Their participate in Christ defines them. To be joined to Christ IS to be new creation. They participate in Jesus, who inaugurated new creation, therefore they are new creation too.
-
-
Replying to @GabeWetmore @_Theopolis
Nice try. But that definition is precisely the opposite of what Paul is saying. Read the passage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67 @_Theopolis
"If anyone is in Christ, he is new creation." In other words, if any man is in Christ he participates with Christ in his death and resurrection, therefore he is new creation. He dies to the old creation in Adam and is raised to become something new in Christ.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GabeWetmore @_Theopolis
I agree. But PJL said “participates in” a new creation to allow for the sprinkling of babies. Sacralizing natural ties (blood, tribal, civic) is not the supernatural kingdom. That’s why Christendom 1.0 died – it conflated cause and effect. The kingdom of Christ is internal law.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67 @_Theopolis
#1 (Can't fit this in one tweet): PJL doesn't even mention paedobaptism in this thread. But you're wrong to say that the new covenant is "internal law" as a way of distinguishing it from the old...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
#2: Paul's, and Jesus', contention with judaism wasn't that they got the old covenant right, but failed to see the big changes in the new. Their point was that they missed the whole point of the old covenant. That's why Jesus says he doesn't need to condemn the Pharisees...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
#3: because there's already one who condemns them. Moses, the very one in whom they placed their hope. If they had believed Moses they would've believed him, because Moses wrote about him.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
#4: The Old Cov. wasn't merely about external conformity to the works of the Torah. It was about faith. That's why Paul says they missed the whole point of it. They mistook the type for the antitype, and in doing so failed to understand the whole point of the type.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
#5: So that's not a new vs. old thing. It's about a false vs. true understanding of the old covenant itself. This isn't where the differences between old and new covenant lie.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
#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).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.