Subject: Slight historical skew? |
Bible Note: 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. |