Re: [asa] Anabaptist (alleged) error

George,
Why didn't you also add /cujus regio, ejus religio/? While the gang
following Munzer were rather lawless (and though often classed with
Anabaptists rejected baptism entirely), the Swiss, Dutch and Moravian
Anabaptists were law-abiding in everything except their desire to worship
according to their consciences. This last is the view that has generally
prevailed, except in Communist, Muslim and, now, Hindu countries.

Because Anabaptists were not part of the state church, they usually could
not own land and were often persecuted. Zwingli sent many men to the
galleys. Historically, many Anabaptists lived near national boundaries so
they could flee when the authorities came after them. But you may recall
that the Pilgrims moved to Holland before embarking for the New World,
because they could worship freely there, but not in England. Even in
Massachusetts there were distinct Puritan and Separatist settlements, but
Quakers and Baptists were not allowed. Most other colonies had
restrictions.

From what you say, I gather that the sacraments work inexorably by divine
power. Is it then possible for a baptized and confirmed Lutheran to
become apostate? Are you withholding forgiveness of their sins from the
young between Baptism and First Communion?
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:51:29 -0600 Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> writes:
> 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.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Find the apartment of your dreams by clicking here now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3miigqRWrgoO2OeIQfUrBJ3AgR1rcNObqpEmlnMaez0QDe1P/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat, 8 Nov 2008 13:43:38 -0700