BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH by Hendrik Stander and Johannes Louw

Status
Not open for further replies.

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
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;
 

Theological Books

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Moderator
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Moderator
Staff member
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.

huh?

Were you defending or arguing against natural law (whatever that is, since that phrase has been used for radically different meanings)?

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

Moderator
Staff member
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

Moderator
Staff member
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?

we're lost and only a moderator can bring us back to civilization.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Paul manata]

But I like it in the woods.
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Moderator
Staff member
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

Was it a bowl?:lol:

I am sure it wasn't.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.

:ditto:
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
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

Moderator
Staff member
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.

Oh, so there's no relevence to your "early baptismal" points. I think I can live with that.

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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Christian Preacher
Originally posted by Paul manata
now all you need to do is *prove* that paedobaptists wouldn't have had a "baptistry" in their Church.

:ditto::lol:

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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top