# Baptism in the Early Church by Stander and Louw



## Kaalvenist

It seems that these days, every Reformed Baptist and their littler brother is touting Baptism in the Early Church by Hendrick F. Stander and Johannes P. Louw. Of course, the thing that always gets mentioned is the fact that they are both members of paedobaptist churches -- as though that grants them a greater amount of credibility. A few thoughts.....

1. The book reads as though it was written by Baptists, not paedobaptists. They simply ignore much of the historical argumentation that paedobaptists have pressed from certain statements of the fathers. (Really, what would you expect from a book jointly published by ARBCA and Carey Publications?)

2. This seems to be little more than a continuation of one of the oldest habits of Baptists when arguing on the subject of baptism: Quote paedobaptists who concede too much of the argument. T. E. Watson's horrible little book springs readily to mind; but this goes back at least to Henry D'Anvers in the 17th century. James Chaney referred to this practice repeatedly throughout his book "William the Baptist."

3. I can't help but think that paedobaptists arguing against paedobaptism aren't really paedobaptists; so that it is to no point for Baptists to say, "Look at what these 'paedobaptists' wrote on the subject!"

4. When compared to fuller treatments of the subject, the book is rather unimpressive. It is 192 pages in length (excluding the foreword material and bibliography, only 172 pp.). William Wall's "The History of Infant Baptism" comprised two volumes (Vol. 1, 283 pp.; Vol. 2, 304 pp.); he also replied to Gale's "Reflections" on his work with another book of 453 pp. There is a great deal more material covered in his works which are not touched on by Stander and Louw. But so many Reformed Baptists say that, for all paedobaptists have written on the practice of infant baptism in the early church, this book is an able response. It's like an Arminian saying that George Bryson's little book, "The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting" is an able response to the pertinent sections from Turretin; or John MacArthur's sermons against Sabbath-observance comprise an able response to James Gilfillan on the Sabbath. They haven't begun to scratch the surface.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings Sean:

An excerpt from Samuel Miller's of the Early Church and Credo-Baptism:

"10. Finally; the history of the Christian Church from the apostolic age, furnishes an argument of irresistible force in favor of the divine authority of infant baptism.

I can assure you, my friends, with the utmost candour and confidence, after much careful inquiry on the subject, that, for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ, there was not a siingle society of professing Christians on earth, who opposed infant baptism on any thing like the grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren. It is an undoubted fact, that the people known in ecclesiastical history under the name of the Anabaptists, who arose in Germany, in the year 1522, were the very first body of people, in the whole Christian world, who rejected the baptism of infants, on the principles now adopted by the Antipaedobaptist body. This, I am aware, will be regarded as an untenable position by some of the ardent friends of the Baptist cause; but nothing can be more certain than that it is even so. Of this a short introduction of particulars will afford conclusive evidence.

Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of Christ, is the first man of whom we read in ecclesiastical history, as speaking a word against infant baptism; and he, while he recognisee the existence and prevalence of the practice, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if they are not likely to survive the period of infancy; yet advises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism be delayed until a late period in life. But what was the reason for this advise? The moment we look at the reason, we see that it avails nothing to the cause in support of which it is sometimes produced. Tertullian adopted the superstitious idea, that baptism was accompanied with the remission of all past sins; and that sins committed after baptism were peculiarly dangerous. He, therefore, advised, that not merely infants, but young men and young women; and even young widows and widowers should postpone their baptism until the period of youthful appetite and passion should have passed. In short, he advised that, in all cases in which death was not likely to intervene, baptism be postponed, until the subject of it should have arrived at a period of life, when they would be no longer in danger of being led astray by youthful lusts ... But, surely, advice and facts of this kind make nothing in favor of the system of our Baptist brethren. Indeed, taken altogether, their historical bearing is strongly in favor of our system.

The next persons that we hear of as calling in question the propriety of infant baptism, were the small body of people in France, about twelve hundred years after Christ, who followed a certain Peter de Bruis, and formed an inconsiderable section of the people known in ecclesiastical history under the general name of the Waldenses. This (sect of the Waldenses) maintained that infants ought not to be baptized, because they were incapable of salvation. They taught that none could be saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long course of self-denial and labour. And as infants were incapable of thus "working out their own salvation," they held that mak8ing them the subjects of a sacramental seal, was an absurdity. But surely our Baptist brethren cannot be willing to consider these people as their predessors, or to adopt their creed.

We hear no more of any society or organized body of Antipaedobaptists, until the sixteenth century, when they arose, as before stated, in Germany, and for the first time borached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethern. As far as I have been able to discover, they were absolutely unknown in the whole Christian world, before that time."

The most careful inquiries concerning the modern day theology of antipaedobaptism have not found an analogy of it in the early church. Every doctrine of Scripture from Predestination to Justification can find an analogy in church history except the modern day credo-baptist.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## JM

preface:



> It is not the aim of the authors to promote any theological point of view, but rather to make the ancient writings on this subject accessible to the English reader in an objective way. The writings of this era are important since they reveal the origins and developments of Christian practices and dogmas.
> 
> The target group is both scholars and ordinary believers who want to know from where traditions stem.


----------



## Mayflower

Henry Danvers (1675) : A treatise of baptism Wherein That of Believers, and that of Infants, is examined by the Scriptures; with the History of both out of Antiquity: making it appear, that Infant’s Baptism was not practiced for nearly 300 years after Christ.
http://www.mountzionpbc.org/books/Hen. D’ ANVERS_treatise_of_baptism.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Infant Sprinkling Right?

The answer that the apostles once gave to inquirers concerning baptism are no longer being given by many churches. This is a strange fact which calls for an explanation. Baptism has truly become the Devil’s Workshop. We shall study the subject from many perspectives in this brief booklet.

History

History of Sprinkling.

1. When does Church history record the first account of any attempt to baptize by any other mode than by immersion?

In about 250 A.D. there lived a man named Novation, who was on his deathbed. He had never been immersed. His friends laid around him many bed sheets and poured water all over him, trying to immerse him in his bed. This was accepted by the populace as his baptism. He later recovered, but was never immersed. He then became a leader of a group called "Novationists," which other Christians considered a heretical sect. This is the first account of anyone substituting for immersion. This is confirmed by numerous encyclopedias and ancient authors. Euebius (260-340 A.D.) for example, was a church historian. He says in his Church History:

"Novation, aided by the exorcists, when attacked with an obstinate disease, and being supposed at the point of death, was baptized by aspersion (pouring) in the bed on which he lay; if indeed it be proper to say that one like him did receive baptism."

2. When did the Roman Catholic Church accept sprinkling?

"The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following matter: Pope Stephen II being driven from Rome by Adolphus, King of Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the crown of France. While he remained there, the Monks of Cressy, in Britany, consulted him whether in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of the infant would be lawful.

Stephen replied that it would, yet pouring and sprinkling were not allowed except in cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature in council held at Ravenna, declared sprinkling or immersion to be indifferent. In Scotland however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases until after the Reformation - about the middle of the 16th century. From Scotland in made its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the Established Church." (Edinburg Encyclopedia)

Why Does my Bible use the word "Baptize" instead of immerse?

1. "Baptizo" is the Greek word for immerse or dip. To this all Greek Lexicons and Greek scholars agree. However, sprinkling had already been introduced into the Protestant church by John Calvin, who, by the way, admitted that the word "baptizo" signified "to immerse" (Inst. B. 4C15). The church practiced sprinkling and not immersion. In 1561 a group of the bishops produced a translation of the Bible known as "The Bishops Bible." When confronted with the Greek word "baptizo" they were forced either to translate it or to transfer it, untranslated, into English. Had they translated it, they would have been obligated to use either "immerse" or "dip", and this would have brought them into sharp contrast with their teaching. On the one hand, had they translated it "sprinkle" to fit their practice, they would have been accused of dishonesty. So they chose to "transliterate" it, or simply transfer it into English, substituting the English alphabet for the Greek, and coming up with a new word "baptize."

When King James authorized the translation of a new version of the Bible in 1611, he laid down two rules: 1) "Old ecclesiastical words must be kept, as the word ‘church’ must not be translated congregation, etc." 2) "The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, was to be followed and altered as little as the original will permit." Since the word "baptism" had become an "old ecclesiastical word" and was in the Bishop’s Bible, it was retained in the King James Version.

What Does The Greek Say?

The word "sprinkle" is used in the New Testament.

To say that the Greek word, Baptizo (baptizo) means "to sprinkle" is to say that the Greeks had two words meaning "to sprinkle" and none meaning "to immerse." The Greek word Rantizo (Phantizo) is used often in the Bible and means:

1) "Sprinkle" (Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich. Page 741)

"To sprinkle, besprinkle" (An Internediate Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott. Page 715)

The term is used six times in the N.T.

a. "The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God." (Hebrews 9:13-14)

b. "When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people." (Hebrews 9:21)

c. "In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. (Hebrews 9:21)

d. "Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water." (Hebrews 10:22)

e. "To Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." (Hebrews 12:24)

f. "To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Ponus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosed according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience of Jesus Christ, and the sprinkling by his blood. Grace and peace be yours in abundance." (I Peter 1:1-2)

What does the Greek word Baptizo really mean?

The term Baptizo (baptizo) and its other forms are used 125 times in the New Testament. Not one time are they translated anything like "sprinkle." They are either transliterated "baptize" or "baptism" or else translated "dip" as in Luke 16:24, John 13:26 and Revelation 19:13. Occasionally they are translated "wash" as in Mark 7:4&8 and Hebrews 9:10. Since they are speaking about washing cups and pots, etc., this can only be understood in the sense of immersion. Below is a small sampling of definitions for the word "baptizo" as found in the Lexicons. More Lexicons could be cited.

1) Bagster: "to dip; to immerse"

2) Bloomfield: "to immerse; to sink"

3) Bretschneider: "to dip or wash repeatedly: to immerse into water, or submerge"

4) Bullinger: "to dip or dye; immerse"

5) Constantine: "immerse, submerge"

6) Cremer: "immerse, submerge"

7) Dawson: "to dip or immerse in water"

8) Donnegan: "to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge; to sink"

9) Dunbar: "to dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, or sink"

10) Ewing: "to cover with water or some other liquid"

11) Green: "to dip, immerse"

12) Greenfield: "immerse; immerge; submerge; sink"

13) Grimm: "dip repeatedly; immerge; submerge"

14) Groves: "to dip; immerse; cover with water"

15) Hendricks: "to plunge; immerse; cover with water"

16) Jones: "plunge; dip; bury; overhelm"

17) Leigh: "the native and proper signification of it is to dip into water, or to plunge under"

18) Liddell and Scott: "to dip in, or underneath water"

19) Maltby: "immerse; to plunge; to immerse"

20) Norell: "plunge; immerse; cover with water"

21) Parkhurst: "to dip, immerse, or plunge in water"

22) Pickering: "to dip, immerse, submerge; to plunge, sink"

23) Robinson: "to immerse, to sink"

24) Robson: "immerse; sink"

25) Scapula: "to dip, or immerse"

26) Schleusner: "properly, to immerse, to dip in, to dip into water, from Bapto, and corresponds to the Hebrew ‘tabal.’" II Kings 5:14

27) Schrevelius: "to dip, immerse; wash; cleanse"

28) Sophocles: "to dip; to immerse; to sink"

29) Stockieus: "generally, and by force of the word, it has the notion of dipping in and immersing."

30) Thayer: "to dip repeatedly; to immerge; to submerge"

The leaders of the great churches which sprinkle also testify that immersion is the Bible’s way of baptism.

1. Melanethon - Baptism is immersion in water, which is performed with the accompanying benediction of admiration: "I baptize thee etc..... Plunging signifies ablution from sin and immersion into the death of Christ." (Catechesis De Sacramentis, Opera Omnia, Vol. I., Pg. 25.)

2. John Wesley (Methodist) in his Journal, Feb. 21, 1736, said: "Mary Welck, age eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament on Romans 6:4 - "‘We are buried with Him’ - alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."

3. Dr. Wall, an Episcopalian, says: "Pouring was the substitute for baptism which Calvin first adopted and his sprinkling was only the substitute of a substitute and was the most scandalous thing ever adopted for baptism."

4) Brenner, (Catholic): "For thirteen hundred years baptism was an immersion of the person under water."

5) MacKnight, (Presbyterian): "In baptism, the baptized person is buried under the water. Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under water."

6) George Whitefield, (the colleague of Wesley), preached from Romans 6:4 and said: "It is certain that in the words of our text there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immersion."

7) Calvin Institutes, (Presbyterian), Chapter 15: "It is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church."

8) Beza: "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain that immersion is signified."

9) Philip Schaff: "The baptism of Christ in the river Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the New Testament, are all in favor of immersion, rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted by the best exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be gained by unnatural exegesis. The aggressiveness of the Baptists had driven Pedobaptists to the opposite extreme."

10) Dr. Doddridge, a Greek scholar who gave us one of the best, if not the best translations of Acts extant, says regarding Romans 6:4: "Buried in Baptism," "It seems but the part of candor to confess that here is an allusion to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."

11) Cardinal Gibbons (Roman Catholic): "For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity, baptism was ususally conferred by immersion; but since the 12th century, the practice of baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by immersion."

12) MacKnicht (a Presbyterian commentator) says: "In baptism the baptized person is buried under the water. Christ submitted to be baptized; that is, to be buried under the water."

13) Stoudza, a native Greek, says, "The verb ‘baptize’ has only one meaning; Baptism and immersion are identical."

14) Weiss, (Luthern) says: "After confessing their sins they went down, man by man, into the water of the Jordan, in order to immerge newborn, a people prepared for the Lord."

15) Neander (Luthern Historian), in "History of the Christian Church and Religion," Vol. 1, Page 311: "Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected."

16) Bishop Burnett, (Episcopalian), in "Exposition of the 39 Articles." Article 27: "There is no express precept, or rule, given in the N.T. for the baptism of infants."

17) Dr. Wall, (Episcopalian), in "History of Infant Baptism," introduction, Page 1: "Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of any infant."

Now did sprinkling spread among Protestants?

In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster, in 1643, it was keenly debated, whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted; 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 voted for immersion; and even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly. Sprinkling is therefore the general practice of this country. Many Christians, however, especially the Baptists reject it. The Greek Church universally adheres to immersion. Art. Bapt. Vol. III, pp. 245-246. (Edinburgh Cyclopedia).

III. Where did they get the idea of sprinkling infants rather than adults?

A. Infant sprinkling is based on the false premise of "orginal sin," which is the idea that the quilt of Adam’s sin is passed on from generation to generation.. Therefore, should a child die un-sprinkled, he would be under God’s eternal wrath because of Adam’s sin. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the following scriptures will demonstrate.

1. "But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things: 17 He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." Ezekiel 18:14, 17, 20.

2. "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

Deuteronomy 24:16

3. "In those days people will no longer say, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.’ 30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes__ his own teeth will be set on edge." Jeremiah 31:29-30 (Also see: II Kings 14:6 & II Chonicles 25:4)

4. "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’" Romans 2:5-6

5. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." II Corinthians 5:10

6. "...Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done." Revelation 20:12b-13

7. "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve." Jeremiah 17:10

8: "Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear." I Peter 1:17

Conclusion:

The New Testament is God’s "Will" - His "Testament." In it He bequeaths His eternal inheritance to His children. "...We are heirs - heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ..." (Romans 8:17). Since the New Testament is His will, and since the inheritance is more precious than anything money could ever buy, it seems reasonable that one should made every effort to fulfill the provisions of that will exactly as the author of the will intended them to be carried out! When a teaching touches on a subject as great in importance as your salvation, it ought never be viewed lightly. We challenge you to serve the Lord in the manner He has asked of you.


----------



## JM

Ralph see my profile. It seems you and I read the same authors. 

j


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

It seems to me that all that Ralph has proven above is that one can hold to immersion and still be a Paedo-Baptist. In a section concerning the question of dipping or sprinkling Rev. Samuel Miller writes:



> Accordingly, it is a notorious fact, that, in consideration of the difficulties which have been mentioned as attending immersion, a large body of Baptists, in Holland, I mean the Mennonites, who were once warm and uncompromising contenders for this mode of administering baptism, at length gave it up, and while they still baptize none but adults, have been, for more than a hundred years, in the practice of pouring water on the head of the candidate, through the hand of the administrator. They found that when candidates for baptism were lying on sick beds; or confined in prison; or in a state of peculiarly delicate health; or in various other unusual situations, which may be eassily imagined; there was so much difficulty, not to say, in some cases, a total impossibility in baptizing by plunging; that they deliberately, as a denomination, after the death of their first leader, agreed to lay aside, as I said, the practice of immersion, and substituted the plan of affusion, Infant Baptism, pg. 82.


And, a little after this, in reference to the Early Church's practice of immersion, he writes:



> The circumstance to which I allude is, that in the third, fourth, and immediately following centuries - in the days of Cyprian, Cyril, Athanasius, and Chrysostom - when, as all agree the mode of baptizing by immersioin was the most prevalent method; there is no historical fact more perfectly established, than that, whenever baptism was thus administered, the candidate, whether infant or adult, male or female, was _entirely divested of all clothing_: not merely of outer garments, but, I repeat, _of all clothing_. No exception was allowed in any case, even when the most timid and delicate female importunately desired it. This fact is established, not only by the most direct and unequivocal statements, and that by a number of writers, but also by the narration of a number of curious particulars connected with this practice. Among the rest we are told of scenes of indecorum exhibited in the baptisteries of those days, which convinced the friends of religion that the practice ought to be discontinued, and it was finally laid aside, ibid., pg. 83.



In a note he quotes a Baptist historian:



> The zealous Baptist Robert Robinson, bears, on this subject, the following testimony: "The primitive Christians baptized naked. Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the authentic writings of the men who administered baptism, and who certainly knew in what way they themselves performed it. There is no ancient historical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence does not go on the evidence of the single word, naked; for then a reader might suspect allegory; but on facts reported, and many reasons assigned for the practice." History of Baptism, p. 85. He then quotes several examples dated in the fourth century.


That one holds to immersion does not prove that one holds to Believer's Baptism Only. The practice of the Early Church was not only immersion, but the Baptism of infants as well.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have recently conferred about this topic with someone and asked them to ask Dr. Stander and Dr. Louw there views on baptism. And from what I understand these men are both of the same opinions. I asked someone to confer with these guys and Standers did reply. 

Stander is a Pastor in the Dutch Reformed Church. He has not been baptised as an adult from what I understand. And he did baptise his children. He does baptise children in his church. He is willing to accommodate both credos and paedos in his congregation. He said he sincerely believed that adult baptism was the practice in the first three centuries, and that was also in line with the New Testament. He was writing this based upon the historical writings and his historical studies of the early church. He is a top notch Internationally known historian. 

I am not sure I have permission to disclose anything past this so I will leave it at this.

The book is great quoting the fathers of the early church and very historically accurate. It is not written by Baptists as supposedly implied by the first post. In fact I found the book rather disturbing by how the doctrine of Baptism was so radically changed and viewed in the early church. It doesn't support a Baptist view of baptism. I can't believe the first post. I wonder if he even read it or did he just skim it.


----------



## Archlute

Well, of course this all depends on how one interprets certain statements by the church fathers, and the presuppositions by which they approached them in the first place. I've seen both baptists and paedobaptists take the same quotes from the early writings of the church and come to opposing interpretations based upon where they wanted to go in the first place. It is the unusual polemicist who approaches the writings of the early church apart from the primary intent of scouring them for quotes that will support their own position.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Archlute said:


> Well, of course this all depends on how one interprets certain statements by the church fathers, and the presuppositions by which they approached them in the first place. I've seen both baptists and paedobaptists take the same quotes from the early writings of the church and come to opposing interpretations based upon where they wanted to go in the first place. It is the unusual polemicist who approaches the writings of the early church apart from the primary intent of scouring them for quotes that will support their own position.



Have you read the book and my post above?


----------



## Archlute

CredoCovenanter said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course this all depends on how one interprets certain statements by the church fathers, and the presuppositions by which they approached them in the first place. I've seen both baptists and paedobaptists take the same quotes from the early writings of the church and come to opposing interpretations based upon where they wanted to go in the first place. It is the unusual polemicist who approaches the writings of the early church apart from the primary intent of scouring them for quotes that will support their own position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the book and my post above?
Click to expand...


Yes, and yes. 

However, your statements are immaterial to the truth of my post. Those stand regardless of whether or not one is discussing S&L.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Archlute said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course this all depends on how one interprets certain statements by the church fathers, and the presuppositions by which they approached them in the first place. I've seen both baptists and paedobaptists take the same quotes from the early writings of the church and come to opposing interpretations based upon where they wanted to go in the first place. It is the unusual polemicist who approaches the writings of the early church apart from the primary intent of scouring them for quotes that will support their own position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the book and my post above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and yes.
> 
> However, your statements are immaterial to the truth of my post. Those stand regardless of whether or not one is discussing S&L.
Click to expand...


Well from their postitions you would think they would prefer to enter the debate from a pro paedo position but they didn't allow their presuppositions on the issue to enter. And they gave reasonable answers and defences where they critiqued others. 

BTW, what did you think about the awful turns the doctrine of baptism underwent and the requirements one needed to go through to be baptised? After a few centuries baptism resembled little of what we believe whether we be paedo or credo.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Oh yeah and one more question. Do you believe they are miserable historians who don't understand what they are reading when they read the Early Church Fathers?. Do you think that these men are unsafe guides and terrible historians who have mishandled the texts they are commenting on? I just want to know.


----------



## Wannabee

Another concern is the downplaying of a work simply because of its brevity. Simply put, if one can tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in less than 200 pages I'm all for it. It's a great gift to make the truth clear through simplicity of words. It is quite possible that longer works are more interested in building a case than simply desiminating facts. Authoritarianism does not make one an authority.


----------



## JM

Just ordered a copy.


----------



## JM

Picked it up yesterday.


----------



## dannyhyde

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Stander is a Pastor in the Dutch Reformed Church.



I'll let Rev. Bredenhof speak more to this, but the University of Pretoria, where Stander and Louw teach/taught, has a theology faculty made up of those in the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk and the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika...hardly bastions of confessional Reformed Christianity from what I understand.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pastor Hyde,
I am curious what you think of the accuracy of their historical Study? Have you checked it out? Ask Dr. Renihan about their credentials and studies. I believe his recommendation is on the book cover. I believe he is close to you guys there at Westminster. Do you believe their historical studies and conclusions are false?


----------



## Archlute

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Oh yeah and one more question. Do you believe they are miserable historians who don't understand what they are reading when they read the Early Church Fathers?. Do you think that these men are unsafe guides and terrible historians who have mishandled the texts they are commenting on? I just want to know.



What, are you crazy? Every historian is a miserable historian 

You have to take every historian with a grain of salt, as they are all writing to prove their theses. There is no "objective historical account", although some accounts lean toward this more so than others. As I said above, lots of people (historians included) have tried to make the fathers say a lot of things. You have to do a good deal of contextual-historical background reading, as well as spend much time in the original sources themselves, before you can evaluate the accuracy/persuasion from which someone is basing their claims regarding the fathers. 

Stating that S&L would be considered "unsafe guides", because of a reading that fits their presuppositions is a bit extreme. If that were the case, then Fred Malone would have to be considered an unsafe guide regarding his exegesis of baptismal passages in his polemical writings on baptism. Terrible exegete - yes. "Unsafe guide" - well, maybe I'm not yet ready to slap that label on somebody just because they are a poor exegete (historical or otherwise). That is a term which I would reserve for someone with false motives, motives which I do not believe either Malone nor S&L to hold.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Well, the Early Church is suppose to be their expertise. They are commended for their understanding and translation of the Fathers.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW, the Early Church's view of Baptism changed quite a bit and I don't think the Covenantal Baptist view of Baptism is even supported according to the book. Baptism seems to have taken on some strange views from early on. The books expose' of the biblical doctrine of baptism in the early church was rather discouraging in my mind.


----------



## Archlute

PuritanCovenanter said:


> BTW, the Early Church's view of Baptism changed quite a bit and I don't think the Covenantal Baptist view of Baptism is even supported according to the book. Baptism seems to have taken on some strange views from early on. The books expose' of the biblical doctrine of baptism in the early church was rather discouraging in my mind.



On that we can agree


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Archlute said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the Early Church's view of Baptism changed quite a bit and I don't think the Covenantal Baptist view of Baptism is even supported according to the book. Baptism seems to have taken on some strange views from early on. The books expose' of the biblical doctrine of baptism in the early church was rather discouraging in my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On that we can agree
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, and BTW, the Covenantal Paedo view was also eliminated also if you remember reading the book.


----------



## Poimen

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Stander is a Pastor in the Dutch Reformed Church. He has not been baptised as an adult from what I understand. And he did baptise his children. He does baptise children in his church. He is willing to accommodate both credos and paedos in his congregation. He said he sincerely believed that adult baptism was the practice in the first three centuries, and that was also in line with the New Testament. He was writing this based upon the historical writings and his historical studies of the early church. He is a top notch Internationally known historian.



He may not be a Baptist but he is not a paedobaptist either. If a man is convinced that the adult baptism is the NT practice then he should not baptize children. To do so for any other reason than scriptural proof and reasoning is to baptize in custom and superstition. This is abhorrent to us who do practice it for biblical reasons. 

If he is a pastor in a Dutch Reformed Church then that church has either failed to discipline him in accordance with his confessional vows (HC Q&A 74 and BC Article 34) or the church is failing to maintain the marks of a true church (proper administration of baptism) and thus is in serious error. At the very least, he is no longer Reformed.


----------



## dannyhyde

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Pastor Hyde,
> I am curious what you think of the accuracy of their historical Study? Have you checked it out? Ask Dr. Renihan about their credentials and studies. I believe his recommendation is on the book cover. I believe he is close to you guys there at Westminster. Do you believe their historical studies and conclusions are false?



I've not read the book, although I hope to read it and interact with it a little when the second edition of my book on infant baptism, Jesus Loves the Little Children, comes out (Lord willing!)

My point was that just because they are ministers in the "Dutch Reformed Church" of South Africa, does not somehow add weight to anything they say. This is a logical fallacy that makes an illegitimate appeal to authority, just because they come from a certain ecclesiastical orbit (of which I question). One needs to undertand the nature of the various Dutch Reformed churches before simply saying, "Oh, they're Dutch Reformed."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Poimen said:


> He may not be a Baptist but he is not a paedobaptist either. If a man is convinced that the adult baptism is the NT practice then he should not baptize children. To do so for any other reason than scriptural proof and reasoning is to baptize in custom and superstition. This is abhorrent to us who do practice it for biblical reasons.
> 
> If he is a pastor in a Dutch Reformed Church then that church has either failed to discipline him in accordance with his confessional vows (HC Q&A 74 and BC Article 34) or the church is failing to maintain the marks of a true church (proper administration of baptism) and thus is in serious error. At the very least, he is no longer Reformed.



He is a Paedo but he like many who hold to a Paedo position have probably arrived at it from Biblical study and not from a study of early Church History. Read the Book Pastor. You're quick to judge someone without knowing their situation or what they really believe. I would pull back the reigns a bit before you jump to conclusions. Many I know who have arrived at the Paedo position did not arrive at it from a study of the early Church Fathers but from their studies of Reformation Theology. Remember Catholics are paedo also but I definitely wouldn't be lured by their conclusions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

dannyhyde said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Hyde,
> I am curious what you think of the accuracy of their historical Study? Have you checked it out? Ask Dr. Renihan about their credentials and studies. I believe his recommendation is on the book cover. I believe he is close to you guys there at Westminster. Do you believe their historical studies and conclusions are false?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not read the book, although I hope to read it and interact with it a little when the second edition of my book on infant baptism, Jesus Loves the Little Children, comes out (Lord willing!)
> 
> My point was that just because they are ministers in the "Dutch Reformed Church" of South Africa, does not somehow add weight to anything they say. This is a logical fallacy that makes an illegitimate appeal to authority, just because they come from a certain ecclesiastical orbit (of which I question). One needs to undertand the nature of the various Dutch Reformed churches before simply saying, "Oh, they're Dutch Reformed."
Click to expand...


And I would agree with you on that. I think their credentials as Historians should really be what is examined. After all that is what they are known for.


----------



## Poimen

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may not be a Baptist but he is not a paedobaptist either. If a man is convinced that the adult baptism is the NT practice then he should not baptize children. To do so for any other reason than scriptural proof and reasoning is to baptize in custom and superstition. This is abhorrent to us who do practice it for biblical reasons.
> 
> If he is a pastor in a Dutch Reformed Church then that church has either failed to discipline him in accordance with his confessional vows (HC Q&A 74 and BC Article 34) or the church is failing to maintain the marks of a true church (proper administration of baptism) and thus is in serious error. At the very least, he is no longer Reformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a Paedo but he like many who hold to a Paedo position have probably arrived at it from Biblical study and not from a study of early Church History. Read the Book Pastor. You're quick to judge someone without knowing their situation or what they really believe. I would pull back the reigns a bit before you jump to conclusions. Many I know who have arrived at the Paedo position did not arrive at it from a study of the early Church Fathers but from their studies of Reformation Theology. Remember Catholics are paedo also but I definitely wouldn't be lured by their conclusions.
Click to expand...


You are correct; I don't know his situation. However you seemed to know something about the situation as you were informing us about his background and practice. Indeed I only said what I said based upon what you wrote which I must have misinterpreted. It sounded like you were saying that he believed that the NT taught credobaptism. 

I will reassert then, that if he baptizes children for any other reason than sound biblical arguments he is not a paedobaptist. Furthermore he undermines the entire paedobaptist foundation by accomodating the credos in the congregation. Either is commanded or it is not. There is no middle position on this issue for Reformed churches.


----------



## JM

I’m only 40 pages in but I find it odd that baptism is almost always linked with baptismal regeneration.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Poimen said:


> You are correct; I don't know his situation. However you seemed to know something about the situation as you were informing us about his background and practice. Indeed I only said what I said based upon what you wrote which I must have misinterpreted. It sounded like you were saying that he believed that the NT taught credobaptism.
> 
> I will reassert then, that if he baptizes children for any other reason than sound biblical arguments he is not a paedobaptist. Furthermore he undermines the entire paedobaptist foundation by accomodating the credos in the congregation. Either is commanded or it is not. There is no middle position on this issue for Reformed churches.




Well now if that don't beat all. I have been a credo in two Presbyterian Churches, RPCNA and PCA. They accommodated me in the fact that I was a member. My Children where not baptised until they made their professions. And I took them to a Baptist Church where my Dad, who is ordained, baptised them. I didn't have kids when I was a member in the RPCNA. So now is my PCA Pastor not a Paedo? 

BTW, what is a paedo-baptist by definition? Your definition is a little short cited. There are many denominations who baptize infants, and they are considered legit baptisms by many Presbyterians, and they are not covenantal. According to this book and other sources I have read paedo baptism wasn't a practice in the early church based up a covenantal understanding, but built upon the understanding between the connection of baptism and the forgiveness of sins and necessity. They felt it necessary to baptise the infirmed near death in infancy as well as those who were aged. Thus when infant death was close they would baptise. That is a paedo baptism that has a biblical understanding behind it. I don't believe it is a correct biblical understanding but I do know that it would be considered legit by many on this board as paedo-baptism. Are you of the crowd who do not believe just because the Trinity is invoked upon a baptized child that it is legit? (ie. Catholilc baptism) Either way it is still paedo-baptism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> I’m only 40 pages in but I find it odd that baptism is almost always linked with baptismal regeneration.


If I remember correctly it is more along the lines of forgiveness of sin and regeneration. They believed there was a tight nit connection between the two.


----------



## Poimen

Yes he _undermines_ the paedobaptist belief in the necessity of infant baptism: a command not a suggestion. I didn't say that he wasn't a paedobaptist for that reason. 

Perhaps you could help me by defining what you meant when you said "He said he sincerely believed that adult baptism was the practice in the first three centuries, and that was also in line with the New Testament." I took this to mean that he believed that the NT taught credobaptism but baptized infants anyways. 

If I misinterpreted this statement I made an error and I'll stand correction. If I didn't, then I think my original point stands.


----------



## Archlute

Poimen said:


> Furthermore he undermines the entire paedobaptist foundation by accomodating the credos in the congregation. Either is commanded or it is not. There is no middle position on this issue for Reformed churches.



There is no clear commandment, but theological deduction. Nor does a practice of charity undermine the foundation, since that foundation is built upon Scripture, which also places forbearance, gentleness, and brotherly love at the foremost of the church's practice of Christian virtue. It is an issue upon which the credo's in the congregation need study, persuasion, and the clarifying work of the Holy Spirit to move them along, but is it not an issue of which its practice is essential to salvation (unless one has confessional Lutheran sympathies), and therefore not a bar to membership in the body of Christ. 

Unless you would like to unchurch the PCA, ARPC, and others from the Reformed world, then your statement should be tempered. This polemic is one difference between the average 3FU churches and Westminster churches that seems to be a recurring source of friction. The WCF is more temperate and studied in its language on these issues than the 3FU tend to be, and this edge (or lack thereof) seems often to come out in the voices of those who represent that particular confession. 

So, to clarify, there is (ideally) no middle ground in understanding by the ministers of those congregations, but there is in fact a practice of accommodation to the consciences of our brothers and sisters while they are yet growing in Christian understanding and discipleship.


----------



## Poimen

Adam: 

I have to respectfully disagree on the issue of the command. There is a command - Genesis 17:9; Matthew 28:19 

I fully agree that we need charity on the issue. This extends to those outside of the congregation who are not paedobaptists but need to be educated on the issue to see the holistic approach to the Bible to understand paedobaptism. 

However, as Reformed churches we require that members baptize their children. If a person wants to become a member they must believe in and live according to the paedobaptist doctrine. This is in keeping with historic, Reformed practice which many may see as wrong or misguided but is nevertheless the practice of our Reformed communions. 

I don't want to now or ever unchurch others in other denominations over whom I have no authority. I am just stating a simple fact about the necessity of paedobaptism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Poimen said:


> Yes he _undermines_ the paedobaptist belief in the necessity of infant baptism: a command not a suggestion. I didn't say that he wasn't a paedobaptist for that reason.
> 
> Perhaps you could help me by defining what you meant when you said "He said he sincerely believed that adult baptism was the practice in the first three centuries, and that was also in line with the New Testament." I took this to mean that he believed that the NT taught credobaptism but baptized infants anyways.
> 
> If I misinterpreted this statement I made an error and I'll stand correction. If I didn't, then I think my original point stands.



Read the book Pastor and see what he is saying. It is better to get what he believes the historical documents reveal by his own pen. But as I said before I don't know anyone who came to a conclusion that Paedo Covenantal Baptism was biblical by reading the Early Church Fathers or Early Church documents. They came to it by reading reformation theology.


----------



## Poimen

Randy:

I appreciate the sentiment about reading the book. Really I do! But I wasn't responding to what he said or wrote but what you said he believed. I would still appreciate correction if I was wrong on the above point because I think it would get the discussion back on track but if you don't want to clarify that is okay too.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Poimen said:


> Adam:
> 
> I have to respectfully disagree on the issue of the command. There is a command - Genesis 17:9; Matthew 28:19
> 
> I fully agree that we need charity on the issue. This extends to those outside of the congregation who are not paedobaptists but need to be educated on the issue to see the holistic approach to the Bible to understand paedobaptism.
> 
> However, as Reformed churches we require that members baptize their children. If a person wants to become a member they must believe in and live according to the paedobaptist doctrine. This is in keeping with historic, Reformed practice which many may see as wrong or misguided but is nevertheless the practice of our Reformed communions.
> 
> I don't want to now or ever unchurch others in other denominations over whom I have no authority. I am just stating a simple fact about the necessity of paedobaptism.



If you want Pastor you can start a new thread on this topic. This thread is about this book and it's historical understanding. We have beat the issue of Genesis 17 up till we were all bloody before. It caused a major discussion that lasted many pages. You may remember it or if you want you can revisit it.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedobaptism-view-credobaptist-children-15435/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Poimen said:


> Randy:
> 
> I appreciate the sentiment about reading the book. Really I do! But I wasn't responding to what he said or wrote but what you said he believed. I would still appreciate correction if I was wrong on the above point because I think it would get the discussion back on track but if you don't want to clarify that is okay too.




I am not sure I can clarify for him. I had cut and pasted part of a forwarded email that I had received which was vague in some areas. He is a paedo baptist whether or not it is in the line of the Dutch Reformed or not. And if I understood Pastor Hyde correctly, it shouldn't really matter. It doesn't add any weight since the Denomination in this region is a little out there according to him.

Concerning the book I think what matters is if they are credible and historically correct. Is what they say correct? And what should it mean to us? Well as I mentioned before many who have come to the Covenantal Paedo view have not arrived at it from reading the Early Church Fathers or Early Church Documents. At least not any of my friends have. Did you? Most of my friends arrived at the Covenantal understanding of paedo-baptism from the reformers.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

PuritanCovenanter said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m only 40 pages in but I find it odd that baptism is almost always linked with baptismal regeneration.
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly it is more along the lines of forgiveness of sin and regeneration. They believed there was a tight nit connection between the two.
Click to expand...



I've been reading the confessions of Augustine and he definately taught and believed baptismal regeneration. How he could be so sound on some things and then embrace that is hard to understand. I guess he was a product of his times.


----------



## Poimen

Thank you Randy. I've said my piece so I'm bowing out of the discussion.


----------



## Archlute

Poimen said:


> Adam:
> 
> I have to respectfully disagree on the issue of the command. There is a command - Genesis 17:9; Matthew 28:19
> 
> I fully agree that we need charity on the issue. This extends to those outside of the congregation who are not paedobaptists but need to be educated on the issue to see the holistic approach to the Bible to understand paedobaptism.
> 
> However, as Reformed churches we require that members baptize their children. If a person wants to become a member they must believe in and live according to the paedobaptist doctrine. This is in keeping with historic, Reformed practice which many may see as wrong or misguided but is nevertheless the practice of our Reformed communions.
> 
> I don't want to now or ever unchurch others in other denominations over whom I have no authority. I am just stating a simple fact about the necessity of paedobaptism.



Thanks for clarifying what you were trying to get across, Daniel. What I was getting at regarding theological deduction vs. commandment is the reality that most of these people will only be convinced from a clear NT command - of which there is none. We see the unity of the Scriptures in a manner that they do not, and so while I agree with you on one level, getting these folk to see the connection between the signs of the Covenant of Grace is exactly where the work is to be done.

Again, our disagreement centering around our confessions and practice comes to the fore. It is not necessary to hold to paedobaptist convictions to be a member in a Reformed church, that is unless you would like to say that all of the members of NAPARC are not really Reformed. While there may be a tradition of full subscription for membership within conservative Dutch Reformed churches, even stemming from a historic practice, that does not make it "reformed" in the historic understanding of that term. 

Reformation is according to Scripture as the standard, and most Reformed churches (designate them as Presbyterian, if you would like) see that Scripture bases membership in the body of Christ to an understanding of our sinfulness, and a simple and sincere profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Doctrinal understanding is a part of the "teaching them all that I have commanded you" of discipleship. It is a gradual process, while denoms such as the URCNA insist that one understand and sign off on advanced doctrinal formulations almost before that can even begin. 

I do not mean to raise your ire with that, but it is a very real (and dividing) practice between us.


----------

