Quote:
Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh  Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum There are exceptions to marriage too, but whole denominations do not get divorced and argue for divorce as an acceptable alternative. There is a difference between an alternative and an exception in dire straits. The Diache allowed pouring as an exception when water was not available. Why are we drawing teachings from the Didache anyway? How do you sprinkle someone with running water?
I am withdrawing.
This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....
Good day gentlemen and God bless. | Brother, may I offer some encouragement and peace in this...
Adam Myer's argument is based on the Presbyterian view of the matter. His argument and presupposition are laid in a way that places Baptists in a defensive posture, not in a way that could take into account Baptist history, ecclesiology and theology on this subject.
In other words, he's referring to historical lexicons that the Magisterial Reformers (paedobaptists) had embraced but English Baptists had denounced only on the issue of Baptism because the English Baptists had viewed that the Magisterial Reformers were dead wrong on this matter by not tying Baptism to the reforming of the entire church.
So I just want to encourage you to not be flustered because you felt you couldn't respond adequately. Given the way Myer laid his conclusive argument (There really can be no argument against this understanding once the sources have been studied), it does not give Baptists a fair way of answering because he's referring to the sources that Baptists had rejected on the topic of Baptism from the start. |
I find this a bit humorous for two reasons (although I do appreciate your attempt to back up a brother who may feel that he is in a bit of a corner):
1st - I have been a Baptist for majority of my life, only changing positions on the sacraments at the age of 27 after a tremendous amount of struggle and study, and I first attended a Baptist seminary for several years before transferring to one that was confessionally Reformed. That is to say, I know Baptist history, ecclesiology, and theology at least as well as most Baptists. In fact, I studied Baptist ecclesiology under Jim Renihan at WSC as an elective credit just for kicks. Well, it was more serious minded than that, really, and it was a well-presented course, although I must say that it ultimately failed to persuade me to return to the Baptist position.
2nd - I was not referring to the lexicons used by the Magisterial Reformers, nor do I even know where I could find one (if anyone knows, I would think it a great patch of reading material)! I was referring, first of all, to the work by Dale, which is a late 19th century work (nearly early 20th century), and second of all to modern lexicons such as LSJ/LN/BDAG that are today used by every well-schooled churchman whether he be a Baptist, Presbyterian, or what have you. The one that was referenced in particular (LSJ) is not an ecclesiastical lexicon at all, but a Greek-English lexicon for use in studying a broad range of Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the various uses of a Greek term in documents outside of Holy Scripture (although it includes references to Scripture also) in the years preceding, concurrent with, and following upon the writings of the New Testament.
Again, I admire your defense, but I do not think that your analysis here is quite as accurate as that for which you would have hoped
