Leviticus 16:17
There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.
The head of the household made atonement for ALL of his household. I have not rejected what has been said regarding baptism, rather I have asserted that the head of the household acted/spoke for his children.
You have shown nothing from Scripture to refute that, but have been shown from numerous writings that the ECFs knew that it was a tradition from the earliest days.
And so when one interprets Scripture one way and another does so differently, there is an appeal to be made to determine the right understanding of Scripture. That is why the Church is so important and if one is unafraid to follow history, one would see that there were certainly differing interpretations of Scripture from the beginning, but always it was the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth who spoke the last word on the debate.
I began this conversation asking the question about how it is that so called Bible churches could have such diverse interpretations of such import as baptism verses no baptism.
And here we are, hundreds of posts later and the question has not been answered though there has been complete unity among the *NCCOUOUDOB on why the Church is wrong.
*Non Catholic Christians of Undeclared or Unknown Denominations or Beliefs.
The head of the household made atonement for ALL of his household. I have not rejected what has been said regarding baptism, rather I have asserted that the head of the household acted/spoke for his children.
Oh please!!! You have referenced the high Priest of Israel going into the tabernacle, thru the Vail, and sacrificing blood on the Mercy seat, FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL...
The death of Jesus ELIMINATED that sacrifice...The veil thru which no man could pass has been ripped asunder so that we all can pass thru and the blood of Jesus has replaced the blood of the bulls and goats and sheep that was in the OT need for an atoning blood sacrifice...
Now, our only requirement for atonement is that we consciously accept and trust Jesus as our Savior...
And so when one interprets Scripture one way and another does so differently, there is an appeal to be made to determine the right understanding of Scripture.
It's not a matter of interpreting scripture...It's a matter of believing what is clearly written...And you give a perfect example...
You take a verse in the OT that clearly speaks of the one who is responsible for the atonement of Israel and try to move it into 2012 and apply it to the head of YOUR household to justify baptism of babies while ignoring all the references in the NT that reject the notion...
You have shown nothing from Scripture to refute that, but have been shown from numerous writings that the ECFs knew that it was a tradition from the earliest days.
I (we) have shown tons of verses that you reject...
That is why the Church is so important and if one is unafraid to follow history, one would see that there were certainly differing interpretations of Scripture from the beginning, but always it was the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth who spoke the last word on the debate.
There is no fear involved at all...And I follow history...That's why I reject your religion...
You have access to a bible...When your religion told you to use Lev. 16:17 as your proof text, all you had to do was to read the verse to see that your religion was lying to you...And they convinced you that you can't believe your own eyes...
I began this conversation asking the question about how it is that so called Bible churches could have such diverse interpretations of such import as baptism verses no baptism.
Like your religion, they have chosen to ignore scripture in many places and insert their own versions...