Anabaptists and the pope

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by McCree79, Jun 27, 2015.

  1. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    I was reading the prison treatise of Anabaptist missionary Claus Felbinger. He covers the Anabaptist doctrine throughout the letter. I noticed this comment he made. "Therefore has the antichrist, the abomination of desolation, the pope, placed such emphasis on the accursed infant baptism....." Felbinger was of the Hutterite Anabaptists. Was the a view that most Anabaptist communities held to or just the Hutterites? I knew this view was common with the "traditional" reformers. I just didn't know the Anabaptists held to it as well.

    *sorry.....history forum may not have been the best place for this.
     
  2. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    16
    Not sure what a traditional reformer might look like. Luther tried to reform Rome from within the holy see. He got defrocked and excommunicated for his efforts. Apparently Martin had no problem with infant baptism; his progeny are still pedobaptists. The other so-called reformers were also in agreement. Calvin shoved state religion and pedobaptism on his flock.

    True New Testament Churches, whatever the terms of derision applied to them, never went after infant baptism or state church. These are pivotal doctrines in identifying the Lord's Churches.

    God has maintained a remnant in every generation, indwelled by The Spirit, The Holy, the pillar and ground of The Truth, without reformation. The gates of hell have not prevailed, as promised.

    God does not make junk.

    Choose wisely.

    Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
     
  3. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    Sorry, my question wasn't clear. I was referring to the pope being the anti-christ. Traditional reformers, in the line of Luther and Calvin and held pope as the anti-christ . I didn't know Anabaptists taught this view as well.

    Sorry about the confusion. It was not about baptism.... Sorry
     
  4. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,957
    Likes Received:
    96
    Amen:thumbs:
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    I'd like to see you do any better under the circumstances he was faced with. Hindsight is always 20-20. You constantly denigrate the Reformers to elevate your self-righteousness.
    John Calvin did no such thing. Your knowledge of Church History is very poor.

    Let me address your constatnt "state religion" theme. You really must not violate the ninth commandment as much as you have been doing on the BB for years.

    Alistair McGrath : "...he had no civic jurisdiction, no right, to coerce others to act as he wished."

    "The image of Calvin as 'dictator of Geneva' has no relation to the known facts of history"

    Otto Scott : "Calvin never ruled Geneva. The city was not a totalitarian society, but a republic, with elections and dissent."

    Philip Schaff : "It is a mistake, therefore, to call him the head of the Republic, except in a purely intellectual and moral sense."

    Bernard Cottret : "Geneva, in fact, was never a theocracy...the ministry and the magistracy were never one and the same."

    Basil Hall : "...the records of Geneva show him plainly to have been the servant of its Council which on many occasions rejected out of hand."

    Jim McClary : "Any effort to paint John Calvin as a power mad authoritarian who ruled the church and the city with an iron fist and the threat of death simply belies the ignorance and lack of historical research on the part of the man who nmakes such a biased claim."

    Of course, but the Church is not solely made up of bodies of believers who are lock-step in line with all of your particular beliefs.
    You are benefiting from the fruit of the Reformation while denigrating it.
     
  6. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,982
    Likes Received:
    372
    I believe so. The Anabaptists joined the Protestant movement readily enough, even though they had been heretics to the RCC. The Reformers also rejected the Anabaptists, but this did not diminish their part in the Reformation. Of them Luther wrote that they predated the movement, were among them but not a part of them (that they were truly heretics because of their doctrines...specifically baptistic doctrines, although they also held additional beliefs that departed from Reformed doctrine). This is why it is misleading to refer to these Christian groups as not being "Protestant" (although not belonging to the RCC, they still protested the RCC and joined along side...for a time....the Reformers). If it were not for Zwingli and his rise, we may be able to say that they merely took advantage of the Reformation to start another. A major difference, IMHO, was that Anabaptist doctrine was not conducive to secular governmental form where as the RCC and the Reformers shared a misguided and pagan notion of Christendom.
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    102
    As a rule, Anabaptists were not quite so vituperative as the magisterial reformers, and not so personally abusive, but the sentiment you have mentioned was common.

    To quote Sims at length:

    In the third place, when I think of finding an unblamable church without spot and blemish, which serves the Lord with all its power and which conforms itself to his word - I verily find such an ungodly, abominable, corrupted and confused people; so carnal, idolatrous, whoring, cruel, ungodly, unbelieving, ignorant, blood-thirsty, unmerciful, drunken, pompous, luxurious, proud, avaricious, greedy, envious, adulterous, false, deceiving, sodomitic, refractory, disobedient, rebellious, vain, and so devilish, that a godfearing soul must stand dumbfounded and be ashamed thereat. Yet they claim to be the true bride, the believing church of Christ. O no, dear reader, no. Christ Jesus does not own such a bride or church. But his bride is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, Eph. 5:30; she conforms to him, Rom. 8:29; is created after his image, Col. 3:10; partakes of his nature, 2 Pet. 1:4; is minded as he is, Phil. 2:5; seeks nothing but heavenly things where Christ Jesus is, sitting at the right hand of his Father, Col. 3:1; yea in God's church nothing is heard, seen or found but the true doctrine of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ and his holy apostles, according to the Holy Scripture. But in the beforementioned churches it is mostly doctrines, flatterings, comments, councils and commandments of men. Here is faith, truth, obedience, baptism of the believing, according to the word of God, true fraternal love, and the service of our neighbors; yonder is unbelief, falsehood, disobedience, infant baptism without God's word, hatred, envy, tyranny, cruelty, shedding blood, quarreling, lawsuits, backbiting, cheating, stealing, robbing and murdering; here is teaching, admonition, consolation, reproof in righteousness - there, mere corruption, heresy, upbraiding and slandering; here, blessing, praise and thanksgiving - there, cursing and swearing by the suffering of the Lord, by his wounds, sacraments, flesh, blood and judgment; here, longsuffering - there, inflammable temper; here, humility - there, pride; here, mercy - there, mercilessness; here, true religion - there, idolatry; here, spirit and spiritual wisdom - there, flesh and foolishness; here is prayer in spirit and in truth - there, mockery with many powerless words; here is prayer for the Lord's truth - there the righteousness of the Lord is persecuted; here is faith in Christ - there, idolatrous ceremonies; in short, here is Christ and God - there, anti-christ and the devil.
    -- The reason why I, Menno Sims, have cause to teach and write (1542)

    Or a portion of a 1521 letter from Hubmaier to humanist scholar Johannes Sapidus in which he refers to Pope Leo X (the Dancer of the City) as the Antichrist:

    "Christ avoided earthly governments; the Dancer of the City emulates these governments.
    Christ, he wears a crown made of three thorns.
    Christ washes feet, and the kings offer him kisses.
    Although money loosens the clergy’s grip, Christ drives out all the clergy.
    Christ presented himself as a servant, but the Antichrist publicly displays himself as lord of the world.
    The former bore the cross; the latter emerged from an avaricious servant.
    Christ comes meekly; the Antichrist comes in superiority.
    The former is without money; the latter controls all the governments of the world.
    The Antichrist has been offered their laws, a Dancer who absolves iniquity.
    The former drove the merchants from the temple, but the latter accepted the merchants.
    May Christ ascend, but may Pluto descend to hell."

    (Even The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that Leo, a Medici, "paid no attention to the dangers threatening the papacy, and gave himself up unrestrainedly to amusements, that were provided in lavish abundance. ... Even during the troubled years of 1520 he took part in unusually brilliant festivities. Theatrical representations, with agreeable music and graceful dancing, were his favourite diversions.")
     
  8. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    16
    Anabaptist doctrine is a kind of catch all word which can be very ambiguous. The term Anabaptist was derisive--given to those who refused to recognize Romish baptism. They may have had variations in other doctrines.

    To deny authority to Rome is to deny authority to the daughters of Rome. This explains why Luther and Calvin etal had problems with the so-called Anabaptists--they rejected Protestant baptisms too.

    Sorry, I thought the quote from Felbinger was mainly to do with: "emphasis on the accursed infant baptism".

    This is still the bone of contention between the infant baptizers and those who think it an abomination. Luther and Calvin were pedobaptists. Their progeny are pedobaptists. This fact has been watered down in recent generations. It is still a false gospel--always will be. "Let God be found true and every man a liar."

    That the pope was considered the antichrist goes back to the early days of apostasy. True believers rejoiced to see their redemption drawing neigh. The antichrist is a sign of the end of time. It has not yet been two days since Jesus was here--in God's time.

    Who has the right time?

    Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    Bro. James
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    No, it's not. Infant baptism is wrong, and it cannot be supported by the Bible. Yet for one to hold to it is not a false gospel. The gospel is the proclamation regarding sin and the only Savior from it --Jesus. It is the fleshing out of the gospels and epistles. It isteaching of the atonement, burial and resurrection of Christ.

    Even if one's beliefs concerning baptism is wrong --does not negate their belief in the gospel.

    Besides, many, or most who hold to infant baptism do not believe in baptismal regeneration --just as many who hold to credal baptism do not.

    If you still insist that infant baptism is a, or the, false gospel --deal with these men:

    Augustine and most of the Church Fathers.

    Nearly 100% of the Reformers and common Christians of that era
    Most of the Puritans.

    George Whitefield from the Great Awakening who led so may to the Lord around the world. And Jonathan Edwards as well.

    J.C. Ryle from the Church of England. He was a good friend of Charles Spurgeon. C.H. S. had big problems with a number of stances with the Anglican Church --especially on the subject of Baptism. But they were brothers in the common faith.

    B.B.Warfield --the Lion of Princeton. He was the great defender of the Christian Faith in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    Gresham Machen, who assumed the role after Warfield's death.

    James M. Boice, R.C. Sproul and J.I. Packer. They clearly have proclaimed the gospel of God with clarity.

    So may others could be names who were clearly godly Christians who believed in the Gospel with all their hearts and preached uncompromisingly its truths.

    So no. One's position on baptism --especially when denying baptismal regeneration does not have anything to do with believing in a false Gospel.
     
  10. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    16
    A couple of questions begging: 1. What is the efficacy of baptism of an infant? 2. Why were antipedobaptists killed by Rome and the daughters of Rome?

    The True Gospel is summed in the Book of Ephesians, Chapter 2, vss. 8-10. There are no sacraments. This gospel got some folks drowned, hanged, burned, impaled and disembowled in the Dark Ages--by Christians, so called.

    Preach John 14:6 in Tiananmen Square and see what happens.

    The world cannot deal with the Truth--nor can the world of pseudo religion.:tonofbricks:

    Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    Bro. James
     
    #10 Bro. James, Jun 28, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2015
  11. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    #1. That depends on who you ask. Catholics will be different than Presbyterians. One believes grace is infused through baptism. The other believes it to be a sign of the new covenant and that it should be applied to the infants of Christian parents. I consider one a false gospel and the other a misinterpretation, insignificant in regards to salvation.

    #2. That question is different for every martyr. Grebel, Manz, Blaurock were killed by Zurich officials for believer baptism view, but most of the rest throughout Europe in the 16th century were killed for reasons other than or including believers baptism. A lot of martyrs were anarchists, universalists, anti-trinitarian, mystics and so on. All Anabaptists faced inexcusable persecution, but the heretical sects made it worse on the rest of the Anabaptists. It's hard for me to agree with they were persecuted for believers baptism alone. So many other things provoked persecution.
     
  12. Rebel

    Rebel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    It was mainly for believer's baptism and church-state separation/religious liberty, as it was with the Baptists.
     
  13. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,982
    Likes Received:
    372
    Often, while this may not have been the only difference, it was the cause of persecution. But you also have to remember that the Reformed and the RCC shared a common understanding of the nature of the Church ("Christendom," a church-state) so baptism was more than a personal matter of redemption (either sign or mode). "Believers Baptism" was contrary to Reformed faith (historical...not "Reformed" as used today) - which was, BTW, an issue that Zwingli realized when he ultimately denounced Believers Baptism in favor of a Reformed structure.
     
  14. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    I still think it was a cause and not the cause. If you read the writings of the persecutors, there was great confusion of what Anabaptist were. Roman incited persecution through dear of anarchy, perceived attacks on the deity of Jesus and other serious accusations. While people like Zwingli and the pope may have promoted execution and torture for believers baptism. Most small village officials, and Christians that betrayed the Anabaptists didn't do it for baptism reasons. They fell for the propaganda prompted out of Rome and Zurich. Especially Rome. Letters and delegates were sent to locations of Anabaptists settlements. All the heretical views of the radical Anabaptists (mystics, anarchists, antitrinitarian) were applied to all Anabaptists by the reps of Rome and letters. This made people freak out. I don't think Europe as a whole, would have persecuted Anabaptists the way they did if not for the proganda and the lumping of all Anabaptists together. Almost all the executions records I have read outside of Rome and Zurich list execution for crimes other than or in addition to baptism. No doubt though we had groups like the Mennonites and Swiss Brethren, who did nothing to draw the persecution that they received. Mennonites were grossly misrepresented as anarchists at times. To promote distrust and hate towards them.
     
  15. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    I don't give Zwingli that much credit. Atleast Luther and Calvin believed infant baptism was correct. Zwingli acknowledged in during the debate with Grebel that infant baptism had no scriptural support and said he would preach the mode that was backed by scripture (believers baptism), but when the government said infant baptism was right, Zwingli put his position and leadership above what he knew the bible to say. Zwingli's students (Grebel and others) had the courage to stand while their teacher choose his own desires over biblical teaching he knew to be true. I don't think Zwingli embraced reformed doctrine as much he did governmental support, position and power.
     
  16. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,982
    Likes Received:
    372
    Unfortunately this was also a part of Reformed doctrine of the Reformation. They did not completely rid themselves of RCC error when it came to understanding exactly what the Church was to be.

    It is interesting to note that the term "Anabaptist" (and you are right that it was a diverse group) was coined by adversaries of that group to identify them as "re-baptizers." Perhaps it was simply because this was a common practice, and certainly it was not the only "heresy" they believed, but simply holding to "believers baptism" was enough to merit condemnation by both the Reformed and the RCC.
     

Share This Page

Loading...