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 hell 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:
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.
Here Chantrys contentions are not mistaken, but simply wrong.
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 hell 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.