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

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sat Mar 10 2007 - 07:52:10 EST

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Wallace" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:59 AM
Subject: 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.

Whether or not the baptism of children is best delayed until they are past
infancy & have some degree of understanding & ability to make their own
decisions can be debated. What has to be rejected is the claim that the
baptism of infants is invalid & must be repeated (or, as they might say, is
no baptism at all so that someone baptized as an infant hasn't really been
baptized at all). & this applies to any infants, not just the children of
believers, though again the wisdom of baptizing infants who are not likely
to be brought up in the Christian faith is questionable.

This is by now well outside the theology-science area. We can continue the
conversation if anyone wishes.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 10 07:52:39 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 10 2007 - 07:52:40 EST