This phrasing could be relating to Christ as the one who is sanctified by the shedding of his blood because by doing this his name is elevated above all other names unlike the old testament lamb that was the lesser example of what was to come.
@@Christian-vq8rd Oh, I definitely do. It's an attempt to argue that there are non-elect covenant members. It's just a bad argument, and also true that it isn't about baptism, which says a lot when it's considered a strong verse for the paedo-baptist position.
@Michael Mannucci I don't think you do. The hang up fir most regormed baptists I know is that all members if the new Covenant are regenerate. Thus when Owen and a few others come up with the "It's referring to Christ" interpretation, it answers a portion of Scripture that seems to be saying that thete are members if the civenant who ultimately fall away. That's pretty significant as it'd go against the idea that the NC, even right now, is only comprised of regenerate people.
@@Christian-vq8rd Saying I am wrong is not the same as saying I don't understand the argument. I do, and you havn't demonstrated that I do not. It's just a bad argument. Saying "you don't get it" is a really intellectually dishonest way to engage a topic. But I've yet to see a paedo-baptist be able to exegete Jeremiah 31 consistently, or exegetically/theologically reconcile that Christ, as high priest of the NC, who engages in all the same high-priestly activites as the OC high priests for covenant members (atonement, intercession), is the high priest of unregenerate sinners, whom Christ did not make sacrifice for, nor intercedes for.
Truly, I love God! I am thankful for this audio sermon and for your faithful love to our Lord.
Thank you so very much ram for sharing this message with us. Does anyone know who the speaker is? Please inform me.
@Theonomist thank you
Dr. James White.
This phrasing could be relating to Christ as the one who is sanctified by the shedding of his blood because by doing this his name is elevated above all other names unlike the old testament lamb that was the lesser example of what was to come.
Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own Blood, suffered without the gate.
Heb 13^12
A verse that has me leaning paedobaptist for quite some time.
That's unfortunate. It says a lot about a system when its strongest verse isn't even about baptism lol
@@michaelmannucci8585 You don't understand the argument behind what he's saying.
@@Christian-vq8rd Oh, I definitely do. It's an attempt to argue that there are non-elect covenant members. It's just a bad argument, and also true that it isn't about baptism, which says a lot when it's considered a strong verse for the paedo-baptist position.
@Michael Mannucci I don't think you do. The hang up fir most regormed baptists I know is that all members if the new Covenant are regenerate. Thus when Owen and a few others come up with the "It's referring to Christ" interpretation, it answers a portion of Scripture that seems to be saying that thete are members if the civenant who ultimately fall away. That's pretty significant as it'd go against the idea that the NC, even right now, is only comprised of regenerate people.
@@Christian-vq8rd Saying I am wrong is not the same as saying I don't understand the argument. I do, and you havn't demonstrated that I do not. It's just a bad argument. Saying "you don't get it" is a really intellectually dishonest way to engage a topic.
But I've yet to see a paedo-baptist be able to exegete Jeremiah 31 consistently, or exegetically/theologically reconcile that Christ, as high priest of the NC, who engages in all the same high-priestly activites as the OC high priests for covenant members (atonement, intercession), is the high priest of unregenerate sinners, whom Christ did not make sacrifice for, nor intercedes for.