Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlute  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.
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 an English-Greek lexicon for use in studying Classical Greek literature. It does assist, however, in showing the broader use 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  |
I was interpreting your statement of "Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings" as referring to Reformation period writings or prior. Dale and LSJ are definitely not patristic writings. I was thinking that you were referencing them as secondary sources to draw some kind of primary patristic source. So thanks for the clarification.
In which case, if your concluding argument that the sources to be studied that levels out any argumentation against paedobaptism are the "Classical, Jewish, Biblical and Patristic writings" of the Reformation period, then my earlier rebuttal stands. But if your concluding argument about the sources that somehow level out any argumentation against paeodobaptism as referring to Dale, LSJ, BAGD, and other more modern and contemporary reference works, I find your conclusion faulty. Yes, I agree with you that LSJ has more of a Presbyterian bent, but so is Berkhof's Systematic Theology.
As for your personal testimony of struggle and identity, I'm sorry to hear about that. My testimony is the exact opposite. I had grown up in the PCA denomination for 27 years of my life. My father remains a non-Christian. And his biggest argument against Christianity is "too many hypocrites." And growing up in a Presbyterian church where all members have been baptized and partake of the Lord's Supper but are mixed with both regenerates and unregenerates, I merely took it as an assumption that that is just part of what a church body is about. But after understanding the Baptist concept of Regenerate Church Membership and the close link Baptism has to Regenerate Church Membership, and consequently Lord's Supper has with Church Membership and Baptism, the entire relationship fit.
To this day, I still witness to my father the Gospel message. But he had been personally hurt in very deep emotional ways by church members who were unregenerate. And this is the biggest thorn that Presbyterianism has to deal with - children of Satan within its own ranks. And infant baptism as a sign of the covenant is nothing more than a false ticket of assurance of assuming salvation when it had not been granted.