Replies

Beyond this, there is a theological flaw. It is nothing new for Baptists to adhere to Covenant Theology…. But paedobaptists have been negligent in defining the diversity in the administrations of the Covenant of Grace…. In the Old Covenant, adult sons and servants were circumcised, and thus incorporated into the visible church. Now, only the infants of believers are baptized. In the Old, children came to the Passover at a very young age. Now small children are not admitted to the Lord’s Table. Whence this change?

What change, Mr. Chantry?

Under the Ancient Covenant, the Covenant Sign was administered unto the infants, but the Covenant Supper was reserved unto the elder children.

Chantry is faulting presbyterians for our Covenantal consistency. I hope he’ll understand if we regard “criticisms” like that as a compliment, and a badge of honor.

When the principle of diversity is formulated, it will exclude infants from the sacrament of baptism. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is pivotal to expressing the diversity of covenant administrations. It is quoted in Hebrews S and again in 10 to prove that "Christ is mediator of a better covenant." There is an emphatic contrast made in verses 31 and 32. The differences are so striking and dramatic that one covenant is called "new" and it is implied that the other is old. The Jews under the Old Covenant were warned that revolutionary changes would be made. The covenant in force was inadequate except to prepare for the New. So surpassing is the glory of the New, that it should lead them to look for the demolition of the Old. The passage suggests two vital distinctions ushered in by the effusion of the Spirit. This effusion made a change in administration possible.

But Mr. Chantry… what if your entire exigesis of the passage above fails upon a misreading of one little word?

The Covenant is not a discontinuous matter of Old, and New.
It is a continuous Covenant of Ancient Covenant… and Renewed Covenant:

B'RIT CHADASHA
The Re-Newed Covenant

There are two words to say "new" in Greek: neos and kainen; neos is what we usually understand as "new"; kainen, however, means "renewed"; for instance, the "new" moon which appears every month is not actually a new moon, but the same, albeit a renewed moon. This is the meaning of the word which appears every time the Renewed Covenant has been translated as "New Testament," i.e., the Renewed Covenant; ditto with the Renewed Jerusalem/"the new Jerusalem," the renewed man/"the new man" of Eph. 2:15, etc. The Hebrew word from which this originally derives, Hadashah, with its feminine ending, also means "renewed," thus: Brit Ha Hadashah, the Renewed Covenant of which Jer. 31:31 speaks about. -- MessianicYisrael.Com

The Covenant is Visible and One.

This diversity is nowhere more evident than in the ceremonies of worship. New Testament worship presents us with a most striking contrast with Old Testament ordinances. This can be illustrated by looking at the Lord’s Supper, which finds a counterpart in the Old Testament Passover. The great spiritual truth of redemption by blood is figured in the Passover, but it is somewhat obscured beneath an outward and formal atmosphere. Then, too, the ceremony mixes the figures of personal redemption and national deliverance. Even those who had no acquaintance with spiritual redemption, observed it. This they should have done; for their national life arose from the historic event remembered. Very young children came to the Passover as participants that, by it, they might ask the significance and as they grew older, come to understand the redemption figures. (cf. Exodus 12:2427, etc.) In the New Testament, things are quite different. I Corinthians 11:23-30 gives instruction for the most formal ceremony of the New Covenant. Here very young children must not come.

Here Chantry’s contentions are not mistaken, but simply wrong.

A passover meal would include roast lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread (Ex 12:8)-- hardly Gerber's baby food. And the children would be taught the meaning of the sacrament from the earliest days. At each observance, the head of the family would explain to the children the significance of the meal, of Yahweh's deliverance of His covenant people (Ex. 12:26ff.). By the time a child would be old enough to take full part in the act, such children would have the knowledge to discern the meaning of the sacrament, even if at a still young age. Children of all ages participated in the passover by listening and learning, but full participation was only for older covenant children. Even in the old covenant, the sacrament of spiritual nourishment was not given for some time after the initiatory sacrament, and then only with teaching. -- Why Paedocommunion is a Bad Idea: Expanding a Blessing or Bringing down a Curse? Gregory Johnson

Under the Renewed Covenant, a child is raised as a Covenant child, and taught the meaning of Christian Passover before they partake thereof. Just as under the Ancient Covenant, the children were raised as Covenant children, and taught the meaning of Pesach before they partook thereof.

Again, Chantry is faulting Presbyterians for our Covenantal consistency. He ends up giving us an unintended compliment.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

What change, Mr. Chantry? Under the Ancient Covenant, the Covenant Sign was administered unto the infants, but the Covenant Supper was reserved unto the elder children.

The covenant sign was administered only to male infants. And my understanding is that both male and female Jewish children participated in the Passover feast. Again, the baptism=circumcision argument fails when applied consistently.

Chantry is faulting presbyterians for our Covenantal consistency. I hope he’ll understand if we regard “criticisms” like that as a compliment, and a badge of honor.

It is not consistent in any way. Paul explicity taught that male circumcision was unnecessary under the New Covenant. He instead preached the New Covenant in Christ, a circumcision of the heart for both males and females.