Subject: Slight historical skew? |
Bible Note: Dear orthodoxy, You are perceptive! I am not an adherent of man-made tradition, no matter how old it is. But, you do me an injustice. The first paragraph was not all sarcasm, though I admit that a bit creeped in :-) I do admire people with definite beliefs. I admire more those whose strong beliefs are tempered with humility, breadth, and clear Bible foundation. Perhaps I did not construe your words correctly. You did make a very strong statement that had a 'us and them' 'we are right, they are wrong' quality to it. And 'they' are not just a pitiful little minority. You make it sound as if anyone that has forsaken the tradition of infant baptism is but a deceived follower of Anabaptist heresy. Your view of historical 'offshoots' is terribly over-simplified. My friend, this is hardly the way to 'make friends and influence people.' "Only churches that have come out of traditions that have been influenced by the Anabaptists refuse to baptise infants." Well, believe it or not, there are a good number of saints that read the Bible and came to that conclusion as a result of conviction by the Holy Spirit. Your 'compartmentalization' of Christian belief and history is astounding. I do 'look around,' and I do not see that "we all came from Rome at one point." I know that I didn't! "Ceasing to baptise infants into the covenant is not the norm, but an anomaly in church history." I order to prove that, you will have to come up with incontrovertible proof that Jesus taught infant baptism and the apostles and new testament saints practiced it. As yet, you have not even started to do so. Thus far, you have only potificated your denominational bent. Give us some Scripture! Bless you in the name of Jesus, charis |