Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,957
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mary, the issue is not about whose “truth” is right, it’s about what God’s Word actually says. Truth doesn’t change based on denominations, church fathers, or popular opinion. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). The Bible is not open to private invention or tradition-based reinterpretation. We are called to rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), not mix it with man-made traditions. The verse you quoted, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, refers to the teachings the apostles gave directly, by spoken word or written letter, not traditions that evolved centuries later. That’s a major distinction. The apostles' doctrine is recorded in Scripture for a reason, and we're warned not to add to or take away from it (Revelation 22:18–19).

The Bible never commands infant baptism, never shows one example of it, and never teaches baptism as a replacement for circumcision. It consistently presents baptism as a personal response of faith, following belief in the gospel, something infants are not capable of doing (Acts 8:36–37, Mark 16:16). So no, this isn’t “my truth” or “my friends’ truth”, it’s simply what’s written. The standard is always the Word of God, not the teachings of men or traditions passed down that contradict it.
Thanks bdavidc,

I can now see where you have been taught wrong. The letter too Timothy (your reference to 2 Timothy) are pastoral letters from Paul. They are not instructions for all Christians. They are instructions for Church leaders. Timothy was a Church leader, a successor to the Apostle Paul. Church leaders are taught to "rightly divide the word of truth". Not every person who reads the bible is able to rightly divide the word of truth. That Protestant theory is why Christianity is being destroyed because everyone that reads the bible comes up with their own "truth" from it. Even in NT times SOME were garnering their own truth from Scripture. That is why this warning is written in 2 Peter: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Which takes me to your John 17:17 reference. In that vs Jesus was praying that his Father would sanctify THEM (the Apostles) through the truth. Just a few vs's later He prays for those who will believe in me through their (the Apostles) message. You made my point when you said, "no, this isn’t “my truth” or “my friends’ truth”, it’s simply what’s written." YOU believe it is "simply what is written" which means that YOUR truth from Scripture is THE Truth. What YOU believe/teach/preach appears to be contrary to what men (Apostolic Fathers) who spoke to the Apostles believe/teach/preach. Who should I trust more: YOU or men who spoke to the Apostles?

Where in Scripture does it say that 2 Thessalonians 2 :15 is meant for PAST traditions ONLY and not traditions established by The Church in the future?

We agree. There is not a single passage in Scripture that commands infant baptism. So we have to infer from Scripture what we are to do with that soul that God created. We also have to, as Scripture commands, look at Christian Tradition if infants were or should or should not be baptized. In previous post's I have given evidence that infants were MORE LIKELY THAN NOT baptized when entire families were baptized. You and your ilk ignore that fact. Historical Christian writings, that supports Christian tradition, show that infants were baptized. A fact you and your ilk ignore. Scripture says they were bringing infants to Jesus and some tried to hinder them. Jesus said
, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” You and your ilk want to hinder them.

Thanks for your opinions. It was a good discussion. I appreciate how you didn't get all nasty with personal attacks like some people do on here. If I said anything that offended you, please let me know.

Mary
 
Last edited:

bdavidc

Active Member
Mar 31, 2025
167
185
43
66
Charlestown, IN
know-the-bible.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks bdavidc,

I can now see where you have been taught wrong. The letter too Timothy (your reference to 2 Timothy) are pastoral letters from Paul. They are not instructions for all Christians. They are instructions for Church leaders. Timothy was a Church leader, a successor to the Apostle Paul. Church leaders are taught to "rightly divide the word of truth". Not every person who reads the bible is able to rightly divide the word of truth. That Protestant theory is why Christianity is being destroyed because everyone that reads the bible comes up with their own "truth" from it. Even in NT times SOME were garnering their own truth from Scripture. That is why this warning is written in 2 Peter: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Which takes me to your John 17:17 reference. In that vs Jesus was praying that his Father would sanctify THEM (the Apostles) through the truth. Just a few vs's later He prays for those who will believe in me through their (the Apostles) message. You made my point when you said, "no, this isn’t “my truth” or “my friends’ truth”, it’s simply what’s written." YOU believe it is "simply what is written" which means that YOUR truth from Scripture is THE Truth. What YOU believe/teach/preach appears to be contrary to what men (Apostolic Fathers) who spoke to the Apostles believe/teach/preach. Who should I trust more: YOU or men who spoke to the Apostles?

Where in Scripture does it say that 2 Thessalonians 2 :15 is meant for PAST traditions ONLY and not traditions established by The Church in the future?

We agree. There is not a single passage in Scripture that commands infant baptism. So we have to infer from Scripture what we are to do with that soul that God created. We also have to, as Scripture commands, look at Christian Tradition if infants were or should or should not be baptized. In previous post's I have given evidence that infants were MORE LIKELY THAN NOT baptized when entire families were baptized. You and your ilk ignore that fact. Historical Christian writings, that supports Christian tradition, show that infants were baptized. A fact you and your ilk ignore. Scripture says they were bringing infants to Jesus and some tried to hinder them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
You and your ilk want to hinder them.

Thanks for your opinions. It was a good discussion. I appreciate how you didn't get all nasty with personal attacks like some people do on here. If I said anything that offended you, please let me know.

Mary
Your argument is not based on Scripture but on assumptions and tradition, which God’s Word repeatedly warns against (Mark 7:6–9). Let’s go straight to what is written.

First, the claim that 2 Timothy is only for church leaders collapses under the weight of the text itself. The Scriptures are clear: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). That is not restricted to Timothy, nor to pastors only. Every believer is called to study, know, and live by the Word. Paul told the brethren in general to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The verse says nothing about future traditions made up by men or religious institutions. It refers to the teachings already passed on by the apostles, not ongoing traditions invented later. Scripture interprets itself. No verse gives the church permission to create new doctrine outside the written Word.

Now let’s talk about truth. You say I am teaching “my truth,” but I never claimed ownership of truth. I said I believe what is written. John 17:17 says, “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth.” Not tradition, not councils, not opinions. Jesus was not limiting sanctification to the apostles only. Just a few verses later He said, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word” (John 17:20). The truth is passed through the written Word of God, not oral tradition.

As for 2 Peter 3:16, yes, some twist Scripture to their destruction. That is exactly why God gave us His Word in written form, to test all things (Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21). You quote that verse trying to argue that only the “qualified” can understand the Bible, yet Scripture says otherwise. The Bereans were not apostles or elders, but they were commended for searching the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). God holds each person responsible to hear, believe, and obey His written Word.

Now to the core issue: infant baptism. You admit there is no command in Scripture to baptize infants. That should be the end of the discussion. You’re trying to patch the silence of Scripture with tradition and inference, which is exactly how error creeps in. You point to “household baptisms,” but not once does the Bible say infants were baptized. We’re not told the ages or spiritual conditions of those in the house. To claim “infants were likely baptized” is argument by silence, not Scripture. And Jesus saying, “Let the little children come to Me” (Matthew 19:14) is not about baptism, it is about blessing, not salvation or sacrament. He never said to baptize them. Salvation is by faith in Christ, and faith comes by hearing the Word (Romans 10:17). No baby can exercise saving faith, and baptism without faith is meaningless.

God doesn’t need human tradition to improve what He’s already clearly spoken. If your authority rests on what men said who “spoke to the apostles,” then you’re already off the foundation. The Word of God alone is the final authority (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 4:4, 2 Timothy 3:16). Trust the inspired Scriptures, not uninspired men. That’s not “my truth.” That’s what’s written in the Bible.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,957
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
First, the claim that 2 Timothy is only for church leaders collapses under the weight of the text itself.
Once again, your men have deceived you and they are wrong which makes you wrong:





God bless, Mary
 

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
1,257
414
83
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks bdavidc,

I can now see where you have been taught wrong. The letter too Timothy (your reference to 2 Timothy) are pastoral letters from Paul. They are not instructions for all Christians. They are instructions for Church leaders. Timothy was a Church leader, a successor to the Apostle Paul. Church leaders are taught to "rightly divide the word of truth". Not every person who reads the bible is able to rightly divide the word of truth. That Protestant theory is why Christianity is being destroyed because everyone that reads the bible comes up with their own "truth" from it. Even in NT times SOME were garnering their own truth from Scripture. That is why this warning is written in 2 Peter: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Which takes me to your John 17:17 reference. In that vs Jesus was praying that his Father would sanctify THEM (the Apostles) through the truth. Just a few vs's later He prays for those who will believe in me through their (the Apostles) message. You made my point when you said, "no, this isn’t “my truth” or “my friends’ truth”, it’s simply what’s written." YOU believe it is "simply what is written" which means that YOUR truth from Scripture is THE Truth. What YOU believe/teach/preach appears to be contrary to what men (Apostolic Fathers) who spoke to the Apostles believe/teach/preach. Who should I trust more: YOU or men who spoke to the Apostles?

Where in Scripture does it say that 2 Thessalonians 2 :15 is meant for PAST traditions ONLY and not traditions established by The Church in the future?

We agree. There is not a single passage in Scripture that commands infant baptism. So we have to infer from Scripture what we are to do with that soul that God created. We also have to, as Scripture commands, look at Christian Tradition if infants were or should or should not be baptized. In previous post's I have given evidence that infants were MORE LIKELY THAN NOT baptized when entire families were baptized. You and your ilk ignore that fact. Historical Christian writings, that supports Christian tradition, show that infants were baptized. A fact you and your ilk ignore. Scripture says they were bringing infants to Jesus and some tried to hinder them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
You and your ilk want to hinder them.

Thanks for your opinions. It was a good discussion. I appreciate how you didn't get all nasty with personal attacks like some people do on here. If I said anything that offended you, please let me know.

Mary
Can any infsnt believe?
Can someone else believe for another infant?
Has an infant committed a transgression?
Can any infant repent?
Can any infant confess?

Mk16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief is the 1st requirement. It doesn't say 'he that is baptized and believeth'

No scriptural examples of anyone that was baptized 1st and then believed; it makes no sense.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,957
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now to the core issue: infant baptism. You admit there is no command in Scripture to baptize infants. That should be the end of the discussion. You’re trying to patch the silence of Scripture with tradition and inference, which is exactly how error creeps in. You point to “household baptisms,” but not once does the Bible say infants were baptized. We’re not told the ages or spiritual conditions of those in the house. To claim “infants were likely baptized” is argument by silence, not Scripture. And Jesus saying, “Let the little children come to Me” (Matthew 19:14) is not about baptism, it is about blessing, not salvation or sacrament. He never said to baptize them. Salvation is by faith in Christ, and faith comes by hearing the Word (Romans 10:17). No baby can exercise saving faith, and baptism without faith is meaningless.
Scripture is silent on infant baptism. That means both our arguments start out at zero.

Entire families baptized. Infants are part of families: +1 for infant baptism, you are still at zero

They were bringing infants/children to Him and the Apostles. He said do not hinder them. Hinder them from what? Hinder them from the preaching/teachings/actions of Jesus and the Apostles. What were Jesus and the Apostles doing? BAPTIZING +1 for infant baptism, you are still at zero

You present ZERO evidence that God all of a sudden did not want The Church to continue new traditions. The 2,000-year tradition of Christianity is to baptize children. +1 for infant baptism, you are still at zero

You and your ilk deny that baptism replaces OT circumcision. Historical Christian writings from 2,000 years ago that are based on Scripture prove you wrong. You have chosen writings from the men of the Protestant Reformation or later. +1 for infant baptism, you are still at zero

Scripture says that baptism now saves you. You say infants don't need to be saved. Why?

God bless, Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,957
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Can any infsnt believe?
Can someone else believe for another infant?
Has an infant committed a transgression?
Can any infant repent?
Can any infant confess?

Mk16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief is the 1st requirement. It doesn't say 'he that is baptized and believeth'

No scriptural examples of anyone that was baptized 1st and then believed; it makes no sense.
Your men have lied to you.

All my previous posts on this thread and 2,000 years of Christian teachings debunk all your opinions. Go back and read BOTH.

God bless, Mary
 

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
20,478
8,188
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us

Your verse says that water baptism is a ""Figure"". = figurative . = non literal = metaphorical.

This is a Symbol.......its symbolic.

See, sin is in your heart.........and water baptism only touches your outside...your body.
It can't deal with the sin in your heart that is the issue that needs to be FORGIVEN.

So, you go to Jesus on The CROSS by FAITH, and God will deal with what is wrong is wrong with your heart, where the SIN lives.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,957
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No scriptural examples of anyone that was baptized 1st and then believed; it makes no sense.
Baptism now saves you. Can't get any clearer than that.

How are infants saved if they can't yet believe?

Curious Mary
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreadOfLife

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,660
3,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your argument is not based on Scripture but on assumptions and tradition, which God’s Word repeatedly warns against (Mark 7:6–9). Let’s go straight to what is written.

First, the claim that 2 Timothy is only for church leaders collapses under the weight of the text itself. The Scriptures are clear: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). That is not restricted to Timothy, nor to pastors only. Every believer is called to study, know, and live by the Word. Paul told the brethren in general to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The verse says nothing about future traditions made up by men or religious institutions. It refers to the teachings already passed on by the apostles, not ongoing traditions invented later. Scripture interprets itself. No verse gives the church permission to create new doctrine outside the written Word.

Now let’s talk about truth. You say I am teaching “my truth,” but I never claimed ownership of truth. I said I believe what is written. John 17:17 says, “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth.” Not tradition, not councils, not opinions. Jesus was not limiting sanctification to the apostles only. Just a few verses later He said, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word” (John 17:20). The truth is passed through the written Word of God, not oral tradition.

As for 2 Peter 3:16, yes, some twist Scripture to their destruction. That is exactly why God gave us His Word in written form, to test all things (Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21). You quote that verse trying to argue that only the “qualified” can understand the Bible, yet Scripture says otherwise. The Bereans were not apostles or elders, but they were commended for searching the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). God holds each person responsible to hear, believe, and obey His written Word.

Now to the core issue: infant baptism. You admit there is no command in Scripture to baptize infants. That should be the end of the discussion. You’re trying to patch the silence of Scripture with tradition and inference, which is exactly how error creeps in. You point to “household baptisms,” but not once does the Bible say infants were baptized. We’re not told the ages or spiritual conditions of those in the house. To claim “infants were likely baptized” is argument by silence, not Scripture. And Jesus saying, “Let the little children come to Me” (Matthew 19:14) is not about baptism, it is about blessing, not salvation or sacrament. He never said to baptize them. Salvation is by faith in Christ, and faith comes by hearing the Word (Romans 10:17). No baby can exercise saving faith, and baptism without faith is meaningless.

God doesn’t need human tradition to improve what He’s already clearly spoken. If your authority rests on what men said who “spoke to the apostles,” then you’re already off the foundation. The Word of God alone is the final authority (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 4:4, 2 Timothy 3:16). Trust the inspired Scriptures, not uninspired men. That’s not “my truth.” That’s what’s written in the Bible.
Hmmm . . .
Can you show me where the Bible mentions the names of the Books that comprise it?
NOWHER does the Bible give is an official canon of Scripture. That official Canon came from the CHURCH – and not until the 4th century.

Can you show me where the Bible demands that we ONLY believe in what is written?
2 Thess. 2:15
clearly instructs us to hold fact to the Church’s teachings – whether by oral statement – or by written letter.

As to your claim that the Bible “condemns” Tradition – you are gravely mistaken. What is condemned is placing human traditions ABOVE the Word of God. It’s not talking about ALL Traditions. Remember - Rom. 10:17 tells us that faith comes from HEARING the Word of God – not from reading it.

God’s Word comes to us in TWO ways and always has: What is spoken - AND what is written. Here are a few examples of Oral Traditions approved by God:

Matt. 2:23
- the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.


Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exod. 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.


The problem with “Bible only” adherent is that your position is Biblically untenable . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,957
1,796
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now let’s talk about truth. You say I am teaching “my truth,” but I never claimed ownership of truth. I said I believe what is written.
I agree with you. You do not own the Truth of Scripture. What you are teaching is your interpretation of the Truth.

The Church owns the Truth: 1 Timothy 3:15.

If you do not obey the teachings of The Church (how The Church interprets Scripture) you are to be treated as a pagan/tax collector (kicked out of The Church): Matthew 18:17


Your theory that you can "believe what is written" even if it is contradictory to the teachings of The Church does not make Christians one. Jesus prayed that we all be one. Your theory (improper interpretation of Scripture) divides Christianity: 20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who [j]will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

We can only be one if we are under one Church with one teaching. Once you find that Church that is spoken of in Scripture you will know the Truth because The Church will teach it to you.

God bless, Mary
 
Last edited:

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
20,478
8,188
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
If you do not obey the teachings of The Church (how The Church interprets Scripture)

The "cult of mary" Victims always try to prove that what the Catholic Church decides that the bible teaches, is actually more important then what the Bible itself actually teaches.
This is why all "cuit of Mary" members, talk about "what our church teaches"..."Church History teaches"...as their final authority, vs, what the Bible actually teaches as the final authority.

So, this is why they will teach some crazy science fiction like "Mary ascended to Heaven in her dead body".....that is not found in any Bible........as if its true........and that is because this Cult teaches its members to believe this nonsense, so they do.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
12,514
5,754
113
67
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is 100% true and 100% scriptural.

And you lack understanding of the thief on the cross issue. In simple terms, Jesus was still alive when he forgave the thief on the cross, no different than his forgiving others during his earthly ministry. His being alive means that the OT was still in effect, not the NT. Baptism into Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and the NT, was not yet in effect until the death of Christ. Read Hebrews 9 below. The thief wasn't baptized nor did he have to be.


15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Guys we all want more information. The scriptures get to abbreviated, so people want to stipulate. In this story what does scriptures say happened and what did they say not happened and what is not mentioned.

Christ told the thief… Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.
People assume Christ was talking about Heaven but that is not necessarily true. There is no indication or suggestion in the scriptures that Yeshua went from the cross to Heaven. In fact He told Mary Magdalene...“Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father;

People assume the thief was saved, but that is not directly implied.

So the rest is speculation.
So here is speculation. There is a tradition that Yeshua and thief, in spirit went to a pleasant area of Sheol. (Sheol having different levels.) Yeshua went to Sheol to preach the Gospel to the Jews there. Then He went to Hell to confront Satan to let him know there was a new sheriff in town.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,660
3,593
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Can any infsnt believe?
Can someone else believe for another infant?
Has an infant committed a transgression?
Can any infant repent?
Can any infant confess?

Mk16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief is the 1st requirement. It doesn't say 'he that is baptized and believeth'

No scriptural examples of anyone that was baptized 1st and then believed; it makes no sense.
Baptism is the circumcision of the heart

A "Covenant" by definition is a "solemn agreement between 2 or more parties."
Can you explain to me how infants were able to enter into a Covenant with God, if NOT through the faith of their parents?? Why would entry into the New Covenant be any different?

As we read in Acts 2:39 of Baptism and the forgiveness of sins:

Acts 2:39
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
 

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
20,478
8,188
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
Abraham went to Sheol.

Read this.......and study some.

"Today you will be with me in PARADISE"...

Now study "Paradise", as its defined as "Abraham's Bosom" in Luke 16

and then you go here and study this out, as its all the same context, and explantion.

JESUS = "preached to the spirits in prison" 1 Peter 3:19-20,

That is my point we can speculate any thing.

We've noted that your Theology is your speculation.

Paul's NT Doctrine is not .