Coogii and Covenant: Another Reply to James White | Reformation And Revival
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- So if you're just joining us, I wrote a piece recently making the ever so Paedobaptist point that the Christian's children are in the new covenant. This is run-of-the-mill Paedobaptist stuff. But, as James has detailed, it doesn't square with the Credobaptist position. It requires that some of the theological furniture gets moved around if you have been steeped in the deep waters of Credobaptism, and that remodel will most likely end with water on the little babes so, reader beware.
Reformation And Revival is presented by Canon Press.
Jared, would you and James do some sort of online "live" fireside chat? Both of your ministries online (video responses) are thoroughly filled with biblical responses to each other. I have to say... Eric Jaeger and Zach Lickenschlager's "fireside chat" after their 3-hour debate was one of the best things they could bequeath the reformed umbrella.
I don’t see how this responds to James White’s argument about the New Covenant in Hebrews. (Not trying to be a hater. I just don’t find it compelling.)
Jared is focusing more on hermeneutics- ex- the ice cream shop -
James says we should let the New Testament define the new covenant- not the Old Testament
What Jared is getting at is not necessarily letting the Old Testament define the new covenant so much , but letting the Old Testament define “Covenant” then we certainly let the new testament tell us what is new about it -
So the principle of continuity is we keep continuity from Old to New except where the New Abrogates of changes a principle of the Old - this is consistent with keeping the Nature of Covenants throughout all of scripture- having both elect & unelect in the Cov -
James comes to have only the elect in the New by approaching Hebrews without the presupposition of the Old Testament- which is interesting because every chapter of Hebrews presupposes the OT - including the nature of Covenants. -
@@911exterminators3 I agree, but whereas James sticks to grammatical-historical specifics in his videos, I thought Jared jumps to higher theological, Covenant of Grace stuff real quickly here, without addressing James’s specific arguments. (I know Jared can do grammatical-historical and that James has his own biblical theological views that shape his hermeneutics.) I just found this underwhelming.
@@911exterminators3 I disagree slightly though with your last paragraph, I think it’s too broad/sweeping. Because James does dwell on the OT background of Hebrews; but he shows (I think compellingly) how the author there is stressing discontinuity, not continuity, when it comes to the new covenant.
ruclips.net/video/DdEmK39Nhls/видео.htmlsi=uSowyCzF7AdjTuXv
I think you’ll really enjoy this - these guys talk some about Owens Cov theology - which was somewhat unique- 1689ers borrow quite a bit from Owen on Cov theology , but Owen still ends with Infant baptism - in that video they discuss Owens perspective of the Mosaic Cov , Owen, along with James white & other 1689ers focus more on the earthly , temporal aspects of the Mosaic Cov , whereas if we are to be consistent with our understanding of how OT saints were saved & Biblical theology surrounding the message of redemption throughout scripture, Then like Calvin & Bavinck you come to see that Christ is really what we should be emphasizing in every OT covenant, not that that somehow does away with what temporal aspects were present in those OT covenants , it’s just not what was at the center of those Covenants , so like Calvin & Bavinck , check out Calvin’s chapter on the similarities & differences of OT & NT in his institutes along with Bavincks church on Cov theology in his Dogmatics - It really is Christ we should be emphasizing, that doesn’t mean that we can’t make distinctions between Covenants - so if Christ is truly at the Center of every covenant, then we’ve now come to define the “Nature” of all Covenants
One Covenant of Grace , different administrations-
Would love to continue the conversation brother - 🙏🤙
You can also PM me on Facebook under Tye Baudin
@@911exterminators3 This sounds great. I sure wish I could understand what you said. 😅
Well, since brother White is done responding, and this is the best we’ll get out of brother Longshore, I think we gotta give it to White on this issue. Still love and appreciate you brother Longshore! But hey, it’s not too late to go back to Founders ;)
Brother, exegete the text. Don't Leighton Flowers it.
That’s very good sir.
Choice meats
Who are Abraham's children? Paul answered directly "it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham", (Gal 3:7) the seed is not defined according to the flesh.
So in your church you only baptize the elect ??
@@bigtobacco1098 that would be our intention.
What do you say to the actual Scripture I raised though sir?
@@joeh8130 we can't know who's elect... we baptize on profession and OIKOS inclusion
@@bigtobacco1098 I’m not sure how that relates to the actual point I raised (or what OIKOS inclusion is)
@@joeh8130 entire household
Used to be a lifelong Baptist. What changed my mind was the tree in Romans 11. It’s a covenant tree that extends from the Old into the New Covenant. You can be grafted in and out of the tree based on belief. Paul makes this clear. There are those who will espouse belief and are grafted in, but when the trials of life come along and they lose their supposed “faith,” they are taken out. The covenant is administered to those who wish to come in, and does not have to, nor is it possible to be administered only to the truly regenerate. My children are members of this tree, but if they do not bear fruit, they too will be cut off and burned (John 15).
The difference I see, is that those in the tree of the old covenant were pruned because of their unbelief in Christ who was then manifested as the root.
The problem is that Christian baptism is into Christ, and so brings with it the New Covenant standard of belief as a precondition of the sign of the covenant.
Children of Christian families are blessed in that the promise of salvation is for them, and are almost always saved even before their baptism. But the covenant sign is for those that believe.
To treat children as recapitulating the old covenant, but under the new convent signs of a better covenant doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course there will be apostasy, and the church is an imperfect body, but the question is not that, but “to whom should the covenant sign of salvation be given”? Shall it be given in presumption or in conjunction with evidences of repentance and faith?
But I’m grateful for your study and conviction in following where it has lead you.
I moreso lean Reformed Baptist, and I find both arguments have compelling points, but the RefBap just makes more sense to me. I don't think that John 15 is a salvific/condemnation unto death verse per se bc it's speaking to believers. If John 15 and Rom 11 were connected in that way, that would mean that Christians could lose their faith and regain their faith, but I don't believe that, since God is the one who keeps our faith in a persevering sense.
@@jrhemmerich I could be way off here, but what about texts such as Luke 12:49-53 that states family members will be divided-mother against daughter, etc…? Also Matthew 10:34-39 -specifically v36 which says “and a persons enemies will be those of his own household.”
@@theschrocks2405, those verses seem to have a different focus, but there may be some extended application.
In my view these passages speak of the division that Jesus would bring in that generation between the Jews who would walk in the way of revolution against the Romans apart from God, and those that would follow Jesus. This question of covenant loyalty-old or new-was the question that confronted them.
As Jesus and not baptism is the central dividing point, these verses are not directly helpful, but they do emphasize the substantial difference between the old and the new covenants.
Can't help but think that even if the Bible made a crystal clear statement on who is in the covenant, hence who's to be baptized, the argument would continue. After all John chapter 2 is absolutely clear that Jesus changed the water into grape juice ...
In a reply, you have to reply. You can't just restate your own position in a more elementary way.
Why not acknowledge the essence of the argument (the effectual nature if Christs intercession for all of His people)? Or boldly state the obvious implications of what you're saying regarding it?
Love Dr. White, the fellas in Moscow and Reformed folks but after 20 years in Reformed Baptist circle I've become Lutheran. I've become Lutheran exactly because of the arguments made by Jared about the eschatalogical aspects of the corporate covenant.
Hello there, I don’t know how familiar you are with Lutheran sacramentology (you might be very familiar), but I would just warn you that you may be signing up for more than you want in that department. Between baptismal regeneration, and communication of attributes in communion, I personally think they will give you more philosophy than theology. But I wish you well with where you’re at.
While the Lutheran view is better than the Baptist position, it’s not as good as the reformed view, but praise God you have moved beyond the Baptist view that unintentionally shortens the arm of God.
OIKOS covenant baptism was the standard for all new testament baptisms...
Jared is not responding to James white's biblical arguments from Hebrews 8. He needs to do this.
Brother Longshore, you conceded the argument, by not executing Hebrews, seven and eight. Brother, anybody who heard James White’s response to you knows you have not responded to James nor have you responded to any of his points. Please brother if you really want to move some of us over to a right understanding, exegete the text and plainly expound it to us.
Truly edifying, and enlightening thank you and the Lord.
When you read Hebrews thinking Christ and what he does are merely better than the old, you get what Jared gets.
When you think Christ and what he does are better in the sense that it's perfect, you get what White gets.
Is it perfect now ??
@@bigtobacco1098 Oh, of course. The Son is better than the angels, Moses and Aaron. The rest we enter by believing in Him is better. He is the better high priest after the order of Melchizedek. His sacrifice is better than the old. The covenant He mediates is better than the old. Zion is better than Sinai. All these "betternesses" are not merely better but perfect. The sacrifice is once for all time, and the perfect high priest is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him. That's why it's done.
@@BugattianVeyronian so we are perfect?? The world ??
@@bigtobacco1098 The double question marks show your ignorance. The covenant is perfect and so is the salvation. That's why even in this world we can have assurance. That's what the Hebrews needed.
@@BugattianVeyronian ad hominem
Clear and crispt, with just enough humor and charm to keep an un-academic artist mentally engaged all the way through.
To paraphrase "I'm wrong and I have no exegetical rocks to build my position upon, and James White eviscerated my position masterfully. So now I will take a page from a politicians playbook and divert an actual rebuttal and restate my original position."
I would've really liked a rebuttal by way of exegesis of Hebrews 8.
I know that this was only intended to be a very short response, but this was not a response. In fact, it really proved Dr. White’s point. You spent more time in the video quoting Bavinck than exegeting Hebrews 7-10. Dr. White’s entire challenge to you was to exegete the text. If your position is so plain and correct, then the definitive passage on the New Covenant ought to back it up without having to read the Presbyterian understanding of the old covenant into the new. I really hope this ends in a debate on Hebrews 7-10. After listening to both sides and seeing this response, I think the cross-examination would be pretty devastating for paedobaptists.
Hardly... equivocation of baptism to regeneration is impossible
That was a clever sweater joke bahaha
Hm, so I’ve got an ice cream shop with Jesus as the ice cream, I have an ice cream stand with Jesus still as the ice cream, I have Longshore rubbing lotion on his daughters knee, asking some buddies “how ya’ll doin’?, a reference from Herman on what his thoughts on covenant are and who it extends to,
Little to no meaningful response to White, and an odd closing statement: I am your God, and you are my people. Except the people have to keep covenant, so even if they’re “insiders” it’s still up to them to keep that covenant, which is by faith? So a faith that is strong enough to keep that covenant is guaranteed to to those in the covenant? I may have totally misunderstood, and I’m sure there will be some westminsterian who will find another stellar, Leighton flowers worthy analogy to show me how I’m wrong but my word guys, is this really a legit response to White? I’ve found Jared to be super helpful on many things, but I am continually underwhelmed by the paedos argumentation on this subject. It’s not clear, it’s not argued well from scripture, and seems to rely pretty hard on “their own understanding”. Was really hoping for more. Chalk up an obvious win for James White.
Disappointing response. James White dealt directly with the scriptures. The ice cream shop analogy was beneath this level of discussion….. and it certainly didn’t respond to JW’s points. I was expecting something much more substantial.
I could be way off here, but what about texts such as Luke 12:49-53 that states family members will be divided-mother against daughter, etc…? Also Matthew 10:34-39 -specifically v36 which says “and a persons enemies will be those of his own household.”
Repeated 3 times... answered twice
Love you both. But, I would press the problem of confusing the family with the church. When a father becomes a Christian, that is going to make his household Christian (such that the children are holy, set apart for the blessing of Christian instruction), but to put the sign of salvation and regeneration on a person who has no evidence of confession and repentance (an infant or unbelieving child), is to confuse the sphere of the church with the sphere of the household.
The covenant shift from the nation of Israel to the remnant of true Israel. It was not just a shift, one notch down, to the family, but to the one who “believes” and “knows” him by confession.
What is the blessing to the children of Christians? Great in every way. They are the recipients of the PROMISES of the covenant. But baptism is not the sign of the promise, but of the substance and reality of salvation. It can’t be separated from belief. And that is what Jeremiah and Hebrews are all about, the substance over the promise.
This is where the issue remains.
One notch down??? No... 😅😅😅 it remains the same as the old covenant... OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms...
Your last paragraph is equivocation of the elect and baptism... impossible
@@bigtobacco1098, actually, I never mentioned election (obviously people are baptized who apostatize and are not elect). I connected baptism and belief as the NT clearly does. That was essential to baptism. This marks out the confessing church. Infants have the promise of the covenant, believers receive the covenant sign.
That’s what’s standard for all NT baptisms.
@@jrhemmerich OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms
@jrhemmerich show me where any OIKOS member was denied the cover sign ???
What is the entrance into the Covenant?
Baptism or faith?
Baptism
One could, I think reasonably, say that at birth the believer's children are covenant children and baptism is the outward sign and seal of that covenant. They are set apart to God (sanctified in biblical terms) in that they have the blessings and responsibilities in that covenant but to receive the ultimate benefit of that covenant they must have the root of the matter in them just as the circumcised Jew needed to have to be a true son of Abraham.
@@mkshffr4936Can you define "sign" and "seal"?
Jared would say birth (or conception), James would new birth.
Faith. And baptism is the outward covenant completion of that faith. Faith is the inner regeneration (that manifests one’s election), and baptism is the objective outward sign of joining the visible covenant community. It is an appeal to God, that the inner washing be real and true. Baptism thus becomes the objective ground of regeneration and having entered into the covenant.
Apostasy from faith and ones’s baptism is an objective loss of salvation and evidences that the appeal to God for a clean conscience did not take as it was not accompanied by perseverance.
Jared is just speaking to his own side. Paedobaptists are consistent; consistent in not offering arguments that would convince someone from another position.
Btw, I believe 1 Pet. 2:9, Is. 59:21, and Is. 53:10 uphold the covenant baptist view.
"Y'all" isn't second person plural. It is singular. "All y'all" is second person plural. And regardless of all the "eloquent" arguments supporting paedobaptism, it appears to be just another error carried over from Catholicism.
Isnt Christ the covenant that was given unto Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David?
Christ is the ultimate mediator of the covenant but not the covenant itself. The covenant is God's promise and agreement if you will including the promise of redemption through faith in Christ.
I have read about the old covenant and I have read about the new covenant. Where does the Bible talk about this covenant of grace? John 1:17 says For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. The "if" and "then" clauses of the Mosaic covenant shows it is a covenant of works. This is where covenant theology misses the mark. You can't compare a physical nation (Israel) with a spiritual one (the Church). To be a Jew, you only have to be born (physical). To be a Christian, you have to be born again (spiritually). Water baptism is not a spiritual birth.
I hear a lot of deductions and reasoning but not a lot of scripture.
_"Where does the Bible talk about this covenant of grace?"_
All throughout scripture, but here are three examples. The earliest verse would be in Gen 3 with the promise of one who would crush the head of the serpent. Gen 15 is a beautiful picture that regarding the covenant God is making, if either God or man violate the covenant, God would die. In the law, God expects people to not keep it and provides a means of grace and reconciliation through the sacrificial system, which points to the promised Messiah for deliverance from sin.
_"John 1:17 says For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. The "if" and "then" clauses of the Mosaic covenant shows it is a covenant of works."_
? I'm not sure how this deduction follows. There is grace and truth in the law insofar as the law points to Jesus.
_"You can't compare a physical nation (Israel) with a spiritual one (the Church)."_
Paul did. Read Romans 9-11 very carefully and note how Paul applies the promises given to "Israel" to the Church. Paul is very careful to point out that not all Israel is from Abraham's seed, and indeed that gentiles are grafted into Israel even while "Israel" is cut away.
_"To be a Jew, you only have to be born (physical)."_
This was never true. Look at Gen 17. Abraham's house was to be given the covenant sign, and that explicitly includes servants from far off places not at all related by blood to Abraham. What about Moses's Ethiopian wife? What about the Egyptians who left with Moses? What about Rahab and Ruth? The OT is full of examples of people who are not Israel by race or birth being joined to Israel. The NT isn't doing anything new in this regard. "Israel" has never been about ethnicity or genetics or anything of the sort.
_"To be a Christian, you have to be born again (spiritually). Water baptism is not a spiritual birth."_
So it isn't a problem to apply the sign and seal of the covenant to covenant members, as that sign is not the same as being born again. Agreed. Baptists often seem to make the sign the thing signified itself and so needlessly confuse things. But when we understand that they are different things, the objection evaporates.
The one factor that I think puts this issue on the side of Dr. White is that the first covenant was ethnocentric. It was made with a people: the sons of Abraham. But the new covenant is spiritual, for a spiritual people. To be included in the old covenant people, a bloodline was necessary. In the new covenant, only those bought by the blood are included. Baptizing those who it has yet to be demonstrated are actually in the covenant is misguided.
Just give me some verses that prove this covenant of grace as you have defined it. I here a lot of deductions and reasoning but not a lot of scripture.
Under the Old Covenant the Jews as an ethnic group were God's chosen people as a nation. However, not all Israel are Israel, as many(most?) did not know him. In the New Covenant only His elect are God's chosen people (bit of a tautology); it might be very nice in the Ice Cream shop, but true delight can only be found if you taste the ice cream.
The covenant as per Collosians 2
11 In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands.
12 And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.
The old covenant circumsicion is also named here.
'performed by Christ and not by human hands'
Its not an ordinary circumsicion but spiritual.
Likewise we also have a spiritual baptism.
That is 'having been buried with Him in baptism'
As baptism is the washing away of sins.
You need to be washed and clothed to be able to enter heaven.
'The raising with Him through your faith in the power of God,'
This is salvation. and orderly it follows after burial/baptism.
Remember it was the practice. Achilles was baptised in the river Styx as a baby.
COVENANT
Definition: (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (On-Line) 5th Ed)
In the Bible, a divine promise establishing or modifying God's relationship to humanity or to a particular group.
Definition: (Ligonier Table Talk (On-Line, 2020-05-22)
Berith (Hebrew) is used to refer to a formal arrangement between two or more parties. The kind of formal arrangement depends on the specific context and the nature of the parties involved. The formal arrangement might be a unilateral promise made by one party to another. The formal arrangement might be a bilateral agreement-a pact or a bond. If the formal arrangement is a pact or a bond, it will entail certain obligations. Some formal arrangements will be ratified with oaths and ceremonial rites. Some will confirm an existing relationship between two or more parties, and some will establish new relationships. Some will be accompanied by a sign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is much more that may be compiled from Scripture and respected orthodox Christian theological sources but the point is reasonably clear: there is no overt nor implied "administration" of any of the Biblical covenants except that the word and authority God establishes and backs the agreement with His true promises and, in certain cases, His certain curses. This then is coupled with no reasonable assumption that the New Covenant is somehow "administered" through baptism or via communion. Nor is there any inkling that being raised by godly parents in conjunction with a godly community in any way confers any surety of salvation for any given child other that if, through the preaching of Christ's Gospel message, the Holy Spirit regenerates the child as as sovereign act of grace and mercy. At least, that is the plane understanding that is readily apparent in a plane reading of the relevant Scriptures, and all Scripture. Everything else just sounds like theobable coupled with eisegesis.
One thing I don't get about the baptist position, and one I was hoping White would address, but I didn't hear it (maybe I missed it, if someone knows which of the three response videos and what timestamp it appears in): Why do Baptists treat the sign of the covenant as the covenant itself? The sign is true, it's message accurate, the promises given, even if the one bearing the sign is reprobate. It is a sign, not the thing signified. White spent a lot of time talking about the covenant, but when he came to the sign, it seems he just assumed that we are to play God and read the heart and know that the individual is saved before giving the sign.
The sign that tells you a city is X distance away is not the city. It is a true sign regardless if it is made of metal or wood or if it is new or old and rotting away and the letters faded. The truth of the sign doesn't depend on the bearer of the sign, but on the sign maker and the meaning he has for the sign. Baptism points us to God as the water of life, the floodwaters we deserve for our wickedness and sin and that the only hope of salvation is found in Christ. This message given in the sign is true regardless of who bears the sign.
The thing is, both Presbyterians and Baptists have to deal with the fact that they apply the sign to reprobate people. Neither do so knowingly or willingly (Baptists assumptions about infants and children notwithstanding). Both have to deal with the fact that Paul and Hebrews seems to have a category of covenant people who can be kicked out and cut off, and yet have a category of people who will never be kicked out. In my view, the Presbyterian position navigates these issues nicely in a way that does justice to the text. The sign is a sign, not the thing itself. The covenant is like Hebrews teaches, the same everlasting promises given from the beginning will still be upheld, but under a better administration, Christ the king, the high priest, and the lamb. The promises given in baptism are true regardless of the one bearing it, as baptism is the work of God to man, and not a work of man to God or man to man.
And not only that, but I just don't see the Bible caring all that much about how old the person being baptized is. To Baptists, that is incredibly important, but to the apostles, they seem to care more that people are under a believing head than how old they are. It seems like they were following the Gen 17 formula rather than anything that looks like Baptist criteria for baptism. This seems natural if we assume there is one Bible (not OT and NT as two different religious texts) and one God who is consistent throughout.
"Baptism points us to God as the water of life" - I would contend that this is a serious oversight. Baptism signifies union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, but If you misunderstand its message you will wrongly apply it. The paedobaptist gives the sign to those who show no evidence of possessing the reality which the sign points to.
@@joeh8130 I know it is a big deal to the credo-only position to not baptize someone who isn't regenerated, but that is information we cannot know. Only God knows.
What we do know is that the person is in the covenant community in good standing and seemingly with a credible confession of faith. But Baptists still baptize many unregenerate people.
The difference is that we see the children of believers as Christians credibly worshiping as they ought for their age, and Baptists tend to view children as pagans until they make a personal confession. Fortunately they are inconsistent and raise their children in the faith by doing what ought only to be done to Christians instead of as their stated theology claims.
I agree with baptism signifying that our only hope of salvation is unity in Christ. That message is true regardless of who bears the sign. An unbeliever scoffing at the sign doesn't make it any less true. I would say that baptism also signifies that outside of Christ, there is no salvation. You will be immersed in the floodwaters of judgement, swallowed by the Red Sea, etc. That message rings clear on every unbeliever bearing the sign. It makes their baptism all the more true. Either way, the gospel stands out in baptism, seek Christ's mercy for there is no other hope.
@@oracleoftroy it isn’t relevant that we can’t infallibly identify who true believers are, the point is that we baptise those who demonstrate the signs of having been regenerated i.e. faith. Children “worshipping as they ought” [when they are months old?] is no indicator of salvation, therefore they shouldn’t receive the sign of salvation.
The paedobaptist likewise accords with this when he baptises adults *only when* they profess faith, but isn’t this inconsistent with the reason for baptising children? I really would like to know what is the reason that an adult should be baptised upon profession of faith in your view?
@@joeh8130_"it isn’t relevant that we can’t infallibly identify who true believers are, the point is that we baptise those who demonstrate the signs of having been regenerated i.e. faith."_
And we baptize the households of those under the headship of one such as that. But the fallibility of your position seems quite relevant when you start off saying _"The paedobaptist gives the sign to those who show no evidence of possessing the reality which the sign points to."_ How do you know that is the case? You are making a claim that you now admit is fallible and of course are quite susceptible to. But meanwhile, that is not our standard, as we do not find such a standard in scripture regarding baptism.
_"The paedobaptist likewise accords with this when he baptises adults only when they profess faith, but isn’t this inconsistent with the reason for baptising children?"_
No. The reason is that they are under the headship of a believer. Every baptism in scripture is of the household head and all those under them. Age was never once mentioned as a criterion. There is a reason I call your position Credo-only baptism, as one's creed is important, but we don't find any examples of excluding the household from the creed of the head. NT baptism follows the same model established back in Gen 17; Peter even explicitly refers to that formula in Acts 2. And so we follow the example set forward in scripture and show no partiality to age, recognizing that just as faith is a gift, so too baptism is God's gift to man, and not man's work to God or to their fellow man.
@@oracleoftroy I wasn't intending to make a declaration that no infant who is baptised shows any signs of having faith, rather that the paedobaptist's standard is that no such signs are necessary in order to warrant baptism. The point is that the believer is baptised for one reason & the infant for another, so the ceremony is not communicating the same thing of both individuals.
Again I'd point you back to the purpose of baptism according to the NT; "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that... we too might walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:4) This is regeneration being signified - why is there a disconnect between the fruit of regeneration (faith) and the recipients of the symbol of regeneration?
Nah...
Why would an all powerful, all wise deity bother with cruel and petty sacrifices?
It just isn't logical at all. This supposed god owns/controls everything.
God says - You know what would make me feel better? Kill that perfect ram for me.
God says- You know what would make me really forgive you? Kill me...eeeeerrrrrr kill my son. eerrrrrrrr kill me. ooooh where's that ghost!?!?!?!?!?
Because it's a shadow of Christ. Why are atheism and secular humanism morally bankrupt and, by just about all metrics, completely irrational in 2023?
Because God is completely Holy in form and character. Man is not. There is a chiasm, a void between them due to mans sin against God and God's justified righteous wrath and punishment. A righteous Judge, punishes wrong doing. Hence, God solves the relational divide by upholding his righteous character and his righteous judgement by sending His Son in human form to live a sinless life, die on a cross taking the punishment of man's sin upon himself as a righteous sacrifice, dies and is raised to intercede and save those who by faith put their trust in him for the forgiveness of their sins and salvation. The Lord deposits his Holy Spirit, as a guarantee and seal, in the people he covenants with changing their heart and mind now and perfectly upon their death and entrance into the Lord's heavenly kingdom eternally.
@@bnato8209 I don't think defending Christianity works on new atheists. Let's try something else. I think I've figured out why new atheism has failed. New atheism is a simp ideology with nothing but questions. Ladies, do you want to date a guy who does nothing but ask questions?
Are you vegetarian?
What kind of all wise, all powerful judge, as you claim to be, would kill an animal so it may enjoy a meal?
@@bnato8209beautiful reply, brother, but I think OP is a mocker and a troll.