Comments on: The Case for Covenantal Animal Baptism

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:12:41 +0000

It certainly is.

By: Chris w

Chris w — Fri, 04 Oct 2013 07:41:16 +0000

Hi Aaron,

Yes I should have included something like that hehe. Thanks for the feedback.

Mike,

Is that a picture of st Francis?

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:53:47 +0000

Aaron – that’s a good observation, but we must remember that the circumcision of Isaac, and indeed passover, and the redemption of the firstborn, were closely tied to animal substitutes. The founding of paedobaptism upon circumcision reveals a profound misunderstanding of circumcision. Both of the Covenant signs are screwed up by PB.
Thanks for commenting.

By: Aaron Richmond

Aaron Richmond — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:01:50 +0000

hehe, well done. Only thing missing is the characteristic head nod toward dissenting interpretations:

“Sure, there are elements of discontinuity (such as man being made in the image of God, animals never being given the covenant sign of circumcision, etc.), but these elements should not prevent us from seeing the great emphasis on inclusivity that the new covenant ushers in. These issues of discontinuity should not keep us from seeing that in a very real way animals are valuable fellow members of the new covenant community.”