# BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH by Hendrik Stander and Johannes Louw



## Mayflower

Myself iam paedobaptist believer, and one of the books that help me was William Wall's history on infant baptism.
But today i saw this next book a historical defence of believers baptism:

BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH by Hendrik Stander and Johannes Louw 
http://65.71.233.194/arbca/baptism_church_book.htm

Iam still wondering which kind of arguments that they wil use from a historical viewpoint, and how they go against foreaxmple that arguments that William Wall used. 

Is anyone familiar with this book and the arguments ?


----------



## Mayflower

Foreample it says :

" . . This is a helpful book. It demonstrates that believer's baptism did not simply appear after the apostolic era, but continued to be the accepted position for centuries. Infant baptism became part of the ecclesiastical practice gradually, apart from apostolic injunction. For this reason, it must be called into question, and rejected as a suitable practice for Christian churches.. 

"Infant baptism became part of the ecclesiastical practice gradually, apart from apostolic injunction.....??????????????????????????????


----------



## smallbeans

There is a tradition of this kind of literature - see the mid-century debates between Jeremias and Aland. I have not seen this Louw book, but even if he proves that the first few centuries did not practice infant baptism (or more exactly, that the evidence is lacking), it does not settle the case that we should not baptize infants today. After all, that was the infant church, and here we are 2000 years later - 2000 years of reflection on the scriptures, 2000 years of the Holy Spirit continuing to minister Christ to us. One could very well conclude that Infant Baptism is a legitimate doctrinal development that wasn't practiced widely until Tertullian and still have a respectable position. In summary, I'd just caution against the view that if the early church did it, it is more authentic. In general, we do not look to immaturity, but to maturity for our exemplars.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The only way he can deny IB in the early church is if he closes his eyes and says he does not see it anywhere. From graves, to ossuaries, to rabbinical literature, to prayer books, etc., infant baptism was widely documented and practiced (something I hated as fact while I was a Baptist). Wall's book is great on those issues.


----------



## matthew11v25

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> The only way he can deny IB in the early church is if he closes his eyes and says he does not see it anywhere. From graves, to ossuaries, to rabbinical literature, to prayer books, etc., infant baptism was widely documented and practiced (something I hated as fact while I was a Baptist). Wall's book is great on those issues.



matthew,

do you have any recommended resources regarding IB and early church?


----------



## john_Mark

*Fast and easily done...*



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> The only way he can deny IB in the early church is if he closes his eyes and says he does not see it anywhere.



Matthew,

You've just refuted the whole book without even reading it! 

Seriously, I want to check this book out.


----------



## john_Mark

*A short review by Michael T. Renihan*

Book reviewed by Michael T. Renihan
Professors Hendrikus Stander and Johannes Louw have provided an invaluable resource for students of the Patristic era of Church History. It is also a provocative volume for inquirers bold enough to look beyond their historical presuppositions regarding baptism. A word of warning: objectivity is required or this book will be a frustrating read.
Stander and Louw are both classical scholars in their own right. Each man´s work can be readily examined in the books, monographs, and articles he has published. Each is a world class scholar. Dr. Stander studied at Yale. On those occasions that took him to the libraries at Harvard, he would travel within a quarter mile of where I presently live. He is a kind and gracious man. Dr. Louw, along with Eugene Nida, is an editor of the acclaimed Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. The careers of Stander and Louw dovetailed at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. They have been associated with that institution for many years.
The denominational allegiance of the authors makes Baptism in the Early Church remarkable. They belong to churches that are paedobaptist and covenantal by confession and heritage. Yet, their desire was (and is) to be objective, honest, and thorough in their quest to understand how the Early Church understood and practiced baptism. In the end, they gently and graciously remove one of the three legs on which the three-legged stool of covenantal paedobaptism sat for many years; the other two being (from this writer´s perspective) theological necessity and eisogetical induction.
In the Twentieth Century, much work was done in the fields of archaeology and history with regard to baptism and the initiatory rites of the Early Church. It is sad that so much has been neglected or dismissed willfully with a few strokes on the keyboard. Everett Ferguson´s volume The Encyclopedia of the Early Church (which contains articles by Prof. Stander) is a repository for many of these recent discoveries.

Con´t here: http://65.71.233.194/arbca/baptism_church_book.htm

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by john_Mark]


----------



## smallbeans

Matthew - what is the bibliographical information for the Wall book you mentioned? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Theological Books

It's a great book (wonderfuly refreshing scholarship) and required reading for students in the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at Westminster Seminary California. These men clearly show a "direct line" of the practice of infant baptism cannot be found throughout the early patristic literature. This is not to prove/disprove the validity of infant baptism, mind you. It merely reflects no record of such a practice can be found in the extant patristic literature for a period of a few centuries (if memory serves me right). It's been a while since I read it, and my old copy--prior to the printing in which it is now sold--is gone, so I do not have my readily available copy with notes, underlinings, highlights, etc. I do recommend it. I can sell anybody a copy of it for $15.00 (not including s&h). I don't know how much others sell it for. Heck, if everyone wants to buy one, I can send them all out for $15.00 including s&h (media rate). Just PM me with a U2U message.


----------



## Steve Owen

I found a very interesting book on this subject at the Metropolitan Tabernacle Bookshop in London:-

*'Baptism: Archaeological, Historical, Biblical'* by F.M.Buhler (Joshua Press: ISBN 1-894400-20-8 ). Forword by Michael Haykin.

Buhler is/was an archaeologist by profession and also Pastor of Mulhouse Evangelical Baptist Church, France. He comments on a number of baptistries found in Roman houses, particularly the _House of the Christians_ in Doura-Europos in Syria. This is a 1st Century house, which had been turned into a Christian meeting place in the 3rd Century. It contained a baptistry, which was dismantled transported and moved to the _Art Gallery_ (?!) of Yale University, so some of you guys can check it out.

There are other baptistries found in various parts of the old Roman Empire, but this one is the oldest found so far.

Buhler also comments upon the evidence of iconography. Up until the 12th Century, in representations of His baptism, Christ id depicted with the water up to His, hips, waist or even HIs neck. This can only refer to baptism by immersion. From the 13th Century, Christ is represented with water up to the knees, up to half-calf or even only up to the ankle. JTB is then shown as pouring water on our Lord's head, often by means of a scallop shell.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## kceaster

What I find most incredible is that we are looking for empirical evidence for a spiritual reality.

Suppose no one ever finds empirical evidence. Does it make it less true? Does that mean that the collective understanding of the church is based on a lie? I refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit would lead us to a place like this.

I don't dispute that the Holy Roman church is full of error. I also don't dispute that they are the biggest reason for their error. But I do refuse to believe that the Reformation got the church back on track only to leave a practice that is so diametrically and diabolically opposed to God's Will on the matter.

It is only chronological snobbery that assumes that because there is no writing extant on the subject, that the testimony of the whole church for centuries is to be thrown out. Especially when we're talking about the inclusion of infants in the visible church. We're not practicing paedobaptism because we can prove the early church did. If we rested upon empirical evidence, how can that be God-glorifying and God-pleasing? He is only pleased by what we do in faith. Faith does not rest on empirical findings.

Now if we had faith in some alien rite someone came up with out of the world, we may be among men the most pitiable. But we are having faith that God does in fact promise to our children what we have come to know. We're not claiming faith in Mary or in the Pope. We're claiming a promise that has existed with the Father since the beginning of time.

So, finding empirical evidence about baptism will not solve our differences. We still have to answer why the Reformation divines continued a practice in concert with the testimony of the church, when, if they were casting aside superstition and innovations on the worship of God, they could have rid the church, once for all, of this practice.

The reason they kept it is because the promise is to us and to our children; that upon the members of the visible church, a sign should be placed; that the precious promises of God embraced by faith in Jesus Christ should be of comfort and assurance to God's people.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> Now if we had faith in some alien rite someone came up with out of the world, we may be among men the most pitiable.



No comment.



> We still have to answer why the Reformation divines continued a practice in concert with the testimony of the church, when, if they were casting aside superstition and innovations on the worship of God, they could have rid the church, once for all, of this practice.



Kevin, the reason is not hard to find. The idea of religious freedom was unknown at the time of the Reformation. We need only look at the practices of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 3:1-7, those of various Roman Emperors and those of the Chinese government today to see that rulers like all their people to be singing from the same hymn book- to keep religion firmly under their control. King James I had the saying, 'No bishop, no king.' He felt that if episcopacy were not imposed upon Britain, the monarchy would be in danger.

So to have everyone in the country or city-state baptized in to one particular brand of Christianity was very appealing. We know that Zwingli was very well disposed towards Anabaptism at first, but changed under the duress of the authorities in Zurich who wanted only one religion in their city. Having everyone baptized as infants into the State religion was seen to be the best way to keep control.

If you read English History, you will know that Scotland only agreed to support Parliament against Charles I in the Civil War if Presbyterianism were imposed upon England. The Westminster Assembly was convened to bring that about. For a short period, the Presbyterians did control England, and they were just as prescriptive about religion as Archbishop Laud had been. That is why Milton, a congregationalist, penned the poem with the lines, *'New presbyter is but old priest writ large'*. It was only when Cromwell took control that true religious freedom (except for Romanists) was achieved for a short while.

So your question, why did the Reformers keep the Roman practice of Paedobaptism, is simply answered: because they feared unfettered religious freedom.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Quote:
> Originally posted by kceaster
> 
> Now if we had faith in some alien rite someone came up with out of the world, we may be among men the most pitiable.
> 
> 
> No comment.



But isn't this a comment?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

No Comment.

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## kceaster

*Martin....*



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> So your question, why did the Reformers keep the Roman practice of Paedobaptism, is simply answered: because they feared unfettered religious freedom.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin



Thanks for proving my point. You didn't say anything about the spiritual implications at all. Rather, you're pointing again to empirical evidence and speculation. Further, you showed me that at the heart of your argument is that paedobaptism is Roman, ergo it must be bad.

If you truly believe that Luther and Calvin upheld paedobaptism out of fear, you need to read them again. Fear is nowhere near their hearts. Moreover, the Westminsterians after having lived through the kind of persecution under the English monarchy weren't writing out of fear, either.

Fear is not of faith. What you're saying is that the Reformation divines were not faithful?

And if your argument about keeping control is true, then the nation of Israel must have always been kept in line, right? I'm pretty sure that if the magisterial reformers had any thought of control, it left their minds very quickly when they also believed in the absolute sovereignty of God and the absolute depravity of man.

You're making it sound like they actually were superstitious. I'm not sure what you're basing this on. They had more of a grasp on doctrine than we do, and you're claiming that they're trying to keep an earthly kingdom together? I'm not sure many would agree with you. I certainly don't.

If your hypothesis were true, then it would play out in the next generations that they would still be trying to keep the state together and they would have passed on to their children that baptism and the peace of the church and society was absolutely founded upon such things.

Rather, we do not see the next generations trying to keep the states together other than is normal, and we do not see them putting forth the argument that baptism keeps people in line.

So, if you're right, paedobaptism during the Reformation was for an express purpose not expressed, and the next generations continued the practice it for a completely different reason. Further, you have just lumped two groups of people into the most hideous of lies and innovations of worship.

In other words,, paedobaptists really do not baptize babies because we are claiming the promises of God in His Covenant of Grace. The reason we baptize babies is because Rome did it and it keeps the state together.

No pun intended, your argument doesn't hold water.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> Now if we had faith in some alien rite someone came up with out of the world, we may be among men the most pitiable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We still have to answer why the Reformation divines continued a practice in concert with the testimony of the church, when, if they were casting aside superstition and innovations on the worship of God, they could have rid the church, once for all, of this practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin, the reason is not hard to find. The idea of religious freedom was unknown at the time of the Reformation. We need only look at the practices of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 3:1-7, those of various Roman Emperors and those of the Chinese government today to see that rulers like all their people to be singing from the same hymn book- to keep religion firmly under their control. King James I had the saying, 'No bishop, no king.' He felt that if episcopacy were not imposed upon Britain, the monarchy would be in danger.
> 
> So to have everyone in the country or city-state baptized in to one particular brand of Christianity was very appealing. We know that Zwingli was very well disposed towards Anabaptism at first, but changed under the duress of the authorities in Zurich who wanted only one religion in their city. Having everyone baptized as infants into the State religion was seen to be the best way to keep control.
> 
> If you read English History, you will know that Scotland only agreed to support Parliament against Charles I in the Civil War if Presbyterianism were imposed upon England. The Westminster Assembly was convened to bring that about. For a short period, the Presbyterians did control England, and they were just as prescriptive about religion as Archbishop Laud had been. That is why Milton, a congregationalist, penned the poem with the lines, *'New presbyter is but old priest writ large'*. It was only when Cromwell took control that true religious freedom (except for Romanists) was achieved for a short while.
> 
> So your question, why did the Reformers keep the Roman practice of Paedobaptism, is simply answered: because they feared unfettered religious freedom.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


Wrong. You are correct in that religious toleration was rightly deemed immoral and dangerous by all governments and religions (except some radical sects) however, that this is the reason credobaptism was not accepted by the reformers is a huge leap! The reformers wrote extensively and passionately against the fanatics who rejected the historical and scriptural position of the church. They were not compelled to believe paedobaptism by force of arms but by force of reason! 



> Dr. FN Lee, the Anabaptists and their Stepchildren
> Calvin on the anti-paedobaptists: "Together with the Romanists, Calvin too opined that the "tumults and disputes" of Anabaptism "ought to be ascribed to the malice of Satan...by means of his Catabaptists and other portentous miscreants." ...
> 
> "It appeared to me, that unless I opposed them to the utmost of my ability -- my silence could not be vindicated from the charge of cowardice and treachery. This was the consideration which induced me to publish my Institutes of the Christian Religion" -- in 1536. "
> 
> Zwingli:
> "Exclaimed Zwingli: "Their rebaptism is a clear sign that they intend to create a new and different Church. Biblical baptism, however -- just like circumcision -- can be performed once only. Once in the covenant, a man remains there. The New Testament knows only one baptism [Ephesians 4:4-6]. Neither Christ nor the holy Apostles ever repeated it -- or taught that it needed to be repeated."108
> 
> Zwingli further pointed out that "the soul is cleansed by the grace of God, and not by any external thing whatever." Consequently, "baptism cannot wash away sin." Furthermore, Zwingli rightly saw that "the children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are -- or than the children in Old Testament times were." So, seeing they "belong to God -- who will refuse them baptism?"109
> 
> ...
> 
> The Reformer Bullinger was an eye-witness at that great debate. It took place in the Zurich Council Hall on January 17th 1525. The Anabaptists argued that infants cannot believe. But Zwingli showed that infant baptism had replaced infant circumcision (Genesis 17 cf. Colossians 2:11-13), and that the infants of Christians are themselves 'holy' (First Corinthians 7:14). He published his arguments (five months later) in a book. That bore the very appropriate title: On Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism. "
> http://www.dr-fnlee.org/anab.html#HEAD28



Indeed, James I of England did know well that prelacy was foundational to the arbitrary and tyrannical power of kings but those convinced of the truth of presbyterianism were willing to die to have Christ's rights over his church restored. Melville, who defiantly called James "God's sillie vassel", was banished for his attempt to reform the church. His successors the covenanters fought against James' sons when they put the church in a similar situtation. 18000 were killed many more exiled or sold into slavery. They, and all the reformers, stood for what they believed and held nothing back.

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Peter,
This probably belongs in the _Church History_ forum. If the Web-Master wants to move it there, it's fine by me.

You wrote:-


> Wrong. You are correct in that religious toleration was rightly deemed immoral and dangerous by all governments and religions (except some radical sects) however, that this is the reason credobaptism was not accepted by the reformers is a huge leap! The reformers wrote extensively and passionately against the fanatics who rejected the historical and scriptural position of the church. They were not compelled to believe paedobaptism by force of arms but by force of reason!



Alas! Not so. George Blaurock and Conrad Grebel was arrested in Zurich in 1525 They were sentenced to life imprisonment _"Because of their anabaptism and their unbecoming conduct to lie in the tower on a diet of bread and water, and no one was permitted to visit them except the guards."_ The main charge, that of sedition, was brought by Zwingli. On March 7, 1526, a new law was passed in Zurich making the act of performing adult baptism a crime punishable by death.

You quote F.N.Lee. He is not in my opinion a responsible historian. Zwingli did indeed make the quotes Lee ascribes to him, but earlier he wrote to friends; *"Nothing grieves me more than that at presentI have to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done."* And again; *".....If we were to baptize as Christ instituted it then we would not baptize any person until he has reached the years of discretion; for I find it nowhere written that infant baptism is to be practised.........but on account of the possibility of offense I omit preaching this; it is better not to preach it until the world is ready to take it"*

That time never came for Zwingli. The City Council warned him off, saying, *"It becomes no one, and least of all a preacher, to call ancestral deliverances and ordinances superfluous, foolish or vain.......By doing so the Holy Church, the ancient fathers, the Councils, the popes, the cardinals and bishops will be made to look ridiculous, will be disdained and eliminated."* That was enough for Zwingli; he came in to line forthwith. Whether he had a genuine change of heart on the matter, or whether he baulked at opposing the Council, the Lord knows.

Lee quotes Zwingli as saying:-


> "Exclaimed Zwingli: "Their rebaptism is a clear sign that they intend to create a new and different Church. Biblical baptism, however -- just like circumcision -- can be performed once only. Once in the covenant, a man remains there. The New Testament knows only one baptism [Ephesians 4:4-6]. Neither Christ nor the holy Apostles ever repeated it -- or taught that it needed to be repeated."108



Acts 19:3-5. *'And [Paul] said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism."........When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.'* Where a baptism was not valid, even if honourably and sincerely administered, Paul had no compunction in re-baptizing. Infant baptism is not valid because it is not accompanied by repentance and faith (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:37 ).

You continued:-


> Indeed, James I of England did know well that prelacy was foundational to the arbitrary and tyrannical power of kings but those convinced of the truth of presbyterianism were willing to die to have Christ's rights over his church restored. Melville, who defiantly called James "God's sillie vassel", was banished for his attempt to reform the church. His successors the covenanters fought against James' sons when they put the church in a similar situtation. 18000 were killed many more exiled or sold into slavery. They, and all the reformers, stood for what they believed and held nothing back.



That is all very true. I would never deny the sufferings of the Covenantors in the 'Killing Times.' The sad fact is, however, that some of them were prepared to inflict similar sufferings upon those with whom they disagreed.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Peter

Hello Martin,

You misunderstood the 1st part of my post. I do not dispute the fact prior to the "enlightenment" most governments, to a greater or lesser degree, supressed religions which deviated from the state religion, including some baptists (read Munster and John of Leiden). The part I have a problem with is you attributing this to the reason why the reformers remained paedobaptist which is purely ignorant speculation.

As for the Zwingli quotes, they flatly contradict the ones Lee cites in his book where gives their sources. The probable reason is that they are riped from their context by baptist psuedo-historians(not implying you but ur source), the sort that are infamous for producing their 'trail of blood' geneologies and claiming the waldensens were credobaptists . Remember Zwingli died in battle fighting for what he believed. He was not the spineless coward you make him out to be.

Yes the covenanters were prepared to punish blasphemers, idolators and sectaries a al Deut 13, Zech 13, and commandments 1-3. To persecute the truth is a bad thing. To persecute those who curse, defame, and profane God by their preverted religions and threaten to further disrupt the unity of the church is the duty of the state. http://www.naphtali.com/severity.htm

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Steve Owen

Hi Kevin,
You wrote:-


> Thanks for proving my point. You didn't say anything about the spiritual implications at all.



Let me hasten to put that right. The spiritual implication of infant baptism is a mixed church which always leads to apostacy. The history of Presbyterian churches is that of liberalism, followed either by exinction or by a faithful remnant leaving and setting up a new church. I wrote elsewhere that the English Presbyterian church was unitarian within two generations of the WCF. The same happened to the church in Geneva. Around 1725, the deist J. J. Rousseau wrote:-


> It is asked of the ministers of the church of Geneva if Jesus Christ be God? They dare not answer. It is asked, if he were a mere man. They are embarrassed, and will not say they think so. A philosopher, with a glance of an eye, penetrates their character. He sees them to be Arians, Socinians, deists; he proclaims it, and thinks he does them honour. They are alarmed, terrified; they come together, they discuss, they are in agitation, they know not to which of the saints they should turn, and, after earnest consultations, deliberations, conferences, all vanishes in 'amphigore'; and they neither say, yes or no. Oh! Genevans, these gentlemen, your ministers, in truth are very singular people! They do not know what they believe, or what they do not believe. They do not even know what they would wish to believe. Their only manner of establishing their faith is to attack the faith of others.
> 
> Jean Jaques Rousseau
> "Letters from the Mountains"



I cannot forbear to mention that the Genevans were delivered from this sad state by the revival in 1816, brought about by the ministry of the Scottish Baptist, Robert Haldane.

The Lord knows that the Baptists have not been free of liberalism and apostacy, but it is a fact that the only evangelical church group in England that can claim an unbroken heritage from the 17th Century is the Particular Baptists.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Theological Books

***OFF TOPIC***

Peter,

You are saying the duty of the state is to punish and prosecute heresy (i.e. false religions)? Are you saying (_noting_ you _are_ RPC) you think the church is to be the state, or that the state is to enforce the Christian religion?


----------



## Steve Owen

Peter,
The sources for the two Zwingli letters I quoted are:-

1. 'Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte Herausgegeben vom Verein fur Reformationsgeschichte'. Make of that what you will.

2. An extant letter of Zwingli to his associates, Hans Heger and Ruodi Feissenwasser.

You wrote


> Yes the covenanters were prepared to punish blasphemers, idolators and sectaries a la Deut 13, Zech 13, and commandments 1-3. To persecute the truth is a bad thing. To persecute those who curse, defame, and profane God by their perverted religions and threaten to further disrupt the unity of the church is the duty of the state. http://www.naphtali.com/severity.htm



Hmmm. It interesting to know that the spirit of the Salem witch trials is alive and well in your country. And who is to be the infallible judge of who is or isn't, 'A plague, a creator of dissention among all the Jews throughout the world and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes' (Acts 24:5 )? The Pope? PCUSA? ECUSA? Or should we leave the matter to you? Heaven help us all!

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have read Zwingli was hanging around anabaptists and put his lot in with these people for a while. If I remember it correctly, he was their leader for a while. He retracted his belief in anabaptism, and left the group to another. At that time the Anabaptists were persecuted for not baptizing their children by law. I didn't get this from Trail of Blood which I believe is hopeful thinking at best. I don't see the trail they claim. I did read about it in David Gay's book Battle for the Church. I loned it to Andrew to check out. 

Andrew Myers are you reading it still?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I have read Zwingli was hanging around anabaptists and put his lot in with these people for a while. If I remember it correctly, he was their leader for a while. He retracted his belief in anabaptism, and left the group to another. At that time the Anabaptists were persecuted for not baptizing their children by law. I didn't get this from Trail of Blood which I believe is hopeful thinking at best. I don't see the trail they claim. I did read about it in David Gay's book Battle for the Church. I loned it to Andrew to check out.
> 
> Andrew Myers are you reading it still?



Hi Randy,

I am coming to the end of the book. Thanks for the loan and thanks for your patience. I aim to send it back to you next week. I think you can guess rightly that I disagree with the author greatly. But I appreciate the opportunity to give him a read. Thanks, brother.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Andrew,

Some of the stuff had to be historically acurate. What did you think about the Zwingli thing I mentioned above. Was there any credibility to it?

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Andrew,
> 
> Some of the stuff had to be historically acurate. What did you think about the Zwingli thing I mentioned above. Was there any credibility to it?
> 
> [Edited on 7-15-2005 by puritancovenanter]



I have seen no credible source that indicates that Zwingli ever adhered to anabaptistic beliefs re: separation of church and state (in the modern pluralistic sense) or adult baptism. They first popped up among his followers around 1523-1525. He did not clamp down on Anabaptists until the January 17, 1525 disputation between him and the Anabaptists in Zurich. The city council ruled in favor of Zwingli and infant baptism. The "break" between Zwingli and the anabaptists became official at that time, but I don't think it is accurate historically to say that Zwingli ever adhered to distinctively anabaptistic beliefs. It is more accurate to say that the anabaptists grew out of Zwingli's Swiss Reformation movement, but not with his blessing. 

If I recall correctly, D'Aubigne's _History of the Reformation_ treats this well (an historian whom I greatly respect). I also concur with and recommend our Webmaster's overview on the anabaptists.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Peter,
> The sources for the two Zwingli letters I quoted are:-
> 
> 1. 'Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte Herausgegeben vom Verein fur Reformationsgeschichte'. Make of that what you will.
> 
> 2. An extant letter of Zwingli to his associates, Hans Heger and Ruodi Feissenwasser.
> 
> You wrote
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the covenanters were prepared to punish blasphemers, idolators and sectaries a la Deut 13, Zech 13, and commandments 1-3. To persecute the truth is a bad thing. To persecute those who curse, defame, and profane God by their perverted religions and threaten to further disrupt the unity of the church is the duty of the state. http://www.naphtali.com/severity.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. It interesting to know that the spirit of the Salem witch trials is alive and well in your country. And who is to be the infallible judge of who is or isn't, 'A plague, a creator of dissention among all the Jews throughout the world and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes' (Acts 24:5 )? The Pope? PCUSA? ECUSA? Or should we leave the matter to you? Heaven help us all!
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


The Salem witch trials are overrated. There were other factors not religious at all in play. In other words, few Americans have guilty consciences over the Salem trials. Using them won't help your argument.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> ***OFF TOPIC***
> 
> Peter,
> 
> You are saying the duty of the state is to punish and prosecute heresy (i.e. false religions)? Are you saying (_noting_ you _are_ RPC) you think the church is to be the state, or that the state is to enforce the Christian religion?



Hey Mr. Myers,
First, just to clarify, I'm not _really_ RPC, I am an _adherent_ of the RPC, that is, a regularly attending nonmember. Yes it is the duty of the State to prosecute heresy. No the state is not the church, yes the state is to enforce the Christian religion. How is the state to enforce Christianity? Not by internally interfering with the affairs of the church nor by policing the private opinions of individuals but by patronizing and providing for the church and punishing those who obstinately & dangerous promote heresy or schism, which is the historic position of presbyterianism and RPism in particular.



> Hmmm. It interesting to know that the spirit of the Salem witch trials is alive and well in your country. And who is to be the infallible judge of who is or isn't, 'A plague, a creator of dissention among all the Jews throughout the world and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes' (Acts 24:5 )? The Pope? PCUSA? ECUSA? Or should we leave the matter to you? Heaven help us all!



Martin,
No one is an infallible judge of who is or isn't "[a prophet or dreamer of dreams that says] Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;" (Deut 13:2) But fortunately infalliblity isnt a requirement for the exercise of coercive power, otherwise we could never have any civil power and never punish murder, rape, theft, etc. after all governments can and do err in determining how to prosecute these crimes, nonetheless they are still are crimes. The judge would not be an ecclesiastical person but civil Ro 13.

Anyway we are off topic and the current digression has been debated ad nauseum on other threads. If you are interested in continuing the discussion I recommend 1st reading and considering the presbyterian view of the magistrate power in religion circa sacra and 2nd doing a search for the topic on this messageboard. 

Links: Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
 Antitolerationism v. pretended liberty of conscience homepage @ covenanter.org
The Two Son's of Oil Chp 4
The Divine Right of Church Government, Pt 2 Chp 9 available at naphtali.com


----------



## Steve Owen

> The judge would not be an ecclesiastical person but civil Ro 13.



So the final arbiter of what is or isn't heresy is to be a judge who might be an atheist or agnostic. It just gets better and better! Not.



> Anyway we are off topic and the current digression has been debated ad nauseum on other threads. If you are interested in continuing the discussion I recommend 1st reading and considering the presbyterian view of the magistrate power in religion circa sacra and 2nd doing a search for the topic on this messageboard.
> 
> Links: Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
> Antitolerationism v. pretended liberty of conscience homepage @ covenanter.org
> The Two Son's of Oil Chp 4
> The Divine Right of Church Government, Pt 2 Chp 9 available at naphtali.com



Not interested enough to read that lot!

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> The judge would not be an ecclesiastical person but civil Ro 13.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the final arbiter of what is or isn't heresy is to be a judge who might be an atheist or agnostic. It just gets better and better! Not.
Click to expand...


NO! Atheists and agnostics and pagans of all other sorts have no right to be a civil magistrates.

Deut. 17:15: "Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."

Rom. 13:4: "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. "

Samuel Brown Wylie, 2 Sons of Oil
"2. Another part of their character is a profession of Christianity. For a Christian people to appoint a Deist to govern them, to say nothing of its repugnancy to the divine law, is even shameful. It is just like the trees in Jotham's parable, Judges 9:14: "Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou and reign over us," because they could not find a tree of a more generous growth, to govern them. But this is contrary to the express command of God. Deut. 17:15: "Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." Is it to be expected that the man, who is not a brother in the profession of the religion of Jesus, but an obstinate Infidel, will make his administration bend to the interests of Immanuel, whose existence he denies, whose religion he mocks, and whose kingdom he believes to be fictitious?"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Peter,

You scare me. I am not a Theonomist. I do believe in a Theocracy though. Yet, I would rather be governed by a wise Turk instead of a stupid Christian as Luther would have.

Romans 13:4 applies even if the governing authority is not regenerate.

[Edited on 7-16-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Bladestunner316

Is there such a thing as a wise turk?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Is there such a thing as a wise turk?



If he knows God. I actually believe it is hyperbole. It is to illustrate that just because something has the name Christian doesn't make it a good idea. If you look at monarchy it can be a good thing, if it has a wise King who has a heart after God. But the successor can be a fool and a turk might actually give the Godly more peace and less persecution than some who claim the name of Christ. Either way, men still have a responsibility to obey God. Men just don't do that naturally.


----------



## Bladestunner316

If we dont let a wise turk govern the church why should we let him govern the land?

blade


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> If we dont let a wise turk govern the church why should we let him govern the land?
> 
> blade



They are two different identities. Don't take what I am saying to far. The Church and state exist side by side. They both are responsible to God. Just as the unregenerate is responsible to obey God's command so is the state. We are to pray for our leaders so that we may do God's business in peace.

(1Ti 2:1-3) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, *and for all that are in authority; *that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;


----------



## Bladestunner316




----------



## Theological Books

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> If we dont let a wise turk govern the church why should we let him govern the land?
> 
> blade



Because of natural law, the two-kingdom theology of cult and culture, and the realm of God's common grace. A wise Turk (non-Christian) cannot govern the realm of the cult because he is not a member of it, but he can rightfully (from the divine and Christian perspective) rule the culture as a pagan.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ***OFFTRACK**
> 
> Hey Bradford,
> 
> A Goverment dispenses with punishment (that's not all they do, but that's one thing; i.e., to bear the sword). Now, I'm rusty, but does natural law teach 10 years or 50 years as the punishment of, say, rape?



Let me step in here Paul.

It depends if the Magistrate is merciful, left to his own understanding, totally reprobate, or perverted himself or itself. What would you do if left in a natural state? I tend to believe if they have any knowledge they would rule in a faulty way examining the outcomes. i.e. If someone they knew was raped it would influence them one way. If they knew the one doing the rape another. It's all natural....if you are looking at it naturally. 





[Edited on 7-18-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Theological Books

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ***OFFTRACK**
> 
> Hey Bradford,
> 
> A Goverment dispenses with punishment (that's not all they do, but that's one thing; i.e., to bear the sword). Now, I'm rusty, but does natural law teach 10 years or 50 years as the punishment of, say, rape?



Natural law doesn't teach us the precise punishment for rape.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Are we not supposed to put a man to death for rape?

I agree with PC statement on praying for leaders chrsitian or pagan. But I dont see how a wise turk(muslim) can govern Gods people? What kind of sword is he to bear one that crumbles under or one that rest's on the stength of God?

Dont muslims in their Quran say that if a wife talks back to her husband it is ok for her to be raped? If this is correct which I heard on tv. Then how should we expect a 'wise' turk to adminster justice to Gods people when a rape occurs(God Forbid).



blade


----------



## Peter

Yes it does. Natural Law stipulates death:



> Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
> 
> 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
> 
> 27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.



The natural law and the Law of Scripture are the same law revealed differently.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ***OFFTRACK**
> 
> Hey Bradford,
> 
> A Goverment dispenses with punishment (that's not all they do, but that's one thing; i.e., to bear the sword). Now, I'm rusty, but does natural law teach 10 years or 50 years as the punishment of, say, rape?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me step in here Paul.
> 
> It depends if the Magistrate is merciful, left to his own understanding, totally reprobate, or perverted himself or itself. What would you do if left in a natural state? I tend to believe if they have any knowledge they would rule in a faulty way examining the outcomes. i.e. If someone they knew was raped it would influence them one way. If they knew the one doing the rape another. It's all natural....if you are looking at it naturally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> huh?
> 
> Were you defending or arguing against natural law (whatever that is, since that phrase has been used for radically different meanings)?
Click to expand...


I was trying to expose the futileness of natural law without God's revealed will. Natural law is limited to many inconsistancies. One being mankinds perception of how to punish crime, and another, what crime is.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ***OFFTRACK**
> 
> Hey Bradford,
> 
> A Goverment dispenses with punishment (that's not all they do, but that's one thing; i.e., to bear the sword). Now, I'm rusty, but does natural law teach 10 years or 50 years as the punishment of, say, rape?



Are we way off topic here or what?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ***OFFTRACK**
> 
> Hey Bradford,
> 
> A Goverment dispenses with punishment (that's not all they do, but that's one thing; i.e., to bear the sword). Now, I'm rusty, but does natural law teach 10 years or 50 years as the punishment of, say, rape?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we way off topic here or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we're lost and only a moderator can bring us back to civilization.
> 
> [Edited on 7-19-2005 by Paul manata]
Click to expand...


But I like it in the woods.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I found a very interesting book on this subject at the Metropolitan Tabernacle Bookshop in London:-
> 
> *'Baptism: Archaeological, Historical, Biblical'* by F.M.Buhler (Joshua Press: ISBN 1-894400-20-8 ). Forword by Michael Haykin.
> 
> Buhler is/was an archaeologist by profession and also Pastor of Mulhouse Evangelical Baptist Church, France. He comments on a number of baptistries found in Roman houses, particularly the _House of the Christians_ in Doura-Europos in Syria. This is a 1st Century house, which had been turned into a Christian meeting place in the 3rd Century. It contained a baptistry, which was dismantled transported and moved to the _Art Gallery_ (?!) of Yale University, so some of you guys can check it out.
> 
> There are other baptistries found in various parts of the old Roman Empire, but this one is the oldest found so far.
> 
> Buhler also comments upon the evidence of iconography. Up until the 12th Century, in representations of His baptism, Christ id depicted with the water up to His, hips, waist or even HIs neck. This can only refer to baptism by immersion. From the 13th Century, Christ is represented with water up to the knees, up to half-calf or even only up to the ankle. JTB is then shown as pouring water on our Lord's head, often by means of a scallop shell.



Further to this, I have just spent a holiday in Hungary and spent some time in the historic town of Eger. They are excavating the remains of an old 10th Century church there, which was destroyed by Genghis Khan's Mongols in the 12th Century. When they dug out the foundations, guess what they found? Yep! A baptistry.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I found a very interesting book on this subject at the Metropolitan Tabernacle Bookshop in London:-
> 
> *'Baptism: Archaeological, Historical, Biblical'* by F.M.Buhler (Joshua Press: ISBN 1-894400-20-8 ). Forword by Michael Haykin.
> 
> Buhler is/was an archaeologist by profession and also Pastor of Mulhouse Evangelical Baptist Church, France. He comments on a number of baptistries found in Roman houses, particularly the _House of the Christians_ in Doura-Europos in Syria. This is a 1st Century house, which had been turned into a Christian meeting place in the 3rd Century. It contained a baptistry, which was dismantled transported and moved to the _Art Gallery_ (?!) of Yale University, so some of you guys can check it out.
> 
> There are other baptistries found in various parts of the old Roman Empire, but this one is the oldest found so far.
> 
> Buhler also comments upon the evidence of iconography. Up until the 12th Century, in representations of His baptism, Christ id depicted with the water up to His, hips, waist or even HIs neck. This can only refer to baptism by immersion. From the 13th Century, Christ is represented with water up to the knees, up to half-calf or even only up to the ankle. JTB is then shown as pouring water on our Lord's head, often by means of a scallop shell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further to this, I have just spent a holiday in Hungary and spent some time in the historic town of Eger. They are excavating the remains of an old 10th Century church there, which was destroyed by Genghis Khan's Mongols in the 12th Century. When they dug out the foundations, guess what they found? Yep! A baptistry.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


Was it a bowl?

I am sure it wasn't.


----------



## Steve Owen

Nope!
It was positively mansized !

Martin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Nope!
> It was positively mansized !
> 
> Martin



As I suspected!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Paul,

Bowls are easier to break.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

We are well aware 1) of the church's penchant for moving away (quite soon in some cases) from a strictly biblical model for many of its activities; and 2) of her tendency to ritualism. Think what you will of the story of Philip and the Ethiopian (Acts 8:38-39), its clear that there was little formality to the event. The church was very quickly ascribing an efficacy to baptism that it did not possess. On the "argument from simplicity" the sprinkling crowd wins hands-down.

It may also be pointed out 1) regardless of "how much" water could fill a "baptistry" what would be truly helpful for a dunker's case would be having the full-body immersion described as such; 2) in the case of pouring, if copious amounts of water were _available_ as well as _desirable_ (if that was the local or regional custom) a sizeable "catch-basin" would still be a necessary feature to prevent annoying runoff spashing observers or pooling around their feet.

The E.O. practice of infant baptism, at least in Russia, seems to be a thrice-sweeping of the little body through the shallow font (and I do not know their practice regarding adult converts).

Bottom line is: we presbyterians care far less about the _mode_ than about the _meaning,_ notwithstanding that sprinkling or pouring best accords (by our reckoning) with the biblical data, representing ceremonial cleansing and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> Bottom line is: we presbyterians care far less about the _mode_ than about the _meaning,_ notwithstanding that sprinkling or pouring best accords (by our reckoning) with the biblical data, representing ceremonial cleansing and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I frankly don't see the relevence.



That is because there is none. What Century was it from. I agree with Bruce somewhat, the church does have a problem with moving away from it's foundation. I just think they moved into paedo baptism when it started of credo, around a hundred to a few hundred years later. 

Well, here we go again.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

We are back on subject again.Baptism in the Early Church by Hendrik Stander and Johanes Louw


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I frankly don't see the relevence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because there is none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so there's no relevence to your "early baptismal" points. I think I can live with that.
Click to expand...


What Century did he say it was from.... the 10th? Paedo's had already infested the scene. It would be no surprise to find a bowl for baptism. The way Paedo's talk it should be a surprise to find a full sized Baptismal.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Huh? That's cool, I guess.... Which paedo's? How do they talk? Why would you think this? Maybe you could cite paedo's and then draw inferences from their "talk" showing how "they way" they "talked" implied that we should be "surpirsed" to "find a full sized Baptismal?" If you can't do this, then I re-assert that I don't see the relevence. Actually, I think this whole Baptismal thing is simply a subjective way that Baptists try and convince themselves that beleivers baptism is correct.
> 
> So, what is the relevence???
> 
> Also, it sounds funny, you know, what you said. Funny because creationists always say that the way evolutionists talk we should "find millions of transitional fossils in the fossil record." Are you treating us paedos like evolutionists???



The reason that I posted information on the book by Buhler is partly because it seemed to have relevance to the subject matter of this thread, and partly because a number of writers (most notably F.N.Lee) have stated that there is no evidence for adult baptism by imersion until the 16th Century. This is the most palpable falsehood. Despite the persecutions and book-burning by the church of Rome during the Middle Ages, written evidence exists of pre-Reformational baptistic groups (details on request). 

Such 'dissidents' would not normally have their own buildings, but baptize in rivers, lakes or the sea, leaving no archaeological evidence. It is therefore interesting (to me, at least) to find that baptistries have been discovered dating back to the 3rd Century, and that until the 11th Century at least, they were being incorporated into large churches.

The relevance therefore is:-

1. Adult baptism by imersion was being carried on between *at least* the 3rd and 11th Centuries. Perhaps it was outlawed as part of the Hildebrandian reforms.
2. Lee and his supporters wrong and should withdraw their statements.

If no one on this board has ever claimed that there is no historical evidence for credo-baptism during the Middle Ages, then the last statement does not apply here. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## refbaptdude

Yep I agree with the guys below that the early mode was by immersion and that is the mode I will practice : )

John Calvin (Presbyterian)-"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes, chpt 15) 

Martin Luther (Lutheran)-" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word." 

Philip Schaff(Lutheran)-"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).

John Calvin´s commentary on the Gospel of John
John 3:22-23
22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.

Grace to All,
Steve


----------



## Contra_Mundum

From Dale's work, _Classic Baptism,_ without controversy, the final word on the subject of the meaning of "baptizo"


> Agamemnon was baptized; Bacchus was baptized; Cupid was baptized; Cleinian was baptized; Alexander was baptized; Panthia was baptized; Otho was baptized; Charicles was baptized; and a host of others were baptized, each differing from the other in the nature or the mode, or both.
> 
> A blind man could more readily select any demanded color from the spectrum, or a child could more readily thread the Cretan Labyrinth, than could 'the seven wise men of Greece' declare the nature, or mode, of any given baptism by the naked help of baptizo.
> 
> ... WHATEVER IS CAPABLE OF THOROUGHLY CHANGING THE CHARACTER, STATE, OR CONDITION OF ANY OBJECT, IS CAPABLE OF BAPTIZING THAT OBJECT: AND BY SUCH CHANGE OF CHARACTER, STATE, OR CONDITION DOES, IN FACT, BAPTIZE IT.


----------



## Mayflower

Has any of who holds to paedobaptism read : BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH by Hendrik Stander and Johannes Louw ? I like to read some reviews & comments !


----------



## Mayflower

Someone wrote this (Amazon review) :
--------------------------------------------------
One the whole, this book is helpful since it presents the primary texts that have been used in the discussions about the origins of infant baptism within Christianity. As this has been a rather charged debate through the centuries, it is imperative to investigate this matter dispassionately and in the light of cool historical inquiry. Indeed, the authors state this as their purpose in commenting that "it is not the aim of this book to defend any theological point of view." And yet, the commentaries delivered by this book do just that. Specifically, they hold up a view of infant baptism that is comparatively late (only emerging in the fourth century with general infant baptism coming in the fifth and later) and espouse readings from the patristic literature which support their view. In most cases, their arguments center around the meaning of the Greek word padios, noting that it does not mean infants or persons under ten, as we typically use the word child. Yet, at the same time, the authors neglect that padios, while not exclusively limited to infants, nevertheless encompasses infants in its designation. Furthermore, in the authors conclusions demonstrate that they do indeed have theological axes to grind with their comments that by the fourth century that baptism had become confused with and attached to the remission of sins and was perceived as presenting benefits to the recipient, in contrast to the belief in previous centuries. Such comments are incorrect or at least do not adequately take all factors into consideration. Thus, it is clear that, despite feigned attempts to the contrary, these particular individuals are more concerned with finding readings which repudiate infant baptism (as well as ignoring those which might be found to promote it) and support their own perspective. When texts or evidence clearly demonstrates that infant baptism did take place, even on a limited basis, they are quick to explain such points away rather than deal with them head on. 
It should be no surprise that this book has an underlying theological agenda, despite protests to the contrary. In the preface to this book, J. M. Renihan, after sufficiently lauding both the creditability of the authors and the value of the book, comments "for this reason [the conclusion of the authors], infant baptism must be called into question, and rejected as suitable practice for Christian churches." Clearly, even if the authors don't have an axe to grind, the publisher (the Reformed Baptist Churches of America) and those associated with its publication in this country do. Thus, this book cannot be recommended as an adequate, even-handed critique of the origins of infant baptism, for it clearly is not (if it were, it would have come to the conclusion that while infant baptism is not, in itself, necessarily apostolic, it is likely sub-Apostolic and defiantly comes to us from before and by the third century). It can be recommended for the quite good translations of the relevant ancient texts that are central to the question


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> now all you need to do is *prove* that paedobaptists wouldn't have had a "baptistry" in their Church.





Remember, also, that once the controvery over re-baptism arose with the anabaptists, thier controversy did not evolve around the mode of baptism since all of them were baptized by Grabel by effusion. Its not until post-anabaptism that we begin to have a "controversy" surrounding mode.



> BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH by Hendrik Stander and Johannes Louw ?



Make SURE to couple this with the "History of Infant Baptism" by William Wall, which doth exaust the subject beyond any doubt.

[Edited on 12-5-2005 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Steve Owen

Matthew wrote:-


> Its not until post-anabaptism that we begin to have a "controversy" surrounding mode.


A little earlier than that, I think.

_'Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you have no running water, baptize in other water; if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water on the head thrice.......'_ (_Didache_ VII. Early 2nd Century.

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Matthew wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Its not until post-anabaptism that we begin to have a "controversy" surrounding mode.
> 
> 
> 
> A little earlier than that, I think.
> 
> _'Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you have no running water, baptize in other water; if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water on the head thrice.......'_ (_Didache_ VII. Early 2nd Century.
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


Red Herring?


----------



## Mayflower

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Matthew wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Its not until post-anabaptism that we begin to have a "controversy" surrounding mode.
> 
> 
> 
> A little earlier than that, I think.
> 
> _'Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you have no running water, baptize in other water; if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water on the head thrice.......'_ (_Didache_ VII. Early 2nd Century.
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


So in the didache there is no immersion ?


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> So in the didache there is no immersion ?



It is inconclusive. Rather, I should say that it is inconclusive only to those who do not equate immersion with baptism. In my humble opinion, the Didache is saying the where of baptism, not the how.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Matthew wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Its not until post-anabaptism that we begin to have a "controversy" surrounding mode.
> 
> 
> 
> A little earlier than that, I think.
> 
> _'Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you have no running water, baptize in other water; if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water on the head thrice.......'_ (_Didache_ VII. Early 2nd Century.
> 
> Martin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in the didache there is no immersion ?
Click to expand...


 They are baptizing _in_ water, not _with_ water.

Well, if nothing else that proves that there was controversy before the Reformation. 

Martin


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> They are baptizing _in_ water, not _with_ water.
> 
> Well, if nothing else that proves that there was controversy before the Reformation.
> 
> Martin



No, it just proves the need for discipling and training. 

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Contra_Mundum

"Running water", the Didache's first recommendation, should be taken for exactly what it says--swift, flowing water. This is not a description of a pool; it is emphatically not the description of a riverside bay (such as at Jordan? sorry, that's not "running" water). Running water deep enough to dunk in is unsafe for anyone standing, unless we suppose the parties are held in place with ropes.

How does this principal recommendation fit immersion as a mode? Of course, I'm not asserting that one _could not possibly_ submerse in such, but I'm pointing out that the method of using that water is by no means "obvious" from either the type of water described, nor the use of the term "in". If the Didache excerpt shows anything, it shows that very early in the church "precision of mode" of baptism was viewed as distinctly secondary to the fact of it. The baptist insistence on immersion (as opposed to the less-insistent-but-not-completely-non-committal position of the typical presbyterian) is _peculiarly_ wedded to his understanding of the meaning of baptism, and the key interpretive texts: Col. 2:12 and Rom. 6:4.

kc is correct. Neither the lonely use of the word "baptizo" or "in" by definition, nor appeals to history since the apostles will prove decisive in this question. Neither side will give up their plausible interpretations, or the items they give the greatest weight to.

If ever there was an case to be determined 
on "the preponderance of the evidence," 
on persuasion, 
and by an appeal to foundational axioms especially as to baptism's import--it is the case of the mode of baptism.

[Edited on 12-6-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Steve Owen

> "Running water", the _Didache's_ first recommendation, should be taken for exactly what it says--swift, flowing water.


Well, the word 'swift' is Bruce's addition to the text. 'Running water' means not stagnant water. Secondly, where exactly is this torrent of water that could sweep a man to his death to be found in the Mediterranean? The problem for the writers of the _Didache_ was that there wasn't enough water of any sort to be found, hence the various options!

I do assure you that England gets a whole lot more rain than the Med! But nonetheless, early English baptists frequently baptized in rivers (running water) and if anyone got drowned, I haven't read of it. The main reason that we don't baptize much in rivers today is that it's too jolly cold!

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum

"Running water means not stagnant water."

Is water "slowly flowing" what the ancient author meant by "running"? That, at least, is a debatable point, yes?

To "run" with water implies at the very least a "steady" stream, and even a two or three foot stream (enough to submerse in) is by definition a rather swift moving current. And at greater depth the force of the water is enhanced by volume. If we are talking about a sheltered pool at creekside, an eddy, then I say by definition we are not speaking of running water any more. Although I am not a hydrologist, I know that water force is not something to play around with. If one is submersing in a river or creek side, surely one is seeking a place with as still a patch as one can find. Am I correct? Who wishes to be struggling with the current? Adn isn't a current necessary for water to be "running."

Martin, brother, 
I'm not really excited about sparring over the words. As I stated earlier, how one interprets the Didache, or any other passage from ancient literature that is not concerned to spell something out (like baptismal mode) but rather assumes a local familiarity not requiring detailed explanation, such interpretation will be influenced by what he thinks about the subject from other angles. Neither you nor I find the author's words objectionable to our respective interpretations.

I agree that the availability of water quantity is relevant to the question, and there must have been a disparity from place to place, from one church to another. I personally think that the flexibility of the church's practice indicated in the Didache demonstrates that the precise mode of application was a secondary issue to the author, not primary.

You are welcome to correct my misunderstanding, but I do believe that most baptists do not consider the mode to be a matter of indifference, or even strictly a "secondary" matter, but _basic_ to the baptist interpretation of baptism and essential to its practice.


----------



## Steve Owen

> You are welcome to correct my misunderstanding, but I do believe that most baptists do not consider the mode to be a matter of indifference, or even strictly a "secondary" matter, but _basic_ to the Baptist interpretation of baptism and essential to its practice.



I wouldn't dare speak for 'most Baptists', but for myself, the mode is not of the first importance. I do not doubt for one moment that the biblical mode was immersion, but it seems to me that it is the state of the heart that is important (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 37 ). Personally, I believe that as soon as one says that baptism _must_ be done in a certain way to be 'genuine', one is in danger of turning the ordinance into a law work.

For someone, like myself, who believes that immersion is the mode described in the Bible, to be baptized any other way would be disobedience; but if someone else can look at the various texts and come to another conclusion then, while my church would not baptize him, we would accept his baptism elsewhere as genuine if he believed it was. This view is very common among Reformed Baptists in Britain, but possibly not in America.

My only purpose in bringing up the quotation from the _Didache_ was to refute Matthew's assertion that mode was not an issue until after the Reformation.

Martin


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to correct my misunderstanding, but I do believe that most baptists do not consider the mode to be a matter of indifference, or even strictly a "secondary" matter, but _basic_ to the Baptist interpretation of baptism and essential to its practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't dare speak for 'most Baptists', but for myself, the mode is not of the first importance. I do not doubt for one moment that the biblical mode was immersion, but it seems to me that it is the state of the heart that is important (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 37 ). Personally, I believe that as soon as one says that baptism _must_ be done in a certain way to be 'genuine', one is in danger of turning the ordinance into a law work.
Click to expand...


Just so you know, the 1689 disagrees with you:



> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is *necessary *to the due administration of this ordinance.



So does Hiscox's Manual for Baptist Churches.


----------



## pastorway

Just for the record, there were occurences of "baptism" resulting in death. 

When Baptists were persecuted by Rome and other Protestants it was common to burn the men at the stake and then tie their wives to a chair and throw them in the river - called "death by baptism." Some of the men were killed this way as well, being tied up and thrown in the water to drown simply because they had rejected infant baptism and sought to be Scripturally baptized!




[Edited on 12-7-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Steve Owen

> Just so you know, the 1689 disagrees with you:
> 
> Quote:
> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.
> 
> 
> So does Hiscox's Manual for Baptist Churches.



Thank you, Fred. Yes, I was aware. I do believe that immersion is the correct and Biblical mode; I'm just not prepared to base church fellowship upon it.

Phillip wrote:-


> Just for the record, there were occurences of "baptism" resulting in death.
> 
> When Baptists were persecuted by Rome and other Protestants it was common to burn the men at the stake and then tie their wives to a chair and throw them in the river - called "death by baptism." Some of the men were killed this way as well, being tied up and thrown in the water to drown simply because they had rejected infant baptism and sought to be Scripturally baptized!



You are quite right, Phillip! I stand corrected. 



Martin


----------



## refbaptdude

And as I posted above there was no doubt in Calvin's or Luther's mind that the mode of baptism practiced by the early church was immersion.

For His Supremacy,
Steve Clevenger


----------

