Theodore Beza: Anabaptists' Great Error

H/T to Andy Underhile.

“The Anabaptists greatly err by opposing the baptism of infants…. Although they may not have faith with its effects such as those who are of age — they may, however, have the seed and germ of it; seeing that the Lord has sanctified them from the mother’s womb (First Corinthians 7:14)…. We presuppose in general that they are children of God — who are born of a believing father and mother, or when one of the two is a believer (Genesis 17:7). Further, as regards children born in the Church, one should presume the election of all of them, without limitation” Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith (1558),  [emphasis added].

Horton: Church Membership Requires Affirmation of Covenant and Infant Baptism

Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children (Belgic Conf., Art. 34; cf. Heidelberg Catechism Q. 74).

We concur. Mike Horton offers his gracious but firm response to modern Anabaptists, Baptacostals, and other Revivalists.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/05/membership-requires-affirmation-of-infant-baptism-a-presbyterian-and-reformed-response/?comments#comments

Membership Requires Affirmation of Infant Baptism: A Paedobaptist Response

Editors' Note: How do baptism and church membership relate? What are the biblical bounds? Baptists debate, "Must one be baptized as a believer in order to join a church?" Meanwhile, Presbyterians and other paedobaptists consider, "Should one who'd refuse to let his children be baptized be permitted to join?"

Our hope is that this three-day forum will, by God's grace, drive us all to consider Scripture's teaching anew and disagree charitably when necessary.

-------------------------

The renaissance of evangelical Calvinism today is a marvelous gift of God. Yet as many across widely varying denominations embrace the doctrines of grace, the tendency is often to downplay their distinctives as relatively unimportant. Especially as people move back and forth not only between local churches but denominations, often simply looking for a church that preaches the Word faithfully, there can be an impatience with honest scruples. It's often said that baptism is a "secondary issue." Traditionally, both sides in the debate have wrestled over whether they can even accept each other's profession of faith as valid for membership. That's hardly secondary.

Baptism itself has become so secondary in evangelical circles that the most outrageous view in many minds is one that makes this issue decisive in church membership. However, Baptists and paedobaptists are stuck. If our conscience is bound by Scripture, then we can hardly consider as indifferent something Christ' ordained as essential in the Great Commission. So I respect Baptist brothers who would not admit me into membership or to the Lord's Table. They are following what they believe Scripture to teach in this matter and for that submissiveness I respect them.

Historically, Reformed and Presbyterian churches have required professing members and their children to be baptized. In the former, arising from Continental Reformed sources, all church members confess the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dort) as the faithful summary of Scripture. What this means is that in Reformed churches historically, only those who affirmed the inclusion of children in covenant baptism could be members. Especially in the U.S., Presbyterian churches came to require only officers to subscribe the Westminster Standards. In Presbyterian churches, it has meant that all of the children of members should be baptized. What to do if they're not is a matter of some debate and variation.
I affirm, on the basis of Scripture, the traditional Reformed and Presbyterian view that it is "a great sin to condemn or neglect" baptism (Westminster Confession, Ch. 28.5) and that "also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized" (Ch. 28.4; cf. Shorter Catechism, Q. 95). The Belgic Confession adds,

Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children (Belgic Conf., Art. 34; cf. Heidelberg Catechism Q. 74).

I'm a minister in the United Reformed Churches in North America. Our Church Order requires, "The consistory shall see to it that baptism is requested and administered as soon as feasible" (Art. 56).

All of this entails, of course, that those who wish to become members must at least be willing and ready to present unbaptized children for baptism. Any who refuse to do so are in violation of what we are convinced is the express command of our Lord. Church discipline always begins with gentle admonition and instruction, usually in private, leading hopefully to repentance. However, it would be unwise to admit into full communion believers who are already in principle unwilling to change their mind on the matter.
Some in our circles have suggested that this disciplinary action pertains only to those who are actually violating Christ's will. In this view, someone who remains convinced of adult-only baptism (but is not withholding the sacrament from his or her own children) may be a member (though not an officer). I have heard good arguments on both side of that difficult pastoral issue and remain open on the point. The crucial concern is to ensure that members recognize their children as the Lord's heritage and not withhold the sign and seal of his covenant blessings. Baptism is not just an interesting doctrine we discuss, but a practice that shapes our life---personally and corporately.

To some brothers and sisters (Reformed/Presbyterian as well as Baptist), all of this may sound somewhat jarring---and exclusionary. However, there are a few things to bear in mind:

1. Baptism either is or is not to be administered to the children of the covenant; if it is, then it is a sin not to do something God has commanded. The Baptist position at least historically is to consider it a sin to baptize infants (and to practice an alternative to immersion). Presbyterian and Reformed churches confess that baptism is a means of grace and that it is a sin to withhold the sign and seal of the covenant of grace from our children. Of course, it is not a sin of intentional rebellion. Nevertheless, both sides have regarded the rival decision as a transgression of God's will. That follows inexorably from the conviction that God does clearly reveal what we are to do on this question. My Baptist friends believe that I am not only doctrinally in error but am doing something against God's will when I baptize covenant children. Although I disagree, I applaud their consistency. It's beyond the scope of your question to defend covenantal baptism here (though I do in various places, especially The Christian Faith). However, if there is truly a parallel between circumcision and baptism as the signs and seals of the same covenant of grace, then it is a serious sin to withhold it from our children (Gen 17:9-14).
2. The consistent Baptist view is actually more exclusionary. We accept as valid all baptisms performed with the Word and the water (whatever the mode) in the Triune Name. Those from a Reformed or Presbyterian church who wish to change membership to a Baptist church are required ordinarily to renounce their baptism as invalid. To reject the validity of one's baptism---and, by extension, the validity of baptisms administered in another communion---strikes at the heart of the church's unity.
3. Of course, many Baptists as well as Reformed and Presbyterians today downplay the significance of these arguments on both sides. Doing so allows for more flexibility in the movement back and forth between different communions. However, it cannot fail to impress upon the actual members themselves that their baptism (whether as adults or as infants) is of little consequence. At least from my reading of the New Testament, that would be the most tragic position of all.

Recommended Resources: G. W. Bromiley, Children of Promise (Eerdmans); Danny Hyde, Jesus Loves the Little Children (Reformed Fellowship); Bryan Chapell, Why Do We Baptize Infants? (P&R); John Murray, Christian Baptism (P&R); Edmund P. Clowney, The Church (IVP); Michael Brown and Danny Hyde, Called to Serve: Essays for Elders and Deacons (Reformed Fellowship).
-------------------------
Also in the series on baptism and church membership:

• "Sometimes Obedience Results in Painful Separations" by James Hamilton

Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California. His books include Putting Amazing Back into Grace, Christless Christianity, and The Gospel-Driven Life.

Dangers of an Uneducated Ministry: Franklin Graham Steps in It

Billy Graham (l) and son, Franklin Graham (r)

RNS is reporting the following at:  http://www.religionnews.com/politics/election/black-churches-defend-obamas-faith.  It's another story of a cleric without much of an education venturing into areas in which he's not trained--not to mention theology.  I saw the original MSNBC clip.  Pretty poor answers by Franklin. The NAACP ate his lunch, but turned to their standard race-baiting line to good effect.  Fact is, Obama supports partial-birth abortion--homocide in the first degree--and Franklin coulda' and shoulda' taken an higher and more educated approach.  Unfortunately, he's ill-equipped.  Further, NAACP's claim of "bearing false witness" is a bit much.  Even further, NAACP's claim about "political wedges" created by religious views is laughable.  Poor Franklin, again, ham-handed and hapless.   The danger of ill-educated and uneducated ministers. Here's RNS's story.

WASHINGTON (RNS) Evangelist Franklin Graham apologized Tuesday (Feb. 28) to President Obama for questioning his Christian faith and said religion has "nothing to do" with Graham's decision not to support Obama's re-election.

Graham's apology came after a group of prominent black religious leaders criticized the evangelist for saying he did not know whether Obama is a Christian and suggesting that Islamic law considers him to be a Muslim.

Graham, president of the relief organization Samaritan's Purse and the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, said he now accepts Obama's declarations that he is a Christian.

"I regret any comments I have ever made which may have cast any doubt on the personal faith of our president, Mr. Obama," he said in a statement.

"I apologize to him and to any I have offended for not better articulating my reason for not supporting him in this election -- for his faith has nothing to do with my consideration of him as a candidate."

Graham said he objects to Obama's policy stances on abortion and same-sex marriage, which Graham considers to be in "direct conflict" with Scripture.

More than a dozen members of a religious subgroup of the NAACP had accused Graham of "bearing false witness" and fomenting racial discord.

"We can disagree about what it means to be a Christian engaged in politics, but Christians should not bear false witness," the NAACP statement said. "We are also concerned that Rev. Graham's comments can be used to encourage racism."

When asked in a recent MSNBC interview if Obama was a Christian, Graham responded, "I cannot answer that question for anybody." He went on to say that because Obama's father was a Muslim, "under Islamic law, the Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a Muslim."

By contrast, Graham said there is "no question" that GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum is a "man of faith" because "his values are so clear on moral issues." Santorum has also faced criticism for saying the president has a "phony theology" that is unbiblical.

"By his statements, Rev. Graham seems to be aligning himself with those who use faith as a weapon of political division," the NAACP said. "These kinds of comments could have enormous negative effects for America and are especially harmful to the Christian witness."

Signatories of the open letter included presidents of the National Baptist Convention, USA; the National Baptist Convention of America; the Progressive National Baptist Convention; as well as bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church and the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.

Seeker-Sensitive Churches: Theological Word of the Day

Definitely not a place for serious, disciplined and biblical doctrine, worship or piety. This is usually associated with Baptacostals.

THE SOLAS OF THE MODERN CHURCH

1. Sola Cultura – Culture defines biblical preaching.

2. Sola Successa – Numerical success always determines truth and content. Never mind the English Reformers...the consistent exhortation was put to them when pulled from jail to recant. "Do you not know that all of England, yeah the whole world, stands against you?" The consistent rejoinder was, "Thus saith the Word..."

3. Sola Entertaina – Louder is better. Doctrine must go.

4. Sola Meo – Meet my needs.

5. Sola Emotionala– Emote, dudes and dudettes.

6. Sola Stupida –Thinking not allowed. No Creeds/Confessions, liturgies, doctrinal hymns, or historical references. Operate on the famed leadership principle, KISS. KISS = keep it simple, stupid. Whatever other nations may read this, this is operative in the United States.

7. Sola Rickola - Rick Warren is Da Man, Da Myth, Da Legend. Actually, he is the re-expression of a principle that arose in the 1880's in the US that led to the demise of the mainline. This scribe in in that forlorn group, the mainline.

See More at:

Seeker-Sensitive Churches Theological Word of the Day

Seeker-Sensitive Churches
September 8, 2010

"This refers to the method of conducting a Sunday morning church service where all the events surrounding the service are tailored with the unchurched in mind. The goal of this model is to attempt to make the “seeker” feel comfortable by making the service understandable and enjoyable. In this sense, the church is attempting to build a bridge with the unbeliever with the ultimate goal that they will hear the Gospel and be saved. The preaching model in the seeker churches follows suit. Every sermon is simply another way to present the Gospel. Deeper learning, fellowship, and discipleship are encouraged but are not normally part of the Sunday service. They are commonly found in mid-week small groups and studies. Opponents of the seeker model will argue that the Sunday service is not meant to be for the unbelievers, but for believers. There is a wide range within the spectrum of how seeker-sensitive a church might be. One end might be thought of as “seeker-friendly” and the other “seeker-driven.” Rick Warren and Bill Hybels are often thought of as the modern day “fathers” of this model. It is primarily found in evangelical churches. "

(also: “seeker-friendly,” “seeker churches,” and “seeker-driven”)

Prima Facie Evidence for Recovery of the Bible, Reformation Confessions, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer

Our Modest Deportment In Public And Private Prayer by Cyrian

Our Modest Deportment In Public And Private Prayer

Our Modest Deportment In Public And Private Prayer
Cyprian Of Carthage (d. 258)

St Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was martyred in 258

LET our speech and petition when we pray be under discipline, observing quietness and modesty. Let us consider that we are standing in God’s sight. We must please the divine eyes both with the habit of body and with the measure of voice.

For as it is characteristic of a shameless man to be noisy with his cries, so, on the other hand, it is fitting to the modest man to pray with moderated petitions.

Moreover, in His teaching the Lord has bidden us to pray in secret — in hidden and remote places, in our very bed-chambers — which is best suited to faith, that we may know that God is everywhere present, and hears and sees all, and in the plenitude of His majesty penetrates even into hidden and secret places, as it is written, “I am a God at hand, and not a God afar off. If a man shall hide himself in secret places, shall I not then see him? Do not I fill heaven and earth?” (Jer 23:23-24).

And again: “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Prov 15:3).

And when we meet together with the brethren in one place, and celebrate divine sacrifices with God’s priest, we ought to be mindful of modesty and discipline — not to throw abroad our prayers indiscriminately, with unsubdued voices, nor to cast to God with tumultuous wordiness a petition that ought to be commended to God by modesty; for God is the hearer, not of the voice, but of the heart.

Nor need He be clamorously reminded, since He sees men’s thoughts, as the Lord proves to us when He says, “Why think ye evil in your hearts?” (Matt 9:4). And in another place: “And all the churches shall know that I am He that searcheth the hearts and reins.” (Rev 2:23).

And this Hannah in the first book of Kings, who was a type of the Church, maintains and observes, in that she prayed to God not with clamorous petition, but silently and modestly, within the very recesses of her heart.

She spoke with hidden prayer, but with manifest faith. She spoke not with her voice, but with her heart, because she knew that thus God hears; and she effectually obtained what she sought, because she asked it with belief.

Divine Scripture asserts this, when it says, “She spake in her heart, and her lips moved, and her voice was not heard; and God did hear her.” (1 Sam 1:13). We read also in the Psalms, “Speak in your hearts, and in your beds, and be ye pierced” (Ps 4:4).

The Holy Spirit, moreover, suggests these same things by Jeremiah, and teaches, saying, “But in the heart ought God to be adored by thee” (Baruch 6:6.)

And let not the worshipper, beloved brethren, be ignorant in what manner the publican prayed with the Pharisee in the temple. Not with eyes lifted up boldly to heaven, nor with hands proudly raised; but beating his breast, and testifying to the sins shut up within, he implored the help of the divine mercy.

Do the URCs Still “Detest the Error of the Anabaptists”? (PV, Anabaptists = Baptists)

Do the URCs Still “Detest the Error of the Anabaptists”? « Heidelblog


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 sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.

Dial "MT" = "Empty Theology"

Dial "MT" = "Empty Theology." Law & Order, the MT Unit, tells their stories. These well-trained and experienced detectives from this "special victims crime unit" tell their story. Many stories of those slain by false spirits, of gibberashionizings, and more.

Tune in at Exposing the False Prophets—Reformation Christians Against TBN. http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=308173344359&ref=ts

Or, if an emergency, just dial "MT." After the arrest, "Book em' Danno."

We uphold the five solas of the Reformation. We are Protestant, Creedal and Confessional. We are ready to give reason for our Faith and proclaim the Gospel to all men. We study, research, post articles, lament and most vehemently protest against the Trinity Broadcasting Network for its lack of doctrine, false teachers, a horrid presentation of the Gospel and for its abuse of all men and women, redeemed and unredeemed alike. Because of our love for all peoples and nations, we proclaim Justification by Faith alone based on the scriptural doctrines of sovereign grace. We strenuously confess our faith while opposing these lying and false spirits. True love of the Brothers and Sisters in Christ is revealed in making them aware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Because we love the lost, we desire to see the true Gospel proclaimed and protected from abuse by those who falsely take the name of Christ. We stand against those who practice cultic powers over the weak, gullible, untaught, poor and desperate. "Here we stand, so help us God." Psalm 46. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGzuUfQD-G4

Confessional Presbyterian Journal, 2007

http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/CPJ2-RSClark.pdf

A good article by Dr. R. Scott Clark on baptism and the benefits in the covenant of grace.

The Thirty-nine Articles by Lee Gatiss

http://www.theologian.org.uk/church/39articles.html

A reading of the Thirty-nine Articles by Lee Gatiss, an Anglican. This is for the I-pod literate and operative. It is also available by computer.