Re: [asa] Anabaptist (alleged) error

George Murphy wrote:
> A new subject line may get a bit more attention to a thread that has
> moved a good deal from its original topic. But the "Anabaptist error"
> is not unique to Anabaptists & is basically the same as that of any
> who reject the idea that sacraments can be means of grace - i.e.,
> denial of secondary causation. In the Anabaptist case this has do do
> not just with sacraments but with their ideas about government. Paul
> says very clearly in Romans 13 that the state is a minister of God
> through whom God maintains order in the world. Rejection of this
> belief in one degree or another - including the idea that Christians
> should not participate in civil government - is the same error as the
> belief that the Holy Spirit must convert people directly, without the
> mediation of word and sacraments, as well as the notion that God had
> to create living things directly rather than by working through
> natural processes.
>
I concede that we probably all have inconsistencies in applying this
according to our biased preferences of how much we should get involved
in the various aspects of society. But simply acknowledging that God
works through mediated action does not excuse, let alone endorse, our
participation in it. God has made use of numerous very evil acts in
history (as indeed He uses everything) in order to bring about His
purpose. But that does not make those acts any less evil. Romans 13
is a double edged sword which (if only one edge is recognized) would
have us helplessly recognizing that the third Reich just is what it is
and should run its course without resistance since it was "ordained by
God". I imagine more than one German Christian sought confirmation in
that passage. And Americans then, had no business rebelling against the
God-ordained Brits. But most conservatives aren't willing to apply
Romans 13 that consistently or thoroughly.

> Caveats: I am not saying that all Anabaptists, or anyone else, must
> hold all of those views if they hold one. (Zwingli, e.g., was
> inconsistent in that regard.) I also recognize that not all who
> consider themselves to be in the Anabaptist tradition have exactly the
> same views about government. Furthermore, Christians who do recognize
> a legitimate role for civil government and for Christian participation
> in it need not hold precisely Luther's "two kingdoms" (better "two
> realms" or even "two rules" - /Zweireichenlehre/) theory which has
> sometimes been seriously abused. & in particular, I am not saying
> that there can be no legitimate Christian pacifism.
>
> But with all those qualification, I think that Christians who reject
> any of these 3 ideas (the state as a minister of God, Word &
> sacraments as means, evolution as the means by which God creates
> living things) ought to reflect seriously on just how they think God
> acts in the world & whether or not their views on the matter are
> consistent.
>
> The Anabaptists in the 16th century were right to object to the
> automatic baptism of infants as a cultural practice as then practiced
> in western Europe, and refusal to baptize babies might have been a
> legitimate protest against abuses. But it's a very different matter
> to deny the _validity_ of baptism that is administered to infants.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>

I'm not sure many (any?) Mennonites (can't speak for the Amish or
Brethren) still do actively protest against the validity of infant
baptism. Indeed we do child confirmations which would seem, to the less
particular, to be about the same thing minus the water. As long as you
don't, in turn, deny the validity of re-baptism for any who may request
it (hence the historical name). We Mennonites of recent decades have
since moved on to much more pressing controversies such as sprinkling?
or immersion? :-) ...and some of us have even stopped worrying about
that.

I'm just speaking from the pew, of course, as it sounds like some of you
here know more about formal Anabaptist history than some of us
Anabaptists do.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 8 13:47:15 2008