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