Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5772 | ||
Okay, let's step back a minute. First, I have not "denounced" anyone. To say that because a denomination has heretical roots that all of its members are heretics commits both the genetic and division fallacies. I want to do neither of those. But I do think that it is worth mentioning that the first instance of a strict believers' baptism as opposed to covenantal baptism makes its appearance in the Anabaptists. If you can provide evidence of strict believers' baptism earlier than that, please do so, but I believe you will find it difficult. Why do I consider this telling? Because if the church has never acted in a certain way, it is extremely dubious to suggest that they had it wrong the whole time and now we have it right. If you can provide evidence of opposition to infant baptism from a non-heretical group before the sixteenth century, you are welcome to do so. Your analysis of my argument about tradition totally ignores most of my points. Were you or were you not brought into the Christian faith by someone else? I would wager anything that the answer is that you were. If so, who brought them? And who brought them? And who brought them? You see? And I am not "aligning" myself with either Rome or the East. I would, in fact, attempt to strongly distance myself from both of them. But I, contrary to what you have stated, will freely admit that both of those ancient denominations have good things about them, including but not limited to, their views on infant baptism and reverence in worship. About the scope of the Baptist tradition. Judging from the size of the SBC (somewhere about 10,000,000), and including all the rest of the hundreds of Baptist denominations in the US, there are probably 20,000,000 Baptists here. Where else are there Baptists? Well, there are some in England, but they have always been a tiny minority. Everywhere else in the world they are the result of mission works and exist in small numbers. My evidence? Look on the net. Search Google for "baptist denominations" and tell me what you find. There are several respectible Baptist history sites there (stay away from the Landmarkist stuff though). All of them place the origin of the Baptistic denominations in England and America, and it has spread only through missionary work ever since. This doesn't take world travelling or years of study. A cursory examination of immediately available evidence should suffice. But I did not simply make this up on the spot: I have been studying denominational history for several years now. On to Scripture. The idea that household does not include children seems to run directly contrary to the use of the word everywhere else in Scripture. Just do a word search using "household" and see what you get. It _always_ means the entire house. Assumming that household does not include children is out of line with the rest of Scripture. You are welcome to provide places in Scripture where "household" does not refer to the whole thing. And references about baptism do not count since that would be circular reasoning. While I do believe that baptism has replaced circumcision, exactly how long after the birth baptism occurs is of no importance to me, provided it is done in a timely manner and as soon as convenient. The eighth day regulation is not important. Furthermore, Christ's institution of Christian baptism says nothing about baptizing believers only, and also says nothing about baptizing adult believers only. Making any argument on either of those grounds is fallacious at best. Just as I cannot clearly say that Christ instituted infant baptism, you cannot clearly say that he instituted believers' baptism. Yet, all of the promises of God to his people are "for you and your children" or something along those lines. God works through families, and always has. Not baptizing infants is a denial of God's chosen method of action in the world. I see Paul's baptism of households as evidence that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles, Paul being an apostle and all. Your mention of "circumcision of the heart" does not help you, for the thrust is that physical circumcision is simply a sign of what ought to happen in the heart. Baptism is exactly the same, a sign of what should happen on the inside. Just because there is a spiritual reality does not mean that physical reality may be abandoned. Oh, and please do not put in quotes anything that is not either from Scripture or actually taken verbatim from my post. To do otherwise only serves to put words in my mouth, a profoundly uncharitible, unfair, and illogical practice. |
||||||
2 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5801 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, I am not 'denounced' but my faith is 'rooted in heresy.'(?) Why don't I feel better about this? Friend, I am not an Anabaptist or Baptist. Never have been. I am not influenced by them. I am not just a product of someone's teaching, who is a product of someone's teaching, back to Rome. I am a believer in the Bible, and have come to my conclusions after reading and studying the Bible, Seeking the direction of the Holy Spirit, and studying the history of the church. I take offense at the suggestion that I could not come to some conclusions on my own. (and I don't take offense easily) "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)" John 4:1,2 NASB 'Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."'Acts 2:38 NASB I believe the above Scriptures speaks of baptism of believers. "Household" includes goats and camels. Please continue to sprinkle or pour water on you children, at your convenience, and believe that you have performed a work in their heart. I choose to wait, believing that God will keep them until their own faith comes forth. I believe that you are a Christian brother, and would hope to receive reciprocal courtesy. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect" -Wesley Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
3 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5805 | ||
Well, on one hand, heretical roots should be of great concern. We should strive to be as Biblical as humanly possible by the grace of God. But don't let it bother you too much. Nowadays, almost everyone has been influenced by many numbers of people, some of whom are bound to be heretics. This is only a problem if one refuses to reconsider one's beliefs in light of Scripture. Besides, it is the grace of God that saves, not correct theology. If I were to "denounce" everyone with partly heretical theology, I'd have to ditch almost the entire American church, since I believe that Arminianism is heresy (no, I really don't want to go here now. just an example). I guess this is one point where I am going to have to offend. Charis, there is no way on earth that you could have come to your conclusions "on your own" for one simple reason: your conclusions are not new. You do not exist in a conceptual vaccuum, separated from all influence on the outside. You exist in a conceptual climate whose origins can be traced. You have been influenced by someone. The mere fact that you study anything but the Bible requires that you be influenced by at least one tradition. This is not a problem! It is a very good thing, provided one chooses one's tradition wisely. And don't be worried about tracing your origins to Rome. Mine are there too. Unless you are Eastern Orthodox, everyone does. The Reformers, whose tradition I follow, came out of Rome, and while they vilified the Roman Church, had no problem with admitting that they were once part of it. It's simply a historical fact, nothing more. Again, judging a thing because of its historical origins is illogical (genetic fallacy). Things change. But, if a problem has been dealt with in history and then resurfaces (or never goes away), such as belivers' only baptism, it is appropriate to bring out the answers that were given centuries ago. The verses you quote do not help you much. The passage in John is speaking only of Christ's disciples. Only adult men could be disciples. If you push your interpretation on this, only adult men may be baptized. You would obviously include women, which would require you to introduce a category of baptism not included in this verse. Why not children too? The passage from Acts quite likely included children. The speech was given during one of the Jewish holy feasts, when Jewish families from all across the Mediterranian region came to celebrate. The crowd was almost certainly men, women, and children. Once again, the text says nothing about children being excluded. Finally, what if they do speak of the baptism of adults? I certainly approve of that, provided they were not baptized before. So does everyone who believes in infant baptism. Since the crowd was entirely unbaptized, requiring them to be baptized only makes sense. Show me one instance where "household" does not include every member of the house. And the fact (which I may yet dispute) that "household" may include animals does not help you either. Scripture never puts animals and humans in the same category as far as I can tell. I have no doubt that you are a Christian, and part of the family of God. No one has to have all of their theology and practice perfect to belong to Him. I certainly do not. But insofar as I see disparity between myself and others, I will argue for my position until I either convince, am convinced, or the argument becomes unfruitful. |
||||||
4 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5808 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, We agree that we are both Christians, and disagree on the method and timing of baptism, but not the necessity. I prefer the baptism of a believer, and think that the leading of the Holy Spirit should guide the individual to decide whether to be baptized as a believer or not. You prefer the tradition of your church, which needs no restatement here. Fine. I have no further arguments, I think it would be unfruitful. Your statements are abrasive and your attitude toward the me is patronizing and offensive, not caring or loving. You know almost nothing of my salvation experience, my environment, or my walk in Christ, yet insist that you must offend. The whole thing about Rome has nothing to do with Biblical faith, yet you are bigoted and stiff-necked. I know that you think that you have no need of 'people skills,' but I think you do if you are to serve the body of Christ. Shu Iesu Kirisuto no shukufuku ga yutaka ni anata no ue ni arimasu you ni. Douka, kono kudaranai arasoi wo ato ni shite, sei naru majiwari ga dekimasu you ni. Kami no megumi ga kyoukai no ue ni sosogaremasu you ni. Shu Iesu no na ni yori, karisu May the Lord Jesus Christ put His abundant blessings upon you. O, that we may put this meaningless argument behind us, and engage in holy fellowship. May the grace of God be poured upon His church. In the name of the Lord Jesus, charis |
||||||