If you think infants and children should partake of communion because they partook of the Passover meal, you just made the Garden of Eden, Sinai, the Tabernacle, and the Temples, entirely redundant. Children never ate at God’s table. Only their guardians did.
-
-
Replying to @MrBully67
It seems pretty obvious that weaned children ate and drank the manna and the water from the rock in the wilderness (What else would they have eaten? What else was there to drink?) And that spiritual food and drink was Christ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ChrisLeuck
Sure, but that's not what Paul is talking about. He's referring to their spiritual food and drink - the obedience of Christ (John 4:32) - “Garden” food, not "Land" food. It was the adults who took the vow at Sinai who died in the wilderness, not the children.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67
In 1 Cor 10:1-4 it seems he is referring to spiritual food and land food. The manna and water in the wilderness were sacramental, much like our bread and wine/juice. They ate and drank the food and drink and were eating and drinking Christ, like we do in the Supper.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisLeuck @MrBully67
If this is true, the fact that the children ate and drank Christ in the wilderness, and did not die (but continued in the covenant blessing of God), would really mess up the credo position on covenant children and the paedobaptist position on children at the Supper all in one go
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisLeuck
No, it vindicates the credo position. Only the adults took the vow, the covenant oath, and were thus held accountable. Abraham was about circumcision of flesh. Moses was about circumcision of heart. These were related but never conflated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67
I don't know how you could arrive at the position that Abraham was merely circumcision of flesh, when Paul makes so clear that his legacy was spiritual (Rom 4, Galatians 3) and that true circumcision is a matter of the heart (Rom 2).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChrisLeuck
So the OC was a social order with an ethical telos. The NC is an ethical order with a social telos - witness to the nations. History is chiastic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MrBully67
In order to say the Abraham sign was carnal/tribal you would have to say that the covenant promises made to Abr were carnal/tribal and that would be a big no-no. They are the initial promises that undergird our witness to the nations... God's promise to save the world (Gen 12:3)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You’re not getting it. Circumcision was a “land and womb” sign. That doesn’t mean there was not a spiritual component. But our promise is not seed or real estate.
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.