Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Somewhat revealing, June 1, 2006
The authors come from a paedo baptist theological bent. I am not sure why they wrote the book because it doesn't seem to support their view. They even use a lot of quotes from other Paedo-Baptists and show that they have misquoted or misunderstood the context of the Early Church Fathers. Maybe they are just illuminating the Early Church Father's beliefs concerning baptism for conscience sake. From the outset the Early Church seemed to link water baptism very closely to the remission and cleansing of sin. If one wasn't baptized by water they had no forgiveness of sin. This theological theme continued but grew in different directions concerning its efficacy and benefits during the next four centuries. According to the authors the connection between baptism and modern day covenant theology is proven to be almost non-existent in the writings of the Early Church. They link infant baptism's induction into the church because of necessity. In other words the deathbed was the reason infant baptism was introduced into the church. The book was very illuminating and I agreed with part of its conclusion. "The symbol became the actual means. The rite of baptism itself, rather than Christ, became the guarantee of eternal salvation."
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Surprised but gratified, July 22, 2009
Although the authors come from an infant baptism heritage they take the view that it was a later development. This is certainly the conclusion one might draw since the biblical evidence lacks any mention of infant baptism although there were many infants and a very high mortality rate. The complete lack of any example or provision for even a single baptism of a pre-believing child, is most significant especially in view of the fact that, as the authors state, baptism was seen in the early church as being essential to salvation. The Lost Mystery of Baptism Ancient And Medieval Baptismal Fonts Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries
|
|
|
19 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Neither balanced or unbiased, November 21, 2005
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.
|
|
|
|
by William David Webster
by Mal Couch
