Confessing the Three forms of Unity means you practice what you confess. It is not a smorgasboard in which you pick and choose those confessional beliefs you like and drop those you do not.
I think this points out the great difference in our hermeneutics. It will be very hard for me or a lot of us here to see that this is not exalting the Heidelberg/Belgic/Dort to the level of scripture itself.
I would be very careful in saying that Bill. The remonstrants said the same thing in advocating Arminianism in trying to change the confessions. In fact if you were to read the Belgic Confession which is part and parcel of the three forms of unity you would know I confess thus:
Article 7: The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, to be the only rule of faith.
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house.
So you would then have to determine Bill that the Three forms of Unity "teach otherwise" than what we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures. Not only that, you would also have to determine where I have exalted the reformed confession above Scripture.
The essential doctrines of gospel unity have to be exalted above forms like water administration; otherwise the gospel loses its distinctive place in revelation.
The thread is discussing infants who die in infancy. A topic which the Three forms of Unity speak to directly. Again you would have to show where the Three forms of Unity do not exalt the essential doctrines of the Gospel.
On the 'afar off' stranger issue, I still cannot see a difference between these three 'principles':
1. I baptize my infant as a sign that God saves some of the seed of believing parents.
2. I baptize the infant of an unbelieving parent (who is willing to have his/her infant baptized) as a sign that God saves some of the seed of unbelieving parents.
3. I baptize an adult unbeliever (from whatever 'afar off' race--it does not matter) who has a nominal respect for Christian externals and agrees to submit to the baptism--as a sign that God saves some of those who are 'afar off' and not currently in the kingdom of grace.
To me these three are the same; I can see no difference whatsoever.
