Last week at house church we had a brief discussion on baptism, which I'm sure could have gone much longer if we'd all had the time (and if the kids had had the patience). I was reminded of a blog entry I wrote almost a year ago about my own experience and thoughts on baptism at the time. It is interesting how ideas about baptism have evolved in the Protestant Church at large since the Reformation. If you compare Catholic or Eastern Orthodox concepts to Protestant churches' ideas, sometimes they are drastically different, and other times surprisingly similar (surprising when you consider how different other practices of that particular church might be from Catholicism).

All of this got me to thinking about how much I have reevaluated my own understandings of matters of our faith since my friends started converting to Eastern Orthodoxy one by one. It's really been a shocking occurance, since most of us came from a non-denominational "are Catholics really saved?" sort of background. It is a big leap to go from a movement where many completely disregard Catholic theology and doctrine as corrupted (please don't be offended, my Catholic readers, I am simply representing how some people in Protestant churches feel), to joining a church that shares roots and much doctrine and theology with Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox paradigm for understanding theology and doctrine is so different from ours. They trace their roots back to the Apostles, so they view their doctrine as being handed down by the Apostles - albeit the understanding of certain doctrinal issues grew and was defined over the first few centuries of the Church's existence. The Protestant paradigm for formulating doctrine, on the other hand, does not place much value on what previous generations of the Church have thought was the correct interpretation of the teachings of the faith. Rather, the Protestant paradigm draws its understanding of doctrine entirely from what is present in the text of scripture. If the doctrine of previous generations does not seem to be supported by scripture, then the assumption is their understanding was corrupted.

I grew up thinking my paradigm for approaching theological and doctrinal issues was best because the Scriptures should obviously be our primary authority, as the Word of God. Only what is contained therein can be relied upon. Traditions of men can be corrupted. We saw in the Reformation a time when the traditions of men certainly did become corrupted, with indulgences and the like. Because of this, it was assumed that any Catholic doctrine that was based primarily on tradition rather than scripture was probably similarly corrupt.

However, as an adult, it occurred to me: The very Scriptures that we hold to be more reliable than tradition were verified to be the true Word of God, the true representation of Gospel teachings, by men who taught other doctrines that I summarily reject. I trusted them to define the canon of scripture, but I do not trust their doctrinal teaching on issues not directly referenced in scripture.

I could go into this a lot more, into why it is or is not a contradiction on my part, and whether or not I am justified to question their extra-Biblical teachings, but let me just say it was enough to make me consider if there were practices or teachings I have dismissed out of hand that might have value. It has also put into perspective the unspoken Protestant (especially Evangelical) assumption that the typical Catholic or Eastern Orthodox way of "getting saved" is not valid (i.e. no altar call decision, no specific moment in time when you pray to acknowledge you are a sinner and to ask Jesus to come into your heart, no adult baptism and specific moment in time when you realize the Holy Spirit's presence).