Quote:
Originally Posted by servantofmosthigh  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. |
Your writing is a little unclear, so I am not sure how you find the conclusion faulty. You didn't really do anything more than to make a bare assertion with that one. As well, I did not say that LSJ had a presbyterian bent, I said that it was not intended as an ecclesiastical document at all, so again, your writing is a little unclear to me.
As to your false hope that some sort of "believers only" baptismal concept will clear up all of the woes from your past - brother, I hate to break it to you, but you are going to be sadly disappointed. I must tell you with all honesty that I have met far more false professors in the credobaptist congregations that I had attended than I have in conservative Reformed churches.
One of the things that drew me to the Reformed in the first place was the stark difference in seriousness and holy profession/act that I observed there, which was completely lacking from any baptistic fellowship that I had ever attended. To this day, some of the worse cases of hypocrisy and apostasy that I have witnessed and had the sorrow to engage against have been in credobaptists congregations. The practice of the administration will not change the reality of unregenerates coming into the church. I have seen some of the most "sincere" and vigorous adult testimonies be followed in later years by the most vicious denials of Christ, the most devastating cases of habitual adultery against spouse and children, deception and theft within church leadership, etc. You cannot hide from it by changing the application of baptism - sinners are sinners!
As for your father, and please don't take this too hard as I have said the same thing regarding my own father who also hides and sulks in his sin under the pretense of having been hurt by the church, I would tell him that he needs to grow up and get over it. If he had any love of Christ at all in his heart, he would realize that a) Christian love covers a multitude of sins, b) worshipping God among sinners is more important than rejecting God until you find the "perfect church" that will never hurt you, and c) he is a sinner just like the rest, and every sinner saved by grace was once a hypocrite also -maybe even a hypocrite who was saved while sitting in a church service!
The Anabaptists attempted to purify the church by overturning what they held to be a false application of baptism, and there was far more craziness going on in their circles than practically anywhere else during the reformation. It is not a "proper view of baptism" that will save any church from itself - it is only the work of the Holy Spirit among God's people.
Btw, I will assume that your "Children of Satan" statement was directed at the true hypocrites in the church and not the baptized children. If it was also directed at all baptized children, it just goes to confirm that which Rich has been stating on several recent threads, namely, that the baptist view of baptism does serious harm against the nurture and discipleship of the children of believing families. I have seen as much when baptists refuse to let their children pray, because they are (as I have heard several put it) "little pagans". That view is a sin against the Church, and is certainly not the view of either Christ or his apostles. They are rather seen as blessed and holy to God.