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.
Anabaptists and the pope
Discussion in 'History Forum' started by McCree79, Jun 27, 2015.
-
-
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
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 -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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."
-
-
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.") -
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 -
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. -
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 -
#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. -
-
-
-
-
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.