Pastor Pending

Do you agree with this chart?

Shut it down

Baby Preston was murdered, He was beaten, sexually assaulted and suffocated by the two men who were adopting him - suffering 40 brutal injuries, including slaps, forceful grips, a fractured elbow, internal trauma, and ultimately death from a blocked airway. Former teacher Jamie Varley, 37, and his partner John McGowan-Fazakerley, 32, are accused of subjecting the healthy toddler to months of torture: physical violence, cruelty, sleep deprivation, and repeated sexual abuse. Prosecutors say Varley even filmed the dying baby with blue lips instead of calling for help, and made indecent images and videos of the naked child as "mementos." The system handed this innocent baby to monster

The propagators of Lordship Salvation have duped untold millions into trusting that their lives reflect some arbitrary level of God-given obedience that assures them of salvation.

Can a biblical case for infant baptism be made? Abraham was directly commanded to circumcise infants (Genesis 17:10-12). That was a physical sign given to a physical nation. Under the New Covenant, Christians are given no such command. Baptism is tied to a different reality. The New Covenant is explicitly not like the old (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Under this covenant, God's law is written on the heart, and all who belong to it know and follow the Lord, not according to the flesh, but through faith. That's the dividing line. Every clear command regarding baptism is tied to repentance and faith: • Acts 2:38 – "Repent and be baptized..." • Mark 16:16 – "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." • Acts 8:12 – "When they believed... they were baptized, both men and women." • Acts 8:36-37 – "the eunuch said, 'See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?' And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.'" • Colossians 2:12 – "having been buried with him in baptism... through faith" Many try to claim that baptism is the "new circumcision," using Colossians 2:11-12 to make their case, arguing that since infants were circumcised, infants must now be baptized. But if baptism truly functioned like circumcision in that way, then ONLY male infants should be baptized and it must be done on the 8th day. Paul says we are circumcised without hands, a spiritual circumcision, that comes THROUGH FAITH. So it's not as simple as saying that baptism is the new circumcision and then applying it the same way to infants. Baptism doesn't replicate circumcision, but fulfills what physical circumcision made by hands could never do: change the heart. Paul also shuts down the Judaizers in Galatians 5:2–6. Requiring a covenant sign for inclusion in the people of God is rooted in a misunderstanding of the gospel. He doesn’t say, “We don’t circumcise anymore because now we have baptism: the new circumcision!” Instead, he removes the category entirely: "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). No physical sign can make you a born-again child of God. Only God’s grace through faith can. Nothing external ever could, and that’s precisely why the New Covenant was established in the first place. An infant does not enter the New Covenant simply because someone decided to baptize them. After all, "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). Circumcision marked a nation by birth. Baptism marks believers by faith. Conflating the two collapses the very distinction the New Covenant established.