Excellent points but 2 Cor 5:17 does not say “participates in” but “is.” Your obsolete Abrahamic ecclesiology requires that you misrepresent the text.http://bit.ly/2AjJ82S
#6: The NC is the demonstration of the righteousness of God, as he faithfully fulfilled, in Christ, all that he had promised in the OC. What happened in Christ is what God was always up to. Circumcision was always a sign of faith - that was given to babies (just like baptism).
-
-
At the root of PJL’s “Abrahamic” ecclesiology is a failure to understand the expanded architecture of the New Covenant. He has to include the word “participation” because he sees baptism as inclusion in the audience rather than investiture as a prophetic witness, a speaker.pic.twitter.com/PKQ8HgX602
-
Honestly, I don't have time to debate all of this. But I did have a question about your diagram (actually more than one, but I'm just asking this one). Are you saying you think Paul is referring to the entire world when he talks about God overlooking sin in the OC in Rom 3:25?
-
Yes, the nations remained under the Noahic Covenant but Israel mediated on their behalf. The baptism confusion is partly due to a failure to understand the OT covenants as cut *inside* each other. The Gentiles were still “covenant members” in that sense. http://bit.ly/2P3Ot0F pic.twitter.com/p2uLNT4P3Q
-
But my question is specifically about Rom 3:25. Why are you interpreting that to be a reference to his passing over of the sins of every person in the world? That doesn't fit Paul's argument in that text at all.
-
1/2 Paul’s context here is “all those who believe.” The animal sacrifices allowed one to have a good conscience before God, but they only put a lid on the trash can – a preliminary covering. Jesus took out the rubbish...
-
You've now switched the meaning to its proper one. This isn't about every person in the world, but rather about how the Torah didn't actually atone/cover sins in itself. But earlier you applied the passing over of sins to the entire world, saying they weren't under obligation.
-
1/2 They weren't under obligation to the Mosaic Law, just as common Israelites were not under the obligations of the Levites, and the common Levites were not under the obligations of those under priestly vows, and the priests were not under the obligations of the High Priest...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I agree except for your final sentence. Circumcision was for MALES as a sign of the promise (to faithful Abraham) of the coming SEED as Covenant Sanctions. In contrast, baptism — like the vow at Sinai and the Israelite robe — relates directly to personal faith in a Covenant Oath.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.