Had a little fun last week w/ this Q & subsequent answers. HOWEVER, the discussion prompted an actual Q for me that sits at the intersection of covenant theology & gender. Would love feedback (1)https://twitter.com/sometimesalight/status/1050772746836332545 …
-
-
So you're saying baptism parallels purification rites, not circumsion, right? I've always found this more satisfying explanation which is likely why I'm a baptist
-
that there IS a sign of entry to the covenant is a parallel to circumcision. that the FORM of the sign is *definitive* washing is not to denigrate the circ<>baptism root idea of a covenant entry sign.
-
Duane Spencer's book on baptism is big on the washing background of baptism and hes paedo. I think I'm not suprised that the NC goes in a different direction with the form of the covenant sign, being New and all.
-
Okay, I think I see the distinction btwn sign & form. So male body carries the sign but all are initiated through water?
-
OT or NT? There is a typological initiation of the nation by water at the red sea/cloud (which rained! psalm 77:17) but I'd say prior to that the family is included in the circumicsion sign in the OT generally
-
Could you say that the form is consistent but the sign is fulfilled in Christ?
-
sure? which form: washing with water?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
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.