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

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sat Mar 10 2007 - 08:03:59 EST

Below I mean to say "We can continue the conversation _off list_ if anyone

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Converse with Scholars tonight at 8PM

> ----- 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.
> Shalom
> George
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 10 08:04:40 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 10 2007 - 08:04:40 EST