Re: [asa] Converse with Scholars tonight at 8PM

George Murphy wrote:

>
> The phrase "The above" is ambiguous. I assume that you're referring to the
> statement in the Belgic Confession rather than to the drowning of
> Anabaptists. If so then I think you're confusing 2 different things. One
> can (& I believe should) condemn the Anabaptist rejection of the
> validity of
> infant baptism without holding that should be subject to civil penalties,
> including drowning.
>
> Shalom
> George

George

As you surmised I meant the Belgic confession.

> who are not content with a single baptism
> once received

While at the time the Belgic confession was written this was a correct
statement, as most "converts" had been baptized as infants and were thus
anabaptized as adults, in general it is not true today and is thus is
somewhat misleading.

I certainly agree that the balance of evidence from scripture is for
infant baptism however, I well see the Anabaptist point and do not think
their practice should be characterized as detestable. Simply saying
they are in error or that their position is weak heresy seems adequate
to me. It seems too easy for our young people to go from some
Anabaptist beliefs are detestable to they are detestable as a people.
My mother was Irish German in extraction and for good reason (just look
at northern Ireland) she never allowed Roman Catholics to be belittled
in our home. She strongly disagreed with them but made us treat them as
people, with respect. We attended one church where the birth, death,
burial and resurrection of Christ was considered an accommodation or so
it seemed to me, now that I consider a detestable belief as it denies
what I at least see as the essence of the Gospel, or an extremely good
approximation to strong heresy. Since that particular church had a high
degree of Orthopraxy we moved on in sorrow.

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 10 07:00:38 2007