Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

Again i would be very interersted to hear Daves view on this. I will be very surprised if he supports your view here Cheryl. Covenant theology is very well understood in Prebyterian circles, in Australia anyway. Also no body else has said anything about this issue. DO people support Cheryl’s view on this?

I hear a “call” for help. Anyone is welcome to jump in if they want.

What I would like to add is that the priesthood of the past was the symbolic. It symbolized Christ. Although the work was literal, as they had animals to kill, the service was symbolic in that no animal death ever took away sin.

Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Our work now is giving glory to God in the reality that the symbolism merely pointed to. We have the privilege of giving out the good news about the gospel in the way that it was fulfilled in Christ.

Just a quick side note. Acts 16 is not the establishment of the Phillipian Church, nor is it a ‘church’ gathering. Verse 13 tells us that they were looking for a place of Prayer. They met Lydia, evangelised to her and baptised her. This is evangelism/mission not a church gathering.

Mark, you need to read some more Jewish history. I don’t think anyone is claiming that it was a “Christian” church, but it was an assembly of believers in God. It was the ONLY way that they could meet without enough Jewish men to constitute a legitimate synagogue. It certainly was a witnessing opportunity for the Apostles, but this begs the point because the women were holding unqualified Jewish assemblies. This is the point that is being brought up. Not that they were already Christians, but that they lead in prayer and worship.