Fallacious Assumptions, etc.

I’m not trying to focus on any one person here, because there are several people who have made assumptions about my beliefs based on other beliefs I hold, and I want to clarify some of these issues in case there are others drawing the same conclusions. I believe that my beliefs are biblically accurate, and I do not want any controversy over them to be based on issues that I don’t really believe.

There can be a variety of reasons this happens. Often, a view is condemned and preached against in its most extreme form, which may not be an accurate representation of even the majority who hold similar beliefs. I’m confusing myself here, so I’m probably confusing you as well, so I’m going to head right into one of the examples.

I have written one article on the subject of infant baptism. It does need to be refined, as it was very hastily put together, not to mention the fact that many of the line breaks were messed up in the transition from the old site. What immediately jumps into people’s minds when they here that I accept infant baptism are the distorted forms of infant baptism that are taught by some denominations. I stated this in my previous article, but there are probably some of you who haven’t read anything on the other site: I do not believe that infant baptism is involved in the salvation of the child. A child is not saved because they have been baptized. It is a completely different issue, and you can read the aforementioned article for more on the subject.

Another assumption is that because I am a “Calvinist” (I don’t like using that term, but it somewhat gets the point across), I don’t believe that we need to witness. While there are a few who believe this, this is not the belief of most Calvinists.

The story is often told of William Carey (I think it was him) who said he wanted to be a missionary, and was told to sit down because God would save them without us. The point that is often overlooked in this story is that William Carey was also a Calvinist, and it is obvious that this did not adversely affect his passion for sharing the Gospel. In my opinion, this passion can only come from having a view of God that only a correct doctrine of soteriology [read “Calvinism”] can provide.

On a different note, I did not arrive at my Reformed/Presbyterian beliefs through the prodding of books or websites. In fact, most books I was reading when this journey started were trying to push me the other direction. What I’m saying is that I arrived at these conclusions based on reading the Bible, primarily Romans and Hebrews, although since then, Pitchford (a Baptist who would be in line with most of what I believe minus the infant baptism) has many well researched articles that cover much more ground biblically.

Another thing I would like to point out for you Baptists is that in most cases, I am more historically “Baptistic” than you. Dispensationalism is a very recent method of interpreting the Bible, and while Arminianism has been around much longer, most of you would not claim to link your belief system to theirs, and Arimnianism is not a Baptist view. Charles Spurgeon comes to mind as a historic Baptist who was very Calvinistic.

One thing that I do my best to fight in my own life is studying the Bible with a lens of my current beliefs and pre-conceived notions. When I see a passage that doesn’t match up with my beliefs, I do my best to not just ignore it and say “that’s too hard to understand” or some such. I can’t say that I am completely above this, but I try.

My point is, that any conclusion arrived at by studying the Bible in order to prove what you believe must be suspect. For example, in response to Calvinism, I hear many people say things like “but the Bible says Whosoever will may come!” And that is true. But a theology based strictly on those verses is incomplete. The Bible also says, “No one cometh to me unless my father which is in heaven draw him.” These two types of verses work together to give a complete theology.