 3 as much as the church.

The NT is an adult book. It asserts God's love for children, but its message is directed toward adults!
However, we live in a democratic, individual-focused society, but the Near East is a tribal, clan, family society!

And her household (kai ho oikos autēs). Who constituted her “household”? The term oikos, originally means the building as below, “into my house” and then it includes the inmates of a house. There is nothing here to show whether Lydia’s “household” went beyond “the women” employed by her who like her had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed. “Possibly Euodia and Syntyche and the other women, Php_4:2, Php_4:3, may have been included in the family of Lydia, who may have employed many slaves and freed women in her trade” (Knowling). “

This statement cannot be claimed as any argument for infant baptism, since the Greek word may mean her servants or her work-people” (Furneaux). In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees “infants” or not according to his predilections or preferences.


1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.



Also the household of Stephanas (kai ton Stephanā oikon). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul’s amanuensis reminded him of this case. Paul calls him a first-fruit of Achaia (1Co_16:15) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (1Co_16:17), clearly a family that justified Paul’s personal attention about baptism.
Besides (loipon). Accusative of general reference, “as for anything else.” Added to make clear that he is not meaning to omit any one who deserves mention. See also 1Th_4:1; 1Co_4:2; 2Co_13:11; 2Ti_4:8. Ellicott insists on a sharp distinction from to loipon “as for the rest” (2Th_3:1; Php_3:1; Php_4:8; Eph_6:10). Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Rom_6:2-6), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.

There is no biblical evidence that John the Baptist baptized infants. The accounts of his ministry in the Gospels describe his baptism as one of repentance (Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3), which inherently requires an individual's conscious decision to turn from sin. Infants, being incapable of such repentance, would not fit the criteria for John’s baptism.

1. John’s Baptism Was for Repentance
Matthew 3:6 – “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”
Mark 1:4 – “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
Luke 3:3 – “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

The explicit connection between baptism and confession of sins implies that those being baptized had the ability to recognize their sin and respond.

2. John’s Interaction with the Pharisees and Sadducees
Matthew 3:7-8 – “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.”
John expected those coming to be baptized to demonstrate repentance through their actions. Infants, lacking moral accountability, could not meet this requirement.

3. The Absence of Infants in the Baptismal Accounts



Nowhere in the Gospels does it mention infants being baptized by John.
Those who came to him were described as multitudes (Matthew 3:5) who were actively seeking repentance and confessing their sins (Matthew 3:6).

This is in contrast to later household baptisms in Acts, which some use to argue for infant baptism. However, even in those cases, belief and faith were emphasized (Acts 16:31-34).

4. Baptism as Preparation for the Messiah
John’s baptism was preparatory, calling people to repentance in anticipation of the Messiah (Luke 3:4-6).
Jesus himself was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15), setting an example for believers.

The baptism administered by John was different from later Christian baptism, which identified believers with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:3-4).
Conclusion
There is no textual or theological basis to suggest that John baptized infants. His baptism was tied to repentance and confession of sins, prerequisites that infants could not fulfill. Therefore, John’s ministry aligns with believer’s baptism rather than infant baptism.

Think East-not West and you may get it right.

J.
Well Johann,

I KNOW you are not on the infant baptism side.

I had asked Why are Jewish baby boys still circumcised on the 8th day? Is it because of the covenant that God had with Abraham? The old covenant that is still being followed even these days by some?

You responded with Judaism allows a period of childhood innocence until a knowledge of the Law and a commitment to keep it; for males, age 13, for females, age 12
Great... but that still does not say if the circumcision is due to God's covenant or if it is by tradition?

I do not think it as is simple as saying yes, that is the reason, the covenant end.

I have known Jewish women whose baby boys had that done, and one in particular who almost had a nervous breakdown over it... so bad she refused to talk about it.

None of the ones I know personally were particularly "religious" . So I was simply wondering why something would be still done as it was back in the day ?
It has to be by tradition...

Same with a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah... though that seems to be more religious. ????????

So, forget it.

I have a rabbi I occasionally email with. Ill ask him.

Thank you anyway.

BTW... one thing that got this stuck in my mind was the number of Jewish people I know that marry out of the faith. And the incredible number
that marry into the RCC.

Inclusive of my aunt who was RC. A fellow I thought I was going to marry, and a friend who married a Jewish fellow. The women I know and know of have all gone fairly much neutral on their religious side (Not me... hence no marriage... No I wont tell you why.) but the two I know so well did and their sons were all in the traditions of the husbands heritage... and the one daughter did have her bat mitzvah. Oh, I forgot one fellow I know who married RC. No idea what they did with the son and daughter but she was RC. And I never knew her well at all. And I did not feel it my place to ask him.

Well, there you go Johann. You do have a way of dragging personal things out of me...

I am stopping that right now.

NO MORE
 
Man has a will but its not free from Gods control, nor the control of the prince of this world if unregenerate. Eph 2:2-3

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The words "according to" means:

according to anything as a standard,agreeably to

according to the prince of the power of the air

our mind was being governed. We arent free from that by nature.
So we're just puppets being controlled by either God or Satan? What a cruel trick God played on us, if that is true. Apparently He doesn't love us after all.
 
I'm all for critical, analytical thinking brother.
Share me verses you might think imply infant baptism-or should we start from the above? What you just posted?
Also I'm not in front of my computer 24/7 but more than willing to go through scripture with you, just you and me.
10. 34 PM South Africa time.
God bless.
J.
Please start with the above and take your time. I appreciate everything you say.
 
On child baptism

1cor 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1cor 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
1cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Baptism is the outward manifestation and testimony of the inward change, a baby can't.

Nevertheless babies are clean and holy because one or both of the parents are Christian.
They are clean and holy whether both parents are saved or not. When they reach the age of accountability (which most likely is different for each child, but God knows), i.e. they understand right from wrong, good from evil, then God will hold them accountable from that day on.
 
I had asked Why are Jewish baby boys still circumcised on the 8th day? Is it because of the covenant that God had with Abraham? The old covenant that is still being followed even these days by some?
The circumcision of Jewish baby boys on the eighth day is rooted in both God’s covenant (bᵉrîṯ, בְּרִית) with Abraham and Jewish tradition (halakhah, הֲלָכָה).

1. The Covenant with Abraham (בְּרִית אַבְרָהָם - Bᵉrîṯ Avraham)

Genesis 17:10-12 explicitly commands circumcision (mîlâh, מִילָה) as the sign of the covenant:
זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל־זָכָר׃
“This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.”

Circumcision is the sign (ʾôṯ, אוֹת) of this covenant, permanently marking Jewish males as part of God’s chosen people.

2. The Command in the Torah (תּוֹרָה)

Leviticus 12:3 repeats the command:
וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ׃
“On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”

The eighth day (yôm hašᵉmînî, יוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי) is significant both medically and symbolically.

This is a divine command, not merely a cultural practice, though tradition has reinforced it over time.

3. Rabbinic Tradition (הֲלָכָה - Halakhah)
While circumcision originates in the covenant, its continuation is strongly reinforced by Jewish law and tradition (halakhah).

The Talmud (Shabbat 132a) declares that circumcision takes precedence even over the Sabbath:

“Great is circumcision, for it overrides even the severity of Shabbat.”

The ceremony, called brit milah (בְּרִית מִילָה), remains a fundamental Jewish rite, even among secular Jews.

4. Emotional and Cultural Weight

Many Jewish parents circumcise their sons even if they are not religious because--

Cultural identity—It marks the child as Jewish, regardless of belief.

Family and societal expectations—Many Jewish communities uphold it as a core tradition.

Fear of breaking continuity—Some parents worry about being the first to stop a practice dating back thousands of years.

The emotional distress some mothers feel might be due to modern sensibilities, yet the practice persists because of deep-seated tradition.

5. Bar Mitzvah (בַּר מִצְוָה) and Bat Mitzvah (בַּת מִצְוָה)
The bar mitzvah (for boys, age 13) and bat mitzvah (for girls, age 12) are not biblical but rabbinic traditions.

They symbolize a Jewish child's entry into religious responsibility (daʿat, דַּעַת, meaning awareness of the Law).

Unlike circumcision, which is explicitly commanded, bar/bat mitzvah ceremonies developed later as a communal affirmation of maturity.

So-in conclusion
Brit milah is primarily due to God’s covenant, but Jewish tradition plays a huge role in its preservation, even among secular Jews.
Bar mitzvah/bat mitzvah are not based on divine command but on rabbinic tradition that marks maturity and accountability under Jewish law.

I do not think it as is simple as saying yes, that is the reason, the covenant end.
Answered.

None of the ones I know personally were particularly "religious" . So I was simply wondering why something would be still done as it was back in the day ?
It has to be by tradition...
Correct.

Same with a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah... though that seems to be more religious. ????????
Not biblical.

Well, there you go Johann. You do have a way of dragging personal things out of me...

I am stopping that right now.

NO MORE
No problem Rella-hope this was helpful.

Like I have said to @synergy--I'm not at my computer 24/7 and good to hear you have a rabbi teaching you.

Shalom.

J.
 
Please start with the above and take your time. I appreciate everything you say.
12.00 AM now brother-I have to sign off.

See you tomorrow, God willing.

Johann.
 
@Johann was the one who brought up the topic of Church Fathers. So he can but I can't??? Why the double-standards?

Johann talked about History but I can't??? Again, why the double standards?
@synergy

First, I was not talking to Johann concerning church fathers, or history, in this thread, so I did not need to address anything he had said. If I was speaking to Johann, then I would not refrain from posting to him~he at least will use scriptures, something you do very little of.
The Apostles bequeathed to us not only their Writings but also the Churches they planted. Why do you spit on what they themselves established??? Why are you so anti-Apostolic?
I have no clue what you are attempting to say, not sure you do.
I did bring up Bible verses which once again you immediately ran away from. This is typical behavior of heretics.
synergy, I have addressed everything you have thus brought up...trust me, I have not seen one thing that you have brought up that is even worthy of a second consideration. I think you have trouble of just being honest, so did the Pharisees.
And on top of all that, you despise that the Baptism of Jesus allows infants the Promise of the Holy Spirit.
Again, take scriptures and speak to prove your doctrine. No where in the word of God is there for infants the promise of God's Spirit, NO where.
So run away from the Bible, the Apostles, and History with your lame anti-Bible, anti-Apostles, anti-History double-standards pitiful excuses.
Run away? Not from you, not now, not ever. You saying that I'm anti-Bible, etc., means nothing, unless you can prove it. The Pharisees said that Christ did miracles through the power of the devils, you put yourself into the company of religious leaders of Jesus' day, casting about the same at him and his disciples. His followers today should not expect anything less from folks like you.

Matthew 10:25​

“It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?”
RB would also have to answer for Acts 2:38-39 where Peter is not only addressing the Pentecostal crowd but also "all those who are far off". And not only that but also "as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself"!!! That's all future believers! Will all these families be void of infants???

Will RB still maintain that none of the married couples have infants in their families? That's the only way his heretical view can hold.

Acts 2:38-39
“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself ” (Acts 2:38,39).
Never said that folks in Acts of the apostles did not have infants, without question they did. Burt, there is not a thread of evidence that any infants were ever baptized by John or the apostles, not one single evidence.

We have addressed Acts 2:38 more than once in the past couple of months, not going back over it again. I'll find the link if you desire to read it. Let us consider some scriptural guidelines given to us from the scriptures.

GUIDELINES for us to follow from the scriptures.​

There is no example at all in the Bible of any child of any age ever being baptized. Consider it well!

The children Jesus defended were not baptized (Matthew 18:1-14; 19:13-15; Mark 9:33-43). Would have been a prefect opportunity for Christ to mention baptism, but not a single word.

All the specific cases of baptism described in the New Testament are of adults, not infants, and not even youth.

Jesus fulfilled righteousness by baptism at 30 (Luke 3:21-23); Timothy was a youth, but we are not told enough to know what Paul meant by that vague term (Ist Tim 4:12; 2nd Tim 2:22).

Household baptisms prove Catholics and wanna be Catholics, and Presbyterians wrong, but not Baptists; for the word of God was taught and believed before baptism in all cases (Acts 10:44-48; 16:32-33).

The Bible is quite meager on the level of responsibility expected or required at any specific age. God judged Israel from entering Canaan from the age of 20 (Numbers 14:28-35; 32:11). A simple rule like 20 is very appealing to us that would like a black and white rule, but there is no specific age given for us to use ~ just some wise, safe guidelines to follow, nothing more.

Those under 20 are described as not knowing good from evil, but we must interpret this in light of their inability to make the decision to take Canaan themselves (Deuteronomy 1:39) ~these youthful folks are very busy trying to figure out life and how to deal with their youthful lust.

Those over 20 had to pay an atonement tax for their souls (Exodus 30:11-16; 38:26). Moses numbered all those 20 and over as able to go forth to war (Numbers 1:3,45; 26:2). Levites worked at 20 (Ist Chronicles 23:24), at 25 (Numbers 8:24), and at 30 years of age (Numbers 4:3).

God described the innocent of Nineveh as not knowing their right hand from left (Jonah 4:11). This vague description is not conclusive again, but it may be assumed near 5 years of age. Our own education-obsessed society does not attempt much instruction before the age of 5.

The shame of nakedness is an indicator from nature of active consciences (Gen 2:25; 3:7,11,22). Young children show no shame about nakedness in front of the other sex, but this changes. You must consider a child’s shame apart from habit, peer pressure, or parental restrictions.

God and men assume infancy, childhood, youth, majority, and old age (Lev 27:1-7; Eccl 11:10). Here is a valuable passage that indicates the relative value of ages and sexes for redemption. Observe that God considers all children between one month and five years as infants (27:6). The category from 5 to 20 would include children and youth, though youth might in some contexts include those under 30, when leadership began (Numbers 4:3,35,39,43,47; Luke 3:23).

The knowledge level for baptism is not high, "but it does require a conscience and some knowledge". Most instruction and growth takes place after baptism (Matt 28:18-20; Ist Peter 2:1-3; 2nd Pet 3:18).

John the Baptist required confession and repentance to be proven before baptism (Matthew 3:1-8). Peter required the same at Pentecost (Acts 2:38); and Paul taught it to all (Acts 26:20). The Jews at Pentecost, the eunuch, the jailor, and Cornelius gave evidence of faith. It requires faith in the gospel (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:12; 18:8; Hebrews 11:6). It requires the answer of an active and intelligent conscience to answer God (Ist Peter 3:21).

So much more could be said as far as a guideline to follow using God's word ~ but, enough for now.
 
Last edited:
I would look at the implications of Baptisms which had no need of repentance such as Jesus' Baptism.
That's a good point to consider ~ why was Jesus baptized, certainly not for the forgiveness of sins, but to fulfill all righteousness.

synergy ~consider: Still by Jesus being baptized, we all must admit that it took a conscience that was instructed by the word of God, to willingly submit to water baptism, with a knowledge as to why they were being baptized.

"to fulfill all righteousness" ~ It became John to administer the ordinance of baptism to Christ, as he was his forerunner, and the only administrator of it at the beginning the kingdom of God (in the sense in which it is used in the gospels) and that he might fulfil the ministry which he had received; and as it became Christ to fulfil all righteousness, moral and ceremonial, by being baptized.....water baptism being the perfect picture as why he was born into this world, a part of his Father's will, which he came to do, it became him to fulfil this also. And since it became Christ, it cannot be unbecoming us to submit to this ordinance; and since he looked upon it as a part of righteousness to be fulfilled by him, it ought to be attended to by all those who would be accounted followers of him, to do so in the exact manner in which Christ was baptized by immersion.

"to fulfill all righteousness" ~ also, baptism not only is a perfect picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, it also is a perfect picture of a future resurrection of our bodies ~ which knowledge teaches us why we are baptized, such knowledge can only be understood by a person who is able to be taught such things. This rules out infant baptism as being scriptural.

1st Corinthians 15:29​

“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”

Some at Corinth taught that there is no resurrection, and Paul asked them............why are they then baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all??” When we are baptized in water by immersion, we are saying to all that see our baptism ~we believe in a future resurrection of our bodies just as it is promised in the scriptures! If we did not believe this truth, then why are we baptized for the dead, if the dead do not come forth out of grave? So by Christ submitting to water baptism, he was testifying of a few blessed truths taught in the word of God, fulfilling all of the teaching of the scripture that Christ's righteousness secured for his people.
 
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Act_16:15 "her household had been baptized" This apparently refers to her family, servants, and workers (cf. Cornelius, Act_10:2; Act_11:14; and the Philippian jailer, Act_16:33). Also, notice that she, like others in the NT, was baptized immediately. It is not an option! See Special Topic: Baptism at Act_2:38.
@Johann
(y) Your other points were very good.
 
Yet you have said, just yesterday, that the new birth can take place after conception. That would be in a womb. THEN IF the first act of Christian obedience is accurate... mom and dad having the infant presented to the Lord and having their baptism is not only proper but necessary... as they start their child into only the Christian growth. "Raise up a child"... we are told.
@MTMattie

I did say that, but I also said that it is rare, but, only time will prove if one is truly regenerated from the womb a very hard thing to prove early on. And even if they were, they will not spoil, give hem time to make that commitment to the word of God, and that may take a few years. No two children, even siblings, have the same temperament, which does play a factor in their boldness to speak up about their inward feelings.

Proverbs 20:11~"Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right."

We ourselves may think that this child is very different from the others, but, again, give them time to make that commitment as they learn more of they seriousness of it.
Repeating... Now you say the jailer, Stephanus and Lydia had no children or infants.
Never said they did not, of course they did, with the exception of Lydia, which I would not know for sure if she did, but, maybe she did, still this would not prove infant baptism, not even close.
What about Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

Another all inclusive mention as there would also have been children and infants.... even though not our typical Christian baptism, Paul though it important enough to include it....
The key is....believed on the Lord, so, whoever the household included, servants, kinfolks, etc. they believed, which means they had to understand what they were hearing and give an answer of a good conscience before they were baptized.

1 Corinthians 10:2

And all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
Just as water baptism is a picture (one of a few) of our deliverance from the devil and this world and the judgment that is coming upon all, so as Israel following Moses into the Red sea was a beautiful pictures of their deliverance from Pharaoh and them being servants to him and the Egyptians. You are stretching this farther than it will support you in the NT if you desire to show that the children were also baptized unto Moses.

I would go to 1st Corinthians 7:14 to say that their children were in a true biblical sense protected by God by the very fact they their parents' faith, which most all children up to a certain age relied on their parents to lead, guide, and to protect them, and by doing so, God does shied them from much evil and danger that would otherwise destroy them. The children are sanctified by one of the believing parent, or even better both believing parents.

1st Corinthians 7:14 ~“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

So I want to see where specifically it says no children or infants, and not mere an assumption because it is often said it happened after they believed, because not every household would have been barren or we would have been told to emphasize its being only for those old enough.
Never said there were no children in those household, but we know none were baptized, since it is not even hinted that some were, not even once. See post #6675 for more thoughts on infants baptism.
 
Back
Top Bottom