Could a baptist explain to me why God no longer includes children of covenant members in the covenant promises?
-
-
Replying to @HacimMb
At the risk of starting a whole thing that I am ill equipped to discuss intelligently, were only males included in the Abrahamic covenant since only they took the mark? If not then why need a baby receive the mark baptism to be included in the new covenant blessings?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @greenchilegirl
Federal headship/bloody mark represented Adamic sin removal. Baptism is death and burial of individual in Christ. NT shows women being baptized, ergo, change of sign application. - NC is new admin, all of old admin needed new sign.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HacimMb
Baby baptism doesn’t mark the new birth. If it marks covenant membership somehow then it’s just symbolic, right? Surely you don’t think it confers covenant membership in and of itself?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Circumcision didn't mark the circumcision of the heart - it pointed to it. Baptism doesn't mark new birth, it points to it. Both signs ultimately point to the same thing, the removal of the flesh and renewal in blood.
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.