Darryl Hart (as always) has a provocative (in the best sense) article at Old Life.1 His use of the categories “militants” and “moderates” is very useful and helpful. To anticipate a criticism: yes, Reformed people can sometimes be jerks.2 Neither Darryl nor . . . Continue reading →
We also rebuke and reject all Anabaptists, who repeat their baptism and do not allow little children among God’s people to be baptized. James T. Dennison Jr. ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, vol. 3 . . . Continue reading →
We have decided, in accordance with the Word of God, that despite the howls of Servetus and the new Anabaptists, infants must be baptized together with adults, for the following reasons: 1. The matter of the sacrament, the covenant itself, righteousness, life, . . . Continue reading →
I believe that baptism is the sign of the covenant of God with the seed of Abraham, ought to be given to those who belong to the covenant of grace, and, as a consequence, to the infants of believers. Thus I reject . . . Continue reading →
We teach that baptism should not be ministered in the church by women or midwives. For Paul excludes women from ecclesiastical callings: but baptism belongs to ecclesiastical offices. We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that young infants, born of faithful parents, are . . . Continue reading →
I will not consider what concerns the administration of holy baptism, for I believe that none of us, sirs, wants to position ourselves among the Anabaptists, who have no stronger enemies than we. And concerning several other specific questions on this matter, . . . Continue reading →
We confess and acknowledge that baptism appertains as well to the infants of the faithful as unto those that be of age and discretion. And so we damn the error of Anabaptists who deny baptism to appertain to children before they have . . . Continue reading →
Moreover, although the sacraments are (given) to us for a pledge (arrabon), through which we are reassured of the promises of God, nevertheless I acknowledge that they will be useless to us unless the Holy Spirit should render them efficacious in us, . . . Continue reading →
Hence I believe that there is one Church of those who have the same Spirit, through whom they are made certain that they are the true children of the family of God; and this is the first fruits of the Church. I . . . Continue reading →
We clearly protest those strange and erroneous doctrines, which turbulent spirits have invented [so as] to reject and condemn, among other damnable and depraved opinions, as when they say infants are too small to be baptized (whom we baptize according to the . . . Continue reading →
For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the . . . Continue reading →
Thanks to Darryl Hart for pointing us to this challenging essay by Dale Coulter, who self identifies as a “Classical Pentecostal” in the holiness tradition.1 He writes on the official blog of the Regent University School of Divinity. He favors the Edwardsean . . . Continue reading →
Adam Kaloostian, a URCNA pastor turned church planter, joins Chris Gordon in reflecting on why the Reformed believe what they believe and why it matters. Continue reading →
And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants, who certainly are as yet unable “with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation,” as the thief could do; nay, who even, by crying and moaning when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in opposition to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose.—Augustine. Continue reading →
McGraw’s advice about how to learn Latin has some useful and interesting aspects, but he seems to endorse a sort of inductive approach and uses the words “very little effort” (37). He seems to discourage memorization. Continue reading →
Commendations In the wake of Richard Muller’s revolutionary work (he overturned a consensus of more than a century, grounded in the work of Alexander Schweizer [1808–1888] and Heinrich Heppe [1820–1879]), there are questions that remain to be addressed in the study and . . . Continue reading →
The Heidelberg Reformation Association has received a queries in recent days asking about our view of Doug Wilson, a proponent of theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, Christian Nationalism, and the Federal Vision movement, among other things. We think that the best way to respond is to let the study committees of the confessional Presbyterians Reformed churches answer the question. As a service to the Christian public we have harvested the most salient portions from three study committee reports and we present them here for your consideration. Continue reading →
The actual account of the meeting between Featley and the Baptists is quite interesting. The substance of it begins when Featley was challenged by an anonymous “Scotch-man” who challenged him thus: Master Doctor, we come to dispute with you at this time, . . . Continue reading →
If I have heard it once, I have heard it countless times: “I’m not a member of any local congregation. I’m a member of the invisible church.” When one hears this, one is tempted to agree with John Murray that it would . . . Continue reading →
As noted previously, Featley’s volume, Καταβαπτιστοι καταπυστοι, which he politely translated as Dippers Dipt, was subtitled, The Anabaptists Duck’d and Plung’d over Head and Ears, at a Disputation at Southwark.1 This record of the event went through two editions in 1645 and I . . . Continue reading →