Best Systematic Theology?

[JM]

A book paedobaptists are not supposed to read: Baptism in the Early Church written by paedobaptists Stander and Louw. They give ample evidence that baptism followed confession of faith. This was the conclusion by the paedobaptist authors. They continue to be practice baby sprinkling on the authority of the church, who they claim, had the right to change the practice.

Another book paedobaptists are not suppose to read: Believers Baptism edited by Schreiner. This collection of essays destroys the covenantal argument for baby sprinkling from a covenantal point of view.

And of course A String of Pearls Unstrung by Malone.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Gill first, then probably Hiedleberg

 

[ReformedChapin]

A book paedobaptists are not supposed to read: Baptism in the Early Church written by paedobaptists Stander and Louw. They give ample evidence that baptism followed confession of faith. This was the conclusion by the paedobaptist authors. They continue to be practice baby sprinkling on the authority of the church, who they claim, had the right to change the practice.

Another book paedobaptists are not suppose to read: Believers Baptism edited by Schreiner. This collection of essays destroys the covenantal argument for baby sprinkling from a covenantal point of view.

And of course A String of Pearls Unstrung by Malone.

I've read similar claims before by baptist. You have any ebooks or something I don't have to spend money on? This isn't going to be another one of those books were baptist choose to side with heretics that randomly believed in some psudo credobaptism? Like my favorite Motanists.

 

[heymikey80]

I've read similar claims before by baptist. You have any ebooks or something I don't have to spend money on? This isn't going to be another one of those books were baptist choose to side with heretics that randomly believed in some psudo credbaptism? Like my favorite Motanists.

I always liked the interesting credobaptist interpretations of Hippolytus' "Apostolic Constitutions" -- that the parents made confession for the child if he were unable to speak for himself.

Looking up what "in-fant" means -- it's rather ironic the credobaptist backflip.

Also, I'm interested -- what does S&L say about household baptisms? What's their opinion of this Scriptural practice? I'd like to see what their assumptions are. What's their view of Tertullian? Also, what else have they written in patristic studies?

Their denominational affiliation would be completely beside the point if the denomination were Presbyterian or historically from there. So what's their denominational affiliation? Granted of course that their denominational affiliation is an ad hominem argument.

Actually, now that I google around, Stander is part of the Dutch Reformed Church, which has some controversy associated with allowing credobaptists to commune with them. Stander disagrees with a narrow stance allowing only infant baptism.

 

[heymikey80]

Hm, Tom Schreiner -- isn't he a "New Covenant" advocate? "Wells and Zaspel have examined the relationship between the Mosaic law and the law of Christ from the standpoint of biblical theology. In my mind their solution is basically correct, but we can all be sharpened by further discussion and study." Review of a book by Wells & Zaspel

That's not really Covenant theology ...!

 

[JM]

That's not really Covenant theology ...!

You mean it isn't paedobaptist covenant theology...if you haven't read the book, you shouldn't muddy the water. The book was edited by, not written by, the man you say teaches NCT. A particular interest for the readers on this forum would be the chapter titled, "The Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists" and deals with Calvin and Marcel's covenantal views.

 

[heymikey80]

You mean it isn't paedobaptist covenant theology...if you haven't read the book, you shouldn't muddy the water. The book was edited by, not written by, the man you say teaches NCT. A particular interest for the readers on this forum would be the chapter titled, "The Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists" and deals with Calvin and Marcel's covenantal views.

I've no reason to fund a view that's lacking in consistency.

Who wrote that chapter?

And it's not I who think the man teaches NCT. He said it. I cited it. Don't muddy the water by lack of admission of what's been cited.

What I mean is that it isn't Covenant theology. I know Reformed Baptists. I also know NCT Baptists. one is not the other.

 

[heymikey80]

You mean it isn't paedobaptist covenant theology...if you haven't read the book, you shouldn't muddy the water. The book was edited by, not written by, the man you say teaches NCT. A particular interest for the readers on this forum would be the chapter titled, "The Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists" and deals with Calvin and Marcel's covenantal views.

I found this chapter online -- and from the start it's missed something. I was actually discussing this morning with someone on this issue.

Baptism isn't tied to one specific meaning in Scripture, yet it's tied to one in baptistic theology. Therefore in a baptistic theology it's excluded from areas where it would otherwise be silent on the one, specific issue of "sign of faith".

Meanwhile, it's flatly obvious God applies signs of faith to infants before they show faith (Rom 4:11ff).

Unless Judaism (Abrahamic Judaism, that is) were infected by Roman sacramentalism, the argument is not credible that this is simply acceding to sacramentalism. It's actually not acceding to either sacramentalism nor superficialism. It's lining up more with Hebrew covenantalism: something it appears none of the Apostles nor Jesus had a problem with. Nor God, Who engaged in covenant numerous times.

It also seems apparent that the chapter tends toward overemphasizing the illustrative aspects of a sign. There's also the commitment aspects of a sign -- really the more significant aspects in any covenant sign. Signing to a covenant agrees to its principles of interaction.

 

[JM]

I found this chapter online...

Link!



The author was Shawn D. Wright and the jury is still out on NCT and it's usefulness. Considering there are at the very least half a dozen forms of it your dismissive comments are premature.

 

[heymikey80]

Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New ... - Google Books

He mentions Calvin's point that there are multiple illustrations operating in baptism -- but then focuses on one, and the exclusion of one being perfectly allegorized, he discards the argument.

1 - There're other illustrations -- that of cleansing, which the Spirit performs prior to faith. The combination of these illustrations is what's being put into a visual word, not every aspect of each one.
2 - The nature of a covenantal sacrament is not specifically an illustration, but a signature, committing one into a covenant. That doesn't appear to be acknowledged anywhere I can find in the article. The term "sign" seems to be used purely as "illustration" or "allegory".
3 - Calvin's primary point here is union with Christ -- a union which Calvin asserts, began before the foundation of the world in election, and forms the basis for every saving grace.

http://www.sbts.edu/theology/faculty/shawn-wright/ -- for a little bias evaluation.

The logic of Reformed paedobaptists is best described by Reformed paedobaptists. Not Southern Baptists.

 

[JM]

The article is only previewed and is missing every other page, you are too defensive for any type of dialogue, and too quick to fall back to your preconceived ideas.

The logic of Reformed paedobaptists is best described by Reformed paedobaptists. Not Southern Baptists.

hey, you just shut the door on all dialogue. This above statement reminds me of the Roman Catholic who claims, "you can't probably give a critic of Roman Catholicism because you're not catholic and you don't understand!"

Logic doesn't belong to Baptists or Reformed Christians "bub."

lol

 

[JM]

hey, I'll ask that you have the last word on this discussion and then return to the topic in the op.

Thanks.

jm

 

[heymikey80]

The article is only previewed and is missing every other page, you are too defensive for any type of dialogue, and too quick to fall back to your preconceived ideas.

OK, so not even half of the article is worth reading, I have to read it in entire. I'm not going to fund the view. I've heard this before, I've read it before in Reisinger and Zaspel, and I find it simply an entrenched form of Baptist thought.

hey, you just shut the door on all dialogue. This above statement reminds me of the Roman Catholic who claims, "you can't probably give a critic of Roman Catholicism because you're not catholic and you don't understand!"

No. I'm saying you don't learn a viewpoint by examining the opposition to that viewpoint. The content of the article is skewed.

Logic doesn't belong to Baptists or Reformed Christians "bub."

Rhetoric against the opposition shouldn't be labelled "logic".

If all that can be "dialogue" is polemic, then it's not dialogue that's sought.

 

[JM]

Good.

Now back to the op.

 

[ReformedChapin]

You mean it isn't paedobaptist covenant theology...if you haven't read the book, you shouldn't muddy the water. The book was edited by, not written by, the man you say teaches NCT. A particular interest for the readers on this forum would be the chapter titled, "The Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists" and deals with Calvin and Marcel's covenantal views.

It's a psudo dispensationalist view. They again are inconsistant, they claim the old covenant is void but fail to fully either take one side or the other.

It's either a) all the OT covent promises are applied unless modified which one must deduce infant baptism and gods law

or b) all of OT covenats are void and we start over in the NT, not knowing what to do with infants, God's law is thrown out even if the NT explicitly states we should keep the law

"covenantal baptist" choose option b) claim to be in a) and be covenantal and choose what they like out of a) and b)

 

[JM]

Anyone who has read The Divine Covenant by Pink knows Baptists believe in covenant theology and are not necessarily NCT.

But thank you Chap for your lack of Christian love. I asked politely that hey have the last word so we could stay on topic, please do not continue to hijack the thread.

jm

 

[ReformedChapin]

Anyone who has read The Divine Covenant by Pink knows Baptists believe in covenant theology and are not necessarily NCT.

But thank you Chap for your lack of Christian love. I asked polity that hey have the last word so we could stay on topic, please do not continue to hijack the thread.

jm

Ok?

 

[JM]

I have Bavinck's 4 volume set but couldn't pass up the abridged single volume from a local thirft store for $5 bucks.