It seems as though you either can’t or won’t provide reasonable justification in response to my request, ie the two points I listed above. Care to try?
-
-
Replying to @pireservices
You seem unable to think in sequences, so I don’t think I can. No offence but if you don’t understand the diagram then your current model needs to be set aside temporarily - my position is a paradigm shift that bursts the “tribal covenant” wineskin.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67 @pireservices
Perhaps this might help - you guys are still thinking in “land” terms, but that social demarcation is gone. It’s now just an ordained priesthood of believing legal witnesses (Garden) and the nations (World).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67
Since you are so scrupulous with others you disagree with paradigmatically: Where EXACTLY does Scripture say or teach clearly that Communion (or any sacrament) is only for “believing legal witnesses”? Where is it even clearly implied? Surely you have more than a diagram to offer
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pireservices
Who has access to the Garden- Sanctuary? Legal representatives. What is required of them? Obedient faith. What is the reward? Historical continuity (offspring and agriculture in the Land). Same pattern right thru the Bible.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67
Based on your commitment to such defined boundaries, are you saying that children (offspring) can’t be legal representatives, or have faith, or obey God, and therefore cannot share a communion meal with others? At what point can they commune? Please be consistent
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pireservices
Jesus’ baptism moved history from earthly fathers to the Heavenly Father. Likewise, in baptism a person is no longer under the mediated discipline of parents or guardians but instead becomes an invested guardian, a mediator, answering directly to Christ and the Church.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67
But WHERE IN SCRIPTURE does it teach that “Jesus Baptism moves history”, and ESPECIALLY “moving it” from “earthly fathers” to the Heavenly Father? Honest question. The scriptural warrant for that must be presented for your “likewise” to be taken seriously at all
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pireservices
Also, not only is paedobaptism contrary to the logic of the New Covenant at every point, it is never once mentioned. Not once. It has to be assumed or inserted in every single instance. No scriptural warrant whatsoever. It should not be taken seriously at all. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67
If not being mentioned once constitutes a sacramental action that is “contrary to the logic of the New Testament”, then WOMEN shouldn’t take communion at all. No scriptural warrant is found for that whatsoever. All of this shows how contrived your paradigm is
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Paedobaptism is indeed totally against the logic of the New Testament. It is just circumcision in a very bad disguise. Paedobaptism is so contrary to the NT that it has to be accommodated thru some kind of trade-off. That's why FV caused a division, and then even FV itself split.
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.