Posted by: proregno | June 25, 2010

Gesprek oor die doop

Met die toestemming van dr. Nik Lee plaas ek sy boekie, “Julle doop mos verkeerd – ‘n Gesprek oor die ware Bybelse doop tussen Willie Wederdoper en Neels Nederduits Gereformeerd” (ek het die versoeking weerstaan om laasgenoemde se naam te verander na ‘Daan Dopper’ …). Die boekie gee ‘n eenvoudige duidelike uiteensetting tussen die verbondsdoop teenoor die ‘groot doop alleen’ en wederdoop standpunt:

https://proregno.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/drleenik_doop.pdf

Sien ook dr. Lee se webblad vir veel meer artikels oor die doop en ander sake:

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/

Hier is ‘n paar van sy titels oor die onderwerp:

The Sins of Adult Rebaptism and of Leaving One’s Babies Unbaptised

The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren

Sprinkling is Scriptural

Baptism Does Not Regenerate!

Baby Belief Before Baptism

Have You Been Neglecting Your Baby?

What About Baptism?

Sien ook prof. Bert Floor se werk oor die onderwerp van die doop:

Kinderdoop, Grootdoop, Herdoop

http://www.enigstetroos.org/Kinderdoop_Grootdoop_Herdoop_LFloor.pdf

Die doop in die Nuwe Testament

http://www.enigstetroos.org/LFloor_Doop_NT.pdf

Leer ‘n volk sy doop verstaan, dan is beide kerk en staat gered.” – Wormser


Responses

  1. Ek weet nie of dit goed is om Dr Nik Lee se materiaal aan te beveel nie. Die allegoriese hermeneutiek wat hy telkens toepas is nie aanvaarbaar indien ‘n grammaties-historiese hermeneutiek onderskryf word nie. Hy handhaaf hierbenewens ‘n Lutherse siening waarin iemand geloof kan besit sonder om te glo. (Dit is m.i. nie konsekwent met ‘n Calvinistiese siening nie). Die dialoog in die bogenoemde boekie van Dr. Nic Lee is m.i. ook kunsmatig en bevooroordeeld, aangesien dit duidelik nie op ‘n werklike gesprek met ‘n baptis gebaseer is nie.

    Prof. Floor se werke is egter goed beredeneerd en hermeneuties aansienlik meer aanvaarbaar. (Dit sê ek nieteenstaande die feit dat daar baie is waarmee ek nie met Prof. Floor saamstem nie.)

  2. Pieter, dankie vir jou mening. Ek dink as jy dr. Lee deeglik wil beoordeel, moet jy sy standaardwerk, “Baby Belief before Baptism” daaroor bestudeer. Dit is hier beskikbaar:

    http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs7/bbbb/index.html

    Groete
    SLC

    • Slabbert, ek het ‘n deel van Dr. Lee se “Baby Belief before Baptism” gelees, en dit is juis op grond daarvan dat ek onbeïndruk met sy hermeneutiese benadering gelaat word. Hy sê bv. aangaande ‘n teks in Sagaria (bl. 27):
      “Zechariah too urges the people: “Ask for rain from the Lord, in the time of the latter rain! Then the Lord shall send thunderclouds, and give them rainshowers and grass in the field”. “Rain” for “everyone,” he says. This therefore includes baptismal ‘rain’ — even for infants. For the Lord also “forms the spirit of man within him” — apparently even before birth.”
      Dit is niks anders as ‘n allegoriese hermeneutiek wat lyk asof Origenes dit sou kon geskryf het nie.
      Op ander plekke lees hy sy eie gedagtes in tekste in om daaruit af te lei dit wat daar nie staan nie. Ek is daarom geensins beïndruk met hoe die Skrif hanteer nie. (En ook kry ek nie die indruk dat sy werk bekend is of ernstig opgeneem word in die akademiese wêreld – soos Murray, Berkhof en andere – nie.) Hierteenoor werk Floor eksegeties verantwoordbaar deur relevante tekste (sonder om, soos Lee, te probeer kyk hoeveel “bewystekste” hy uit die Skrif kan vind om sy standpunt te ondersteun).

  3. Pieter, wat dink jy van die volgende artikel, ek meen die skrywer vat die basiese problematiek van die baptistiese standpunt na my mening goed saam:

    http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_7.html

    • Hoeksema se artikel is, wat my betref, goed beredeneerd, en sekerlik lig hy kwelpunte by dispensasionalistiese Baptiste uit. Dit wil egter voorkom asof hy impliseer dat alle Baptiste dispensasionaliste is, wat nie waar is nie. (Trouens, daar is baie baptiste wat ‘n verbondsteologiese siening aanhang; so ook is daar ander wat meer aanklank vind by progressiewe dispensasionalisme, wat ook nie dieselfde as die tradisionele dispensasionalisme is nie.) Ek sien ook nie die logika in dat ‘n premillennialis noodwendig ‘n baptis moet wees nie. (Iemand het op ‘n stadium genoem dat Prof. Floor se pa of iemand ‘n premillennialis was, en hy was ‘n Baptis sover ek weet nie.)

      Ek het Hoeksema se artikel al vantevore al gelees, en nou net vinnig weer daarna gekyk. Dit bevat sekerlik goeie argumente, maar daar is ook eensydigheid en veralgemenings in sommige stellings wat hy maak. Daar is bv. Baptiste wat sal erken dat daar slegs een ware volk van God is; dit is eerder dispensasionaliste as sodanig wat Israel en die Kerk parallel as twee volke van God sien. Baptiste sê ook nie noodwendig dat daar twee sade van Abraham is nie, maar sal daarop wys dat die Skrif die begrip “saad van Abraham” in meer as een sin gebruik, selfs in 4 betekenissinne – en ek dink ‘n mens sal dit moeilik kan ontken. Trouens, Hoeksema se verklaring van Romeine 9 sal inherent teenstrydig as hy nie ten minste twee betekenissinne daarin erken nie.

      Wat verder ontbreek in Hoeksema se uiteensetting, is ‘n bespreking van verbandhoudende kontekste, wat hy doelbewus nie in sy argument wil inbring nie. Die punt is: die verbandhoudende kontekste speel noodwendig ‘n rol by sy argument. Die verbondsteologiese “platmaking” van die verbonde tot een verbond is byvoorbeeld ‘n noodsaaklike postulaat om die argument dat die doop in die plek van die besnydenis gekom het, te kan onderskraag en gewig daaraan te kan gee. Ooreenkoms (i.c. tussen doop en besnydenis) impliseer immers nie, opsigself, vervanging (of voortsetting) nie.

      Nietemin dink ek dit is ‘n goeie voorlegging en opsomming van die Calvinistiese argument ten gunste van die kinderdoop. (In elk geval: aansienlik beter as Dr. Nik Lee sin, wat my betref.)

  4. Sien die verskillende debatte tussen paedo en credo doop standpunte:

    http://inthylight.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/paedo-credo-baptism-debate/

    RC Sproul (paedo) vs John MacArthur (credo) debat:

    http://www.ligonier.org/blog/rc-sproul-and-john-macarthur-debate-baptism/

  5. 1. Infant Baptism: Is it Scriptural ?, William Hendriksen

    http://www.aprofitableword.com/2010/09/infant-baptism-is-biblical.html

    2. Infant Baptism: A Duty of God’s People, dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

    http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church/baptinfant.html

    Dr. Gentry se opsomming:

    The case for infant baptism has developed upon the following lines of argument:

    First, both testaments of the Bible were shown to be equally authoritative as the revelation of God and vitally inter-related. The New Testament is a continuation and expansion of the Old Testament.

    Second, God established the family as the arena of His grace and mercy. He revealed the principle of family solidarity. For centuries of convenantal history the seed of believers were included in God’s gracious covenant and the covenantal community. They even received the sign of the covenant, just as the adult did.

    Third, in the New Testament there is no abrogation of the divinely instituted principle of family solidarity, there is no word commanding the exclusion of infants from the covenant community, and there is no instruction to the early Christian community (composed mostly of covenant oriented Jews) to withhold the sign of the covenant from their children.

    Fourth, as a matter of fact, and as expected, the New Testament treats children as members of the covenant community, frames sermons in term’s of the family solidarity principle, and records actions expressive of the covenant principle (i.e., household baptisms).

    Fifth, baptism is seen to take over the function of circumcision in the New Covenant era. Since circumcision (which pictured the same truths as baptism) was applied to infants, why should not baptism be so applied?

    Often the Presbyterian is put on the defensive to demonstrate the propriety of his baptizing infants. This is unfortunate. It should be the case that those who neglect to baptize their infants should be urged to give just, Scripturally verifiable cause for excluding the infants of believers from the Church and baptism.

    3. Baptism: The Debate behind the Debate, rev. Mark J. Stromberg

    http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/stromberg_baptism01_may06_v56_n05.htm

    “In contrast, if the Bible does not forbid believers from placing the sign and seal of baptism upon their children, then why would believers withhold the sign and seal of Baptism unless the New Testament explicitly forbids such a practice? As a starting point, this position assumes a level of continuity between the Old and New Testaments instead of assuming radical discontinuity. If it is true that the New Testament is silent on this matter, then why is the silence of the New Testament in favor of withholding the sign and seal of baptism when we already have an Old Testament precedent that establishes the opposite? Why is it safer to assume discontinuity with the Old Testament instead of assuming continuity?

    … If it is true that baptism in the New Testament has replaced circumcision as a sign and seal of covenant membership, then how is it possible that Jewish converts would have withheld the sign and seal of covenant membership from their children without explicit apostolic instructions to do so?”

    4. Sien ook die magdom van bronne van beide standpunte, hier:

    http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Baptism/

  6. Sien ook: http://theaquilareport.com/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/

  7. http://theaquilareport.com/15-arguments-in-favor-of-covenant-child-baptism/

  8. http://reformedapologist.blogspot.co.za/2013/12/a-primer-on-covenant-theology-baptism.html

  9. […] Gesprek oor die Doop […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: