Thank you.
When I read scripture, I try to take into account context and locale. I also compare scripture with scripture. Scripture is the primary evidence I use to determine my beliefs.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the Quakers say that the stream is purest at its source, and the further you get from the stream, the more polluted it becomes. So, the further a writer is from the NT, first century church, the less credence should be given to his/her opinions -- unless they line up with scripture.
And that is the case with baptism -- the further removed from scripture, the more erroneous and superstitious the beliefs and practices became concerning baptism, as well as other things, such as the doctrines about Mary.
I have already proved from RC sources that infant baptism was a "tradition of men", with absolutely no scriptural support whatsoever.
And Biblicist, as much as he and I have had our passionate running battles, has posted some excellent exegesis showing how the Bible itself refutes RC sacramentalism, and by extension, Magisterial Protestant sacramentalism.
Now, I do believe God works through the physical, but even this simple truth has been perverted by sacerdotal sacramentalism.
