<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: You and Your Children</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2013/08/03/you-and-your-children/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2013/08/03/you-and-your-children/</link>
	<description>Theology you can eat and drink</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:01:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Bull</title>
		<link>http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2013/08/03/you-and-your-children/comment-page-1/#comment-27728</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Bull]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 23:40:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=12658#comment-27728</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I don&#039;t think you can separate &quot;social&quot; and &quot;ethical&quot; the way you are attempting to do. If anything, the pattern is ethical before it is social (Adam before Eve, Head before Body), isn&#039;t it? And the two aren&#039;t complete without each other playing their respective roles, are they?&quot;

I didn&#039;t answer this very well.
Adam received the Law alone, just as Moses received the Law alone. The Law is Ethical, certainly, but receiving the Law makes Adam the Head and Eve the Body. The third stage is prophetic, where Adam is called to judge according to Law, and this reveals whether the Law has been *internalized* or not. Like the jealous inspection, it &quot;cuts him open&quot; ethically rather than physically. It reveals what is in his heart, discerning his spirit. The New Covenant is about hearing &quot;the Gospel Law,&quot; discerning the spirits and judging between good and evil - and being qualified to represent God as a mediator.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t think you can separate &#8220;social&#8221; and &#8220;ethical&#8221; the way you are attempting to do. If anything, the pattern is ethical before it is social (Adam before Eve, Head before Body), isn&#8217;t it? And the two aren&#8217;t complete without each other playing their respective roles, are they?&#8221;</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t answer this very well.<br />
Adam received the Law alone, just as Moses received the Law alone. The Law is Ethical, certainly, but receiving the Law makes Adam the Head and Eve the Body. The third stage is prophetic, where Adam is called to judge according to Law, and this reveals whether the Law has been *internalized* or not. Like the jealous inspection, it &#8220;cuts him open&#8221; ethically rather than physically. It reveals what is in his heart, discerning his spirit. The New Covenant is about hearing &#8220;the Gospel Law,&#8221; discerning the spirits and judging between good and evil &#8211; and being qualified to represent God as a mediator.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Bull</title>
		<link>http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2013/08/03/you-and-your-children/comment-page-1/#comment-27704</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Bull]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=12658#comment-27704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jared, each stage has physical, social and ethical components, but circumcision was fundamentally a social divide, and baptism is fundamentally ethical. Circumcision was &quot;hear, O Israel&quot; (delegation) and baptism is &quot;go and tell.&quot; There is a big difference, as big as the difference between death and resurrection. Jesus didn&#039;t get resurrected as a baby. He was still a grown man.

And you should only be baptizing females in that case. No baptism for males, because they don&#039;t image the Bride!. Peter should have said, &quot;You and your daughters.&quot;

Also, infants who &quot;cannot tell between mother and father&quot; cannot tell between good and evil. There is no internal law possible, by the Spirit, until the heart is cut. Faith comes by hearing the Word. Otherwise you have a second Gospel on your hands, or you are misrepresenting the true Gospel in your baptism.

Finally, this approach also confuses the field with the harvest. If baptism is just about the field, and a child might or might not bear fruit, then God&#039;s field is the Church, not all nations, and we have no business sharing the gospel outside of it. Why does a child need a &quot;mark&quot; to hear the Gospel? Israelite girls could hear the Law without a mark. So could the Gentiles who believed. Baptism is not the field but the harvest, those who have been &quot;cut&quot; and borne fruit, and can now represent God. Because He harvests from wherever He will, the Israelite &quot;Land&quot; boundary became meaningless. The New Covenant is all about the &quot;response&quot; of the Bride.

Thanks for the response to my cutting words!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jared, each stage has physical, social and ethical components, but circumcision was fundamentally a social divide, and baptism is fundamentally ethical. Circumcision was &#8220;hear, O Israel&#8221; (delegation) and baptism is &#8220;go and tell.&#8221; There is a big difference, as big as the difference between death and resurrection. Jesus didn&#8217;t get resurrected as a baby. He was still a grown man.</p>
<p>And you should only be baptizing females in that case. No baptism for males, because they don&#8217;t image the Bride!. Peter should have said, &#8220;You and your daughters.&#8221;</p>
<p>Also, infants who &#8220;cannot tell between mother and father&#8221; cannot tell between good and evil. There is no internal law possible, by the Spirit, until the heart is cut. Faith comes by hearing the Word. Otherwise you have a second Gospel on your hands, or you are misrepresenting the true Gospel in your baptism.</p>
<p>Finally, this approach also confuses the field with the harvest. If baptism is just about the field, and a child might or might not bear fruit, then God&#8217;s field is the Church, not all nations, and we have no business sharing the gospel outside of it. Why does a child need a &#8220;mark&#8221; to hear the Gospel? Israelite girls could hear the Law without a mark. So could the Gentiles who believed. Baptism is not the field but the harvest, those who have been &#8220;cut&#8221; and borne fruit, and can now represent God. Because He harvests from wherever He will, the Israelite &#8220;Land&#8221; boundary became meaningless. The New Covenant is all about the &#8220;response&#8221; of the Bride.</p>
<p>Thanks for the response to my cutting words!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jared leonard</title>
		<link>http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2013/08/03/you-and-your-children/comment-page-1/#comment-27697</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jared leonard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 04:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=12658#comment-27697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t think you can separate &quot;social&quot; and &quot;ethical&quot; the way you are attempting to do. If anything, the pattern is ethical before it is social (Adam before Eve, Head before Body), isn&#039;t it? And the two aren&#039;t complete without each other playing their respective roles, are they? 

In my mind circumcision parallels baptism in that they both have external and internal applications/realizations. They both fit into the matrix the same way at division and conquest: division is external and conquest is internal. In the big picture &quot;Adam&quot; has done his part and now &quot;Eve&quot; is doing hers; this is why only males could receive the sign and now both male and female can receive the sign. The function of the sign is the same: initially it marks one as a member of the body and eventually it grows into faithfulness or faithlessness (in accordance to God&#039;s decree of election). At division we are externally separated from unbelievers and death. At conquest we are internally united to Christ and life.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think you can separate &#8220;social&#8221; and &#8220;ethical&#8221; the way you are attempting to do. If anything, the pattern is ethical before it is social (Adam before Eve, Head before Body), isn&#8217;t it? And the two aren&#8217;t complete without each other playing their respective roles, are they? </p>
<p>In my mind circumcision parallels baptism in that they both have external and internal applications/realizations. They both fit into the matrix the same way at division and conquest: division is external and conquest is internal. In the big picture &#8220;Adam&#8221; has done his part and now &#8220;Eve&#8221; is doing hers; this is why only males could receive the sign and now both male and female can receive the sign. The function of the sign is the same: initially it marks one as a member of the body and eventually it grows into faithfulness or faithlessness (in accordance to God&#8217;s decree of election). At division we are externally separated from unbelievers and death. At conquest we are internally united to Christ and life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
