C
Church_Militant
Guest
Welcome to the Church!
I hope you do indeed find your way into the faith.
- Status
I hope you do indeed find your way into the faith.
C
carmenp1
Guest
Jon (recovering baptist 
)
)Historians trace the earliest church labelled “Baptist” back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor. In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants, instituted baptism only of believing adults.
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Carmen -
We don’t reject Sacred Scripture we reject your fallible interpretation of scripture.
Re: thief on the cross
Baptism by blood = Martyr
Baptism by desire = those who would but due to extreme circumstances that prevent the person from getting baptized.
The thief on the cross had a baptism of desire
Re: purgatory
Did you know that in Jewish teachings the concept of Purgatory is there.
In Protestant history, the Protestant Tradition, rejected a few books in the Catholic Edition.
Let me ask you, what gave the Reformation leaders the authority to subtract from Sacred Scripture and how do you know the additional books in the Catholic Church are not as inspired?
If I had time I’d point out verses but you have confirmation in the OT and NT re: purgatory as the NT references indirectly books found in the Apocrapha. It is most definitely seen and proved in the Apocrapha. But again, who originally had the authority to subtract these books from Sacred Scripture?
We don’t reject Sacred Scripture we reject your fallible interpretation of scripture.
Re: thief on the cross
Baptism by blood = Martyr
Baptism by desire = those who would but due to extreme circumstances that prevent the person from getting baptized.
The thief on the cross had a baptism of desire
Re: purgatory
Did you know that in Jewish teachings the concept of Purgatory is there.
In Protestant history, the Protestant Tradition, rejected a few books in the Catholic Edition.
Let me ask you, what gave the Reformation leaders the authority to subtract from Sacred Scripture and how do you know the additional books in the Catholic Church are not as inspired?
If I had time I’d point out verses but you have confirmation in the OT and NT re: purgatory as the NT references indirectly books found in the Apocrapha. It is most definitely seen and proved in the Apocrapha. But again, who originally had the authority to subtract these books from Sacred Scripture?
M
Mousey
Guest
Don’t forget 6 where Paul talks about baptism. The Romans were already baptized therefore already justified. What you are doing is taking Scripture out of context than accusing other of twisting it.
Don’t forget
1 Peter 3:21 21
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Why because you say so? Jesus said that Peter was rock, the rock He would build His Church.
Where is the Scripture that states that you must believe in Scripture alone, or faith alone. to repeat my previous post
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,
What do you do with Matthew 25 with the parable of the talents and The king who says I was hungry and you gave me to eat…
Sounds like we will indeed be judged on works which is a result of our faith.
If you are going to write garbage at least be truthful what you write has not basis in fact Infant Baptism
The Church never taught this nor were indulgences ever purchased. Even today we donate money to a cause. Some even get tax breaks. It wasn’t the money but the donation that was considered a charitable act. Please learn truth before you spread lies which is against the commandment thou shalt not bear false witness.
He was also a heretic and had many other psychological problems.
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Carmen -
We don’t reject Sacred Scripture we reject your fallible interpretation of scripture.
Re: thief on the cross
Baptism by blood = Martyr
Baptism by desire = those who would but due to extreme circumstances that prevent the person from getting baptized.
The thief on the cross had a baptism of desire
Re: purgatory
Did you know that in Jewish teachings the concept of Purgatory is there.
In Protestant history, the Protestant Tradition, rejected a few books in the Catholic Edition.
Let me ask you, what gave the Reformation leaders the authority to subtract from Sacred Scripture and how do you know the additional books in the Catholic Church are not as inspired?
If I had time I’d point out verses but you have confirmation in the OT and NT re: purgatory as the NT references indirectly books found in the Apocrapha. It is most definitely seen and proved in the Apocrapha. But again, who originally had the authority to subtract these books from Sacred Scripture?
We don’t reject Sacred Scripture we reject your fallible interpretation of scripture.
Re: thief on the cross
Baptism by blood = Martyr
Baptism by desire = those who would but due to extreme circumstances that prevent the person from getting baptized.
The thief on the cross had a baptism of desire
Re: purgatory
Did you know that in Jewish teachings the concept of Purgatory is there.
In Protestant history, the Protestant Tradition, rejected a few books in the Catholic Edition.
Let me ask you, what gave the Reformation leaders the authority to subtract from Sacred Scripture and how do you know the additional books in the Catholic Church are not as inspired?
If I had time I’d point out verses but you have confirmation in the OT and NT re: purgatory as the NT references indirectly books found in the Apocrapha. It is most definitely seen and proved in the Apocrapha. But again, who originally had the authority to subtract these books from Sacred Scripture?
M
Mousey
Guest
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Historians trace the earliest church labelled “Baptist” back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor. In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants, instituted baptism only of believing adults.Jon (recovering baptist
All of this that you posted I would ask,
According to who?
You say you can’t compare Mormons and baptists…according to who?
You say Mormons are a cult…according to who?
I could readily say baptists are a cult that does not make it so.
So let’s take it tovthe church per Matthew 18?
Which church? A church founded in the 1800s or 1600’s ??
Which one of them? They will all give a different take. Indeed this is how they were formed and continue to form. A disagreement arises in the protestant church…Matt 18 is exercised and the losing party creates his own church and declares the other wrong.
I choose to go to the first century church.
Also, the thief was saved by baptism of desire…meaning of he was able he would have been baptized. Every conversion story in the New Testament speaks of baptism. It’s essential and it was indeed practiced in the first century for all converts including children.
American individualism which perverts protestantism today did not exist then, and that is why the majority of mainline Protestants still baptize infants as well.
C
carmenp1
Guest
I have answered your previous post, in depth, using scripture. You have not made your case as you haven’t backed it up with references. You haven’t even responded to my questions. I did go to the link you gave me and I responded as you asked me to.
You haven’t given me the same respect. But ask me more questions? The reformation?
You tell me you don’t reject scripture? But my interpretation? What is your interpretation?
I quoted scripture but because I believe scripture, you call it my interpretation?
The thief on the cross had a desire to be baptized? Who says? He probably didn’t even know about baptism!
I don’t see your interpretation of the teachings of the early Church as adhering to what they did. You are adding stuff Jesus didn’t teach. Where is Purgatory in the bible? The Jews also rejected Christ. Jewish teachings you noted, is it in the old testament? Where?
Did protestants reject those Catholic books because they strayed from Jesus’ teachings? Was it misinterpreting scripture, adding new non biblical teachings? The history of the catholic church is seeped in dubious teachings. Money making schemes that had no basis of truth in scripture and defrauded poor believers by false teachings. The history of the Popes alone describe a litany of deception and were not themselves living a life as believers thought from church doctrine. They had illegitimate children, mistresses, enriched themselves, etc.
Any wonder they bring into question, even quotes from scripture as it doesn’t concur with church extra biblical teaching.
You do not accept scripture as the authority but you accept the Pope as the authority citing Peter and claiming to be the church he founded. If it doesn’t adhere to what Peter or Jesus taught, but has a mixture of Christ’s teachings and teachings that are out of biblical context, how can the claim be valid. Indulgences, limbo, purgatory, prayer for the dead, saved by works, praying to saints, Mary’s immaculate conception. But repentance of sin and the belief that Jesus’s blood is what takes away our sins, you do not believe. Your good deeds will save you from hell?
Read your bible and try taking God at His Word like Noah and many others did, and as many do today. If you don’t accept that Jesus’ sacrifice justifies you before God, you have missed the bible’s CORE message.
Carmen
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Perhaps, you are mixing my posts up with some others you are speaking about a million rabbit holes.
It is clear you are not interested in real dialogue, but just grandstanding . I get it, I was baptist for 30 years, I get the talking points…
They are wrong…you present characterizations, inaccuracies and outright falsehood regarding Catholic beliefs, history, teaching, structure, etc…
If you are interested in diving deeper into understanding on a single topic, maybe pick one and I will gladly help you with lots and lots of references.
I was discussing the Protestant/Baptist worldview and basis of authority.
You see, Mormons, and every sort of “christian” cult out there uses the Bible as its authority. What sets them apart is “orthodoxy” or how their interpretations keep with tradition. It is with this worldview that you say mormons are a cult and it is with this worldview that Catholics, Orthodox, and Coptic Christians say that protestants are in error. You should note that the Oriental and Ethiopian Church holds the same view as us Catholics and were in no way influenced by Constantine. That said, your understanding of Constantine is not based in reality, but instead in Anti Catholic Propaganda.
Anyway, let me know if you want to talk more on a single topic…Id recommend baptism as that is what we started with and we can have a real conversation.
You unfortunately are a bit blinded right now by false teaching regarding Catholicism…we can help clear it up for you and help you understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Martin Luther was seen as a “great reformer” however the case with him be Martin Luther was more Catholic despite nailing the thesis to the church doors and more Catholic than most Reformers would like to admit.
Martin Luther added saved by faith alone but the only place you see faith alone is in James 2:24 that says we are justified by works not faith alone… But many protestant believers don’t know what to do with that and come up with a very weak explanation.
Martin Luther was a heretic … At first Martin Luther wanted to subtract the book of James and Revelations but was greeted with too great of opposition so he brought back the book of James and Revelations. Why did Martin Luther want to subtract the book of James and Revelation? Because he couldn’t reconcile the book of James and Revelations with his “faith alone” doctrine.
Like any heretic, just subtract here and there and manipulate other verses to suit “faith alone” doctrine.
I found it interesting that Martin Luther tried to cut James and Revelations too! That’s how cults form. Who was the one to change Sacred Scripture? Carmen - By what authority did Martin Luther have to change Sacred Scripture?
Martin Luther added saved by faith alone but the only place you see faith alone is in James 2:24 that says we are justified by works not faith alone… But many protestant believers don’t know what to do with that and come up with a very weak explanation.
Martin Luther was a heretic … At first Martin Luther wanted to subtract the book of James and Revelations but was greeted with too great of opposition so he brought back the book of James and Revelations. Why did Martin Luther want to subtract the book of James and Revelation? Because he couldn’t reconcile the book of James and Revelations with his “faith alone” doctrine.
Like any heretic, just subtract here and there and manipulate other verses to suit “faith alone” doctrine.
I found it interesting that Martin Luther tried to cut James and Revelations too! That’s how cults form. Who was the one to change Sacred Scripture? Carmen - By what authority did Martin Luther have to change Sacred Scripture?
C
carmenp1
Guest
What does the bible say about baptism of water, baptism of desire and baptism of blood?:doh2:
C
carmenp1
Guest
Then they have strayed from the original teachings of Christ too.
You haven’t answered any of my questions but here I am answering yours again. Don’t you have any answers for my questions.
C
carmenp1
Guest
It’s not us saying the Church is the foundation. The Bible says that.
1 Timothy 3:15
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Matt 18
15 “If your brother or sister** sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.**
This shows clearly the church is given the authority over the individual. Otherwise going to them for resolution is meaningless.
The church doesn’t come before Jesus. The church is the agency of Jesus. It protects and proclaims his message. It keeps it from being twisted into error as even you would probably admit happens in many many churches .
So to know who is keeping the true tradition and teachings of Christ you go to the beginning. You read the early church fathers and find a church that has a historical lineage to them and is still teaching the same as them. Your choices will basically be Catholic or Orthodox. The only two churches that go back to Christ and practice christianity as the early church did.
If you want to follow a tradition that started 1600 years after Christ you really should ask why. And why is following John Smyth’s baptist faith any different than following Joseph Smith’s Mormon faith as example. What gave either of them the authority to start their new reinventions of Christianity.
Hope this helps,
Jon (recovering baptist
Sorry. This post was for SjMelnychuk
P
prodromos
Guest
They baptised entire households, men, women and children.
False. Constantine legalised Christianity and ended the State backed persecution of the Church.
Also false. Constantine himself introduced nothing into the Church.
Also totally false. Please get your information from works written by actual historians. Wherever you’ve been getting your knowledge from isn’t worth the paper its printed on.
I don’t know when Rome started teaching this, but it was long after Constantine.
Please read some actual Church history before you make further posts like the above. It makes you look very foolish and does not lend much in the way of credibility to the rest of your post.
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Carmen - Baptism is a Sacrament of God’s Grace. Salvation is an act of Grace not an act of works.
I find it interesting, through this thread I saw for the first time circumcision being compared to baptism …ie baptism a circumcision of the heart. When did the Jewish people normally get circumcized? At first, as adults and children much like the early church with baptism. Eventually circumcision was only done to infants.
Baptism = Circumcision of the heart.
If Baptism is a Sacrament to which one receives salvation by grace it’s not difficult than to follow through with the thinking that there would be an allowance for people who are killed for proclaiming Christ before baptism or for those like the theif on the cross who were not granted water baptism. Again, water baptism is a Sacrament through which by the grace of God people are saved, renewed, born again of water.
Where in the bible does it say you have to reach the age of reason before you can receive baptism? When did the teaching of baptism being just an ordinence begin? I tell you, from Jesus to the Apostles all the way to the Early Church Fathers that span the first 500 + of early Church history Baptism has been taught to be a Sacrament, an act of receiving by Grace salvation. So are you saying that the first 500+ years of the Church including Jesus and the apostles got it wrong?
Finally, by whose authority can you say the Early Church Fathers and the Apostles got it wrong? When Jesus was baptizing whole families don’t you think, if infant baptism was wrong Jesus would have said something? But rather he said, for children such as these the Kingdom is for.
Furthermore, the bible is not the pillar and foundation of truth 1Tim 3:16 says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. It is not I that have to convince you the truth in the Catholic Church but you should find true evidence to validate your claims and so far your “faith alone” doctrine doesn’t hold any weight and your “bible alone” and complete disregard of historical teachings of the Church doesn’t hold any weight either.
I find it interesting, through this thread I saw for the first time circumcision being compared to baptism …ie baptism a circumcision of the heart. When did the Jewish people normally get circumcized? At first, as adults and children much like the early church with baptism. Eventually circumcision was only done to infants.
Baptism = Circumcision of the heart.
If Baptism is a Sacrament to which one receives salvation by grace it’s not difficult than to follow through with the thinking that there would be an allowance for people who are killed for proclaiming Christ before baptism or for those like the theif on the cross who were not granted water baptism. Again, water baptism is a Sacrament through which by the grace of God people are saved, renewed, born again of water.
Where in the bible does it say you have to reach the age of reason before you can receive baptism? When did the teaching of baptism being just an ordinence begin? I tell you, from Jesus to the Apostles all the way to the Early Church Fathers that span the first 500 + of early Church history Baptism has been taught to be a Sacrament, an act of receiving by Grace salvation. So are you saying that the first 500+ years of the Church including Jesus and the apostles got it wrong?
Finally, by whose authority can you say the Early Church Fathers and the Apostles got it wrong? When Jesus was baptizing whole families don’t you think, if infant baptism was wrong Jesus would have said something? But rather he said, for children such as these the Kingdom is for.
Furthermore, the bible is not the pillar and foundation of truth 1Tim 3:16 says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. It is not I that have to convince you the truth in the Catholic Church but you should find true evidence to validate your claims and so far your “faith alone” doctrine doesn’t hold any weight and your “bible alone” and complete disregard of historical teachings of the Church doesn’t hold any weight either.
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Also Carmen - I don’t know who has been teaching you church history because you show yourself to be ignorant of church history. It seems you’ve been learning from your fellow Baptist / Anti-Catholic friends who also are being given false information on church history.
And here’s another thing to consider!
Who initially gave you the bible you read today?
Don’t you know that before Protestants the Bible was and still is a Catholic book?
Think about it! The bible is a Catholic book. The Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world! Now, don’t you think that if the Bible is a Catholic book than the Catholic Church should have a better understanding of the Bible?
It’s like the difference of an artist with his/her work… Is not the artist going to be able to draw out a deeper more significant meaning behind their work than say somebody who studied their art work centuries later? That would be akin to saying to Mozart "I don’t care what you have to say about your art work, I’d much rather hear from a student who studied your work centuries after. Of course you’d learn more about a master piece from the artist as opposed to the student of the artist.
However, when it comes to Sacred Scripture you see consistency from Jesus and his Apostles and through the era a the Early Church Fathers to what the Catholic Church today teaches. However, how many denominations came after Martin Luther and the Reformation? Since the founding of the Baptist Church and the Anabaptist movement how many denominations have been formed? I’ll tell you, there’s 44,000 + Protestant Church denominations and among the Protestant Churches some baptize infants and hold to baptism as a Sacrament and others within the Anabaptist movement like Baptist, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Missionary-Alliance and the whole of the Evangelical movement hold to baptism as just an ordinance so even among the Protestant tradition there is huge disagreement with this. Well, who’s right? By who’s authority would they have to say they’re right? And if the bible is the soul rule of authority for Christian life why are there so many denominations? All claim to have the most accurate interpretation of scripture but not all can be right.
And here’s another thing to consider!
Who initially gave you the bible you read today?
Don’t you know that before Protestants the Bible was and still is a Catholic book?
Think about it! The bible is a Catholic book. The Catholic Church gave the Bible to the world! Now, don’t you think that if the Bible is a Catholic book than the Catholic Church should have a better understanding of the Bible?
It’s like the difference of an artist with his/her work… Is not the artist going to be able to draw out a deeper more significant meaning behind their work than say somebody who studied their art work centuries later? That would be akin to saying to Mozart "I don’t care what you have to say about your art work, I’d much rather hear from a student who studied your work centuries after. Of course you’d learn more about a master piece from the artist as opposed to the student of the artist.
However, when it comes to Sacred Scripture you see consistency from Jesus and his Apostles and through the era a the Early Church Fathers to what the Catholic Church today teaches. However, how many denominations came after Martin Luther and the Reformation? Since the founding of the Baptist Church and the Anabaptist movement how many denominations have been formed? I’ll tell you, there’s 44,000 + Protestant Church denominations and among the Protestant Churches some baptize infants and hold to baptism as a Sacrament and others within the Anabaptist movement like Baptist, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Missionary-Alliance and the whole of the Evangelical movement hold to baptism as just an ordinance so even among the Protestant tradition there is huge disagreement with this. Well, who’s right? By who’s authority would they have to say they’re right? And if the bible is the soul rule of authority for Christian life why are there so many denominations? All claim to have the most accurate interpretation of scripture but not all can be right.
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Carmen - you haven’t answered any of my questions. Not one was answered. You ignore the tough questions, ignore the verses that pretty point blank leaving no room to misinterpret ie the slew of resources and bible verses.
You have to first discredit, if you can, Catholic teaching in order to place any weight behind what you are saying. You speak of scripture through your own understand, therefore, by your own fallible interpretation. You share your interpretation of Sacred Scripture yet show inadequately how you came to your interpretation scripture. Yet many of us have shown you the consistency of the Catholic Churches teaching from Jesus and the Apostle to the Early Church Father’s. What the Early Church Fathers taught the Apostles taught and what the Catholic Church teaches is what the Early Church Fathers taught. Which btw brings a heck of a lot more weight than say an infant denomination teaching something that contradict 2000+ consistent teaching.
You see, anybody in a Protestant tradition always has to reference the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and yet disregard the Church. What ate you going to believe? 2000+ consistent and congruent teaching or a denomination that even among themselves is divided. I think a 2000+ year history of consistent teaching or the contradictions and inconcistency that exist withing the Protestant tradition?
C
carmenp1
Guest
I can’t believe you are trusting in your own good deeds or works to save you!
You want me to justify Martin Luther.
I need to defend the fullness of Jesus Christ! I need to defend the truth that we are saved only by believing that the blood of Jesus is able to cleanse us of all sin. We receive forgiveness from
God when we ask Him for forgiveness.
You have misunderstood James. He is saying that if you have faith but nothing to show for it, no fruit, then faith without works is dead. He is right. You are not justified by faith alone. Show me your works that have come by your faith.
I believed God would bring my husband to me. God did. And because of my faith, God returned my daughters to me. By my works I was justified because of my faith. James 2:26 “for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
You are not saved by works. Salvation, is different to works. Salvation is the free gift of God when we believe in Jesus Christ. His death and resurrection. That by Him our sins are forgiven. In my 24 yrs as a Christian, my faith in God has produced works. I am justified by those works, not that I had power, or I made them happen. God is glorified as He is the One who honors my faith. The works James is talking about is not doing good deeds, feeding the poor. These things we should do as Christians. But our deliverer from sin, our Saviour from the penalty of sin, is Jesus Christ. By His blood He imputes to us His righteousness. God says our righteousness is like a filthy rag.
Your good works alone will eventually bring you before the judgment seat of God and He will say depart from Me, I never knew you.
I pray that you would ask God to reveal His truth to you. You are being robbed.
In eternity the truth that it’s only the precious blood of Christ that saves will be made clear to you but will not deliver you if you don’t believe it while still in this body that is under sentence of death.
You don’t believe anything I say. Not even scripture convinces you. It is God Who reveals His Son to us. You need God to open up His Word to you and give you the understanding of how His grace saves us.
If you ask Him to show you, He will. He is found by those who seek Him.
That’s what I did. I have nothing that wasn’t given to me. I am nothing without God. No wisdom, no understanding, no testamony. It is all the grace of God that saved a wretch like me.
Carmen
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Carmen - the Catholic Church teaches that by Grace through the Sacrament of baptism we are saved.
Who says the Catholic Church is a works based faith?
Have you not been reading anything Catholics have been posting? It sure seems like you take things out of context.
Baptism is the means in which we receive by grace salvation but you are mistaken if you think faith alone saves…
James 2:24 is clear!
Justified by works NOT faith alone.
Show me where in the bible it says we are saved by faith alone!
Anyone who teaches salvation by works alone according to the Catholic Church is heresy!
What does “works” mean?
Well to believe is something we do
Baptism is a gift and sacrament
We can’t do anything apart from God. We can’t even breath apart from God.
Salvation comes as a Grace received to be able to cooperate with God.
So by grace we believe
By grace we receive the sacrament of baptism
By grace we repent
By grace we reflect pennance
By grace we work out our salvation in Christ
Where in the bible does it say we’re saved by faith alone? You have yet to produce one scripture verse that says we’re saved by faith alone.
And yet many scripture verses that point to baptism as the means of being born again of water, become a new creation in Christ and many verses that talk about being saved through baptism but not one single verse that says we’re saved by faith alone.
If we believe and yet continue willfully in sin does it make a difference to our eternal security in Christ?
Who says the Catholic Church is a works based faith?
Have you not been reading anything Catholics have been posting? It sure seems like you take things out of context.
Baptism is the means in which we receive by grace salvation but you are mistaken if you think faith alone saves…
James 2:24 is clear!
Justified by works NOT faith alone.
Show me where in the bible it says we are saved by faith alone!
Anyone who teaches salvation by works alone according to the Catholic Church is heresy!
What does “works” mean?
Well to believe is something we do
Baptism is a gift and sacrament
We can’t do anything apart from God. We can’t even breath apart from God.
Salvation comes as a Grace received to be able to cooperate with God.
So by grace we believe
By grace we receive the sacrament of baptism
By grace we repent
By grace we reflect pennance
By grace we work out our salvation in Christ
Where in the bible does it say we’re saved by faith alone? You have yet to produce one scripture verse that says we’re saved by faith alone.
And yet many scripture verses that point to baptism as the means of being born again of water, become a new creation in Christ and many verses that talk about being saved through baptism but not one single verse that says we’re saved by faith alone.
If we believe and yet continue willfully in sin does it make a difference to our eternal security in Christ?
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
Baptism - buried in Christ’s death and raised to new life in Christ!
This also includes Christ’s death on the cross PLUS His resurrection.
Jesus came as the 2nd Adam which means there is a lot more to it then the shedding of Christ’s blood.
Everything in the OT foreshadows the NT. Jesus was called the lamb of God. At the time of the passover it wasn’t just the blood of the lamb sprinkled on the door but the Jewish household also consumed the lamb. There is so much more. Jesus didn’t die on the cross just to take our place Jesus also raised back to life so that we too can be raised from the dead in Christ.
This also includes Christ’s death on the cross PLUS His resurrection.
Jesus came as the 2nd Adam which means there is a lot more to it then the shedding of Christ’s blood.
Everything in the OT foreshadows the NT. Jesus was called the lamb of God. At the time of the passover it wasn’t just the blood of the lamb sprinkled on the door but the Jewish household also consumed the lamb. There is so much more. Jesus didn’t die on the cross just to take our place Jesus also raised back to life so that we too can be raised from the dead in Christ.
- Status