This might be the uttermost theological nonsense I have read here in a LONG, LONG, LONG time:
Quote:
Well we find baptism as a covenantal application simply because you are accepting the work of Christ and him as Lord of you life in total AT baptism. If you are united with him in baptism that would be a covenant aspect. You are becoming "one" in death. You cannot partake of his blood/death of the new covenant "baptism" and not be in covenant or agreement. It's a legal transaction. If you choose to follow him you negate all else. Thus unification of Christ's work is seen in baptism per Romans 6 etc... Thus you are united with HIM. To be united is agreement. Also Baptism saves thus the work of the cross has brought judicial authority because you have given him the right to respond/act on your behalf by faith and humblness. Grace is given to the humble. Thus you have humbled yourself before him and made him Master/Lord by contract. I will serve you and you alone and by doing so you obtain salvation.
You asked about my statment. She asked about don't we NEED to be baptized again everytime we sin. Well the answer is no. When you come INTO covenant and Christ's authority by his DBR is on your life. You have certain rights. If we confess our sin he is faithful and just to forgive us! Why? Because you are in covenant with him. Which was due to a point in time by which you obtained certain rights. You must be humble though and truly turned from your sin and repentant. God resists the poud. All covenants have conditions. These are basic covenant principles.... Also just as the old covenant there are blessings and cursings....
|
Biblical covenants, especially the Abrahamic covenant ... or the "new" covenant" ... are not always LEGAL CONTRACTS OR LEGAL TRANSACTIONS ... in the modern sense but binding ...
Once again the legalist forces modern and personal connotations into what is meant ... and ignores biblical context and authorial intent.
I submit the following concerning the biblical concept of "covenant" ... the concept of "berith" is often a binding grant or promise.
Furthermore, if the antitype of baptism is circumcision ... circumcision was a sign of the covenant and not a condition to enter covenant or an application of faith in order to partake ... moreover, it was sign of promise pointing to the birth of a deliverer.
To partake comes through faith, which will subsequently result in obedience, but not contigent on the work of the believer receiving the benefits of this promise or grant but rather the work of the testator ... the fulfillment is not conditioned in reciprocal agreement.
In the eternal Abrahamic covenant ... and the new covenant extended to all, ... we find that a believer is resting, relying, believing, trusting, on the testator on conditions fulfilled by the Work of the Lamb, Christ.
continued below
Threaded Mode
