Infant baptism, still doesn't make any sense.
To you. I get that. Well, it does, even to you, I think, but you've just made up your mind, and you're dug in on it, and that's that. Yeah, I get it.
Your support of it, is not based on any scripture.
Even though I've supported what I've said with Scripture extensively. Hm.
We don't find a single example of an infant being baptised and the Lord Jesus never asked His disciples to baptise children.
But all the exhortations to be baptized are for the men hearing, and for not only them, but to have their entire households baptized. And we know that God instituted the sacrament of circumcision, which was to be administered at eight days old (in Genesis 17) and that baptism in New Testament times has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant (Colossians 2:11-12). And Jesus did tell his disciples to let the children come to Him...
So I must conclude that your view is based on your private unbiblical opinion.
You can if you want, certainly. <
smile>
You have bundled the all of the various contexts, in which the bible speaks of the Temple and tried twist them and force them to fit a single context.
Well no... <
smile>
You can't claim that the physical brick and mortar building and Christ's body are the same thing.
I'm not. I didn't. Is that what you think I did? Really? Surely not...
So your opinion is dead wrong because if you were right that would mean that God the Father destroyed the body of Christ forever, as He did to the Jewish temple which He deliberately destroyed, to never reinstate the Jewish temple again.
Well, if that
was what I had said, or if that
was my opinion... you know, like if I really thought that, then... <
smile> Yes, that would be quite ridiculous, I agree. <
smile>
I'm not sure what you motive is for attempting to breath life back into something which God completely destroyed forever. He even said that the burnt offerings of the Jews was a stench in His nostrils, so just accept that it's dead and it's never going to return.
I... don't even know what you're talking about here. <
smile> The sacrificial system? I mean yeah, that's surely no more...
I'm sure you're aware of the fact as I have previously mentioned, those under the old (redundant) dead covenant were saved by continuously sacrificing animals and keeping the law of Moses. But the Lord Jesus put an end to the old covenant and ushered in the new covenant.
Ah, well, you're right, of course, about Jesus, but really, CS, there is only one everlasting covenant, and Jesus is the perfect embodiment of it. All the old covenants (with Adam (covenant of life), Noah (covenant of liferemade), Abraham (land and a people), Moses (the law), and David (kingship) were lesser manifestations of it, and Jesus is the full manifestation of all the lesser covenants ~ He is the way, the truth, and the life and gives us eternal life in Him, we will be co-heirs of the world with Him and we are children of Abraham and of the promise like Isaac and thus God's people, and Jesus is the Greater David and our forever King. In a very small nutshell, this is Covenant theology (as opposed to Dispensational theology)...
Like I have said, the issue is not understanding ~ and disavowing, I guess ~ the continuity from the Old Testament to the New. And that's not to say that all the laws and other things (like circumcision) in the Old Testament still apply today. But there is a real continuity. Maybe a good way to put it is that the lesser truths of the Old Testament are greater,,, in the sense of final... today, the first example being... <
smile> ...Jesus is the second Adam. He's also the true Lamb without blemish, which we read over and over and over about (in the lesser sense) in Leviticus. But on and on and on... Jesus is seen in various ways throughout the Old Testament.
There have only been two covenants, the old covenant was the covenant of "the law" and the new covenant is "the covenant of grace"...
Hmmm, okay, well, who do you think is under the covenant of grace, CS? How far back do you think it goes? I think I know what you're going to say here... <
smile>
We don't need to keep any law or commandment to be saved...
Right, we must be born again to see the Kingdom of God (John 3:8). But that surely does
not mean that the commandments are defunct, right? And like I said before, the civil and ceremonial laws are no more, but the moral still stands. And again, Jesus is the perfect embodiment of it. And I pointed out what Jesus said in the gospels about the greatest commandment... to love the Lord your God) and the second that is like it; to love your neighbor as yourself... and that on those two commandments hang the entire law (Matthew 22:34-40)...
, and we are not saved by "race" but we are saved by "grace" and that not of ourselves, lest anyone boast.
Um, well yeah, sure, I agree.
Race? Where did that come from? Goodness gracious.
Here are a few verses of scripture to help you understand this truth.
<
chuckles>
Acts 15:1, 5: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'... But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'" (This led to the Council at Jerusalem, which determined that the law was not necessary for Gentile salvation).
Ah, circumcision. I thought that was something you were... well, obsessing on, so to speak. Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about it, and you're either not understanding... or just denying... what the Bible says about it, what it is. Or, sorry, what it was, because baptism has replaced it, as I said, as the sign and seal of the covenant... and therefore is to be administered (baptism) the same way as circumcision was. If it were not, there would be something...
something... in the New Testament stating otherwise. But no, the promise ~ which baptism is the sign and seal of now, just as circumcision used to be ~ is for us
and all our children. and all those who are far off (Acts 2:38). But yes, as is consistent with this passage in Acts 15, circumcision did not then... and baptism does not now... save. But there is a sign and seal of God's covenant ~ now baptism, as opposed to then when it was circumcision ~ and we are to administer it in the same way, as I said.
Galatians 15:1, 5: Paul recounts his confrontation with Peter, who had stopped eating with Gentiles due to pressure from "the circumcision party," an action that implied keeping Jewish customs was necessary for true Christian fellowship and justification.
Yeah... not relevant to what we're talking about. No foods are forbidden; all God's gifts are blessed to us in Jesus Christ. We agree that circumcision itself is no longer required by God, and that it doesn't ~ never did, actually ~ save. And in that respect, baptism, which has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the
covenant,
God's promise to save, is the same in that baptism in and of itself doesn't save. See above. It is a visual reminder that God does save, and works through families to do so, and as such is a sign and seal of God's promise. Goodness gracious.
We call those who preach the false "works + grace" hybrid version of the gospel (Judaizers). Their version of the gospel is an abomination in the sight of God.
Sure. Agree. <smile> But that applies not to me. <smile>
You're certainly welcome to your opinions, CS. Thanks for your time.
Grace and peace to you.