As noted, the parallel passage in Luke includes infants in the blessing. And one of the critical points here, is the fact that Jesus said that these infants were already “of the Kingdom of God” – already Citizens of the Kingdom.
Jesus enjoyed the advantage of already knowing His Own, having perfect confidence in who was Elect, and who was not. We do not enjoy this advantage; but we certainly pray it to be true of our children, and do not hesitate to bring them to our King for His blessing.
B) Acts 2:39 has also been pressed into service to support infant baptism. "For the promise is unto you and to your children” ,….The promises do not belong unto the children of believers apart from effectual calling. Only those children who receive this saving grace of God may be conceived of as being heirs of the spiritual promises.
True -- And irrelevant to the case.
The fact that many Israelites grew up to be Idolaters in adult life, did not change the sacramental ordinance of their inclusion as infants in the Sign of the Covenant.
C) Household baptisms are called upon, by paedobaptists, as evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There are four references: Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), Stephanas ([Corinthians 1). None of the references say that infants were in these houses….Infant baptism can be found here only by those most anxious to do so….
More to the point, these passages do not affirm the presumption that Baptism must necessarily follow an individual profession of belief. The anabaptist has, after all, staked his claim upon he ground that this is the unanimous example of the New Testament – and represents a discontinuity of sacramental practice from the Old Testament.
But as Schlissel has demonstrated, no such commandment of discontinuity is found in the new Testament – whereas a common practice which is found (household baptisms) conforms easily to the Covenantal model, but only with the inclusion of certain implicit assumptions does it conform to the anabaptistic case.
D) I Corinthians 7:14 is another favorite verse. There we are told that children are "holy". The text does not have even vague reference to church membership or baptism. it is talking about mixed marriages in which one spouse is a believer and the other is not. The question is whether such a relationship is proper, moral, or holy for those who were converted after marriage to the unbeliever. Paul reasons from the obvious to the doubtful. It is obvious that your children are not bastards. They were born in wedlock. They are holy. Therefore, it ought to be clear to you that your marriage relationship is holy. Don’t feel guilty about it or wish to be free from your obligations. If the word "holy" suggests a covenant relationship or cultic purity, making the children proper objects for baptism, then the unbelieving spouse is also a valid candidate for the sacrament. The verb "sanctify" has precisely the same root and signification as the adjective "holy." And it is the holiness of the spouse that the passage belabors.
Chantry protests too much. The fact of the matter is, Paul says that the unbelieving spouse is entitled to certain Covenantal advantages in regard to his marriage. While the unbelieving spouse might abandon or divorce the Christian for non-Covenantal reasons, the Christian must treat his/her unbelieving spouse with Covenantal respect, and must not abandon or divorce that spouse for non-Covenantal reasons.
However, this does not speak to the matter of Covenantal observance. In the case of an adult convert to Covenantal observance under the Law, the adult convert was required first to profess adherence to the Torah, and then would be granted the sacramental seal of the Covenant sign.
However, once an adult convert professed adherence to the Torah and received the Covenant Sign, their children were to be raised as full members of the Covenant, and granted the Covenant Sign as infants.
No commandment specifying a change in the Covenantal order is found in the New Testament.
The argument has hung upon a syllogism that goes something like this: There is a unity between the Old and New Covenants. Circumcision in the Old is parallel to baptism in the New. Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New…. Immediately we Baptists raise our first objection. There is here a serious hermeneutical flaw. How can a distinctively New Testament ordinance have its fullest — nay, its only foundation — in Old Testament Scripture?
Chantry merely presumes sacramental discontinuity here. But presumption is not argument. The fact is, Paul specifically called Baptism “the Circumcision of Christ”, and as Benjamin B. Warfield points out, in like manner the Lord’s Supper is rightly regarded as Christian Passover:
The Biblical model, then, is Covenantal continuity, not discontinuity.
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.
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:
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.
No commandment specifying a change in the Covenantal order is found in the New Testament.
Chantry merely presumes sacramental discontinuity here. But presumption is not argument. The fact is, Paul specifically called Baptism “the Circumcision of Christ”, and as Benjamin B. Warfield points out, in like manner the Lord’s Supper is rightly regarded as Christian Passover:
Is there a specfic command that changes the covenantal order from Passover to the Lord's Supper?
As noted, the parallel passage in Luke includes infants in the blessing. And one of the critical points here, is the fact that Jesus said that these infants were already “of the Kingdom of God” – already Citizens of the Kingdom.As Jesus' ministry grew, people flocked to Him in great numbers to seek healing and blessing. Mobs of people. I believe that the disciples tried to hold people back from bringing babies for blessing because the people came to Jesus in such numbers and with such need that they feared He would be exhausted by them. In fact, I believe that Jesus was routinely exhausted. In the Bible illustrations of this event and in religious art, often we see Jesus pictured as sitting quietly and alertly in a pastoral setting with no one around Him except a few children. I think a more realistic picture would be a mob of hundreds or even thousands and Jesus preaching and teaching and healing them for days and still the people kept coming, bringing to Him their every question and problem until He was thoroughly exhausted by it. I picture Him as sitting exhausted in the twilight after a long day and many more still waiting to see Him, so tired He can hardly move, and the disciples, wishing to spare Him more, tried to tell the people not to bring their children for His blessing.
Jesus enjoyed the advantage of already knowing His Own, having perfect confidence in who was Elect, and who was not. We do not enjoy this advantage; but we certainly pray it to be true of our children, and do not hesitate to bring them to our King for His blessing.
Chantry merely presumes sacramental discontinuity here. But presumption is not argument. The fact is, Paul specifically called Baptism “the Circumcision of Christ”, and as Benjamin B. Warfield points out, in like manner the Lord’s Supper is rightly regarded as Christian Passover: ...This sort of extreme Covenantalism is indeed the road to Rome as has been pointed out so ably by my previous posts by Chantry and Piper. This ably demonstrates how the practice of infant baptism among Reformation churches and their descendants is rightly regarded as having its basis in the Old Testament, not the New.