Dan’s at it again. He’s been reading sources.
Anabaptists
When Was Zwingli an Anabaptist? Updated
Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1950), 35 contains this striking subordinate clause, “…when Zwingli became reluctant to continue his Anabaptist teaching…” I’ve read this claim before and I’ve heard it repeated. I’ve never seen any . . . Continue reading →
Donatists, Cathars, And Anabaptists
Over-Realized Eschatology
13. Our indulgence ought to extend much farther in tolerating imperfection of conduct. Here there is great danger of falling, and Satan employs all his machinations to ensnare us. For there always have been persons who, imbued with a false persuasion of . . . Continue reading →
Zwingli On Covenant And Baptism (1524)
From Zwingli’s 1524 Exposition Of the Articles Baptism is being enrolled by an “oath of allegiance” (sacramentum) into the church visible, an initiation into the people of God. If there is one people of God, with one faith, in one Savior, then it follows . . . Continue reading →
Schwärmerei And Catholics Together
Schwärmerei: “From schwärmen to be enthusiastic, literally, to swarm” (Merriam-Webster, sv.)
Heidelberg 114: Between Moralism And Antinomianism (2)
Paul was not a Gnostic, a Valentinian, an Anabaptist, a Familist, nor an Antinomian. He was a sinner saved and justified freely through faith alone, a Christian living in union and communion with Christ, seeking to bring his life into conformity to all of God’s holy moral law. Continue reading →
Calvin Against Continuing, Extra-Biblical Revelation
Furthermore, those who, having forsaken Scripture, imagine some way or other of reaching God, ought to be thought of as not so much gripped by error as carried away with frenzy. For of late, certain giddy men have arisen who, with great . . . Continue reading →
Ursinus Contra The Anabaptists On Oaths
Objection: 1. But Christ says, “Swear not at all;” and James says, “Nor by any other oath…”. Therefore Christians are not allowed to swear [oaths] under any form. Answer: There is here a fallacy of composition; for when Christ says, swear not . . . Continue reading →
On Self-Defense
A correspondent asked the other day for a brief account of the biblical doctrine of self-defense. Let us establish some fundamental truths. First, God is sovereign over all things. He is Creator and Redeemer but he administers creation under the sphere of . . . Continue reading →
Turretin Answers Objections Against Infant Baptism (1)
IV. Nor ought it to be objected that Christ puts instruction before baptism and so speaks of adults, who can be instructed, and not of infants (“teach [μαθητεύσατε],” he says). Although Christ placed teaching before baptism, this must be referred to the . . . Continue reading →
Zwingli Contra The Pentecostalism Of The Catabaptists
Though the Catabaptists, who pretend to be so directed by the Spirit that if they stand still suddenly or go forward suddenly, they put it down to the Spirit, are not wrong (for we do not live, much less move, without the . . . Continue reading →
Rutherford Defended Sola Scriptura, Luther, And The Law-Gospel Distinction Contra Antinomians And Anabaptists
Anno, 1522. Did arise in Saxony Nicholas Stork, who boasted of dreams and visions and rejected the Scripture as being a carnal and literal rule. Antinomians call it carnal, literal, and legal. From him and others arose Thomas Muntzer, about anno 1524, . . . Continue reading →
Calvin Addressed The Same Objections To Infant Baptism That We Hear Today
[responding to Art. 1 of the Schleitheim Confession]…But I reply, first of all, that infant baptism is not a recent introduction, nor are its origins traceable to the papal church. For I say that it has always been a holy ordinance observed . . . Continue reading →
Luther Challenges The (Ana)Baptist Interpretation Of Mark 16:16
In the third place, it is said, as I also have read, that they base their faith on this verse, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” [Mark 16:16]. This they interpret to mean that no man should be baptized . . . Continue reading →
The So-Called “Celestial Flesh” Christology Is Just Gnosticism
But, according to [the Gnostics], neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Æons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this . . . Continue reading →
All Over-Realized Eschatologies Are Attempts To Change The Rules Of The Game
Some years ago, while explaining Heidelberg Catechism 114, on the moral law, I wrote, “Paul was not a Gnostic, a Valentinian, an Anabaptist, a Familist, nor an Antinomian. Continue reading
1689 Vs. The Westminster Confession: Narrowing The Lens On Particular Baptist History
The discussion of the differences between Baptist and Reformed theology is a sensitive but important question. Thus, I think I should explain why I am writing this series. In my experience, some Baptists, especially those who identify with the Particular Baptist tradition, . . . Continue reading →
Heidelminicast: Tadaka Maruyama On Calvin’s Response To The Anabaptists
These are some of our favorite Heidelquotes. Something to think about from the Heidelcast. If you are subscribed to the Heidelcast or the Heidelblog (see below) you will receive these episodes automatically. Heidelminicast Series: Contra Postmillennialism All the Episodes of the Heidelcast How . . . Continue reading →
Anabaptists, The Seed Of The Woman, And The True Human Nature Of Christ
Given their name, one might be inclined to think that the major point of dispute with the Anabaptists was infant baptism – after all Anabaptist means “re-baptizer.” The section on infant baptism takes up 306 of the 903 pages in La racine, . . . Continue reading →
Bible, Babel, Bubble: Sola Scriptura Contra Thomas Müntzer
